Apedc 10, 1908] 



SCIENCE 



581 



the other hand, the second is the conclusion 

 accepted by the idealist and phenomenalist in 

 philosophy and even by some of the scientists. 



The present volume proves to be really an 

 endeavor to make a contribution in support of 

 the first position. However, the argument by 

 which the author supports this view consists 

 only in an account of the grosser structure of 

 the cosmical universe which he presents by 

 relating the more important historical dis- 

 coveries in astronomy and physics. The 

 major portion of the book is, then, only a 

 rewritten history of astronomy; a few other 

 chapters are added treating of speculative, yet 

 germane subjects, such as the origin of life, 

 etc. In its production, too, it is evident that 

 little if any recourse has been had to original 

 sources; indeed, it is not a scholarly work in 

 an academic sense, nor is it a scientific con- 

 tribution. Nevertheless, it is an example of a 

 kind of work that deserves a welcome, and not 

 discouragement, from academic circles. For, 

 although Mr. Snyder is not of these, he is 

 " with them " ; he is the layman who is mani- 

 festing a keen interest in things scientific, who 

 has acquired a large fund of general informa- 

 tion, and who can write a style at once at- 

 tractive and clear to the general reader. In 

 these and in many other ways, perhaps, he 

 would seem to have certain advantages over 

 the average academic writer in the dissemina- 

 tion of that which to his reader will be only 

 "knowledge for knowledge sake." Much too 

 infrequently, indeed, do such men venture into 

 scientific and philosophic fields, so that, when 

 we find a work which on the whole is done as 

 well as is this, it certainly merits welcome. 



In criticism of the book it remains to be 

 said that it reveals those deficiencies which 

 the possession of general information, when 

 not supplemented by accurate and detailed 

 knowledge, usually manifests. Indeed the 

 book is in some respects distinctly misleading, 

 aside from the fact that many inconsistencies 

 and contradictions are to be found, especially 

 when the author ventures the expression of his 

 own opinions and conclusions. And although 

 these are perhaps to be expected in the work 

 of a man who is more narrator than authority. 



nevertheless it is probable that the lay-reader 

 will not only overlook these, but will be grad- 

 ually influenced by the announced purpose of 

 the author to give not only history, but " the 

 philosophy of history." For this reason, and 

 because, too, of a number of statements dis- 

 tinctly idealistic in trend, the occasional 

 decidedly flippant and scornful flings at phi- 

 losophy and philosophers appear most amu- 

 singly inconsistent. 



It is, then, with only a modicum of insight 

 into philosophical evidence and the detailed 

 technique of science, and with a total neglect 

 of all other data bearing on the problem, 

 that our author endeavors, by telling the 

 story of discovery in astronomical physics, to 

 show that the " mechanical conception of 

 phenomena must one day end in a mechanical 

 conception of the whole." Even the meaning 

 of this, by itself, is doubtless obscure enough; 

 but, as made clearer and more definite by the 

 purpose revealed on page after page and in 

 chapter after chapter, and notwithstanding a 

 few explicit, yet inconsistent denials of this, the 

 real conclusion, to which the author wishes to 

 lead and probably will succeed in leading some 

 of his unsuspecting lay-readers (and dogmatic 

 scientists) is that of a thorough-going 

 mechanistic materialism. This is the position 

 which results, he thinks, from regarding in- 

 telligence as simply a function of a definite 

 physical organization. Whether he is correct 

 in this or not is not here the question. But 

 to try to lead a reader to such a conclusion 

 without considering any evidence at all on the 

 other side, and to make no attempt to de- 

 termine the character of such a functional 

 relation, is manifestly both unfair and unsci- 

 entific. Indeed, it must be said of the evi- 

 dence that is presented, that much of it con- 

 sists of a very crude and gross interpretation 

 of the " mechanical conception." Of such 

 critical analyses as those of Mach, Ward, 

 Duhem, Poincare and others the author ap- 

 pears to be wholly oblivious. Only the 

 briefest mention, too, is made of radioactivity 

 and its allied phenomena, notwithstanding 

 their paramount bearing on the cosmical ques- 

 tions discussed. 



