Welsh Journals

ANTHROPOMORPHISM AND SCIENCE* By Professor JAMES GIBSON R one aspect of the work of the University I of Wales even the most unrelenting of its critics can have nothing but praise. It has at least proved its wisdom in the provision it has made, by means of Fellowships and Studentships, for the prosecution of post-graduate study and research by the ablest of its students. If, indeed, its policy in this respect were called in question it would receive an ample vindication in the volume under review. The book, in the first place, is extremely well written. Miss Wheeler never leaves us in doubt as to her meaning. She has, too, a distinct gift of literary expression and a happy appositeness in illustration and reference. As its subject-matter is such as to make a wide and varied appeal, her book should have a large circle of readers. The main purpose of the work is to examine the relation between the conceptions of the external world with which the physical sciences work and the point of view of a philosophical theology, for which mind is imminent in nature as a whole. Are these compatible ? Or does the unreserved acceptance of the principles and methods of modern science commit us to the exclusion of every element of mentality from our conception of the external world ? The treatment of the problem is throughout coloured and in part determined by the acceptance of the view that all knowledge of the existence and nature of others minds has its source in ejection, or the externalising of some element of our own conscious life, and its logical justification in an argument from analogy. The writer begins, accord- ingly with an account of the historical development of the doctrine of ejection and a discussion of its logical justification this leads to an examination of the working of the anthropomorphic tendency in the child and the savage, in which we are shown how in each case a transition is made from a crude ejection of the whole personality into all sorts of objects to a discriminate use of the process. Having thus prepared the way, Miss Wheeler enters upon her main argument, which is based upon an examination of the conceptions employed Anthropomorphism and Science a study of the development of eiective cognition in the individual and the race. By Olive A. Wheeler, M.Sc., formerly Fellow of The University of Wales, Lecturer in the Education Department of The Chelten- ham Ladies' College. George Allen and Unwin, Ltd. by the various sciences for the coordination of their data. She shows how all the sciences as a matter of fact make use of conceptions which derive their significance from our subjective experi- ence, the extent to which they do so depending upon the concreteness of their point of view. Even the conception of universal mechanism, which is re- garded by some as the ideal of all scientific explana- tion, is shown to be relative to human interests and purposes. Nor is its unqualified acceptance as a means of scientific analysis in the least inconsistent with the adoption of the conception of an immanent mind, when we are seeking an interpretation from the point of view of the whole. If, on the other hand, as in the view of many scientists, the mechan- istic conception is held to break down even within science itself, when confronted with the special problems of the biological sciences, the vindication of an interpretation in terms of mind is still more easily made. For not only will teleological concep- tions now find a place within the physical sciences themselves, but with the recognition of the autonomy of the biological sciences must go the abandonment of all attempts to find a single comprehensive point of view within their domain. That conceptions, which are of subjective origin and retain a subjective implication, are constantly employed in the study of the external world, is, of course, no new discovery. The special value of Miss Wheeler's work lies in her detailed discussion of the use of such conceptions in the various physical sciences. Here her knowledge of the methods and main results of modern science, which is too often lacking in the professed philosopher or theologian, stands her in good stead. In her occasional historical references she is rather less sure. Thus, the Love and Hate of Empedocles, though undoubtedly ejective," were not affections of his elements for each other, but separate entities possessing physical characteristics, differing from the four inert elements in their power of moving themselves and other things. Nor were the elements themselves con- ceived atomically, though they were capable of being mixed and separated. With Miss Wheeler's contention, that no ultimate interpretation of the universe which excludes all mental terms is possible, we can certainly have no quarrel. When, however, we seek to pass beyond this negative conclusion and to essay the task of interpretation itself, the results