other actually to be organisms. Failure to grasp and keep constantly in mind this distinction is a source of endless confusion and misunderstanding because:
a) Analogies are useful tools of thought in attempting to understand complex relations. ". . . . for those things which are in themselves new can yet be only understood from some analogy to what is old;" (Bacon, Novum Organum, Bohn's Library Ed., p. 388.)
b) But analogies may mislead in interpretation, and are very dangerous in constructive thought.
c) The mistake, therefore, of accepting the abstract idea of organism, and then shifting one's position to make concrete applications to any particular type of organism, is to be carefully guarded against.
4. The arguments for and against the organic theory.
In defense of this conception it is claimed:
a) That in its generalized form it is in essential harmony with reality.
b) That as an analogy it is a necessary mode of thought, throwing light on most complex relations, and affording a criterion for comparison.
c) That at least until a new nomenclature is decided upon and given a precise meaning, biological terms such as structure, function, differentiation, etc., are the best available.
On the other hand it is asserted of the organic theory:
a) That, sufficiently abstracted, it becomes empty and formal.
b) That analogies are likely to mislead or confuse rather than give direction and promote clearness of thought.
c) That biological language connotes too much and should be abandoned as quickly as possible for a new technical vocabulary.
5. Conclusion. It is difficult to combine into definite statements the results of these differences of view. The following propositions seem justified:
