This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing sufficient and necessary conditions. The philosopher doesn’t make this mistake. His argument doesn’t rely on conditional reasoning, but rather assumes that a concept is best understood through reasoning that shares its characteristics.

The philosopher suggests that the overall structure of nature is identical or at least similar to the overall structure of the reasoning that must be used to best understand nature, not the reasoning that people actually do about nature.

The philosopher does distinguish between the characteristics of nature as a whole and those of its parts; he says nature can best be understood as a whole since its parts are so interconnected.

The philosopher doesn’t assume that the interconnected parts of nature cannot be thought of as separate; in fact, he says that scientific reasoning deliberately isolates parts of nature. He just claims that the interconnected parts of nature should not be thought of as separate.

The philosopher assumes that because nature is nonlinear, organic, and holistic, it can best be understood only through reasoning that’s also nonlinear, organic, and holistic. But what if nature is better understood through another kind of reasoning, like scientific reasoning?