No. 588] SHORTER ARTICLES AND DISCUSSION 765 



in the possibility of artificial synthesis of the living so long as 

 that is not proved, that is subjected to ridicule as a dogmatic, 

 obscurantist and non-scientific doctrine. 4 



The entire problem to me falls in the domain of ' ' Natur-philos- 

 ophie," that branch of our knowledge which can not directly 

 prove the truth or logical necessity of the results of investiga- 

 tions made in its field ; can do no more than to make them plaus- 

 ible; and thus give to us a genuine sensation of mental satis- 

 faction. 



There is no intention here of participating in the endless dis- 

 pute above sketched ; I do not know what could be added in this 

 direction, from a vitalistic point of view, to the formulations, of 

 Driesch. 5 Our purpose is the defense of the right to a prac- 

 tical vitalism, as a method of exact empirical (although not 

 necessarily experimental) investigation. 



We do not care whether the methods demanded by such a 

 vitalism are or can be proper also for inorganic investigation. 



It appears that they are not, for the mechanists oppose their 

 "veto" in the name of exact science to all constructions of the 

 vitalistic system, even though not fully analogous with that 

 which will be detailed below. 



Practical vitalism claims the right to be restricted in formulat- 

 ing hypotheses only by postulates of logic and of the general 

 theory of knowledge, and by nothing else. 



4 The same point can be made with regard to the other aspect of vitalism 

 —the so-called "experimental indeterminism. " As to this, it must be ad- 

 mitted that the empirical evidence seems to favor the vitalistic standpoint. 

 The assertion of the mechanists, that experimental indeterminism can not 

 hold for the living, is likewise a matter of faith, and the burden of proof 



si must nevertheless confess, despite my profound admiration for 

 Driesch 's work, that I find that his chief experimental foundation of vital- 

 ism, by means of his masterly analysis of certain cases of regulation, fails 



certain experiments that are, as one may say, a lucky chance in biological 

 investigation. It would be quite possible that no organisms having the mar- 

 velous powers of regulation and equipotentiality shown by Tubularia, the 

 sea-urchin or Clavellina, should ever be discovered. Can it be admitted that 

 a scientific proof of vitalism as the basis of biological research would there- 

 fore remain inaccessible? The argument in such a capital problem must, I 

 think, rest on a more general basis, one resulting from an adequate analysis 

 of essential and genuine vital phenomena. I incline therefore to consider 

 Driesch 's further analysis, as presented in his « < Science and Philosophy of 

 the Organism" as a no less valuable part of his work. 



