The San Francisco call., 1910-01-30
SCIENTISTS CLASH
ON ATOMIC THEORY
Berkeley Philosopher Assails
Doctrine and Denies the
Existence of Soul
Noted Physicist Defends Old
Teachings and Beliefs
Against "AgnOsticism" 3

BERKELEY. Jan. 29.-Forecasting
the birth of new philosophy and a
new science from the abandonment of
the belief in the soul, Prof Harry A.
Overstreet of the department of phi
losophy in the University of California
astounded scientists, philosophers and
ministers at public meeting last night
under the auspices of the Philosophical
union. He subjected the atomic theory
to scathing criticism and eliminated it
from the cosmic scheme. In conelu-
sion he reduced all the phenomena of
life to the basis of sensory experience
and designated all other theories. such
as belief in a soul, as ''of little or no
value"
The lecture was delivered at the
/ first monthly meeting of the Philo
sophfcal union in the assembly hall of
the philosophy building. number of
ministers of Berkeley churches, includ-
ing Rev. Edward Lamb Parsons, Rev.
w. R. Hodgkin and others were pres
ent
! Prof. E P. Lewis, astronomer and
| physicist, was appointed, according to
custom, to open the discussion at the
close of the paper by Doctor Over
street, and a merry war occurred when
| the two savants locked horns over the
atomic theory
Professor Lewis opened his attack
by calling the new doctrine of "Ener
getics" advanced by Professor over
street a fad among physicists of a
decade past" and barren agnos-
ticism.'
Professor Lewis was followed by a
visitor, who expressed surprise and
bewilderment at hearing so startling
an attack on the generally accepted
truths of philosophy and metaphysics
in the halls of idealism' as those made
! by Professor Overstreet.
ACCEPTED TRUTHS ATTACKED
Professor Overstreet based his ad-
dress on the subject, Philosophy and
the Concept of Mechanism. He said in
part:
There are perhaps three main
reasons why we are not interested
/ today in the problems as to
whether the universe is machine
operating automatically through
the interaction of forces and laws,
or the representation of an idea of
an absolute being beyond and out
side it, l will take up the rest
of my time discussing these.
The first reason is that the phys
ical sciences, which in the past car
ried on the warfare for mechanism.
are not certain what they mean by
/ mechanism. The second is that
healthy skepticism has developed
concerning the worth and value Of
absolute theories to explain the
universe There is a grave doubt
of the possibility of finding out
such a final explanation, and dis
behef in the worth of cropping be-
mind the curtain of the sensuous
| world as we find it.
The third reason is that the spirit
of the age has changed. We believe
In progress. We do not think OF.
| the universe as completed and nm
| ished, and the old mechanistic
| theorists had some such idea Their
age was analytic. ours is synthetic.
The genius of today is biological
Their theories We're to explain
static universe, ours 60 explain
dynamic universe.
DISCUSSES ATOMIC THEORY
To return to the first division of
my subject, science does not know
what IL means by mechanism as
philosophic concept. The atomic
theory is case in point. The
atom was invented TO meet GER
tain need. 1t was ina aginary
entity. The atom was alone, dis
crete. separated from every other
! atom. And yet it operated on
| others. If it could not go outside
itself, how could this occur? To
meet this difficulty, ether was in
vented. The atom had arisen out
| of something that was continuous
| and undifferentiated. Where did
! the differentiation commence? In
soluble difficulties presented them
selves. The atsmic theory raised
to ontological significance proved
a grave danger in philosophy.
Science has now come to look
upon the world as an organization
of activities. The idea of an atom
entity had TO be abandoned The
| existence of matter as a thing in
itself became philosophical alb
straction, There is now neither
! excuse nor need for the idea of the
| soul. 1t is sorry remnant of
| The organization must be re-
| garded as togethernesS of ener-
gies, attributes and activities. We
fear of losing this togetherness.
But it is only of this that we have
actual knowledge through expert
mental means. and we must get
back to experience and the senses
as the primary solid foundation
from which TO work.
ELIMINATES SOUL
The traditional ideal of the soul
| has labored under the same diff
culties as the atomic theory. The
philosopher must simply describe
and account for the togetherneSs
| and eliminate the soul entity as
product of mechanical idealism.
1t is only when the philosopher
does this that he may hope to earn
the respect and cooperation of the
natural scientist And il is out of
some such study that the new phil
osophy and science to meet the
I
age must be born.
Prof E. Percival Lewis, physicist
and astronomer, who accompanied the
Crocker astronomical expedition to
Flint island year ago. heard in silence
Professor Overstreet's denunciation of
matter, soul and mind and saw the
atomic theory relegated to the scrap
heap.
When Overstreet had finished reading
his paper, however. Professor Lewis
challenged the statements of the uni
versity philosopher. He said that the
doctrine of Emergencies had been dis
carded by physicists years ago and that
its inventor. Oswald, was writing text
books for children"
Doctor Lewis asserted that Over
streets view of the atomic theory
savored of that of the faddist who
knew little Of its worth to the realm
of practical reality.
Professor Lewis consented. however.
to make his peace with his colleague
of the department of philosophy if the
latter would withdraw what he said
about the atomic theory. and Professor
rxr-. 11rr-