At the same time, it is true that, unless explained more fully, it can only be considered as absolutely valid if stated cosmically and in general terms. At times, applying the ordinary meaning to the terms 'integration' and 'dissipation,' particular conditions, and specially chemical changes, will mask the main process. An explosion, for instance, while it implies dissipation of matter, is also accompanied by dissipation of motion. Many other instances could be given, including those so ably marshalled, in another connection, by Spencer himself.[1]
It would be impossible, in the brief space at my disposal, for me to attempt to unravel all these special tangles, and to follow all these instances to their logical conclusions, in order to show that they are not at variance with so obvious a principle as the first part of Spencer's formula. To this subject I hope to return again at a later date. For present purposes, it is only possible to point out that, regarded cosmically, there can be no possible doubt of the truth of this principle, and to express the opinion that these apparent exceptions no more invalidate its truth than the simple fact that the waters of the river flow to the sea is falsified because the river winds, and here and there there are eddies in the stream.
Although this aspect of Spencer's formula of evolution is primary, it is the secondary aspects that are of greater interest. If the aggregates are small and the process rapid, no other changes can take place which can be described in general terms.[2] If the masses are large or the process slow, then we find the remarkable
- ↑ First Principles, pp. 269, etc.
- ↑ This part of the exposition (see First Principles, p. 262) was one on which Spencer laid some stress. Professor Ward has attempted to answer the argument by referring to fermentation and enzyme action (Naturalism and Agnosticism, appendix to volume I, p. 326), but, by so doing, he has only shown that he is not a good critic of the treatment of physical principles. In the first place most of the examples (fermentation) he mentions are not purely chemical but distinctly organic, secondly these very reactions are, as every chemist knows, specially complex. The products of (e.g.) yeast fermentation of sugar are exceedingly numerous and they really illustrate very well the increase of complexity which accompanies slowness of reaction. Also, it should be remarked, there is a distinction between the rapidity of the reaction as a whole and that of the change in any particular chemical molecule. Chemical reactions, to be included in an evolutionary formula, must be described not as molar but as molecular. Spencer's formula of evolution is certainly not disproved or discredited by any of the Wardian criticisms.
