Page:Conservationofen00stew.djvu/212

 as some would have us, discard the term vital force. There are two opposite errors on this subject: one is the old error of regarding vital force as something innate, underived, having no relation to the other forces of Nature; the other is the new error of regarding the forces of the living body as nothing but ordinary physical and chemical forces, and therefore insisting that the use of the term vital force is absurd and injurious to science. The old error is still prevalent in the popular mind, and still haunts the minds of many physiologists; the new error is apparently a revulsion from the other, and is therefore common among the most advanced scientific minds. There are many of the best scientists who ridicule the use of the term vital force, or vitality, as a remnant of superstition; and yet the same men use the words gravity, magnetic force, chemical force, physical force, etc. Vital force is not underived—is not unrelated to other forces—is, in fact, correlated with them; but it is nevertheless a distinct form of force, far more distinct than any other form, unless it be still higher forms, and therefore better entitled to a distinct name than any lower form. Each form of force gives rise to a peculiar group of phenomena, and the study of these to a peculiar department of science. Now, the group of phenomena called vital is more peculiar, and more different from other groups, than these are from each other; and the science of physiology is a more distinct