632 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. LIV. No. 1408. 



portion as assertion and retort do not have 

 to wait for the infrequent opportunities of 

 formal publication, hampered by the formid- 

 able permanence of the printed word. At 

 the present moment England is fortunate 

 in this respect. London, Oxford and Cam- 

 bridge are within easy reach of each other, 

 and provide a common school of debate which 

 rivals schools of the ancient and medieval 

 worlds." The authors of the first and last 

 books under review have evidently profited 

 much by such frequent interchange of opin- 

 ion and this matching of judgment to op- 

 posed judgment. Doubtless some parts of 

 the other two books would have been 

 modified if their authors had more freely 

 discussed certain controversial points with 

 persons of a different opinion. This applies 

 particularly to the philosophic aspects of the 

 books, but does not affect their more positive 

 contributions. 



The philosophical part of " L'Unite de la 

 Science" is not strong. It is sometimes 

 naive. In particular, the psychological theory 

 underlying the first chapter is far from being 

 satisfactory. But numerous scientific theor- 

 ies and experiments are analyzed in a way 

 to be profitable. For M. Leclero du Sablon 

 unity of science is a unity of method. The 

 scientific method, par excellence, is the ex- 

 perimental method. Working himself in the 

 field of biology, where deduction is less fre- 

 quently used than in several other disciplines, 

 he has failed to grasp its whole importance. 

 The experimental character of science is em- 

 phasized to the detriment of its rational 

 character. The author insists (wrongly we 

 think) that all reasoning, even that of in- 

 duction, can be reduced to the form of syl- 

 logism. A first demand for science is its 

 objectivity. The principle of causality (both 

 direct and inverse) lies at the root of all 

 science. Phenomena are irreversible. Be- 

 ginning with arithmetic and geometry, the 

 author analyzes, from the point of view of 

 unity, each of the several fundamental 

 sciences of nature. He devotes one chapter 

 to the moral sciences. He sums up his prin- 

 cipal findings in a useful conclusion of ten 



pages. The book is interesting and valuable; 

 but it does not reach the height of being an 

 inspiring contribution to the philosophy of 

 science. 



The fKurpose of Henderson's " Order of 

 Nature " is more restricted. This essay pro- 

 fesses to demonstrate the " existence of a 

 new order among the properties of matter " 

 and to " examine the teleological character of 

 this order." Modern science is said to have 

 failed to make a systematic study of adapta- 

 bility, which (it is maintained) is at bottom 

 " a physical and chemical problem uncom- 

 plicated by the riddle of life," even though it 

 is true that " the organism and the environ- 

 ment each fits and is fitted by the other." 

 The author asks, " What are the physical and 

 chemical origins of diversity among inor- 

 ganic and organic things, and how shall the 

 adaptability of matter and energy be de- 

 scribed ? " To this question he reaches an 

 answer with such remarkable ease as almost 

 to cast doubt upon its validity; nevertheless 

 it must be admitted that he has marshaled 

 much evidence for his conclusion. 



" Wliat is known with certainty about the 

 history of the earth enables us to see that a 

 few elements, and especially the four organic 

 ones, are the chief factors. Among these 

 nitrogen plays a somewhat subordinate role, 

 especially in the mineral kingdom, while 

 hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen, notably as 

 constituents of water and carbon dioxide, are 

 almost everywhere of equal importance." 

 After discussing rather fully the character- 

 istics of the latter three elements the author 

 says, " We are therefore led to the hypothesis 

 that the properties of the three elements are 

 somehow a preparation for the evolutionary 

 process. In truth this is the only explana- 

 tion of the connection which is at present 

 imaginable. . . . The connection between 

 the properties of the three elements and the 

 evolutionary process is teleological and non- 

 mechanical." 



Each of the four authors under review is 

 evidently convinced of the truth of what one 

 of them (Henderson) states explicitly, 

 namely, that " men of science can no longer 



