289 
" integration ” is the mode of summing them up between any 
prescribed limits. But with Mr. Spencer, and the automatic 
school generally, “ differentiation 33 is the functionary always 
at hand to account for any kind of change that is wanted, large 
or small, normal or abnormal, and indeed generally the latter. 
And they always assume that any change they want can come 
of itself, and requires neither cause nor explanation. He 
never condescends to define his “ differentiation 33 at all ; 
which again is an odd way of dealing with an old word 
plainly intended to be used in a new sense, in a new system 
of Philosophy which is to be the “unification of all know- 
ledge,” whatever that means. 
I see that another writer, quite as strong an evolutionist as 
Mr. Spencer, and much more really philosophical in his mode 
of reasoning, thinks much as I do of his habit of making 
definitions to suit his own objects, and then arguing from 
them as if they were generally accepted. At p. 257 of Mental 
Evolution of Animals, Mr. Romanes says : “ The fact that he 
(Spencer) defines or f describes 3 instinct as compound reflex 
action does not carry any proof that his doctrine is correct. 
To call a spade a club, and then argue that, because it is a 
club, it cannot be a spade, is futile.” All these inventors of 
new meanings of words resume the old ones whenever they 
choose, and in that way can prove anything. It requires 
some experience and attention always to detect the fallacy. 
I have exposed one or two notable instances of it in my 
aforesaid Review of Huxley on Miracles. 
The nearest approach to a definition of integration is this, 
at p. 281 of the last edition : — “ The change from a diffused 
imperceptible state to a concentrated perceptible state is an 
integration of matter and dissipation of motion.” But what is 
an imperceptible state of matter ? Imperceptible to whom ? 
Does it merely mean diffused too thin for our eyes to see it 
without, or with, some scientific help ? And what has our 
power of seeing it to do with its integration ? That must be 
something absolute. And why need it involve dissipation of 
motion ? The particles of the thinnest nebula need have no 
motion at all until gravity is turned in, though the particles of 
gas kept gaseous by heat have. They may be actually gaining 
motion only by integration under gravity, which in plain 
English means no more than “ condensation and the 
“ imperceptible ” means nothing at all. 
That is an initial specimen of Spencerian lucidity of thought 
and diction. But a more important one is the “final formula,” 
or definition of Evolution itself, after 396 pages of preparation 
Spencerian 
“ Differenti- 
ation ” and 
Evolution. 
