Modern Pseudo-Philosophy
THE JOUBNAL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICINE AND MENTAL pathology. Art. I.? :Author: J. M. WINN, M.D., M.R.C.P., &c.
After Professor Tyndall’s utter failure to refute the arguments of his opponents, in his reply which appeared in the Fortnightly Revieiv for November 1875, it might have been hoped that we had heard the last of the marvellous atom which was to do all things?not, as St. Paul said, by the Grace of Grod?but by the grace of Dr Tyndall. The revival, however, of the doctrine of evolution in all its extravagance by Dr Allen Thomson at the last meeting of the British Association, at Plymouth, seems to have re-awakened his courage, and we find him again giving utterance to his crude and mischievous speculations on the platform of the Birmingham and Midland Institute, in October last. It would have been better for the Professor’s reputation if he had confined himself to the legitimate field of experi- mental science, in which he holds such a distinguished position.
Dr Tyndall makes the startling statement that the greater ‘part of the world, including the clergy, firmly believe in the truth of the Darwinian theory that?” man, The heir of all the ages, in the foremost files of time,* has arrived there through millions of stages, from lower to higher forms of life.” This is a sweeping assertion, which will serve to show how apt the Professor is to jump to hasty con- clusions, not bearing in mind what Tennyson also says, “Know- ledge comes, but wisdom lingers.” In diametrical opposition to Dr Tyndall’s statement we would refer to eminent authorities in natural science and geology, whose arguments are founded on original researches and acknowledged facts. The following quotations are taken from the address delivered at the opening of the session of the Geologist’s Association on November 5, 1875, by the President, William Carruthers, Esq., F.R.S., F.L.S., F.Gr.S., &c., Keeper of the Botanical Department of the British Museum : ” The plants portrayed on the ancient paintings and sculptures of Egypt; the fruits placed in coffins with embalmed bodies, and the fruits and seeds found in ancient lake dwellings, all belong to existing species with which they agree in the most minute and apparently accidental particulars. The existing order of plants if it be due to genetic evolution supplies no proof of it… The cellular algae preceded the vascular cryptogams, or the gymnosperms of the newer palaeozoic rocks, and these were speedily followed by monoctyledons, and at a much later period by dicotyledons. But the earliest representatives of those various sections of the vegetable kingdom were not generalised forms, but as highly organised as recent forms, and in many cases more highly organised; and the divisions were as clearly bounded in their essential characters, and as decidedly separated from each other as they are at the present day.
Is it possible from the record of organic life preserved in the sedimentary deposits, to discover the method or agent through the action of which the new forms appeared on the globe ? The rocks record the existence of the plants and animal forms, but as yet they have disclosed nothing whatever as to hoiv these forms originated.
The testimony of Thomas Davidson, Esq., F.R.S., V.P.P.S., &c., derived from the animal kingdom, is equally strong. Mr. Davidson is one of the most distinguished palaeontologists of the age, few men having had more honours bestowed on them from both British and foreign scientific bodies. He stands unrivalled in his knowledge of the nature and history of those small sea-shells called brachiopoda, of which there are three thousand species. He is moreover the friend of Darwin, and it was at the particular request of that great naturalist that he undertook the task of minutely examining the characteristics of the brachiopods, with a view of proving whether or not they would support the truth of the Darwinian theory. In the Geological Magazine for 1877 Mr. Davidson says: “We have no positive evidence of those modifications which the theory invokes, for types appear on the whole to be permanent as long as they continue, and when a genus dis- appears there is no modification that I can see of any of the forms that continue beyond, as far as the brachiopoda appear to be concerned; and why should a number of genera, such as lingula, discina, crania, and rhynchonella have continued to be represented with the same characters, and often with but small modification in shape during the entire sequence of geological strata ? Why did they not offer modifications or alter during those incalculable ages ? Limiting myself to the brachiopoda, let us see what further they will tell us on this question. Taking the present state of our knowledge as a guide, but admitting at the same time that any day our con- clusions and inductions may require to be modified by fresh discoveries, let us ascertain whether they reveal anything to support Darwinian ideas. We find that the larger number of genera made their first appearance during the palaeozoic periods, and since they have been decreasing in number to the present period. We will leave out of the question the species, for they vary so little that it is often very difficult to trace really good distinctive characters between them; it is different with the genera, as they are, or should be, founded on much greater and more permanent distinctions. Thus, for example, the family Spiriferidae includes genera which are all characterised by a calcified spiral lamina for the support of the drachial ap- pendages ; and, however varied these may be, they always retain the distinctive characters of the group from their first ap- pearance to their extinction… . Now, although certain genera, such as terebratala, rliynclionella, crania, and discina have enjoyed a very considerable geological existence there are genera, such as stringocephalus, uncites, porambonites, kon- inckina, and several others, which made their appearance very suddenly and without any warning; after a while they dis- appeared in a similar abrupt manner, having enjoyed a comparatively short existence. They are all possessed of such marked and distinctive internal characters that we cannot trace between them and associated or synchronous genera any evidence of their being the result of descent with modification.” It is thus evident that the eminent brachiopodist, to whom Darwin himself had referred for the confirmation of his theory, has decided against him.
Dr Duncan, President of the Geological Society, in his annual address, delivered on February 16th, 1877, makes the following strong observations : ” The mind is dissatisfied with the belief that all the wonderful arts in nature, the limited direction of variability, the parallelism of form, ornament, and physiology in contemporaneous and successive groups of fossils sometimes widely separated zoologically, are due to the action of physical changes and heredity alone.”
Virchow, the Professor of Pathology at Berlin, whose researches on cellular pathology have given him a world-wide reputation, can be added to the list of those who have not subscribed to the dogma of evolution. In his address on “The Freedom of Science in the Modern State,” delivered at the fiftieth conference of German naturalists and physicians at Munich on the 22nd of September 1877, he makes this pertinent remark: ” Every attempt to form our problems into doctrines, to intro- duce our hypotheses as the bases of instruction?especially the attempt simply to dispossess the Church, and to supplant its dogmas forthwith by a religion of evolution?be assured, gentle- men? every such attempt will make shipwreck, and in its wreck will also bring with it the greatest perils for the whole position of science.”*
Dr Lionel Beale, whose terrible microscope has put to flight the phantom bathybius, and whose revelations have made sad havoc with the materialistic theories of life, speaks thus strongly on the subject of evolution : ” We know that the life-history of these several forms [of animal life] is very different, while the results of their living are sufficient to prove that they must have been diverse from the very first.
When authorities like those I have quoted, who are men of the very highest scientific eminence, have entered their protests against the pseudo-philosophy of Darwin, it is unnecessary to enumerate the long list of those who follow in their track. I have no statistical tables to guide me (as I presume Dr Tyndall has when he says that the greater part of the world are evolutionists), but I think some error must have crept into his tables, for judging from the applause which followed the de- nunciation of materialistic doctrines, when the Eev. J. Cook delivered his Monday popular lectures at Boston, it does not seem that Darwinism has taken deep root in America. In “xermany also?in spite of the demonstration of the socialists at the great meeting of the so-called ” Christian Social Society ” at Berlin, not long since, when they vociferously upheld the doctrines of atheism and materialism?there is ground for hope that the tide has turned, and that the leaders of philosophic thought in all the universities, save one, are opposed to scientific atheism. But it is not by mere authority that the question at issue is to be decided; it must be tested by facts, and these are so insurmountable that they cannot in our present state of knowledge be set aside. The researches of Carruthers and Davidson in the animal and vegetable kingdom, to which reference has already been made, have failed to discover links which are essential to the support of the Darwinian theory; and when their absence is pressed inconveniently on the evolutionist, the reply is that they will be found, or that they did once exist, and have been destroyed in the course of ages by chemical or mechanical action. But this is only conjecture. Even granting that the links could be found, the periods required for the evolution of one species into another are infinitely longer than the time, as calculated by the physicists, which has elapsed since life first appeared on the face of the earth. It has been estimated that a period not much exceeding one hundred millions of years must have passed since the earth was sufficiently cooled down to support life. An approximate calculation will show that this is not nearly long enough for the imaginary law of evolution to produce all the species, living and extinct, that have been discovered ; for the Danvinites are obliged to admit that a time almost fabulous is required for the development of even a single species by evolution.
Sir Charles Lyell estimated the now existing species of vegetables and animals on the terraqueous globe at one and a- half millions : this is exclusive of microscopic beings, whose number is incalculable. A single drop of stagnant water, according to Leeuwenhoeck, contains about 500,000,000 of animalcules, a large number of which probably consists of distinct species. Sir Charles Lyell says it is very difficult to form a calculation of the number of extinct species. Each stratum which contains fossils is marked by species which are peculiar to it and to the epoch when they were deposited, and myriads have no doubt been obliterated by the mechanical and chemical forces to which they have been subjected. Mr. Carruthers, to whom we have already referred, says: ” As regards the vegetable kingdom, the strata most abounding in plant remains contain but a small proportion, as we shall presently see, of the vegetation existing at the time of their formation, while many deposits of great thickness, which represent immense epochs in the earth’s history, are, as far as we at present know, completely destitute of all trace of plants. The extent of this varying record largely depends on the con- ditions under which the beds were formed… . We cannot then expect to find cellular structures preserved among fossils, and they are indeed rarely met with, even in specimens where the general tissues are well preserved; while plants that were entirely cellular in their structure have altogether perished.” It may be roughly calculated, from the observations of various naturalists and geologists, that the number of extinct species, including both animals and vegetables, amounts to not less than 3,000,000. The addition of 1,500,000 of still existing species makes a total of 4,500,000. Ve find that the forms of animals, as depicted on the Egyptian monuments, are the same now as tliey were 3,000 years ago. If we grant for the sake of argument, that one species could be evolved from another in so short a space of time as 5,000 years, and multiply the 4,500,000 species, living and extinct, by 5,000, we shall find the time required to produce all the number of species that have ever appeared is 22,500,000,000. As, then, it is evidently impossible to prove the truth of evolution, it is high time to dismiss the hypothesis as an idle dream. In spite, however, of all the unanswerable objections to Darwinism, Huxley, Tyndall, and Hackel settled the truth of it to their own satisfaction, and it only remained for Herbert Spencer, Gr. H. Lewes, and other believers in the omnipotence of the evolution power, to explain its modus operandi. Herbert Spencer, therefore, ” the apostle of the understanding,” informed us, in the simple and pleasant language for which he is so conspicuous, that evolution is a change from indefinite, incoherent, homogeneity, to a definite, coherent, heterogeneity, through continuous differentiations and integrations.’, He might have added, natural selectionations, survival-of-the- fittestations, and mystifications. It will be a curious fact for some future philosopher, writing the history of human error, to record that in the nineteenth century a large section of edu- cated men believed in the pseudo-philosophy of Herbert Spencer.
Gr. H. Lewes, in his work on ” The Physical Basis of Mind,” has a long chapter on ” The Nature of Life,” in which he dis- cusses the question of evolution. Although an admirer of the doctrine he is compelled to admit that it is probable that there were numerous starting points, instead of only one, from which all species sprang. This is satisfactory. Like Herbert Spencer, Gr. H. Lewes vitiates his style of writing by coining pedantic and unnecessary words, which give an air of originality but at the same time have a tendency to obscure instead of elucidating the meaning of the writer; for example, he says that” Vegetality has been developed into Animality.” Again, he has perverted Dr Lionel Beale’s most expressive and appropriate term Bio- plasm into the illogical word Psychoplasm.
Of all the various forms of Darwinism to which its dis- crepancies have given rise, the Theistic is at the present time the most dangerous. It has been adopted by many faint- hearted clergymen, who hope by a sort of compromise to temper materialism with faith. Nothing can be more unwise. They naturally shrink from the doctrine in its entirety as advocated by Tyndall, who is a greater Darwinite than Darwin himself, but they think all may be made smooth, by admitting that the original germ was created, not produced by spontaneous generation or the potentiality of atoms. They do not seem to be aware that, in spite of this admission, if they hold that the germ created millions of years ago was sufficient for the production of all the endless and complicated forms of life upon the earth, it must follow, that the necessity for a watchful and superintend- ing Providence is done away with, and fatalism becomes the inevitable consequence. Those who should be the champions of the Faith must not surrender the outposts, seeking peace at any price, and adopting a weak and conciliating policy towards their active and uncompromising adversaries, but fight manfully, not only against “the world, the flesh,” but also against materialism. It is a miserable policy for them to succumb to their antagonists at this present moment, when the discoveries of science are more than ever opposed to Darwinism in any form. In addition to the facts opposed to evolution which have already been enumerated, we must not forget those unanswerable objections?the sterility of hybrids?the absence of any vestige of a single link between the ape and man, though it has been extensively looked for, and must have been discovered had it ever existed?the fact that the fossil trilobite crops up abruptly, at the close of the carboniferous epoch, with the eye perfectly developed?that no breeding has yet been able to produce, by selection, two species so distinct that they can generate hybrids ?and that there is a limit to the variability of species. The scientific objections to the Darwinian hypothesis are innumerable, and its advocates are constantly driven to fresh concessions. It would be well if its supporters would be silent for a while. A fixed law or a general principle gains by in- vestigation, but this has not been the case with Darwinism. Every year some fresh defect is revealed, and it is wonderful that there should still remain any who believe it to be standing on as firm a basis as the law of gravitation. Hackel goes so far as to propose that it should be accepted as the basis of education ! and ” the protoplastic soul (die plastidul-seele) be assumed as the foundation of all ideas concerning spiritual being! ” Can this extravagance be exceeded ?
Since writing the above, I have seen a paper in Good Words for March
1878, by Dr Andrew Wilson, in which he combats most successfully the objections which have been raised by materialists and evolutionists to the evidence of ” Design in Nature.” Tho whole of the paper deserves a careful perusal. I have only space for one extract. ” Even more interesting than the case of tho primrose is that of the myosotis versicolor, a species of forget-me-not, the arrangement for securing fertilisation of the seed exhibiting a perfect adaptation to all possible exigencies which may arise in the life history of the flower. If we examine tho myosotis just after the flower has opened, the pistil with its long style is seen to project above the level of the flower itself. It thus presents a most likely object for contact with the proboscis of an insect which has come from another myosotis laden with pollen. But failing to obtain fertilisation of its seeds by insect-carried pollen from a neighbour flower, the myosotis has yet
8 MODERN PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY.
Of all the ephemeral pseudo-philosophic discoveries, the one which a short time since most alarmed all sober thinking people and delighted the scientific atheists was Huxley’s?that life sprang from deep sea mud. Huxley named his wonderful discovery, out of compliment to Hackel, Bathybius Hackelii. The joy of Strauss was without bounds. Here was the link that was needed to join the organic with the inorganic world, and the superstitious belief in a Creator had received its death- blow. This is what he says, in ” The Old Faith and the New*;” ” Huxley has discovered the bathybius, a shiny heap of jelly on the sea bottom ; Hackel what he has called the moneres, structureless clots of an albuminous carbon, which although inorganic in their constitution, yet are capable of nutrition and accretion. By these the chasm may be said to be bridged, and the transition effected from the inorganic to the organic.” Since this was written Huxley himself has abandoned the muddy notion of bathybius. There was no help for him to do otherwise, as the far searching vision of Dr. Lionel Beale had set the matter at rest. After most careful investigations, Dr Beale gives in his work on Protoplasm the following verdict: “Bathybius instead of being a widely extend- ing sheet of living protoplasm, which grows at the expense of inorganic elements, is rather to be considered as a complex mass of slime, with many foreign bodies and the debris of living organisms which have passed away.”
As regards the theory of heterogenesis or spontaneous gene- ration, the elaborate, accurate, and careful experiments which Dr Tyndall has most patiently conducted for many years have completely settled the question. No one can doubt the accuracy of his observations of which he has published a faith- ful report in the Nineteenth Century for January 1877. The results of his experiments are conclusive and in direct oppo- sition to those of Dr Bastian. Dr Tyndall as an experimenter another resource in the pollen of its own stamens. The stamens at the opening of the flower are placed far below the style, and hence it is impossible, so long as the stamens remain below, for the pollen to be placed on the pistil and thus to fertilise the seeds. But nature has been equal to such an emergency. As time passes, we find the stamens to grow upwards with the petals, and as in time they overtop the pistil, the flower is enabled to fertilise its own seeds. Not less interesting or remarkable are the phases observed in the action of pollen itself, in its work of fertilisation. Left to themselves and unapplied to their special purpose, the little yellow grains of pollen wither and die. But, placed in its appropriate and intended situation on the pistil, each pollen grain, as if guided by some inherent instinct, projects from its surface a tube-like structure, which passes through the style of the pistil, and brings the essential matters of the pollen grain in contact with the seeds. Eegarded even in a cursory measure, the foregoing phases of plant history are full of meaning to the scientist. Every- where he sees order and contrivance, blind chance seems to have no part in the ordering of nature’s affairs.”
lias few equals, and we are indebted to him for so candidly exposing the fallacies of a theory that offered so much support to the materialistic views which he unfortunately upholds. Dr Bastian’s reply to Dr Tyndall, in the Nineteenth Century for February 1878, is most unsatisfactory ; he cannot contravene the accuracy and completeness of Tyndall’s experiments, and his answer is but a lame apology for the inconclusiveness of his own. He falls back on Herbert Spencer, G. H. Lewes, Huxley, and others for support, calling them the profoundest thinkers and foremost men of science. We have shown how unworthy Herbert Spencer and G. H. Lewes are to be looked up to as shining lights, and he is unfortunate in naming Huxley, who although an unmitigated materialist, has long been known to be a strenuous opponent of the theory of spontaneous genera- tion. If Dr Bastian gives up the field of experiment, and thinks the question may be decided by authority, his opponents can mention names that throw Herbert Spencer and Gr. H. Lewes completely into the shade. He must be aware that Herman Lotze, Pasteur, Virchow, and Lionel Beale have expressed their decided disbelief in lieterogenesis. Herman Lotze is now looked up to as the leading philosopher in Germany. Lionel Beale, Pasteur, and Virchow have earned their spurs as physio- logists and microscopists; but what discoveries in science have been made by Herbert Spencer and G. H. Lewes, who are merely theorists, and litterateurs ??simply none. As regards Virchow, to whom Dr Bastian has specially referred in support of his views, anyone who will read without prejudice the context to that part of the address which he has quoted will perceive that he has entirely mistaken Virchow’s meaning. I will quote the passage with the context in italics. “Moreover the generatio equivoca which has been so often contested and so often contradicted is nevertheless ahvays meeting us afresh. To be sure, we know not a single positive fact to prove that a generatio equivoca has ever been made? that there ever has been procreation in this way; that in- organic masses, such as the firm of Carbon & Co. have ever spontaneously developed themselves into organic masses. Nevertheless I grant that if anyone is determined to form for himself an idea of how the first organic being could come into existence of itself, nothing further is left than to go back to spontaneous generation. This much is evident. If I do not choose to accept a theory of creation ; if I refuse to believe that there was a special Creator who took the clod of earth and breathed into it the breath of life ; if I prefer to make for myself a verse after my own fashion (in the place of the verse in Genesis), then I must make it in the sense of generatio equivoca. Tertium non datur. No alternative remains when once we say ‘ I do not accept the creation, but I will have an explanation.’ Whoever takes up that first position must go on to the second position and say: i Ergo, 1 assume the generatio equivoca.’’ But of this wc do not possess any actual proof. JVo one has ever seen a generatio equivoca really effected, and whoever supposes that it has occurred is contradicted by the naturalist, and not merely by the theo- logian.”* Virchow’s meaning is not to be mistaken. He distinctly says that lieterogenesis had not been proved. Dr. Bastian lays great stress on Virchow’s words, that, if a creative power is not accepted, we must fall back on spontaneous gene- ration ; but it so happens that the greatest philosophers who ever lived have believed in a God, and we are not likely to give up that faith because modern pseudo-philosophy chooses to ignore Him.
One of Dr Bastian’s weakest points is his conjecture that living organisms are produced by a sort of crystallisation, and he is driven for support to Huxley who has been one of the strongest opponents of spontaneous generation. He says, it has been asked ” what warrant there is for supposing that living particles ever could come into being by an independent birth from fluids, somewhat after the fashion of incipient crystals. I would reply that the general kinship between living and not living matter is freely admitted by men of science at the present day, as the following quotation may suffice to indicate. Professor Huxley says: ‘ It is not probable that there is any real difference in the nature of the molecular forces which compel the carbonate of lime to assume and retain the crystalline form, and those which cause the albuminoid matter to move and grow, select and form, and maintain its particles in a state of incessant motion. The property of crystallising, is to crystal- lisible matter, what the vital property is to albuminoid matter (protoplasm). The crystalline form corresponds to the organic form and its internal structure to tissue structure?crystalline force being a property of matter, vital force is but a property of matter.’ “
All this implies nothing more than that Professors Huxley and Bastian think it probable that a crystal and a living struc- ture are both produced by mechanical forces. Is this induc- tive reasoning from facts ? If anyone will take the trouble to compare the properties of living structures and inert crystals he must admit it to be most improbable that they are analogous.
As regards this quotation, I have copied it from the Times, “whereas Dr.
Bastian haG taken his extract from Nature. There is no essential difference between the two translations. MODERN PSEUDO-PIIILOSOPIIY. 11
If vital power is the same as physical force, as materialists wish us to believe, why does Huxley talk of a vital property, for according to his hypothesis there is no such thing as vitality distinct from physical force. A chemist can produce a crystal by various combinations ; he can dissolve it, and afterwards re- produce it by evaporation. Has Dr Bastian succeeded in producing a living being, and if so can he reproduce it after it has been dissolved ? What resemblance is there between the minutest living being and a lump of salt ? A crystal as much resembles a life cell as an icicle does a warm, living, palpitating animal. If Dr Bastian has any new positive facts to announce, ?r if he can show that any statements that have been made in opposition to his theory are erroneous, no one, unless he were a fool or a bigot, would attempt to contradict him. It is in this candid spirit we would meet our opponents, and we look for a like fairness from them. Nevertheless, visionary speculations like bathybius, evolution, heterogenesis, &c. might be left to the sobering influence of time if they were only visionary, but their mischievous tendency and influence on the moral condition of society make it imperative that they should be promptly and sharply criticised.
I will now turn to another, perhaps the most subtle and, therefore, most dangerous form of false philosophy. I have called attention to it before in an address which I delivered before the Victoria Institute, and afterwards published in the Journal of Psychological Medicine for April 1877. I refer to Physio- logical Psychology, which is much the same sort of thing as the exploded system of phrenology. It is a revival of that pseudo-science under a new name. Its object is to materialise mind, by giving a local habitation to each of the moral and intellectual faculties in different parts of the brain. The scheme is an old one, and has been defeated over and over again; nevertheless, as time goes on, it is revived in some fresh shape, either by those who think, by the adaptation of a new phraseo- logy to an old idea, they can gain reputation and fame, or by Well-meaning but too enthusiastic men, whose imaginations are unfortunately stronger than their reason ; men who, however distinguished in some special department of natural science, are evidently incapacitated by their mental constitution from clearly comprehending the fundamental truths of psychology. It is the confident boast of this psycho-physiological school that the physiological method is the only means of arriving at a right interpretation of mental phenomena; that it is by experiments on the brain, combined with a careful study of the functions of the nervous system, that it will be ultimately proved that mind is only a function of the brain, and that all the great metaphysical truths which have been believed and taught for thousands of years are to be regarded as idle tales. In spite of the sanguine expectations of the physiological psy- chologists they cannot deny the statement I made three years ago, that no great discovery regarding the functions of the nervous system lias been made since Sir Charles Bell demonstrated that the motor and sensory tracks were distinct from each other; and Marshall Hall established the theory of reflex action. A year ago I challenged them to contradict this statement, and their silence implies that they cannot; and with reference to localisation of the faculties of the mind in the brain they have not been more successful than Gall and Spurzheim.
We have heard a great deal lately of Dr Ferrier’s experi- ments, and numerous medical journals appear to have vied with each other in lauding his work on ” The Functions of the Brain ” on very insufficient grounds. It cannot be said that the con- clusions from his experiments, conducted with the view of determining the centres of motion and sensation, are of much value, as it is very possible that in electrifying different parts of the cerebral substance the currents do not excite the cells, but the contiguous nervous fibres. His experiment to determine the seat of hunger cannot be considered very conclusive ; he tells us that after removing the whole of the occipital lobes of a monkey’s brain the animal’s appetite was impaired! These strictures on Ferrier’s work, I published in a notice which appeared in the April number of the Journal of Psychological Medi- cine 1877. Since then I have found a corroboration of them in the Medical Times for November 3rd, 1877, by Eugene Dupuy, M.D. (Pau), of New York. He says: “First I must state that it has not yet been proved by any means that the cortex cerebri iD any portion of its extent can be irritated by any means ?mechanical, physical, or chemical?and that even if we were to suppose that the electricity used by experimenters excites the fibres which are in communication with the cortical cells, and which unite them with lower centres, we could gain no know- ledge as to the nature of the function of those cortical cells, because a nerve-fibre will conduct in either sense afferently or efferently.
” Second, an experiment which shows that when both centres for the two anterior legs are destroyed, the animal very soon uses its limbs as well as before the experiment, suggests the idea that the transient paresis, which resulted immediately after the experiment, instead of being a withdrawal of influence of a centre, is, on the contrary, an irritative influence, exerted by the lesion. The subsequent disappearance of all paresis, and the cicatrisation of the brain tissue show that fact plainly.” If I)r. Ferrier cannot determine the centres of the mere bodily functions of sensation and motion, all that he has said in his chapter on “The hemispheres considered psychologically ” is so much waste paper.
With the unphilosophic haste so conspicuous in the ma- terialistic school, it was most confidently asserted that the faculty of speech was located in the anterior lobes of the brain, but this opinion has been proved to be incorrect by pathological facts. In my article on ” Materialistic Physiology” in the Journal of Psychological Medicine, 1 referred to a case that occurred at the Middlesex Hospital, in which speech and memory remained after extensive softening of both anterior lobes of the brain. Dr Bateman, so well known as a leading authority on the subject of aphasia, in his recent interesting work, ” Darwinism tested by Language,”* makes the following observations: ” Such was M. Bouillaud’s confidence in his theory [the localisation of language] that he offered a prize of 500 francs for any well authenticated case in which the two anterior lobes were destroyed without speech being affected. This challenge remained unaccepted for many years, till the occurrence of a celebrated discussion on the seat of language at the Academy of Medicine of Paris, when M. Velpeau said he should claim the prize on the faith of the following case observed by himself: ‘In the month of March 1843, a barber, sixty years of age, came under M. Velpeau’s care for disease of the prostate gland. With the exception of his prostatic disorder, he seemed to be in excellent health, was very lively, cheerful, full of repartee, and evidently in possession of all his faculties; one remarkable symptom in his case being his intolerable lo- quacity. A greater chatterer never existed, and on more than one occasion complaints were made by the other patients of this talkative neighbour, who allowed them rest neither night nor day. A few days after admission this man died suddenly, and a careful autopsy was made. On opening the cranium a cancerous tumour was found, which had taken the place of the two anterior lobes!’ … M. Peter has recorded the case of a man who fractured his skull by a fall from a horse; after recovery from the initial stupor there succeeded a remarkable loquacity, although after death it was found that the two frontal lobes of the brain were reduced to a pulp. Again, Professor Trousseau relates that in the 3rear 1825 two officers quartered at Tours quarrelled, and satisfied their honour by a duel, as a result of which one of them received a ball which entered at one temple and made its exit at the other. The patient * Darwinism Tested by Language, by Frederick I’ateman, M.D. Rivingtons, ?London. 1S77.
survived six months without any sign of lesion of articulation, nor was there the least hesitation in “the expression of his thoughts till the supervention of inflammation of the central substance, which occurred shortly before his death, when it was ascertained that the ball had traversed the two anterior lobes at their centre.” Such strong facts as these need no comment. Dr Brown-Sequard?and there is no higher modern autho- rity on cerebral physiology?believes that the brain acts as a whole, and not in separate parts or organs; and Dr Daniel Hack Tuke?a careful and impartial writer?in his work on ” The Influence of the Mind upon the Body,” observes : ” It is more than probable that no amount of scientific knowledge will ever displace the time-honoured phrases of 6 mind’ and ‘ body.’”
Another pseudo-philosophic notion of the day which has been gravely discussed by scientific men, is whether thought is a vibration of the brain, as if it were quite a settled matter that mind must be, in some way or other, a mechanical process. M. Taine, in the Revue Philosophique for January 1877, has an article entitled ” Les Vibrations cerebrales et la Pensee,” in which he takes an infinite deal of pains to discuss all the pros and cons of the matter. He argues with much ingenuity, but with a great entanglement of words. He believes that he has made a few steps towards the solution of the mysterious connexion between mental and cerebral phenomena; inasmuch, however, as his arguments are for the most part speculative, it must be admitted that the question in reality remains in statu quo. The following passage, however, with which he concludes his paper, we are glad to find favours the metaphysical view of the subject: ” Pour les sens et l’imagination, la sensation, la perception, bref, la pensee, n’est qu’une vibration des cellules cerebrales, une danse de molecules; mais la pensee n’est telle que pour les sens et l’imagination ; en elle-meme elle est autre chose, elle ne se definit que par ses elemens propres, et si elle revet l’apparence physiologique, c’est qu’on la traduit dans une langue etrangere, ou forcement, elle revet un caractere qui n’est pas le sien.”
We must not forget to include in our category of the won- derful revelations of modern science?palaeolithic man?that wild Orson of the caves discovered in Devon, by Mr. Pengelley, whose announcement of the supposed discovery was received with rapturous applause by many of his credulous audience at the last meeting of the British Association. Although Mr. Pengelley’s assumption had only a few rubble flints to support it, the press took it up, and it was widely circulated as an un- doubted truth, whereas our best geologists still consider the question unsettled.
Having thus passed in review some of the most popular scientific hypotheses of the day, and mentioned the arguments against them, it must, we think, he apparent to any unbiassed enquirer, or to anyone whose intellect is not enclosed in a pachydermatous ” environment,” that these theories are still in nubibus. The supposed immutable law of evolution is so full of flaws that it will probably soon fall into oblivion. Batliybius has been smothered untimely in its own slime. Spontaneous generation lias exploded; it sprang from a decayed turnip, and l^as vanished into thin air. Palaeolithic man must still be in a very embryotic state, as the womb of mother earth has not yet shown, by any throes, that we are speedily to expect his advent; and as to that extravagant notion of discerning in matter “the promise and potency of all terrestrial life,” the faculties of man are not yet sufficiently evolved to comprehend Jts meaning. Irrefragable arguments avail but little to check the wild, dangerous speculations so popular at the present time. Alas! we want a Swift, a Sydney Smith, or a Butler, to hold up to ridicule the pseudo-philosopliy now so rife.
The new popular serials?such as the Nineteenth Century, the Contemporary, and the Fortnightly Review?are doing a vast deal of mischief by giving a wide circulation to per- nicious doctrines which must necessarily lead to fatalism. It is unworthy of journals of a high class to admit articles, for the sake of popularity, which are opposed to religion, although the Writers may hold a high position as men of science or learn- ing. Surely we have heard enough of Comte and Spinoza, and Writers of that class; and there can be no necessity to revive their exploded systems to gratify the taste of those who have not leisure for the stud}’ necessary to discover the hollowness of the arguments by which they are supported. It is curious to notice the shifts to which the disciples of these schools are driven in defence of their leaders. J. Pollock, in the February number of the Nineteenth Century, speaking of Spinoza, admits that ” it is difficult to name anyone who ever formally accepted his system as a whole;” he adds: ” The worth of a philosopher is to be measured by the life and strength of the ideas he sets stirring in men’s minds.” Mr. Pollock has by his own words unwittingly condemned that which it was his object to defend. An exploded philosophy which had but few fol- lowers cannot be said to have had ideas possessing much vitality, though they might have had an ephemeral strength like that wbicli produced the terrible energy of the encyclopedists. Another article in the Nineteenth Century, from which neither pleasure nor profit can be derived, was from the pen of Professor Clifford, on ” Cosmic Emotion,” and is one of the most in- comprehensible specimens of pseudo-philosophy that has ever come under our notice.
There is another periodical, entitled Mind, especially devoted to the discussion of philosophical subjects, the greater part of them having a materialistic bias. The title is singularly anomalous, as the object of the publication is evidently to ignore mind, and exalt matter; fortunately for the public it is so full of learned dulness that it can attract but few readers. The arrogance and daring presumption of some scientific men is almost beyond belief. This is what Helmholtz, professor of physiology at Heidelberg, says respecting the human eye:? ” Now, it is not too much to say that if an optician wanted to sell me an instrument which had all these defects, I should think myself quite justified in blaming his carelessness in the strongest terms, and giving him back his instrument.”* It is doubly unfortunate that so accomplished a physiologist as Helmholtz, who has in his lectures described the wonderful functions of the eye in glowing terms, should have made the above unqualified remarks, as they have been used by sceptics as arguments in favour of infidelity.
John Stuart Mill deemed it possible that science might one day accomplish the making of a man.f A writer in the Standard, some time since, in commenting on this im- possibility, observes: ” Mr. Mill, indeed, goes so far as to suggest that science may in time discover how to make men. As that happy consummation would realise the aspiration of Euripides, and dispense with the necessity for women, we will not undertake to say what might happen in such a case. Men, we suppose, in that event would be made to order, and there would be no necessity for the influence of religion in the world.” The formula would probably be after this fashion. Take of sea slime and infusion of turnips equal parts, evaporate the mixture at a proper temperature until it is reduced to the requisite consistence. Mould it into the shape of a man, and imbue him with sufficient physical force to produce sensation, perception, consciousness, and thought.
In the Journal of Psychological Medicine for April 1877, I asked, with reference to Herbert Spencer, Gr. II. Lewes, and other writers of this class, ” What have these writers done, morally or intellectually for the cause of truth ? ” A leading article in the Medical Press for December 26, 1877, referring to Darwin, Hackel, Huxley, Herbert Spencer, and Dr. Maudsley, says, in my very words, it has been asked, ” What
Popular Lectures on Scientific Subjects, by H. Helmholtz. Translated by E.
Atkinson, with an introduction by Professor Tyndall. London, Longmans, 1873. f Vide Nature &c., by John Stuart Mill. London, Longman & Co., 1874. Page 182.
have these writers done, morally or intellectually, for the cause of truth ? ” The writer’s answer is : ” They have discovered to the human intellect a new vista of philosophic thought. They have discovered the wonderful simplicity of those forces which have eventuated in the building up of the animal world.” This yet remains to be proved. We will tell him what some of them have discovered. Huxley discovered Bathybius; Dr. Bastian, spontaneous generation ; Tyndall, atomism ; and Her- bert Spencer invented a novel and charming phraseology for explaining the theory of evolution. We were for some time at a loss to discover what great moral or intellectual boon Dr. Maudsley(a confessed materialist and evolutionist) had conferred on mankind, until we recollected the extraordinary suggestion which he made in his address as President, at the Annual Meeting of the Medico-Pyschological Association, August 3, J871, when he spoke of the advantage of a man’s marrying into an insane family, on the ground that great wits to mad- ness often are allied. These are his words: ” If, then, one man of genius were produced at the cost of one thousand?nay, at the cost of fifty thousand insane persons, the result might be a sufficient compensation for the terrible cost. Are we not apt to think too much of the numbers, and too little of the value of individuals ? ” Much has been said of late respecting the supposed increase of insanity. The cause is now clear. People have been carrying out Dr Maudsley’s theory, and have been marrying into insane families in the hope of begetting a genius.
The writer of the leader in the Medical Press, from whom We have already quoted, after holding up to admiration the believers in Darwin, concludes oddly enough with the following apology for the theory itself: ” If, on the other hand, the views of Darwin and his followers are still regarded by many as questionable and visionary, it is because of the difficulty of putting them to the test of experiment and inductive reason- ing, and of obtaining sufficient evidence to refute the more serious objections that have been raised against them. Ex- actly so. This is what we have contended for, and if evolu- tionists have no better advocates than this, they may well say deliver us from our friends.
Disclaimer
The historical material in this project falls into one of three categories for clearances and permissions:
Material currently under copyright, made available with a Creative Commons license chosen by the publisher.
Material that is in the public domain
Material identified by the Welcome Trust as an Orphan Work, made available with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
While we are in the process of adding metadata to the articles, please check the article at its original source for specific copyrights.