prove nor disprove. I also accept the facts of evolution and of the mechanism of the brain. I base my belief in the ego on certain views of other biologists, and on data of consciousness, morality, and religion, and the insight of all subjective philosophy. My faith is one of assent to something not admitting demonstrative proof. Have I sufficient reason for my faith in passing beyond the inductions of material science?
We present some latest views of eminent biologists. While evolution must be accepted as a fact, there is great uncertainty as to the factors that produce changes in the organic world. To-day there is small evidence that variations are produced by direct influence of environment. In the germ is the "whole machinery and the mystery of heredity." Since the microscope fails to reveal the causes, either of normal development or of variations, some are forced to accept, as the simplest and most rational hypothesis, the existence of a psychic principle in the germ. The facts appear to support the doctrine of purpose in evolution. So earnest and able a thinker as Professor LeConte frankly affirms: "With the appearance of Man another factor was introduced, namely, conscious coöperation in his own evolution, striving to attain an ideal."
Professor Muensterberg is of high authority in experimental psychology and besides has a keen philosophic mind. His paper entitled "Psychology and the Real Life" is instructive and significant. He shows that it is the business of psychology to analyze the ideas and emotions, the whole content of consciousness, into sensations, to investigate the
