243 



many into a confusion of the terms ' force,' ' energy,' and ' motion.' " Of course 

 when I followed Professor Tyndall's reasoning about heat as, not designated 

 only, but actually being a mode of motion, I was obliged to follow him also 

 into the hopeless confusion to which such reasoning must lead. I only 

 followed him, however, that I might expose the confusion ; but by no means 

 share it. It is well that jSIr. Brooke holds sounder and more logical views. 

 Still, after this, he should not charge me (§ 59) with " the gratuitous substi- 

 tution of the term ' motion ' for ' energy,' " nor say (§ 46) that I " having 

 first identified heat and motion as synonymous terms, &c.," as though the 

 identification were mine, when it is Tyndall's. 



My views of causation are somewhat severely spoken of (§ 58), because I 

 say the touch of my finger caused a book to fall to the ground. As I was not 

 concerned at the moment with the theory of causation, I used the word in 

 its popular sense ; occasioned would have united my jDurpose equally well in 

 both illustrations, as the argument is not in the least afi'ected by either word. 

 I fear, however, Mr. Brooke is even as illogical as I am myself in this case, 

 for while defining the causation, he says "the cause of the fall is the 

 attraction of gravitation." This is not correct, inasmuch as the cause was 

 my wish to overturn the book, the attraction of gravitation being only, 

 like the unstable equilibrium, a necessary condition. If there be shown 

 any burlesque of physical energy in my paper, as is implied in the 

 remarks in § 37, I will gladly withdraw it. So far as I am aware, any 

 criticisms to which that term could be applied, are in the fancies of those 

 who, while accurate observers, are but indifi'erent theorists ; of those who, 

 to use Mr. Brooke's own words, would misapply the conservation of energy 

 " in a fruitless endeavour to supersede the necessity of an omniscient 

 Creator." 



JAS. M'CANN. 



Kev. John Moore. — I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the permission you 

 have granted me to take part in this discussion, and, in availing myself of 

 the privilege, I wish it to be distinctly understood that it is not as a physicist 

 but as a metaphysician, that I approach this question. For me, the doctrine 

 of the conservation of energy had no special interest until, some six years 

 ago, I read an article, by Professor Tyndall, in the Fortnightly Review, 

 wherein he employs this theory to prove the futihty and folly of prayer. 

 This led me to make a most careful examination, and I found that the theory 

 of conservation required of those who would accept it assumptions directly 

 opposed to some of the best-established truths of philosophy. One of its 

 main pillars is a doctrine of causation, associated with the names of Hume, 

 Brown, and MiU, which I am convinced is false. We are asked to believe that 

 the relation of cause and effect is nothing more than a time-relation among 

 events, and, consequently, that the very important term " Power" does not 

 symbolize anything in the nature of the cause fitting it to produce the 

 effect, but denotes mere antecedence. Hence, to repeat the often used but 

 still powerful illustration of Keid, it is quite correct to say that day is the 

 cause of night, and night the cause of day. But, in reply, I ask what do men 

 mean when they speak of the cause of a specified change ? Are they 



* Author of the article in the Quarterly Review called " Heresies of 

 Science," referred to by Mr. Brooke. I regret to have to record Mr. Moore's 

 decease, which occurred before his remarks were in print.— -E/c?. 



