Download the Full Ebook and Access More Features - ebookmass.

com

Project Based Problem Solving and Decision Making:

A Guide for Project Managers Harold Kerzner

https://ebookmass.com/product/project-based-problem-solving-
and-decision-making-a-guide-for-project-managers-harold-
kerzner/

OR CLICK HERE

DOWLOAD NOW

Download more ebook instantly today at https://ebookmass.com

 Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...

Solving for Project Risk Management Christian Smart

https://ebookmass.com/product/solving-for-project-risk-management-
christian-smart-3/

ebookmass.com

SOLVING FOR PROJECT RISK MANAGEMENT Christian Smart

https://ebookmass.com/product/solving-for-project-risk-management-
christian-smart/

ebookmass.com

Solving for Project Risk Management Christian Smart

https://ebookmass.com/product/solving-for-project-risk-management-
christian-smart-2/

ebookmass.com

Change in Strategy: An Office Romance (Change of Hearts

Book 2) Sierra Hill

https://ebookmass.com/product/change-in-strategy-an-office-romance-
change-of-hearts-book-2-sierra-hill/

ebookmass.com
John Hick's Religious Pluralism in Global Perspective
Sharada Sugirtharajah

https://ebookmass.com/product/john-hicks-religious-pluralism-in-
global-perspective-sharada-sugirtharajah/

ebookmass.com

I've Got You, Babe Lynnette Austin

https://ebookmass.com/product/ive-got-you-babe-lynnette-austin/

ebookmass.com

After Deportation: Ethnographic Perspectives 1st Edition

Shahram Khosravi (Eds.)

https://ebookmass.com/product/after-deportation-ethnographic-
perspectives-1st-edition-shahram-khosravi-eds/

ebookmass.com

An Introduction to Clinical Trials 1st Edition Jonathan A.

Cook

https://ebookmass.com/product/an-introduction-to-clinical-trials-1st-
edition-jonathan-a-cook/

ebookmass.com

Chemometrics in Spectroscopy (Second Edition) Howard Mark

https://ebookmass.com/product/chemometrics-in-spectroscopy-second-
edition-howard-mark/

ebookmass.com
Globalization: a Very Short Introduction 6th Edition
Manfred B. Steger

https://ebookmass.com/product/globalization-a-very-short-
introduction-6th-edition-manfred-b-steger/

ebookmass.com
Project Based Problem Solving and Decision Making
­ roject Based Problem Solving
P
and Decision Making

A Guide for Project Managers

Harold Kerzner
Senior Executive Director for Project Management
International Institute for Learning, Inc. (IIL), USA
Copyright © 2024 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.

Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.

Published simultaneously in Canada.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or
otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright
Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through
payment of the appropriate per‐copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood
Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750‐8400, fax (978) 750‐4470, or on the web at www.copyright
.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions
Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748‐6011, fax
(201) 748‐6008, or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permission.

Trademarks: Wiley and the Wiley logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of John Wiley &
Sons, Inc. and/or its affiliates in the United States and other countries and may not be used
without written permission. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best
efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the
accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied
warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created
or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies
contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional
where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have
changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the
publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages,
including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

For general information on our other products and services or for technical support, please
contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at (800) 762‐2974, outside the
United States at (317) 572‐3993 or fax (317) 572‐4002.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in
print may not be available in electronic formats. For more information about Wiley products,
visit our web site at www.wiley.com.

Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data Applied for:

Hardback ISBN: 9781394207831

Cover Design: Wiley

Cover Image: © Konstantin Faraktinov/Shutterstock

Set in 9.5/12.5 STIX Two Text by Straive, India

 v

Contents

Preface xi
About the Companion Website xiii

1 Understanding the Concepts 1

1.0 The Necessity for Problem-Solving and Decision-Making 1
1.1 Problems and Opportunities 2
1.2 Research Techniques in the Basic Decision-Making Process 3
1.3 Facts About Problem-Solving and Decision-Making 4
1.4 Who Makes the Decision? 4
1.5 Information Overload 5
1.6 Getting Access to the Right Information 5
1.7 The Lack of Information 6
Discussion Questions 6
References 7

2 Understanding the Project Environment and the Impact on Problem

Solving 9
2.0 Understanding the Project Environment 9
2.1 Project Versus Business Problem-Solving and Decision-Making 11
2.2 Problem-Solving and Decision-Making in the Project Management
Environment 11
2.3 The Impact of Constraints on Project Problem-Solving and
Decision-Making 12
2.4 The Impact of Assumptions on Project Problem-Solving and
Decision-Making 13
2.5 Understanding the Project Environment’s Complexities 14
2.6 Selecting the Right Project Manager 15
2.7 The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Project Management 15
2.8 Differences Between Program and Project Problem-Solving and
Decision-Making 18
2.9 Problem-Solving in Matrix Management Organizational Structures 25
vi Contents

2.10 T
 he Impact of Methodologies on Problem-Solving 29
2.11 The Need for Problem-Solving Procedural Documentation 35
Discussion Questions 40
References 41

3 Understanding the Problem 43

3.0 The Definition of a Problem 43
3.1 The Time Needed to Identify a Problem 43
3.2 Not All Problems Can Be Solved 45
3.3 The Complexities of the Problems 46
3.4 Techniques for Problem Identification 46
3.5 Individual Problem-Solving Conducted in Secret 47
3.6 Team Problem-Solving Conducted in Secret 47
3.7 Decisions That Can Convert Failures into Successes 48
Discussion Questions 53
References 54

4 Data Gathering 55
4.0 Understanding Data Gathering 55
4.1 Reasons for Data Gathering 56
4.2 Data-Gathering Techniques 56
4.3 Metrics and Early Warning Indicators 57
4.4 Questions to Ask 57
4.5 Establishing Structure for Data Gathering, Problem-Solving, and
Decision-Making 58
4.6 Determining the Steps 58
Discussion Questions 59

5 Meetings 61
5.0 Problem Analysis Characteristics 61
5.1 Real Problems Versus Personality Problems 62
5.2 Determining Who Should Attend the Problem-Solving Meeting 63
5.3 Determining Who Should Attend the Decision-Making Meeting 63
5.4 Creating a Framework for the Meeting 64
5.5 Setting Limits on Problem-Solving and Decision-Making 64
5.6 Identifying Boundary Conditions 65
5.7 Understanding How People React in Meetings 65
5.8 Working with Participants During the Meetings 66
5.9 Leadership Techniques During Meetings 67
5.10 Handling Problem-Solving and Decision-Making Conflicts 67
5.11 Continuous Solutions Versus Enhancement Project Solutions 68
5.12 Problem-Solving Versus Scope Creep 68
 Contents vii

5.13 P
 roblem-Solving and Decision-Making During Crisis Projects 69
5.14 Presenting Your Decision to the Customer 70
Discussion Questions 71
Reference 71

6 Developing Alternatives 73
6.0 Finding Alternatives 73
6.1 Variables to Consider During Alternative Analyses 74
6.2 Understanding the Features That Are Part of the Alternatives 74
6.3 Developing Hybrid Alternatives 75
6.4 Phantom Alternatives 75
6.5 Tradeoffs 76
6.6 Common Mistakes When Developing Alternatives 76
6.7 Decision-Making for Managing Scope Changes on Projects 77
Discussion Questions 80
Reference 80

7 Problem-Solving Creativity and Innovation 81

7.0 The Need for Problem-Solving Creativity 81
7.1 Creativity and Creative Thinking 81
7.2 Creativity and Innovation Thinking 82
7.3 Creativity, Innovation, and Value 82
7.4 Negative Innovation 83
7.5 Types of Innovation 83
7.6 Problem-Solving and Decision-Making Attributes That Are Difficult
to Learn 84
7.7 Creativity Roadblocks 84
Discussion Questions 85

8 Problem-Solving Tools and Techniques 87

8.0 Root Cause Analysis 87
8.1 General Principles of Root Cause Analysis 88
8.2 Corrective Actions Using Root Cause Analysis 88
8.3 Root Cause Analysis Techniques 89
8.4 Brainstorming 90
8.5 Rules for Brainstorming 90
8.6 Critical Steps in Brainstorming 91
8.7 Conducting the Brainstorming Session: The Process 92
8.8 Conducting the Brainstorming Session: Evaluation 92
8.9 Brainstorming Sessions: Nominal Group Technique 93
8.10 Brainstorming Sessions: Group Passing Technique 93
viii Contents

8.11 Brainstorming Sessions: Team Idea Mapping Method 94

8.12 Brainstorming Sessions: Electronic Brainstorming 94
8.13 Brainstorming Sessions: Directed Brainstorming 95
8.14 Brainstorming Sessions: Individual Brainstorming 96
8.15 Question Brainstorming 96
8.16 Reasons for Brainstorming Failure 96
8.17 Virtual Brainstorming Sessions 98
Discussion Questions 100

9 Decision-Making Concepts 101

9.0 Decision-Making Alternatives 101
9.1 Decision-Making Characteristics 102
9.2 Decision-Making Participation 102
9.3 Understanding How Decisions Are Made 103
9.4 Cultures and Problem Solving 103
9.5 Routine Decision-Making 104
9.6 Adaptive Decision-Making 104
9.7 Innovative Decision-Making 105
9.8 Pressured Decision-Making 105
9.9 Judgmental Decision-Making 106
9.10 Rational Decision-Making 106
9.11 Certainty/Uncertainty Decision-Making 107
9.12 Controllable/Noncontrollable Decision-Making 107
9.13 Programmed/Nonprogrammed Decision-Making 108
9.14 Decision-Making Meetings 110
9.15 Decision-Making Stages 110
9.16 Decision-Making Steps 111
9.17 Conflicts in Decision-Making 112
9.18 Advantages of Group Decision-Making 113
9.19 Disadvantages of Group Decision-Making 113
9.20 Rational Versus Intuitive Thinking 114
9.21 Divergent Versus Convergent Thinking 114
9.22 The Fear of Decision-Making: Mental Roadblocks 115
9.23 Decision-Making Personal Biases 116
9.24 The Danger of Hasty Decisions 116
9.25 Decision-Making Styles 117
9.26 The Autocratic Decision-Maker 117
9.27 The Fearful Decision-Maker 118
9.28 The Circular Decision-Maker 119
9.29 The Democratic Decision-Maker 119
9.30 The Self-Serving Decision-Maker 120
 Contents ix

9.31 Delegation of a Decision-Making Authority 120

9.32 Choice Elements of Decision-Making 121
9.33 Decision-Making Challenges 122
9.34 Examples of Decision-Making Challenges 123
Discussion Questions 126
­ References 127

10 Decision-Making Tools 129

10.0 Decision-Making Tools in Everyday Life 129
10.1 Use of Operations Research and Management Science Models 129
10.2 SWOT Analysis 130
10.3 Pareto Analysis 130
10.4 Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis 131
10.5 Paired Comparison Analysis 132
10.6 Decision Trees 132
10.7 Influence Diagrams 133
10.8 Affinity Diagrams 133
10.9 Game Theory 134
10.10 Cost-Benefit Analysis 134
10.11 Nominal Work Groups 135
10.12 Delphi Technique 136
10.13 Other Decision-Making Tools 136
10.14 Artificial Intelligence 137
10.15 Risk Management 140
Discussion Questions 142
­References 142

11 Predicting the Impact 143

11.0 Evaluating the Impact of a Decision 143
11.1 Creating a Consequence Table 143
11.2 Performing Impact Analysis 144
11.3 The Time to Implement a Solution 145
11.4 The Definitions for Project Success and Failure Are Changing 145
11.5 Project Decision-Making and Politics 149
Discussion Questions 150

12 The Need for Effective or Active Listening Skills 151

12.0 Active Listening 151
12.1 Active Listening Body Language and Communications 151
12.2 Active Listening Barriers Created by the Speaker 152
12.3 Active Listening Barriers Created by the Listener 152
x Contents

12.4 Overcoming Active Listening Barriers 153

12.5 Techniques for Effective Listening 153
Discussion Questions 154

13 Barriers 155
13.0 The Growth of Barriers 155
13.1 Lack of Concern for the Workers Barriers 157
13.2 Legal Barriers 160
13.3 Project Sponsorship Barriers 163
13.4 Cost of Implementation Barriers 165
13.5 Culture Barriers 166
13.6 Project Management Office (PMO) Barrier 168
13.7 Conclusion 169
Discussion Questions 169
References 170

Appendix: Using the PMBOK® Guide 173

Decision-Making and the PMBOK® Guide 173
Problem-Solving and the PMBOK® Guide 173
PMBOK® Guide: Integration Management 174
PMBOK® Guide: Scope Management 174
PMBOK® Guide: Time Management 175
PMBOK® Guide: Cost Management 175
PMBOK® Guide: Quality Management 176
PMBOK® Guide: Human Resource Management 176
PMBOK® Guide: Communications Management 177
PMBOK® Guide: Risk Management 177
PMBOK® Guide: Procurement Management 178
PMBOK® Guide: Stakeholder Management 178

Further Reading 181

Index 183
 xi

Preface

The environment in which the project managers perform has changed signifi-
cantly in the past three years due to COVID-19 pandemic and other factors. Our
projects have become more complex. There are new internal and external forces
that now impact how problems are solved. The importance of time and cost has
reached new heights in the minds of clients and stakeholders. Clients want to see
the value in the projects they are funding. All of this is creating challenges for
project managers in how they identify and resolve problems. To make matters
more complex, project managers are now seen as managing part of a business
when managing a project and are expected to make both project and business
decisions.
Decisions are no longer a single-person endeavor. Project managers are expected
to form problem-solving and decision-making teams. Most project managers have
never been trained in problem-solving, brainstorming, creative thinking tech-
niques, and decision-making. They rely on experience as the primary teacher.
While that sounds like a reasonable approach, it can be devastating if project man-
agers end up learning from their own mistakes rather than the mistakes of others.
It is a shame that companies are unwilling to invest even small portions of their
training budgets in these courses.
There are numerous books available on problem-solving and decision-making.
Unfortunately, they look at the issues from a psychological perspective with appli-
cations not always relevant to project and program managers. What I have
attempted to do with this book is extract the core concepts of problem-solving and
decision-making that would be pertinent to project managers and assist them
with their jobs.
Some books use the term problem analysis rather than problem-solving. Problem
analysis can be interpreted as simply looking at the problem and gathering the
facts, but not necessarily developing alternative solutions for later decision-making.
In this book, problem-solving is used throughout reflecting the identification of
alternatives as well.
xii Preface

Hopefully, after reading this book, you will have a better understanding and
appreciation for problem-solving and decision-making.
Seminars and webinars on project management, problem-solving, and decision-
making can be arranged by contacting

Lori Milhaven, CSPO

Executive Vice President, Strategic Programs
International Institute for Learning

Harold Kerzner
Senior Executive Director for Project Management,
International Institute for Learning, Inc. (IIL), USA
September 2023
About the Companion Website

This book is accompanied by a companion website:

www.wiley.com/go/kerzner/projectbasedproblemsolving
The website includes instructor manual and chapter wise
PowerPoints with extracts from the book for instructors
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
When, after removing the lens of the eye in the larval salamander,
we see it restored in perfect and typical form by regeneration from
the posterior layer of the iris, we behold an adaptive response to
changed conditions of which the organism can have no antecedent
experience either ontogenetic or phylogenetic, and one of so
marvelous a character that we are made to realize, as by a flash how
far we still are from a solution of this problem.” Then, after discussing
the attempt of evolutionists to bridge the enormous gap that
separates living, from lifeless nature, he continues: “But when all
these admissions are made, and when the conserving action (sic) of
natural selection is in the fullest degree recognized, we cannot close
our eyes to two facts: first, that we are utterly ignorant of the manner
in which the idioplasm of the germ cell can so respond to the
influence of the environment as to call forth an adaptive variation;
and second, that the study of the cell has on the whole seemed to
widen rather than to narrow the enormous gap that separates even
the lowest forms of life from the inorganic world.” (“The Cell,” 2nd
edit., pp. 433, 434.)

§ 5. A “New” Theory of Abiogenesis

Since true science is out of sympathy with baseless conjectures
and gratuitous assumptions, one would scarcely expect to find
scientists opposing the inductive trend of the known facts by
preferring mere possibilities (if they are even such) to solid
actualities. As a matter of fact, however, there are not a few who
obstinately refuse to abandon preconceptions for which they can find
no factual justification. The bio-chemist, Benjamin Moore, while
conceding the bankruptcy of the old theory of spontaneous
generation, which looked for a de novo origin of living cells in
sterilized cultures, has, nevertheless, the hardihood to propose what
he is pleased to term a new one. Impressed by the credulity of
Charlton Bastian and the autocratic tone of Schäfer, he sets out to
defend as plausible the hypothesis that the origination of life from
inert matter may be a contemporaneous, perhaps, daily,
phenomenon, going on continually, but invisible to us, because its
initial stages take place in the submicroscopic world. By the time life
has emerged into the visible world, it has already reached the stage
at which the law of genetic continuity prevails, but at stages of
organization, which lie below the limit of the microscope, it is not
impossible, he thinks, that abiogenesis may occur. To plausibleize
this conjecture, he notes that the cell is a natural unit composed of
molecules as a molecule is a natural unit composed of atoms. He
further notes, that, in addition to the cell, there is in nature another
unit higher than the monomolecule, namely, the multimolecule
occurring in both crystalloids and colloids. The monomolecule
consists of atoms held together by atomic valence, whereas the
multimolecule consists of molecules whose atomic valence is
completely saturated, and which are, consequently, held together by
what is now known as molecular or residual valence. Moore cites the
crystal units of sodium bromide and sodium iodide as instances of
multimolecules. The crystal unit of ordinary salt, sodium chloride, is
an ordinary monomolecule, with the formula NaCl. In the case of the
former salts the crystal units consist of multimolecules of the formula
NaB·(H2O)2 and NaI·(H2O)2, the water of crystallization not being
mechanically confined in the crystals, but combined with the
respective salt in the exact ratio of two molecules of water to one of
the salt. Judged by all chemical tests, such as heat of formation, the
law of combination in fixed ratios, the manifestation of selective
affinity, etc., the multimolecule is quite as much entitled to be
considered a natural unit as is the monomolecule.
But it is not in the crystalloidal multimolecule, but in the larger and
more complex multimolecule of colloids (viscid substances like gum
arabic, gelatine, agar-agar, white of egg, etc.), that Moore professes
to see a sort of intermediate between the cell and inorganic units.
Such colloids form with a dispersing medium (like water) an
emulsion, in which the dispersed particles, known as ultramicrons or
“solution aggregates,” are larger than monomolecules. It is among
these multimolecules of colloids that Moore would have us search for
a transitional link connecting the cell with the inorganic world.
Borrowing Herbert Spencer’s dogma of the complication of
homogeneity into heterogeneity, he asserts that such colloidal
multimolecules would tend to become more and more complex, and
consequently more and more instable, so that their instability would
gradually approach the chronic instability or constant state of
metabolic fluxion manifest in living organisms. The end-result would
be a living unit more simply organized than the cell, and evolution
seizing upon this submicroscopic unit would, in due time, transform it
into cellular life of every variety and kind. Ce n’est que le premier pas
qui coûte!
It should be noted that this so-called law is a mere vague formula
like the “law” of natural selection and the “law” of evolution. The facts
which it is alleged to express are not cited, and its terms are far from
being quantitative. It is certainly not a law in the sense of Arrhénius,
who says: “Quantitative formulation, that is, the establishing of a
connection, expressed by a formula, between different quantitatively
measurable magnitudes, is the peculiar feature of a law.” (“Theories
of Chemistry,” Price’s translation, p. 3.) Now, chemistry, as an exact
science, has no lack of laws of this kind, but no branch of chemistry,
whether physical, organic, or inorganic, knows of any law of
complexity, that can be stated in either quantitative, or descriptive,
terms. We will, however, let Moore speak for himself:
“It may then be summed up as a general law universal in its
application to all matter, ... a law which might be called the Law of
Complexity, that matter so far as its energy environment will permit
tends to assume more and more complex forms in labile equilibrium.
Atoms, molecules, colloids, and living organisms, arise as a result of
the operations of this law, and in the higher regions of complexity it
induces organic evolution and all the many thousands of living
forms....
“In this manner we can conceive that the hiatus between non-living
and living things can be bridged over, and there awakens in our
minds the conception of a kind of spontaneous production of life of a
different order from the old. The territory of this spontaneous
generation of life lies not at the level of bacteria, or animalculæ,
springing forth into life from dead organic matter, but at a level of life
lying deeper than anything the microscope can reveal, and
possessing a lower unit than the living cell, as we form our concept
of it from the tissues of higher animals and plants.
“In the future, the stage at which colloids begin to be able to deal
with external energy forms, such as light, and build up in chemical
complexity, will yield a new unit of life opening a vista of possibilities
as magnificent as that which the establishment of the cell as a unit
gave, with the development of the microscope, about a century ago.”
(“Origin and Nature of Life,” pp. 188-190.)
Having heard out a rhapsody of this sort, one may be pardoned a
little impatience at such a travesty on science. Again we have the
appeal from realities to fancies, from the seen to unseen. Moore
sees no reason to doubt and is therefore quite sure that an
unverified occurrence is taking place “at a level of life lying deeper
than anything the microscope can reveal.” The unknown is a
veritable paradise for irresponsible speculation and phantasy. It is
well, however, to keep one’s feet on the terra firma of ascertained
facts and to make one’s ignorance a motive for caution rather than
an incentive to reckless dogmatizing.
To begin with, it is not to a single dispersed particle or ultramicron
that protoplasm has been likened, but to an emulsion, comprising
both the dispersed particles and the dispersing medium, or, in other
words, to the colloidal system as a whole. Moreover, even there the
analogy is far from being perfect, and is confined exclusively, as
Wilson has pointed out, to a rough similarity of structure and
appearance. The colloidal system is obviously a mere aggregate and
not a natural unit like the cell, and its dispersed particles
(ultramicrons) do not multiply and perpetuate themselves by growth
and division as do the living components or formed bodies of the
cell. As for the single ultramicron or multimolecule of a colloidal
solution, it may, indeed, be a natural unit, but it only resembles the
cell in the sense that, like the latter, it is a complex of constituent
molecules. Here, however, all resemblance ceases; for the
ultramicron does not display the typically vital power of self-
perpetuation by growth and division, which, as we have seen, is
characteristic not only of the cell as a whole, but of its single
components or organelles. Certainly, the distinctive phenomena of
colloidal systems cannot be interpreted as processes of
multiplication. There is nothing suggestive of this vital phenomenon
in the reversal of phase, which is caused by the addition of
electrolytes to oil emulsions, or in gelation, which is caused by a
change of temperature in certain hydrophilic colloids. Thus the
addition of the salt of a bivalent cation (e.g. CaCl2 or BaCl2) to an oil-
in-water emulsion (if soap is used as the emulsifier) will cause the
external or continuous phase (water) to become the internal or
discontinuous phase. Vice versa, a water-in-oil emulsion can be
reversed into an oil-in-water emulsion, under the same conditions, by
the addition of the salt of a monovalent cation (e. g. NaOH).
Solutions of hydrophilic colloids, like gelatine or agar-agar, can be
made to “set” from the semifluid state of a hydrosol into the semisolid
state of a hydrogel, by lowering the temperature, after which the
opposite effect can be brought about by again raising the
temperature. In white of egg, however, once gelation has taken
place, through the agency of heat, it is impossible to reconvert the
“gel” into a “sol” (solution). In such phenomena, it is, perhaps,
possible to see a certain parallelism with some processes taking
place in the cell, e. g. the osmotic processes of absorption and
excretion, but to construe them as evidence of propagation by
growth and division would be preposterous.
Nor is the subterfuge of relegating the question to the obscurity of
the submicroscopic world of any avail; for, as a matter of fact,
submicroscopic organisms actually do exist, and manage, precisely
by virtue of this uniquely vital power of multiplication or
reproductivity, to give indirect testimony of their invisible existence.
The microörganisms, for example, which cause the disease known
as Measles are so minute that they pass through the pores of a
porcelain filter, and are invisible to the highest powers of the
microscope. Nevertheless, they can be bred in the test tube cultures
of the bacteriologist, where they propagate themselves for
generations without losing the definite specificity, which make them
capable of producing distinctive pathological effects in the organisms
of higher animals, including man. Each of these invisible disease
germs communicates but one disease, with symptoms that are
perfectly characteristic and definite. Moreover, they are specific in
their choice of a host, and will not infect any and every organism
promiscuously. Finally, they never arise de novo in a healthy host,
but must always be transmitted from a diseased to a healthy
individual. The microscopist is tantalized, to quote the words of
Wilson, “with visions of disease germs which no eye has yet seen,
so minute as to pass through a fine filter, yet beyond a doubt self-
perpetuating and of specific type.” (Science, March 9, 1923, p. 283.)
Submicroscopic dimensions, therefore, are no obstacle to the
manifestation of such vital properties as reproduction, genetic
continuity, and typical specificity; and we must conclude that, if any
of the ultramicrons of colloids possessed them, their minute size
would not debar them from manifesting the fact. As it is, they fail to
show any vital quality, whereas the submicroscopic disease germs
give evidence of possessing all the characteristics of visible cells.
In fine, the radical difference between inorganic units, like atoms,
molecules, and multimolecules, and living units, like protozoans and
metazoans, is so obvious that it is universally admitted. Not all,
however, are in accord when it comes to assigning the fundamental
reason for the difference in question. Benjamin Moore postulates a
unique physical energy, peculiar to living organisms and responsible
for all distinctively vital manifestations. This unique form of energy,
unlike all other forms, he calls “biotic energy,” denying at the same
time that it is a vital force. (Cf. op. cit., pp. 224-226.) Moore seems to
be desirous of dressing up vitalism in the verbal vesture of
mechanism. He wants the game, without the name. But, if his “biotic
energy” is unlike all other forms of energy, it ought not to parade
under the same name, but should frankly call itself a “vital force.”
Somewhat similar in nature is Osborn’s suggestion that the peculiar
properties of living protoplasm may be due to the presence of a
unique chemical element called Bion. (Cf. “The Origin and Evolution
of Life,” 1917, p. 6.) Now, a chemical element unlike other chemical
elements is not a chemical element at all. Osborn’s Bion, like
Moore’s biotic energy, ought, by all means, to make up its mind
definitely on Hamlet’s question of “to be, or not to be.” The policy of
“It is, and it is not,” is not likely to win the approval of either
mechanists or vitalists.

§ 6. Hylomorphism versus Mechanism and Neo-

vitalism
Mechanism and Neo-vitalism represent two extreme solutions of
this problem of accounting for the difference between living and
lifeless matter. Strictly speaking, it is an abuse of language to refer to
mechanism as a solution at all. Its first pretense at solving the
problem is to deny that there is any problem. But facts are facts and
cannot be disposed of in this summary fashion. Forced, therefore, to
face the actual fact of the uniqueness of living matter, mechanists
concede the inadequacy of their physicochemical analogies, but
obstinately refuse to admit the legitimacy of any other kind of
explanation. Confronted with realities, which simply must have some
explanation, they prefer to leave them unexplained by their own
theory than have them explained by any other. They recognize the
difference between a living animal and a dead animal (small credit to
them for their perspicacity!), but deny that there is anything present
in the former which is not present in the latter.
Neo-vitalism, on the other hand, is, at least, an attempt at solving
the problem in the positive sense. It ascribes the unique activities of
living organisms to the operation of a superphysical and
superchemical energy or force resident in living matter. This unique
dynamic principle is termed vital force. It is not an entitive nor a static
principle, but belongs to the category of efficient or active causes,
being variously described as an agent, energy, or force. To speak
precisely, the term agent denotes an active being or substance; the
term energy denotes the proximate ground in the agent of a specific
activity; while the term force denotes the activity or free, kinetic, or
activated phase of a given energy. In practice, however, these terms
are often used interchangeably. Thus Driesch, who, like all other
Neo-vitalists, makes the vital principle a dynamic factor rather than
an entitive principle, refers to the vital principle as a “non-material,”
“non-spatial” agent, though the term energy would be more precise.
To this active or dynamic vital principle Driesch gives a name, which
he borrowed from Aristotle, that is, entelechy. In so doing, however,
he perverted, as he himself confesses, the true Aristotelian sense of
the term in question: “The term,” he says, “ ... is not here used in the
proper Aristotelian sense.” (“History and Theory of Vitalism,” p. 203.)
His admission is quite correct. At the critical point, Driesch, for all his
praise of Aristotle, deserts the Stagirite and goes over to the camp of
Plato, Descartes, and the Neo-vitalists!
Driesch’s definition is as follows: “Entelechy is an agent sui
generis, non-material and non-spatial, but acting ‘into’ space.” (Op.
cit., p. 204.) Aristotle’s use of the term in this connection is quite
different. He uses it, for example, in a static, rather than a dynamic,
sense: “The term ‘entelechy,’” he says, “is used in two senses; in one
it answers to knowledge, in the other to the exercise of knowledge.
Clearly in this case it is analogous to knowledge.” (“Peri Psyches,”
Bk. II, c. 1.) Knowledge, however, is only a second or static
entelechy. Hence, in order to narrow the sense still further Aristotle
refers to the soul as a first entelechy, by which he designates a
purely entitive principle, that is, a constituent of being or substance
(cf. op. cit. ibidem). The first, or entitive, entelechy, therefore, is to be
distinguished from all secondary entelechies, whether of the dynamic
order corresponding to kinetic energy or force, or of the static order
corresponding to potential energy. Neither is it an agent, because it
is only a partial constituent of the total agent, that is, of the total
active being or substance. Hence, generally speaking, that which
acts (the agent) is not entelechy, but the total composite of entelechy
and matter, first entelechy being consubstantial with matter and not a
separate existent or being. In fine, according to Aristotelian
philosophy, entelechy (that is, “first” or “prime” entelechy) is not an
agent nor an energy nor a force. In other words, it is totally removed
from the category of efficient or active causes. The second difference
between Driesch and Aristotle with respect to the use of the term
entelechy lies in the fact that Driesch uses it as a synonym for the
soul or vital principle, whereas, according to Aristotle, entelechy is
common to the non-living units of inorganic nature as well as the
living units (organisms) of the organic world. All vital principles or
souls are entelechies, but not all entelechies are vital principles. All
material beings or substances, whether living or lifeless, are
reducible, in the last analysis, to two consubstantial principles or
complementary constituents, namely, entelechy and matter.
Entelechy is the binding, type-determining principle, the source of
unification and specification, which makes of a given natural unit
(such as a molecule or a protozoan) a single and determinate whole.
Matter is the determinable and potentially-multiple element, the
principle of divisibility and quantification, which can enter indifferently
into the composition of this or that natural unit, and which owes its
actual unity and specificity to the entelechy which here and now
informs it. It is entelechy which makes a chemical element distinct
from its isobare, a chemical compound distinct from its isomer, a
paramœcium distinct from an amœba, a maple distinct from an oak,
and a bear distinct from a tiger.
The molecular entelechy finds expression in what the organic
chemist and the stereochemist understand by valence, that is, the
static aspect of valence considered as the structural principle of a
molecule. Hence it is entelechy which makes a molecule of urea
[O:C:(NH2)2] an entirely different substance from its isomer
ammonium cyanate [NH4·O·C:N], although the material substrate of
each of these molecular units consists of precisely the same number
and kinds of atoms. Similarly, it is the atomic entelechy which gives
to the isotopes of Strontium chemical properties different from those
of the isotopes of Rubidium, although the mass and corpuscular
(electronic and protonic) composition of their respective atoms are
identical. It is the vital entelechy or soul, which causes a fragment
cut from a Stentor to regenerate its specific protoplasmic architecture
instead of the type which would be regenerated from a similar
fragment cut from another ciliate such as Dileptus.
In all the tridimensional units of nature, both living and non-living,
the hylomorphic analysis of Aristotle recognizes an essential dualism
of matter and entelechy. Hence it is not in the presence and absence
of an entelechy (as Driesch contends) that living organisms differ
from inorganic units. The sole difference between these two classes
of units is one of autonomy and inertia. The inorganic unit is inert,
not in the sense that it is destitute of energy, but in the sense that it
is incapable of self-regulation and rigidly dependent upon external
factors for the utilization of its own energy-content. The living unit, on
the other hand, is endowed with dynamic autonomy. Though
dependent, in a general way, upon environmental factors for the
energy which it utilizes, nevertheless the determinate form and
direction of its activity is not imposed in all its specificity by the
aforesaid environmental factors. The living being possesses a
certain degree of independence with respect to these external
forces. It is autonomous with a special law of immanent finality or
reflexive orientation, by which all the elements and energies of the
living unit are made to converge upon one and the same central
result, namely, the maintenance and development of the organism
both in its capacity as an individual and in its capacity as the
generative source of its racial type.
The entelechies of the inert units of inorganic nature turn the
forces of these units in an outward direction, so that they are
incapable of operating upon themselves, of modifying themselves, or
of regulating themselves. They are only capable of operating upon
other units outside themselves, and in so doing they irreparably
externalize their energy-contents. All physicochemical action is
transitive or communicable in character, whereas vital action is of the
reflexive or immanent type. Mechanical action, for example, is
intermolar (i.e. an exchange between large masses of inorganic
matter); physical action is intermolecular; chemical action is
interatomic; while in radioactive and electrical phenomena we have
intercorpuscular action. Hence all the forms of activity native to the
inorganic world are reducible to interaction between discontinuous
and unequally energized masses or particles. Always it is a case of
one mass or particle operating upon another mass or particle distinct
from, and spatially external to, itself. The effect or positive change
produced by the action is received into another unit distinct from the
agent or active unit, which can never become the receptive subject
of the effect generated by its own activity. The living being, on the
contrary, is capable of operating upon itself, so that what is modified
by the action is not outside the agent but within it. The reader does
not modify the book, but modifies himself by his reading. The blade
of grass can nourish not only a horse, but its very self, whereas a
molecule of sodium nitrate is impotent to nourish itself, and can only
nourish a subject other than itself, such as the blade of grass. Here
the active source and receptive subject of the action is one and the
same unit, namely, the living organism, which can operate upon itself
in the interest of its own perfection. In chemical synthesis two
substances interact to produce a third, but in vital assimilation one
substance is incorporated into another without the production of a
third. Thus hydrogen unites with oxygen to produce water. But in the
case of assimilation the reaction may be expressed thus: Living
protoplasm plus external nutriment equals living protoplasm
increased in quantity but unchanged in specificity. Addition or
subtraction alters the nature of the inorganic unit, but does not
change the nature of the living unit. In chemical change, entelechy is
the variant and matter is the constant, but in metabolic change,
matter is the variant and entelechy the constant. “Living beings,”
says Henderson, “preserve, or tend to preserve, an ideal form, while
through them flows a steady stream of energy and matter which is
ever changing, yet momentarily molded by life; organized, in short.”
(“Fitness of the Environment,” 1913, pp. 23, 24.) The living unit
maintains its own specific type amid a constant flux of matter and
flow of energy. It subjugates the alien substances of the inorganic
world, eliminates their mineral entelechies and utilizes their
components and energies for its own purposes. The soul or vital
entelechy, therefore, is more powerful than the entelechies of
inorganic units which it supplants. It turns the forces of living matter
inward, so that the living organism becomes capable of self-
regulation and of striving for the attainment of self-perfection. It is
this reflexive orientation of all energies towards self-perfection that is
the unique characteristic of the living being, and not the nature of the
energies themselves. The energies by which vital functions are
executed are the ordinary physicochemical energies, but it is the vital
entelechy or soul which elevates them to a higher plane of efficiency
and renders them capable of reflexive or vital action. There is, in
short, no such thing as a special vital force. The radical difference
between living and non-living units does not consist in the
possession or non-possession of an entelechy, nor yet in the
peculiar nature of the forces displayed in the execution of vital
functions, but solely in the orientation of these forces towards an
inner finality.

§ 7. The Definition of Life

Life, then, may be defined as the capacity of reflexive or self-
perfective action. In any action, we may distinguish four things: (1)
the agent, or source of the action; (2) the activity or internal
determination differentiating the agent in the active state from the
selfsame agent in the inactive state; (3) the patient or receptive
subject; (4) the effect or change produced in the patient by the
agent. Let us suppose that a boy named Tom kicks a door. Here Tom
is the agent, the muscular contraction in his leg is the activity, the
door is the patient or recipient, while the dent produced in the door is
the effect or change of which the action is a production. In this
action, the effect is produced not in the cause or agent, but in a
patient outside of, and distinct from, the agent, and the otherness of
cause and effect is consequently complete. Such an action is termed
transitive, which is the characteristic type of physicochemical action.
In another class of actions, however, (those, namely, that are
peculiar to living beings) the otherness of cause and effect is only
partial and relative. When the agent becomes ultimately the recipient
of the effect or modification wrought by its own activity, that is, when
the positive change produced by the action remains within the agent
itself, the action is called immanent or reflexive action. Since,
however, action and passion are opposites, they can coëxist in the
same subject only upon condition that said subject is differentiated
into partial otherness, that is, organized into a plurality of distinct and
dissimilar parts or components, one of which may act upon another.
Hence only the organized unit or organism, which combines unity or
continuity of substance with multiplicity and dissimilarity of parts is
capable of immanent action. The inorganic unit is capable only of
transitive action, whose effect is produced in an exterior subject
really distinct from the agent. The living unit or organism, however, is
capable of both transitive action and immanent (reflexive) action. In
such functions as thought and sensation, the living agent modifies
itself and not an exterior patient. In the nutritive or metabolic function
the living being perfects itself by assimilating external substances to
itself. It develops, organizes, repairs, and multiplies itself, holding its
own and perpetuating its type from generation to generation.
Life, accordingly, is the capacity of tending through any form of
reflexive action to an ulterior perfection of the agent itself. This
capacity of an agent to operate of, and upon, itself for the acquisition
of some perfection exceeding its natural equilibrial state is the
distinctive attribute of the living being. Left to itself, the inorganic unit
tends exclusively to conservation or to loss, never to positive
acquisition in excess of equilibrial exigencies; what it acquires it
owes exclusively to the action of external factors. The living unit, on
the contrary, strives in its vital operations to acquire something for
itself, so that what it gets it owes to itself and not (except in a very
general sense) to the action of external factors. All the actions of the
living unit, both upon itself and upon external matter, result sooner or
later in the acquisition on the part of the agent of a positive
perfection exceeding and transcending the mere exigencies of
equilibration. The inorganic agent, on the contrary, when in the state
of tension, tends only to return to the equilibrial state by alienation or
expenditure of its energy; otherwise, it tends merely to conserve, by
virtue of inertia, the state of rest or motion impressed upon it from
without. In the chemical changes of inorganic units, the tendency to
loss is even more in evidence. Such changes disrupt the integrity of
the inorganic unit and dissipate its energy-content, and the unit
cannot be reconstructed and recharged, except at the expense of a
more richly endowed inorganic unit. The living organism, however,
as we see in the case of the paramæcium undergoing endomixis, is
capable of counteracting exhaustion by recharging itself.
The difference between transitive and reflexive action is not an
accidental difference of degree, but an essential difference of kind. In
reflexive actions, the source of the action and the recipient of the
effect or modification produced by it are one and the same
substantial unit or being. In transitive actions, the receptive subject of
the positive change is an alien unit distinct from the unit, which puts
forth the action. Hence a reflexive action is not an action which is
less transitive; it is an action which is not at all transitive, but
intransitive. The difference, therefore, between the living organism,
which is capable of both reflexive and transitive action, and the
inorganic unit, which is only capable of transitive action, is radical
and essential. This being the case, an evolutionary transition from an
inert multimolecule to a reflexively-operating cell or cytode, becomes
inconceivable. Evolution might, at the very most, bring about
intensifications and combinations of the transitive agencies of the
physicochemical world, but never the volte face, which would be
necessary to reverse the centrifugal orientation of forces
characteristic of the inorganic unit into the centripetal orientation of
forces which makes the living unit capable of self-perfective action,
self-regulation, and self-renewal. The idea, therefore, of a
spontaneous derivation of living units from lifeless colloidal
multimolecules must be rejected, not merely because it finds no
support in the facts of experience, but also because it is excluded by
aprioristic considerations.

§ 8. An Inevitable Corollary
But, if inorganic matter is impotent to vitalize itself by means of its
native physicochemical forces, the inevitable alternative is that the
initial production of organisms from inorganic matter was due to the
action of some supermaterial agency. Certain scientists, like
Henderson of Harvard, while admitting the incredibility of
abiogenesis, prefer to avoid open conflict with mechanism and
materialism by declaring their neutrality. “But while biophysicists like
Professor Schäfer,” says Henderson, “follow Spencer in assuming a
gradual evolution of the organic from the inorganic, biochemists are
more than ever unable to perceive how such a process is possible,
and without taking any final stand prefer to let the riddle rest.”
(“Fitness of the Environment,” p. 310, footnote.) Not to take a
decisive stand on this question, however, is tantamount to making a
compromise with what is illogical and unscientific; for both logic and
the inductive trend of biological facts are arrayed against the
hypothesis of spontaneous generation.
In the first place, it is manifest that organic life is neither self-
explanatory nor eternal. Hence it must have had its origin in the
action of some external agency. Life as it exists today depends upon
the precedence of numerous unbroken chains of consecutive cells
that extend backward into a remote past. It is, however, a logical
necessity to put an end to this retrogradation of the antecedents
upon which the actual existence of our present organisms depends.
The infinite cannot be spanned by finite steps; the periodic life-
process could not be relayed through an unlimited temporal
distance; and a cellular series which never started would never
arrive. Moreover, we do not account for the existence of life by
extending the cellular series interminably backward. Each cell in
such a series is derived from a predecessor, and, consequently, no
cell in the series is self-explanatory. When it comes to accounting for
its own existence, each cell is a zero in the way of explanation, and
adding zeros together indefinitely will never give us a positive total.
Each cell refers us to its predecessor for the explanation of why it
exists, and none contains within itself the sufficient explanation of its
own existence. Hence increasing even to infinity the number of these
cells (which fail to explain themselves) will give us nothing else but a
zero in the way of explanation. If, therefore, the primordial cause
from which these cellular chains are suspended is not the agency of
the physicochemical forces of inorganic nature, it follows that the first
active cause of life must have been a supermaterial and
extramundane agency, namely, the Living God and Author of Life.
As a matter of fact, no one denies that life has had a beginning on
our globe. The physicist teaches that a beginning of our entire solar
system is implied in the law of the degradation of energy, and
various attempts have been made to determine the time of this
beginning. The older calculations were based on the rate of solar
radiation; the more recent ones, however, are based on quantitative
estimates of the disintegration products of radioactive elements.
Similarly, the geologist and the astronomer propound theories of a
gradual constitution of the cosmic environment, which organic life
requires for its support, and all such theories imply a de novo origin
or beginning of life in the universe. Thus the old nebular hypothesis
of Laplace postulated a hot origin of our solar system incompatible
with the coëxistence of organic life, which, as the experiments of
Pasteur and others have shown, is destroyed, in all cases, at a
temperature just above 45° Centigrade (113° Fahrenheit). Even the
enzymes or organic catalysts, which are essential for bio-chemical
processes, are destroyed at a temperature between 60° and 70°
Centigrade. This excludes the possibility of the
contemporaneousness of protoplasm and inorganic matter, and
points to a beginning of life in our solar system. Moreover,
independently of this theory, the geologist sees in the primitive
crystalline rocks (granites, diorites, basalts, etc.) and in the extant
magmas of volcanoes evidences of an azoic age, during which
temperatures incompatible with the survival of even the blue-green
algæ or the most resistent bacterial spores must have prevailed over
the surface of the globe. In fact, it is generally recognized by
geologists that the igneous or pyrogenic rocks, which contain no
fossils, preceded the sedimentary or fossiliferous rocks. The new
planetesimal hypothesis, it is true, is said to be compatible with a
cold origin of the universe. Nevertheless, this theory assumes a very
gradual condensation of our cosmos out of dispersed gases and star
dust, whereas life demands as the sine qua non condition of its
existence a differentiated environment consisting of a lithosphere, a
hydrosphere, and an atmosphere. Hence, it is clear that life did not
originate until such an appropriate environment was an
accomplished fact. All theories of cosmogony, therefore, point to a
beginning of life subsequent to the constitution of the inorganic
world.
Now, it is impossible for organic life to antecede itself. If, therefore,
it has had a beginning in the world, it must have had a first active
cause distinct from itself; and the active cause, in question, must,
consequently, have been either something intrinsic, or something
extrinsic, to inorganic matter. The hypothesis, however, of a
spontaneous origin of life through the agency of forces intrinsic to
inorganic matter is scientifically untenable. Hence it follows that life
originated through the action of an immaterial or spiritual agent,
namely, God, seeing that there is no other assignable agency
capable of bringing about the initial production of life from lifeless
matter.

§ 9. Futile Evasions
Many and various are the efforts made to escape this issue. One
group of scientists, for example, attempt to rid themselves of the
difficulty by diverting our attention from the problem of a beginning of
organic life in the universe to the problem of its translation to a new
habitat. This legerdemain has resulted in the theories of cosmozoa
or panspermia, according to which life originates in a favorable
environment, not by reason of spontaneous generation, but by
reason of importation from other worlds. This view has been
presented in two forms: (1) the “meteorite” theory, which represents
the older view held by Thomson and Helmholtz; (2) the more recent
theory of “cosmic panspermia” advocated by Svante Arrhénius, with
H. E. Richter and F. J. Cohn as precursors. Sir Wm. Thompson
suggested that life might have been salvaged from the ruins of other
worlds and carried to our own by means of meteorites or fragments
thrown off from life-bearing planets that had been destroyed by a
catastrophic collision. These meteorites discharged from bursting
planets might carry germs to distant planets like the earth, causing
them to become covered with vegetation. Against this theory stands
the fatal objection that the transit of a meteorite from the nearest
stellar system to our own would require an interval of 60,000,000
years. It is incredible that life could be maintained through such an
enormous lapse of time. Even from the nearest planet to our earth
the duration of the journey would be 150 years. Besides, meteorites
are heated to incandescence while passing through the atmosphere,
and any seeds they might contain would perish by reason of the heat
thus generated, not to speak of the terrific impact, which terminates
the voyage of a meteorite.
 Arrhénius suggests a method by which microörganisms might be
conveyed through intersidereal space with far greater dispatch and
without any mineral vehicle such as a meteorite. He notes that
particles of cosmic dust leave the sun as a coronal atmosphere and
are propelled through intervening space by the pressure of radiation
until they reach the higher atmosphere of the earth (viz. at a height
of 100 kilometers from the surface of the latter), where they become
the electrically charged dust particles of polar auroras (v.g. the
aurora borealis). The motor force, in this case, is the same as that
which moves the vanes of a Crookes’ radiometer. Lebedeff has
verified Clerk-Maxwell’s conceptions of this force and has
demonstrated its reality by experiments. It is calculated that in the
immediate vicinity of a luminous surface like that of the sun the
pressure exerted by radiation upon an exposed surface would be
nearly two milligrams per square centimeter. On a nontransparent
particle having a diameter of 1.5 microns, the pressure of radiation
would just counterbalance the force of universal gravitation, while on
particles whose diameter was 0.16 of a micron, the pressure of
radiation would be ten times as great as the pull of gravitation. Now
bacterial spores having a diameter of O.3 to O.2 of a micron are
known to bacteriologists, and the ultramicroscope reveals the
presence of germs not more than O.1 of a micron in size.[11] Hence it
is conceivable that germs of such dimensions might be wafted to
limits of our atmosphere, and might then be transported by the
pressure of radiation to distant planets or stellar systems, provided,
of course, they could escape the germicidal action of oxidation,
desiccation, ultra-violet rays, etc. Arrhénius calculates that their
journey from the earth to Mars would, under such circumstances,
occupy a period of only 20 days. Within 80 days they could reach
Jupiter, and they might arrive at Neptune on the confines of our solar
system after an interval of 3 weeks. The transit to the constellation of
the Centaur, which contains the solar system nearest to our own (the
one, namely, whose central sun is the star Alpha), would require
9,000 years.
Arrhénius’ theory, however, that “life is an eternal rebeginning”
explains nothing and leaves us precisely where we were. In the
metaphysical as well as the scientific sense, it is an evasion and not
a solution. To the logical necessity of putting an end to the
retrogradation of the subalternate conditions, upon which the
realities of the present depend for their actual existence, we have
already adverted. Moreover, the reasons which induce the scientist
to postulate a beginning of life in our world are not based on any
distinctive peculiarity of that world, but are universally applicable, it
being established by the testimony of the spectroscope that other
worlds are not differently constituted than our own. Hence Schäfer
voices the general attitude of scientific men when he says: “But the
acceptance of such theories of the arrival of life on earth does not
bring us any nearer to a conception of its actual mode of origin; on
the contrary, it merely serves to banish the investigation of the
question to some conveniently inaccessible corner of the universe
and leaves us in the unsatisfactory condition of affirming not only
that we have no knowledge as to the mode of origin of life—which is
unfortunately true—but that we never can acquire such knowledge—
which it is to be hoped is not true. Knowing what we know, and
believing what we believe, ... we are, I think (without denying the
possibility of the existence of life in other parts of the universe),
justified in regarding these cosmic theories as inherently
improbable.” (Dundee Address of 1912, cf. Smithson. Inst. Rpt. for
1912, p. 503.)
Dismissing, therefore, all evasions of this sort, we may regard as
scientifically established the conclusion that, so far as our knowledge
goes, inorganic nature lacks the means of self-vivification, and that
no inanimate matter can become living matter without first coming
under the influence of matter previously alive. Given, therefore, that
the conditions favorable to life did not always prevail in our cosmos,
it follows that life had a beginning, for which we are obliged to
account by some postulate other than abiogenesis. This conclusion
seems inescapable for those who concede the scientific absurdity of
spontaneous generation, but, by some weird freak of logic, not only
is it escaped, but the very opposite conclusion is reached through
reasoning, which the exponents are pleased to term philosophical,
as distinguished from scientific, argumentation. The plight of these
“hard-headed worshippers of fact,” who plume themselves on their
contempt for “metaphysics,” is sad indeed. Worsted in the
experimental field, they appeal the case from the court of facts to
that aprioristic philosophy. “Physic of metaphysic begs defence, and
metaphysic calls for aid on sense!”
Life, they contend, either had no beginning or it must have begun
in our world as the product of spontaneous generation. But all the
scientific theories of cosmogony exclude the former alternative.
Consequently, not only is it not absurd to admit spontaneous
generation, but, on the contrary, it is absurd not to admit it. It is in this
frame of mind that August Weismann is induced to confide to us
“that spontaneous generation, in spite of all the vain attempts to
demonstrate it, remains for me a logical necessity.” (“Essays,” p. 34,
Poulton’s Transl.) The presupposition latent in all such logic is, of
course, the assumption that nothing but matter exists; for, if the
possibility of the existence of a supermaterial agency is conceded,
then obviously we are not compelled by logical necessity to ascribe
the initial production of organic life to the exclusive agency of the
physicochemical energies inherent in inorganic matter. Weismann
should demonstrate his suppressed premise that matter coincides
with reality and that spiritual is a synonym for nonexistent. Until such
time as this unverified and unverifiable affirmation is substantiated,
the philosophical proof for abiogenesis is not an argument at all, it is
dogmatism pure and simple.
But, they protest, “To deny spontaneous generation is to proclaim
a miracle” (Nägeli), and natural science cannot have recourse to
“miracles” in explaining natural phenomena. For the “scientist,”
miracles are always absurd as contradicting the uniformity of nature,
and to recur to them for the solution of a scientific problem is, to put
it mildly, distinctly out of the question. Hence Haeckel regards
spontaneous generation as more than demonstrated by the bare
consideration that no alternative remains except the unspeakable
scientific blasphemy implied in superstitious terms like “miracle,”
“creation,” and “supernatural.” For a “thinking man,” the mere
mention of these abhorrent words is, or ought to be, argument
enough. “If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookmass.com