MODERN SCIENCE 17 



librarian under some such heading as ' Philosophy 

 \ of Science ' or ' Scientific Theory ' rather than in the 

 \ class of Science proper. These works serve to empha- 

 ( size once again the close relation of Greek Science 

 with Philosophy and to demonstrate the tempera- 

 I mental distaste of the Greek mind for the separation of tf 

 \a part of the Universe to be considered in and by 

 (itself. 



But there is a second group of Greek scientific writ- 

 ings, consisting mainly of biological works, which exhibit 

 another aspect. This group is best illustrated by such 

 works as Aristotle's History of Animals or his Genera- 

 tion of Animals. These works contain a host of valuable 

 observations that is still not exhausted. From time to 

 time recent observations made by naturalists are found 

 on due investigation to have been anticipated by the 

 Greek philosopher. 



But why should such constant re-investigation be 

 necessary? Why cannot we take one of these great 

 biological works of Aristotle as a whole and either verify/' 

 or reject his conclusions ? Why should these justifica- 

 tions of his powers as a naturalist turn up only from 

 time to time? Many competent scholars and men of 

 Science have examined and commented on the Aristo- 

 telian writings. Why have none of them thoroughly 

 re- investigated the field of Aristotle's Biology once and 

 for all, and then drawn up for us a clear statement of 

 where he can and where he cannot be safely trusted ? 



The^.a&swer~to these qupsti n n g li**s in the nature of 

 the Greek scientific method, and that answer contains, 

 to my mind, the second main distinction between Ancient 

 Science and Modern Science and the ultimate explana- 

 tion of the failure and bankruptcy of the ancient system. 



It is sometimes said that Greek Science failed because 



