New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-10-04
NEW PUBLICATIONS.
MIND IN ANIMALS.

THE SPIRIT OF BEAUTY. Essays Scientific and
Aesthetic BY HENRY W. PARKER Emo PIP
252 John Il. Alden
In the first two essays of this book-and these
alone propose to noticcProfesSor Parker attacks
the theory OF animal intelligence so ably developed
by DR.. J. G. Romancs. Professor Parker poses as
q champion of the theological doctrine ana u IS
necessary TO remember this, inasmuch as the Ten
dency Of his argument IS TO set up the au'oma'ism
Of Descartes-a hypothesis the most destructive OF
all spiritual beliefs capable of being held II is true
that the Professor attempts 10 deny the Inevitable
and logical conclusions of his positions; but this
denial is too obviously futile to have any effect NO
man who holds that animals are automaa can
escape the implication Of human analogy, nor docs
Professor Parker escape It. His argument Is GU
riousy unscentfc, Astounding in gratuitous assump-
TONS unverifed assertions dogmatic statements and
eyasions Of the vital points of his opponents po-
sitions.
The writer who undertakes to prove that animals
do not possess intelligence has given himself an i'm
practicable task unless he is prepared to 60 the full
length of his implications, and deny equally TO man
the faculties he refuses TO the lower creation Pro
lessor Parker, however, will not consent to DO logical
or onsstent He IS for juggling with words shutting
@instnctr and intelligence" backward and forward
calling all manifestations of conscious choice or edit
cation by experience in animals, instinct, and all
similar manifest aons in the human race intelligence
OF course any who is prepared to play fast ana
loose with language in that fashion can fabrcatc the
semblance of plausible case, but no such fabrication
will bear ANALYSIS for moment. Hero IS a specimen
of Mr. Parkcr's methods: Huxley is right brues
are virtually automatons, but sensitive rather than
conscious as we can understand consciousness; and
tho insinuation that this automatism may apply 10
man amounts nothing long as man is CONSCIOUSLY
rational free and responsible" Now, what does ihis
mean? As matter of course, Professor Parker mas
no knowledge of what is going on in any animals
mind no more knowledge than he has OF what Is
Going on in the mind of any human being with whom
he is not I'm communication. As matter OF lact' en-
tena manifestation is the only means avallaplo LOT
deriving impressions to the intelligence OF any Nv
ine creature, or animal We conclude ''a'
animals possess intelligence only because they are
canabe of external manifestations which We perceive
H. be akin to or Identical with those external mani
festatlons which in man create in us the impression
Of intelligence. IT, therefore, these manifestations IN
animals arc not to be accepted as indicating lhteh
conce neither can they be accepted in the case OF
ran Again we should like to be informed how Pro
lessor Parker knows that animals are not consciously
rational free and responsible" Obviously he does
not and cannot know and yet-or perhaps, therefore
he dogmatizeS
He places dogs on a level with idiots and imfccileS
Can any definition be more eXtravagant? Between
bright dog and a human idiot there is an mpassaoo
gulf the gulf which exists between healthy, CO
ordlnated functions and diseased and discordant
functions The intelligence OF the dog is restricted
lut clear, and thoroughly adapted to the animal
needs The intelligence of tine idiot IS aborted ana
cannot serve him to sustain life under the simplest
conditions There is, In fact, as much difference De
tween a bright dog and an idiot as between
the latter and bright child But the
arguments and nlust VtOns employed by Pro
fessor Parker arc often quite amazing. Thus
he observes Of what he Is pleased 10 term the quasi
reasoning of animals that It "does not observably
progress I'm individuals for life and in the species Tor
ages whereas man. always as an individual, at least
in early life and generally as race is always ah-
yancing or recedng in intelligence however slowly
Now in the first place, it IS a sufficient answer 10
this to point out that knowledge of animal life
Is far too imperfect the period of observation far TOO
brief to warrant render possible Trustworthy con
illusions as 10 animal progress In the second place
the hypothesis that animal intelligence Is far less
than human and that like human intelligence, It
has strict limits, is quite compatible with all the
known facts and entirely capable of upsetting Pro
fessor Parker's fantastic views. In the third place
when we find ants living in communisuc ordered
lives and preserving, far as we can perceive
regular social systems, have right TO infer that
the insects have gradually improved their conditions
and that they have learned by experience, for this Is
what we should infer from similar human actions