INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

THE WALTER SCOTT PUBLISHING COMPANY, LTD., FELLING-ON-TYNE.

FOOTNOTES:[1]In a thesis presented in 1742 at Montpellier, Bordeu, then only twenty years of age, made game of the tasks imposed by animists on the Soul, “which has to moisten the lips when required;” or, “whose anger produces the symptoms of certain diseases;” or again, “which is prevented by the consequences of original sin from guiding and directing the body.”[2]Reinke,Die Welt als That; Berlin, 1899.[3]In an article on the experimental method recently published in theDictionnaire de Physiologie, M. Ch. Richet writes as follows:—“We must therefore never cease to carry out comparative experiments. I do not hesitate to say that this comparison is the basis of the experimental method.” It is in fact what was taught by Claude Bernard in maxim and by example. It is no exaggeration to assert that nine-tenths of the errors which take place in research work are imputable to some breach of this method. When an investigator makes a mistake, save in the case of material error, it is almost certainly due to the fact that he has neglected to carry out one of the comparative tests required in the problem before him. The following is an instance which happened since the above pages were written:—Several years ago a chemist announced the existence in the blood serum of a ferment, lipase, capable of saponifying fats—that is to say, of extracting from them the fatty acid. From this he deduced many consequences relative to the mechanism of fermentations. But on the other hand, it has been since shown (April 1902) that this lipase of the serum does not exist. How did the error arise? The author in question had mixed normally obtained serum with oil, and he had noted the acidification of the mixture; he assured himself of the fact by adding carbonate of soda. He saw the alkalinity of the mixture, serum + oil + carbonate of soda, diminish, and he drew the conclusion that the acid came from the saponified oil. He did not make the comparative test, serum + carbonate of soda. If he had done so, he would have ascertained that it also succeeded, and that therefore as the acid did not come from the saponification of the oil, since there was none, its production could not prove the existence of a lipase.[4]Le Dantec has objected to this conception of phenomena common to different living beings. He insists that all phenomena which take place in a given living being are proper to him, and differ, however slightly, from those of another individual. The objection is more specious than real.[5]Mayer’s claim to fame has been disputed. A Scotch physicist, P. G. Tait, has investigated the history of the law of the conservation of energy, which is the history of the idea of energy. The conception has taken time to penetrate the human mind, but its experimental proof is of recent date. P. G. Tait finds an almost complete expression of the law of the conservation of energy in Newton’s third law of motion—namely, “the law of the equality of action and reaction,” or rather, in the second explanation which Newton gave of that law. In fact, it was from this law that Helmholtz deduced it in 1847. He showed that the law of the equality of action and reaction, considered as a law of nature, involved the impossibility of perpetual motion, and the impossibility of perpetual motion is, in another form, the conservation of energy.At a meeting of the Academy of Science, at Berlin, 28th March 1878, Du Bois-Reymond violently attacked Tait’s contention. The honour of having been the first to conceive of the idea of energy and conservation was awarded to Leibniz. Newton had no right to it, for he appealed to divine intervention to set the planetary system on its path when disturbed by accumulated perturbations. On the other hand, Colding claims to have drawn his knowledge of the law of conservation from d’Alembert’s principle. Whatever may be the theoretical foundations of this law, we are here dealing with its experimental proof. According to Tait, the proof can no more be attributed to R. Mayer than to Seguin. The real modern authors of the principle of the conservation of energy, who gave an experimental proof of it, are Colding, of Copenhagen, and Joule, of Manchester.[6]It must be added that the absolute rigour of this law has been called in question in recent researches. It would only have an approximate value.[7]The dyne is the force which applied to the unit of mass produces a unit of acceleration.[8]These words spoil the statement, for time has nothing to do with it.[9]We therefore notice that the measures of force and work bring in mass, space, and time. The typical force, weight, is given by w = mg. On the other hand, we have by the laws of falling bodiesv=gt;s= 1∕2gt2; whenceg= 2s∕t2;w=m(2s∕t2); or, if F be the force, M the mass, L the space described, and T the time, we have F = MLT-2, which expresses what are called the dimensions of the force—that is to say, the magnitudes with their degree, which enter into its expression. We may thus easily obtain the dimensions of work:—Work=f×s=mv2∕2 = ML2T-2.[10]The reason is to be found in the large number of indeterminates in the problem we have to solve. It will be sufficient to enumerate them: the two substances which exist in the anatomical element, protoplasm and reserve-stuff, to which are attributed contrary roles; the two conditions attributable to the protoplasm, of manifested or latent activity; the faculty possessed by both of being prolonged for an indeterminate period, and of encroaching each on its protagonist when its existence is at stake. Here are more elements than are necessary to explain the positive or negative results of all the experiments in the world.[11]There is another reason why the rôle of mechanical energy, compared with that of thermal energy, is reduced, in the partition of afferent, alimentary energy—at least, in animals which have not to do excessive work. The unit of heat, the Calorie, is equivalent to 425 units of work—i.e., to 425 kilogrammetres. In the animal at rest, the number of kilogrammetres representing the different quantities of work done is small, the number of corresponding Calories is 425 times smaller. It becomes almost negligeable in comparison with the considerable number of Calories dissipated in the form of heat.[12]It is not certain, however, that all the precautions taken have the desired result. You cannot entirely deprive meat of its carbohydrates.[13]M. Le Dantec, of whose philosophical and rigorously systematic mind I have the highest opinion, has laid down a new conception of life, the essential basis of which is this very distinction between elementary life and ordinary life; between the life of the elements or of the beings formed from a single cell, protophytes and protozoa, and the life of ordinary animals and plants, which are multicellular complexes, and for that reason calledmetazoaandmetaphytes.Further, in theelementary lifepeculiar to monocellular beings (protozoa and cellular elements), M. Le Dantec distinguishes three manners of being:—The first condition, which is elementary life manifested in all its perfection, cellular health; the second condition is deteriorated elementary life,cellular disease; and the third condition, which islatent life. I should say at once that in so far as the fundamental distinction of the phenomena ofelementary lifeand those of the general life of animals and ordinary plants, metazoa or metaphytes is concerned, we find it neither justified nor useful. And further,manifested elementary life, as M. Le Dantec understands it, would only belong to a small number ofelementary beings—for the protozoa, starting with the infusoria, are not among the number—and to a still smaller number ofanatomical elements, since among the vertebrates we recognize as almost the only elements satisfying it, the ovule, and perhaps the leucocyte. Physiologists, therefore, do not agree with M. Le Dantec as to the utility of adding one condition more to those we all admit—namely, manifested animal life and latent life.[14]Amylolytic ferments change starch and glycogen (amyloses) into sugar.—Tr.[15]Proteolytic ferments change proteids into peptones and proteoses.—Tr.[16]The enzyme known as lipase splits the fat or oil in germinating seeds into a fatty acid and glycerine.—Tr.[17]These ideas are clearly brought to light in a series of articles in theRevue Philosophique, published in 1879 under the title of “La problème physiologique de la vie,” and endorsed by A. Dastre in his commentary on thePhénomènes communs aux animaux et aux plantes.[18]Bear-animalcules, Sloth-animalcules. An order of Arachnida.—Tr.[19]Minute thread worms, known as paste-eels and vinegar-eels.—Tr.[20]Genus of Infusoria. Colpodea cucullus is found in infusions of hay.—Tr.[21]Lately destroyed in a storm. [Tr.]

[1]In a thesis presented in 1742 at Montpellier, Bordeu, then only twenty years of age, made game of the tasks imposed by animists on the Soul, “which has to moisten the lips when required;” or, “whose anger produces the symptoms of certain diseases;” or again, “which is prevented by the consequences of original sin from guiding and directing the body.”

[2]Reinke,Die Welt als That; Berlin, 1899.

[3]In an article on the experimental method recently published in theDictionnaire de Physiologie, M. Ch. Richet writes as follows:—“We must therefore never cease to carry out comparative experiments. I do not hesitate to say that this comparison is the basis of the experimental method.” It is in fact what was taught by Claude Bernard in maxim and by example. It is no exaggeration to assert that nine-tenths of the errors which take place in research work are imputable to some breach of this method. When an investigator makes a mistake, save in the case of material error, it is almost certainly due to the fact that he has neglected to carry out one of the comparative tests required in the problem before him. The following is an instance which happened since the above pages were written:—Several years ago a chemist announced the existence in the blood serum of a ferment, lipase, capable of saponifying fats—that is to say, of extracting from them the fatty acid. From this he deduced many consequences relative to the mechanism of fermentations. But on the other hand, it has been since shown (April 1902) that this lipase of the serum does not exist. How did the error arise? The author in question had mixed normally obtained serum with oil, and he had noted the acidification of the mixture; he assured himself of the fact by adding carbonate of soda. He saw the alkalinity of the mixture, serum + oil + carbonate of soda, diminish, and he drew the conclusion that the acid came from the saponified oil. He did not make the comparative test, serum + carbonate of soda. If he had done so, he would have ascertained that it also succeeded, and that therefore as the acid did not come from the saponification of the oil, since there was none, its production could not prove the existence of a lipase.

[4]Le Dantec has objected to this conception of phenomena common to different living beings. He insists that all phenomena which take place in a given living being are proper to him, and differ, however slightly, from those of another individual. The objection is more specious than real.

[5]Mayer’s claim to fame has been disputed. A Scotch physicist, P. G. Tait, has investigated the history of the law of the conservation of energy, which is the history of the idea of energy. The conception has taken time to penetrate the human mind, but its experimental proof is of recent date. P. G. Tait finds an almost complete expression of the law of the conservation of energy in Newton’s third law of motion—namely, “the law of the equality of action and reaction,” or rather, in the second explanation which Newton gave of that law. In fact, it was from this law that Helmholtz deduced it in 1847. He showed that the law of the equality of action and reaction, considered as a law of nature, involved the impossibility of perpetual motion, and the impossibility of perpetual motion is, in another form, the conservation of energy.At a meeting of the Academy of Science, at Berlin, 28th March 1878, Du Bois-Reymond violently attacked Tait’s contention. The honour of having been the first to conceive of the idea of energy and conservation was awarded to Leibniz. Newton had no right to it, for he appealed to divine intervention to set the planetary system on its path when disturbed by accumulated perturbations. On the other hand, Colding claims to have drawn his knowledge of the law of conservation from d’Alembert’s principle. Whatever may be the theoretical foundations of this law, we are here dealing with its experimental proof. According to Tait, the proof can no more be attributed to R. Mayer than to Seguin. The real modern authors of the principle of the conservation of energy, who gave an experimental proof of it, are Colding, of Copenhagen, and Joule, of Manchester.

At a meeting of the Academy of Science, at Berlin, 28th March 1878, Du Bois-Reymond violently attacked Tait’s contention. The honour of having been the first to conceive of the idea of energy and conservation was awarded to Leibniz. Newton had no right to it, for he appealed to divine intervention to set the planetary system on its path when disturbed by accumulated perturbations. On the other hand, Colding claims to have drawn his knowledge of the law of conservation from d’Alembert’s principle. Whatever may be the theoretical foundations of this law, we are here dealing with its experimental proof. According to Tait, the proof can no more be attributed to R. Mayer than to Seguin. The real modern authors of the principle of the conservation of energy, who gave an experimental proof of it, are Colding, of Copenhagen, and Joule, of Manchester.

[6]It must be added that the absolute rigour of this law has been called in question in recent researches. It would only have an approximate value.

[7]The dyne is the force which applied to the unit of mass produces a unit of acceleration.

[8]These words spoil the statement, for time has nothing to do with it.

[9]We therefore notice that the measures of force and work bring in mass, space, and time. The typical force, weight, is given by w = mg. On the other hand, we have by the laws of falling bodiesv=gt;s= 1∕2gt2; whenceg= 2s∕t2;w=m(2s∕t2); or, if F be the force, M the mass, L the space described, and T the time, we have F = MLT-2, which expresses what are called the dimensions of the force—that is to say, the magnitudes with their degree, which enter into its expression. We may thus easily obtain the dimensions of work:—Work=f×s=mv2∕2 = ML2T-2.

Work=f×s=mv2∕2 = ML2T-2.

[10]The reason is to be found in the large number of indeterminates in the problem we have to solve. It will be sufficient to enumerate them: the two substances which exist in the anatomical element, protoplasm and reserve-stuff, to which are attributed contrary roles; the two conditions attributable to the protoplasm, of manifested or latent activity; the faculty possessed by both of being prolonged for an indeterminate period, and of encroaching each on its protagonist when its existence is at stake. Here are more elements than are necessary to explain the positive or negative results of all the experiments in the world.

[11]There is another reason why the rôle of mechanical energy, compared with that of thermal energy, is reduced, in the partition of afferent, alimentary energy—at least, in animals which have not to do excessive work. The unit of heat, the Calorie, is equivalent to 425 units of work—i.e., to 425 kilogrammetres. In the animal at rest, the number of kilogrammetres representing the different quantities of work done is small, the number of corresponding Calories is 425 times smaller. It becomes almost negligeable in comparison with the considerable number of Calories dissipated in the form of heat.

[12]It is not certain, however, that all the precautions taken have the desired result. You cannot entirely deprive meat of its carbohydrates.

[13]M. Le Dantec, of whose philosophical and rigorously systematic mind I have the highest opinion, has laid down a new conception of life, the essential basis of which is this very distinction between elementary life and ordinary life; between the life of the elements or of the beings formed from a single cell, protophytes and protozoa, and the life of ordinary animals and plants, which are multicellular complexes, and for that reason calledmetazoaandmetaphytes.Further, in theelementary lifepeculiar to monocellular beings (protozoa and cellular elements), M. Le Dantec distinguishes three manners of being:—The first condition, which is elementary life manifested in all its perfection, cellular health; the second condition is deteriorated elementary life,cellular disease; and the third condition, which islatent life. I should say at once that in so far as the fundamental distinction of the phenomena ofelementary lifeand those of the general life of animals and ordinary plants, metazoa or metaphytes is concerned, we find it neither justified nor useful. And further,manifested elementary life, as M. Le Dantec understands it, would only belong to a small number ofelementary beings—for the protozoa, starting with the infusoria, are not among the number—and to a still smaller number ofanatomical elements, since among the vertebrates we recognize as almost the only elements satisfying it, the ovule, and perhaps the leucocyte. Physiologists, therefore, do not agree with M. Le Dantec as to the utility of adding one condition more to those we all admit—namely, manifested animal life and latent life.

Further, in theelementary lifepeculiar to monocellular beings (protozoa and cellular elements), M. Le Dantec distinguishes three manners of being:—The first condition, which is elementary life manifested in all its perfection, cellular health; the second condition is deteriorated elementary life,cellular disease; and the third condition, which islatent life. I should say at once that in so far as the fundamental distinction of the phenomena ofelementary lifeand those of the general life of animals and ordinary plants, metazoa or metaphytes is concerned, we find it neither justified nor useful. And further,manifested elementary life, as M. Le Dantec understands it, would only belong to a small number ofelementary beings—for the protozoa, starting with the infusoria, are not among the number—and to a still smaller number ofanatomical elements, since among the vertebrates we recognize as almost the only elements satisfying it, the ovule, and perhaps the leucocyte. Physiologists, therefore, do not agree with M. Le Dantec as to the utility of adding one condition more to those we all admit—namely, manifested animal life and latent life.

[14]Amylolytic ferments change starch and glycogen (amyloses) into sugar.—Tr.

[15]Proteolytic ferments change proteids into peptones and proteoses.—Tr.

[16]The enzyme known as lipase splits the fat or oil in germinating seeds into a fatty acid and glycerine.—Tr.

[17]These ideas are clearly brought to light in a series of articles in theRevue Philosophique, published in 1879 under the title of “La problème physiologique de la vie,” and endorsed by A. Dastre in his commentary on thePhénomènes communs aux animaux et aux plantes.

[18]Bear-animalcules, Sloth-animalcules. An order of Arachnida.—Tr.

[19]Minute thread worms, known as paste-eels and vinegar-eels.—Tr.

[20]Genus of Infusoria. Colpodea cucullus is found in infusions of hay.—Tr.

[21]Lately destroyed in a storm. [Tr.]

Back to Index Next