THE SCIENTIFIC OUTLOOK

New Zealand Tablet, 6 November 1913, Page 9

THE SCIENTIFIC OUTLOOK

VIEWS OF SIR OLIVER LODGE CRITICISM BY SIR BERTRAM WINDLE / • Last year (writes Sir Bertram Windle, M.D., Sc.D., LL.D., F.R.S., K.S.G., President of University College, Cork, in the Catholic Times), I was privileged to criticise what seemed to me to be a somewhat belated and quite unconvincing address, which it was the lot of. the visitors to the Dundee meeting of the British Association to hear from the presidential chair. This year, a very different kind of discourse—in part a direct reply to, and refutation of, that of last year—in upon the silence which reigns even in scientific regions during the summer season. The president for this year may be, and has been, criticised from various angles, but no one has yet ventured to accuse him of dulness in speech or in writing, and his address bristles, with good things and tersely expressed phrases. Parts of it are very far over the heads of ordinary readers or hearers, but there remain a number of other portions which contain truths, or, as he himself would put it, approximations to truth, well worthy of consideration, and to some of these at least I propose to devote such brief consideration as may be permitted to me in the limits of these columns. . The Function of Science. There still lingers in the minds of some an idea far more prevalent in the last quarter of the last century that science holds in her hand the key to all the riddles of life, an idea expressly, negatived at all times by real leaders of science, though tacitly or more than tacitly encouraged by its camp-followers. Of course the notion is wholly mistaken. Science deals with facts; facts made sure by observation; facts learnt by careful and repeated experiment. It 'is, undoubtedly, an affair of the intellect, it examines everything in the cold light of reason, and that is its strength.' (*) (p. 3.) Therefore, science must be wholly ignorant of likes and dislikes. Yet, as I have elsewhere pointed out, a scientific man is still to be found writing that such and such a thing is not as certain ' as we might wish to believe.' To which may be opposed Mr. Bertrand Russell's dictum: The kernel of the scientific outlook is the refusal to regard our own desires, tastes, and interests as affording a key to the understanding of the world.' ' Science,' said Mr. Balfour the other day at the National Physical Laboratory, ' depends on measurement, and things not measurable are therefore excluded, or tend to be excluded, from its attention. But life and beauty and happiness are not measurable.' Science, then, does not deal with the sum total of things, but only with a limited number; it has its own area outside of which are whole fields of enquiry with which it has and can have no dealings. Yet obviously there is a borderland somewhat undefined; a borderland where fact and theory meet and even overlap, and, as in the case of most borderlands, it is here that conflicts between pure scientists, philosophers, and theologians must needs take place. 'To use the acute and familiar expression of Gustav Kirchhoff, it is the object of science to describe natural phenomena, not to explain them. When we i have expressed by an equation ' The Correct Relationship Between Different Natural Phenomena, we have gone as far as we safely can, and if we go beyond, we are entering on purely speculative ground.' So writes Professor Schuster, ' and, if science and scientific men were to go no farther than this, it will at once be admitted that it would be difficult to imagine how controversies could arise as to their findings, save such as might originate from doubts as to the actual accuracy

(*) Quotations without: other reference are from the official print •of the - presidential. address by Sir Oliver Lodge.

of the observations in question, a form of controversy unavoidable, and, indeed, most necessary, if accuracy is to be maintained. But the law is too binding, for if scientific men are never to bring their facts into correlation by weaving them into theories, in other words,, by trying to explain, it will be admitted that the field of science must be deprived of some of its fairest flowers. I will not labor this point, which I have / dealt with at length in my book, Fads and Theories, published by the Catholic Truth Society. I will merely call attention to the masterly manner in which Sir. Oliver Lodge once more proclaims the*true function of science and denounces those who would illegitimately extend its province. For example: ' I hold that science is incompetent to make comprehensive denials, even about the ether, and that it goes wrong when it makes the attempt. Science should not deal in negations: it is strong in affirmations, but nothing based oh abstraction ought to presume to deny outside its own region' (p. 26). And again: ' Denial is no more infallible than assertion. There are cheap and easy kinds of scepticism, just as there are cheap and easy kinds of dogmatism; in fact, scepticism can become viciously dogmatic, and science has to be much on its guard against personal predilection in the negative as in the positive direction. An attitude of universal denial may be very superficial. ' To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection."' (p. 27). Finally: ' Science has no authority in denials. To deny effectively needs much more comprehensive knowledge than to assert. And abstraction is essentially not comprehensive : one cannot have it both ways. Science employs the method of abstraction and thereby makes its discoveries.' (p. 27). All which, wise and incontrovertible words, may be commended to the attention of those illogicians who would have us believe that because science can teach us a number of quite indisputable facts, and a number of others not validly disputable to-day at any rate, it is, therefore, in a position to lay down the law as to what things do or do not exist in the entire universe known and unknown. . 4 The Problem of the Ether. Those who are acquainted, even though it may be but superficially, with the field of science will not require to be told that the distinguished man whose address I am at present considering is a first-rate authority on that illusive and most mysterious entity, the ether, that 'portentous entity,' as he himself calls it (p. 25). There must be at least some of the readers of these lines who are familiar with his little book on The Ether of Space, and those who are not and who desire to know more of the subject, may be commended to its pages, if they are unfamiliar with them. What is this ether of space . In the first place, it must be admitted that no one has seen it, nor has any man at any time directly appreciated it by any of his sense, even when supplemented by the various remarkable aids which scientific instruments to-day afford to them. Even by experiment its existence is barely, if at all, detectable. The ether . . . does not appeal to sense, and we know no means of getting hold of it. The one thing we know metrical about it is the velocity with which it can transmit transverse waves. That is clear and definite, and thereby, to my judgment, it proves itself a physical agent; not, indeed, tangible or sensible, but yet concretely real' (p. 18). Further, it is a thing of incredibly opposed characteristics, an anomaly hardly to be understood, with some difficulty even to be credited with existence. Mathematicians talk to us about a possible Fourth Dimension, and amaze us by explaining what curious happenings might be associated with such if it existed. They are no whit more remarkable than those which we are called upon to believe in connection with the ether. For example: —lt is far denser in , consistence than any other kind of matter, ' millions of times denser than lead or platinum' (p. 13). Yet on the other hand, ordinary matter moves through it, not

merely with the greatest possible ease, but still more wonderful, yea, wonderful beyond all whooping, without any friction. ' Matter it is not, but material it is; it belongs to , the material universe and is to be investigated by ordinary .methods. But to say this is by no means to deny that it may have mental and spiritual functions to subserve in some other order of existence, as matter has in this (p. 25). , If we inquire the function of this mysterious omnipresent 'portentous entity,' we find it very'clearly indicated in the words of the president: —. ... ' ' The ether of space is at least the great engine of continuity. It may be much more, for without it there could hardly be a material universe at all. Certainly, however,'it is essential to continuity it is ' The One All-permeating Substance that binds the whole of the particles of matter together. It .is the uniting and binding medium without which, if matter could exist at all, it could exist only as chaotic and isolated fragments; and it is the universal medium of communication between worlds and particles. And yet it is possible for people to deny its existence, because it is unrelated to any of our senses, except sight—-and to that only in an indirect and jiot easily recognised fashion ' (p. 25). ; " -; There used, in the giddy hey-day of materialism, to be persons who prided themselves on not believing anything which they could not fully understand. I once heard a then eminent exponent of science express himself in this way whilst pitying unfortunate ministers of religion for having to teach things which they could not possibly believe.' Here in the ether of space is a 'portentous entity,' an entity which seems to be of greater portent indeed than any other object within the material universe, an entity which no man professes fully to understand, which, "as Sir Oliver says, is directly at least appreciable by none of the senses, in which nevertheless we are called to make an Act of Faith, an act which few, if any, will refuse. ~ r > Let; us; turn for one moment, with all reverence, to regard the question of the existence ■ of God, still denied perhaps, certainly we may say doubted, by some at least of those who would cheerfully go to the scientific stake in defence of the dogma of the ether. Is the evidence for the latter really so wholly convincing and that for the former so entirely invalid ? We need not pursue the parallel further but merely suggest the thought which rises to the mind-when we consider the cogent arguments set down in his address by Sir Oliver in connection with this most mysterious entity ether of space. The Problem of Vitalism. In last year's address we were told that:—Present advances in knowledge have suggested the probability that the.dividing line between animate and inanimate matter is less sharp than it has hitherto been regarded.' Further, that: ' the more we study the manifestations of life ... - the less we are disposed to call in the aid of a special and unknown form of energy to explain these manifestations.' And finally that: 'Vitalism as a working hypothesis is not only at its foundations undermined but most of the superstructure has toppled over. These statements, which it may now be said roused no sort of enthusiasm and received but little support amongst scientific men, were, or course, based upon the assumption that all the. phenomena of life can be explained in terms of chemistry and physics. As I have elsewhere urged, if this be true, then biology as a science disappears from the field of knowledge and what we have known by that name becomes a specialised fragment of physio-chemistry. Let that pass: it is perhaps hardly an argument against the president of last year. What we need to ask is whether all the phenomena of life really are explained or explicable in terms of physics and chemistry, and this inquiry, with all respect to the physiologists , and their representative of last year, may more aptly be made to those who are in the first instance physicists and chemists than to those who only study those branches of science

in a secondary and subsidiary manner. Let lis pursue our enquiry on those lines. ' No one will , deny -Sir.- Oliver Lodge right to be heard in connection with and on ; behalf of physics let us see what he has to say. ;Observing that sortie of his critics have called him" a vitalist, he replies that in a sense he is, but that lie should never make an appeal to ah undefined 'vital force * ' as' against the. laws of chemistry and physics,'which laws ' must be supplemented, but need by no means be superseded' (p. 28). Here he takes- up a position absolutely identical with that of all -Vitalists (so denominated). It is inconceivable to them .that men, should .suppose that many, perhaps all, of the laws of the sciences in question do not apply to living things, but it is equally inconceivable that they should suppose that by these laws. All the Phenomena of Life can be explained. Supplemented, not superseded —that puts the situation admirably and to that statement every Vitalist or neo-Vitalise (to use an objectionable term now current) would fully and cheerfully subscribe. The same thesis is more fully brought out by a' series of parallels of which only one,'-.with its conclusion, need be quoted: '■' The behaviour of a ship firing shot and shell is explicable in terms of energy, but the discrimination which it exercises between friend and foe is, not so explicable. There is plenty of physics and chemistry and mechanics about every vital action, but for a complete understanding of it . something beyond physics and chemistry is needed ' (p. 29).., ''■■'^'':'■-■"'''•'■ - : -' : ''.i:' One further quotation may be permitted to me: ' I will risk the assertion that life introduces something incalculable and purposeful amid the laws of physics it thus distinctly supplants those laws, though it leaves them otherwise precisely as they were. and obeys them all' (p. 30). So far then as physics is concerned, and in so far as Sir Oliver Lodge may be taken as its spokesman, the claim that the laws of physics can account for the phenomena of life completely breaks down and Sir E. Schaefer's assertions with them. ; Let us Turn to the Chemists and hear what they have to say. Without going further than this year's presidential address in the section of chemistry at the same meeting we can find a very remarkable utterance very much to the point in connection with our present inquiry. Professor Wynne, F.R.S., the president of the section in question, in the course of his address alluded to the rapid progress which chemistry is making- in the ' unravelling of the structure of natural products.' And he proceeds:' whatever direction we may look, there is the same evidence that we can take to pieces the most complicated structure which nature has devised, and by .the aid of valency conceptions can fit the pieces into a formula which is an epitome of the chemical activities of the molecule. Again, in many cases the resources of our laboratories enable us to build up the structure thus displayed, and to establish the identity of nature's product and our own.' But mark what follows.:- ' Nevertheless the fact remains that all these syntheses leave untouched and unexplained the profound difference between the conditions we find.necessary to achieve our purpose and those by which the plant or animal carries on its work in presence of water and at a temperature differing only slightly from the .normal.'. And he quotes with approval the dictum of Professor. Raphael Meldola that 'we are running the risk of blockading whole regions of undiscovered modes of chemical action by falling into the belief that known laboratory

* Sir Oliver objects to the term ‘ vital • force ’■ and says he has never thought of using it. It is an objectionable termwould that • he could suggest a better ! To turn it into Greek and call if ‘ biotic energy,’ as one writer has done, does not seem to me to get. us any further, nor does ‘ bathmic force’ (another effort), nor even Driesch’s Aristotelian ‘ entelechy ’ quite meet the case. However, the name matters little; it is the thing which counts.

methods are the equivalents of unknown vital methods.' Professor Schaefer claims that chemical and physical methods will account for everything in life: Sir Oliver Lodge very definitely and flatly contradicts this statement. Professor Schaefer tells us that the barrier between living and not-living matter is wearing very thin: Professor Wynne urges on our attention the ' profound differences'. between laboratory and natural processes: ; V, Whilst we must draw our own conclusions from this remarkable divergence of authority, we may at least feel quite sure that in speaking as he did the president of last year did not voice the unanimous opinion of science, indeed, the remarkable utterances quoted in these columns coming, as they do, at the next possible opportunity, can hardly be otherwise interpreted than as a correction on the part of masters in their,, subject of the highly doubtfulone may go farther and say much disputeddoctrines laid before us last year. Finally, on this point I may refer to the president's use of an argument which I have urged myself in my writings on the subject; in my opinion, if properly considered. : The Most Cogent Argument of All. Why go to the labatory to study the question whether there is nothing in life but chemistry and physics? Why not study ourselves the things which we know most about if that ' most' be in reality but little ? On this point I may be permitted a "somewhat lengthy quotation which shall terminate what has to be said under this heading, though indeed every line which the president has written on this point is worthy of the most serious attention. ' So also if any philosopher tells you that you do not exist, or that the external world does not exist, or that you are an automaton without free will, that all your actions are determined by outside causes, and that you are not responsible—or that a body cannot move out of its place, or that Achilles cannot catch the tortoise— in all those cases, appeal must be made to twelve average men, Unsophisticated by special studies. There is always a danger of error in interpreting experience, or in drawing inferences from it; but in a matter of bare fact, based on our own firsthand experience, we are able to give a verdict. We may be mistaken as to the nature of what we see. Stars may look to us like bright specks in a dome, but the fact that we see them admits of no doubt. So also consciousness and will are realities of which we are directly aware, just as directly as we are of motion and force, just as clearly as we apprehend the philosophising utterances of an Agnostic. The process of seeing, the plain man does not understand; he- does not recognise that it is a method of ethereal telegraphy he knows nothing of the ether and its ripples, nor of the retina and its rods and cones, nor of nerve and brain processes; but he sees and he hears and he touches, and he wills and he thinks and is conscious. This is not an appeal to

the mob as against the philosopher; it is an appeal to the experience of untold ages as against the studies of a generation. - . ' How consciousness became associated with matter, how life exerts guidance over chemical and physical •friVnOO 1-K-niT mnnlmlllnnl v»-i/-\+i o o-r-n. v-o *-. ol n4-r, A !„J-„ sensations—all these things are puzzling and demand a long study. But the fact that these things are so admits of no doubt, and the difficulty of explanation is no argument against them. The blind man restored to sight had no opinion as to how he .was healed, nor could he vouch for the moral character of the Healer, but he plainly knew that whereas he was blind now he saw.. About that fact he was the best possible judge. So it is also with "this main miracle that thou art thou, with power on thine own act and on the world.'' ' (p. 32.) ;■ -> ; Some Further Conclusions. It would leave the subject incomplete if no mention were to be made of the concluding portion of the address wherein the president sounds a note which we may feel perfectly certain will be most unwelcome—indeed, he himself admits— some of his scientific brethren. For, in the first place, he definitely asserts, as one speaking from the platform of a representative body of scientific men and as their head for the year, that his studies in connection with physical research have convinced him ' that memory and affection are not limited to that association with matter by which alone they can manifest themselves here and now, and that personality persists beyond bodily death' (p. 38). And in his peroration, which will fitly bring this short commentary to a conclusion, he points to the belief in God as the final explanation of what must otherwise be inexplicable. ' Men and brethren, we are trustees of the truth of the physical universe as scientifically explored ; let us be faithful to our trust. Genuine religion has its roots deep down in the heart of humanity and in the reality of things. It .is. not surprising that by our methods we fail to grasp it; the actions of the Deity make no appeal to any special sense, only a universal appeal; and our methods are, as we know, incompetent to detect complete uniformity. There is a principle of relativity here, and unless we encounter flaw or jar or change, nothing in us responds; we are deaf and blind, therefore, to the immanent grandeur around us, unless we have insight enough to appreciate the Whole, and to recognise in the woven fabric of existence, flowing steadily from the loom in an infinite progress towards perfection, the ever-growing garment of a transcendent God.' '