The induction shock would not have produced the characteristic effect had not the other conditions been already previously combined, had not certain special atoms in the molecule of the explosive combination in consequence of former processes assumed quite a peculiar labile position, had not in the evolution of the muscle in the growth and metabolism certain combinations been formed, and certain chemical processes taken place. Therefore if I do not analyze these previously existing processes and the conditions brought about by them in the system of the explosive substances or the muscle, and simply know the condition added last, then I have learned nothing of the process itself, have _explained_ nothing. The time of application of a new condition does not justify in any degree the assignment of a dominant position to a factor. But more: in many cases there is not a question at all of the _addition_ of a process to an existing state, but rather of the _simultaneous_ interference of two or more processes. Several conditions can appear at the _same_ time. In other cases the sequence of the combination can be reversed. Which then is the cause? Has the process several causes, or has it no cause? Here one sees plainly to what absurd results it leads if time alone is used as a basis of the conception of cause. To illustrate this I return to the case of the liberation of carbon dioxide from carbonate of sodium. I place anhydrous carbonate of sodium in a beaker and add hydrochloric acid. The carbon dioxide escapes. Here the addition of hydrochloric acid would be assumed to be the cause of the freeing of the gas. Then I put hydrochloric acid in a beaker and add carbonate of sodium. The same process takes place, but now the addition of _carbonate of sodium_ would be considered the cause for the formation of gas. Now I put both simultaneously into a beaker. Again the same process. Which was now the cause? Has the process now _two_ or has it _no_ cause at all? Finally I put anhydrous carbonate of sodium and hydrochloric acid in ether solution into the beaker. The formation of gas does not take place, and _yet_ both causes for this formation of gas are present, the carbonate of sodium and the hydrochloric acid. Only when I add water to the mixture does the formation of carbon dioxide take place. Here water would be considered the cause. Hence every condition would be in succession the cause for one and the same process. Under some circumstances the same process would have _several_ and in others _no_ cause at all. It is scarcely necessary for further comments upon the value of the conception of cause for the scientific explanation of a state or process. If we do not seek to introduce into exact science the antiquated symbols which have become useless and belong to a primitive phase of development of human thought, there cannot be a moment’s doubt that a strict scientific analysis in whatever field of investigation it may be carried on can consist only