Science Is Philosophy by Charles Hollencamp (review)

824 BOOK REVIEWS sometimes in fact those more fit do not survive. Saying this implies that he has some objective standard or design in mind. It is, in effect, saying: " Look, those creatures are the fitter and should be surviving but they're not. Too bad! " How can the biologist appeal to designs which supposedly do not exist? Ruse seems to forget that, according to his own view, evolution means never having to say you are sorry. On pages 151 to 158 an interesting logical issue is raised: can biologists violate the rule that each genus must have at least two species and get away with it? This seems to happen when evolutionist taxonomists classify the aardvark. Ruse's solution is to switch from "extensional" to "intensional " definitions. Instead of listing individuals (Joe, John, Mary), list their characteristics (two-legged, big brained, etc.). Thus, to be in a broader class (e. g., primate) would require certain traits (e. g., twolegged ) while belonging to a narrower class (e. g., man) would require added traits (e. g., big brained). Although he does not quite make it, Ruse seems to think it is very modern to return to Aristotelian logic. Over-all, the work leaves two general impressions. One is that it is a parochial operation. Ruse gives numerous objections and answers but they are almost all from the same closed circle of neo-Positivistic thought, i. e., there is no attempt to go out to other traditions for new insights and points of view. Most of his time is spent acting as a mediator among conflicting scientific views rather than handling philosophically such views from all sides. This is in keeping with the tradition wherein one does not presume to have factual knowledge over and above that possessed by scientists. The first leads to the second. Ruse leaves you with the feeling that the only real task left to biology is to make itself obsolete thus doing away with the philosophy of biology altogether. The book itself is well-made and can be acquired in either hardback or paperback. University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario Canada F. F. CENTORE Science Is Philosophy. By CHARLES HoLLENC:AMP. Carthagena, Ohio: The Messenger Press, 1978. Pp. IIS. $8.00. The aim of this book, as the author himself puts it, is to introduce the philosophy of nature as physical science and physical science as the philosophy of nature. To do this Charles Hollencamp give us first a synthetic historical survey of the philosophy of nature from the early Greek thinkers to the various systems of contemporary philosophical thought. BOOK REVIEWS 8~5 This is the best part of the book and a necessary introduction to the problem of philosophy of nature in its relation to modem science, for science and philosophy had been considered to be the same discipline until the sixteenth century. Scientists were philosophers of nature, and philosophers of nature considered themselves scientists. Now, however, the majority of scientists and philosophers believe that science and philosophy are essentially two independent disciplines. This is paradoxical because even now it is difficult to perceive concrete scientific problems which are not, at the same time, problems of philosophy. True, the methodology of science is different from the methodology of philosophy, but both science and philosophy study the same subject matter, namely, the cosmos, man, and God. Hence the artificial dichotomy which started chiefly with Descartes and which has harmed philosophy as well as science. More than ever the insight of philosophy is necessary for the better understanding of science, and equally the data of contemporary science should be taken into consideration by philosophy if philosophy is to be worthy of its name. All the great scientists have been outstanding philosophers of nature. This book helps us to understand this historical conclusion. We must bear in mind that strictly speaking, the problem of science and philosophy is not a problem between scientists and philosophers but of philosophy and science as such. Hense it is crucial for the sake of clarity to set up the philosophical principles of the division and specification of the sciences as they are found in Aristotle's Posterior Analytics. In this sense the book...