This book is an attempt to apply philosophical hermeneutics to the philosophy of science. I've read a fair amount of books in both fields, but this book still did not make any sense to me. I simply could not understand what the author was trying to say.

I am sympathetic to the fact that an attempt to apply phenomenological hermeneutics to science is a difficult task which requires an inventive vocabulary. However, I also think a philosophical book should at least make an honest effort for clarity. Let me illustrate why I think such an effort wasn't made in this book. Here's a passage from page 171:

'To sum up, the "amendment" of the existential conception of science I am suggesting extends the idea of compensation as it is related to the "genesis of the theoretical attitude". Roughly speaking, the theoretical compensation of the deficits of practical involvement in the "totality of equipment" is complemented by an interpretative compensation of the deficits of objectifying and decontextualizing reflection in the constitution (as a "productive-reproductive" reading) or more complex objects. In leaning on this image of "double compensation", one is in a position to specify the aforementioned idea of the spectrum of types of science between the pole of "ontic objectification" and the pole of "ontological interpretation".'

Notice that this passage of three sentences contains no less than SEVEN expressions in "scare quotes". And this is not an isolated example. Quotation marks are abundant on every page of this book. In fact, it seems like the entire philosophical vocabulary has been placed in quotes. I found this very perplexing and I can not think of any justification for it. If the author is uncertain of his expressions, the obvious solution would be to define them in more detail or to explain how they form a coherent whole. But no, in this book the entire terminology is in scare quotes without any explanations.

So I gave this book an honest effort but I was quite disappointed with the author's own efforts. It seems like he's intelligent and has some original ideas, but unfortunately his presentation is completely impenetrable due to his confused vocabulary and the way he uses it.

I recommend Kockelmans' Ideas for a Hermeneutic Phenomenology of the Natural Sciences for a much clearer presentation of similar topics.