Functional decomposition is an important goal in the life sciences, and is central to mechanistic explanation and explanatory reduction. A growing literature in philosophy of science, however, has challenged decomposition-based notions of explanation. ‘Holists’ posit that complex systems exhibit context-sensitivity, dynamic interaction, and network dependence, and that these properties undermine decomposition. They then infer from the failure of decomposition to the failure of mechanistic explanation and reduction. I argue that complexity, so construed, is only incompatible with one notion of decomposition, (...) which I call ‘atomism’, and not with decomposition writ large. Atomism posits that function ascriptions must be made to parts with minimal reference to the surrounding system. Complexity does indeed falsify atomism, but I contend that there is a weaker, ‘contextualist’ notion of decomposition that is fully compatible with the properties that holists cite. Contextualism suggests that the function of parts can shift with external context, and that interactions with other parts might help determine their context-appropriate functions. This still admits of functional decomposition within a given context. I will give examples based on the notion of oscillatory multiplexing in systems neuroscience. If contextualism is feasible, then holist inferences are faulty—one cannot infer from the presence of complexity to the failure of decomposition, mechanism, and reductionism. (shrink)

There are two competing and sometimes neglected assumptions in the philosophical discussion on the success and accuracy of episodic memory. In this paper, I articulate them and argue for one of them. Most philosophers assume that the success of a mnemic representation should be assessed holistically, with all of its elements having equal weight in the success of the memory. Some philosophers, in contrast, assume that the success of a mnemonic representation depends on specific relevant elements. I defend the latter (...) assumption using the paradigmatic case of inquiries. I argue that social norms regarding memory prioritizes the accuracy of certain elements in inquiry contexts. In these contexts, the inquiry selects which elements are relevant to the success of episodic memory. (shrink)

In spite of vigorous opposition by a number of historians it has now become a commonplace that the rapid development of the ‘new philosophy’ sprang from the ideology of Puritanism. What began its career as the ‘Merton thesis’ has now been refined, developed, and so often repeated that it seems to be almost unassailable. However, the two foremost historians in the entrenchment of this new orthodoxy are willing, in principle, to concede that ‘in reality things were very mixed up’, and (...) that non-Puritan natural philosophers at the time were operating ‘in a precisely similar manner’ to their Puritan contemporaries. Indeed, it would be impossible not to concede this in the face of the many critiques launched against the Merton thesis. (shrink)

David Bostock presents a detailed account and critical appraisal of the development of Bertrand Russell's philosophy from 1900 to 1924--the most important years of his career. He explores Russell's logical atomism, which applies logic to problems in the theory of knowledge and metaphysics and was central to Russell's work over this period.

Introductory survey -- Atomic theory and mechanics -- The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory -- The quantum of action and the description of nature -- The atomic theory and the fundamental principles underlying the description of nature.

In the Timaeus, Plato claimed that the four material elements are reducible to geometric shapes; the so-called Platonic solids. This theory—also known as geometric atomism—was criticized in Aristotle’s On the Heavens. Aristotle developed an alternative, qualitative account of the elements and their properties. The late Platonists Proclus and Simplicius vindicate Plato’s theory and try to dissolve Aristotle’s counter-arguments. Their account amounts to a type of microphysicalism according to which qualitative properties of material bodies supervene in a complex way on (...) intrinsic and relational properties of the geometric shapes. They argue that in Plato’s model all the physical phenomena accounted for by Aristotle’s theory of the elements can be explained in an equally satisfactory manner (which also means that Aristotle’s physical works could continue to be used in the Platonic schools), but that Plato’s non-eliminative reductionism constitutes a theoretical improvement over Aristotle. The theory also requires a new ontological and categorial analysis of material properties. (shrink)

These articles and speeches by the Nobel Prize-winning physicist date from 1934 to 1958. Rather than expositions on quantum physics, the papers are philosophical in nature, exploring the relevance of atomic physics to many areas of human endeavor. Includes an essay in which Bohr and Einstein discuss quantum and_wave equation theories. 1961 edition.

In Plato’s eponymous dialogue, Timaeus, the main character presents the universe as an (almost) perfect sphere filled by tiny, invisible particles having the form of four regular polyhedrons. At first glance, such a construction may seem close to an atomistic theory. However, one does not find any text in Antiquity that links Timaeus’ cosmology to the atomists, while Aristotle opposes clearly Plato to the latter. Nevertheless, Plato is commonly presented in contemporary literature as some sort of atomist, sometimes as supporting (...) a form of so-called ‘mathematical atomism’. However, the term ‘atomism’ is rarely defined when applied to Plato. Since it covers many different theories, it seems that this term has almost as different meanings as different authors. The purpose of this article is to consider whether it is correct to connect Timaeus’ cosmology to some kind of ‘atomism’, however this term may be understood. Its purpose is double: to obtain a better understanding of the cosmology of the Timaeus, and to consider the different modern ‘atomistic’ interpretations of this cosmology. In short, we would like to show that such a claim, in any form whatsoever, is misleading, an impediment to the understanding of the dialogue, and more generally of Plato’s philosophy. (shrink)

Philosophers frequently cite Dalton's chemical atomism, and its nineteenth century developments, as a prime example of inference to the best explanation. This was a controversial issue in its time. But the critics are dismissed as positivist‐inspired antirealists with no interest in explanation. Is this a reasonable assessment?

Late nineteenth‐century opponents of atomism questioned whether the evidence required any notion of an atom. In this spirit, Duhem developed an account of the import of chemical formulas that is clearly neutral on the atomic question rather than antiatomistic. The argument is supplemented with specific inadequacies of atomic theories of chemical combination and considerably strengthened by the theory of chemical combination provided by thermodynamics. Despite possible counterevidence available at the time, which should have tempered some of Duhem's concluding remarks, (...) there was no atomic theory of chemical combination, which is wholly a product of the twentieth century. †To contact the author, please write to: Department of Philosophy, University of Stockholm, SE‐106 91 Stockholm, Sweden; e‐mail: [email protected]. (shrink)

This paper re-examines the extant testimonia to Democritus’ thought on the origin of divine worship. An in-depth study of them allows us to confirm that, in Democritus’ view, the worship of the gods derived not only from the fear of adverse natural phenomena, but also from gratitude for events beneficial to human sustenance. It is possible now to reinterpret this conception from a polemical perspective: Democritus would not have denied that the gods exist, but rather exposed the psychological mechanism that (...) leads ordinary men to trust in the traditional gods. Against superstitious faith, he shows, also by means of his εἴδωλα theory, that the only existing gods are provided with the same ‘reason’ by which nature works and thanks to which men can philosophically understand its various (even astonishing) phenomena. (shrink)

In this chapter, we argue against what we call the atomist assumption that has governed the recent recovery of artefacts in metaphysics. By drawing some parallels between artefacts and concepts, we hold a relational and holistic view on the nature of artefacts. Artefacts acquire their identity conditions only within a constellation of other artefacts and objects. We will also defend that the identity of an artefact is given by the affordances that constrain our agency within a cultural niche or transformative (...) environment. As constitutive elements of these environments, artefacts do not stand isolated; what they are, fixed by what they afford, cannot be specified without referring to other artefacts, (natural) objects, and the (normative) practices that regulate the engagement with them. (shrink)

In this paper1, we explore some positive elements from the Epicurean position on mathematics. Is induction important in mathematical practice or useful in proof? Does atomism appear in mathematics and in what ways? Keywords: Epicurus, induction, Polya, proof, atomism.

The influential French chemist Marcelin Berthelot spoke against the use of Dalton's atomic theory and Avogadro's hypothesis in the second half of the nineteenth century. This paper argues that Berthelot conceded that atomism might be acceptable as a system of conventions, but he feared the power of such conventions in constructing a realistic picture of atoms which was not warranted empirically. Equally, Berthelot's anti-atomism was a last-ditch effort to assert the place of chemistry within the tradition of natural (...) history and to deny the possible reduction of chemical science to the laws of nineteenth-century physics. (shrink)

Biological atomism postulates that all life is composed of elementary and indivisible vital units. The activity of a living organism is thus conceived as the result of the activities and interactions of its elementary constituents, each of which individually already exhibits all the attributes proper to life. This paper surveys some of the key episodes in the history of biological atomism, and situates cell theory within this tradition. The atomistic foundations of cell theory are subsequently dissected and discussed, (...) together with the theory’s conceptual development and eventual consolidation. This paper then examines the major criticisms that have been waged against cell theory, and argues that these too can be interpreted through the prism of biological atomism as attempts to relocate the true biological atom away from the cell to a level of organization above or below it. Overall, biological atomism provides a useful perspective through which to examine the history and philosophy of cell theory, and it also opens up a new way of thinking about the epistemic decomposition of living organisms that significantly departs from the physicochemical reductionism of mechanistic biology. (shrink)

Central to Descartes’ philosophy is a view about immutable essences and eternal truths. After mentioning a Platonist account of recollection in Meditation V, Descartes declares that the ideas we have of mathematical notions “are not my invention but have their own true and immutable natures” (AT VII, 64/CSM II, 44).Descartes claims that other important philosophical notions, such as God, mind, body, and human free will (AT VII, 68; AT VIII-2, 348; AT III, 383; AT VII, 433, respectively), also have immutable (...) natures or essences. Although Descartes says a good many things about this view, nowhere does he offer definitive doctrine on the matter, and in fact frequently confuses his reader with apparently inconsistent pronouncements about immutable natures and eternal truths. In this essay, I focus on the immutable natures and propose a solution to two of the main problems associated with Descartes’ position, the metaphysical status of immutable natures and the purported indivisibility of their existence as ideas in the mind. (shrink)

I describe two frameworks of individualism and autonomy— internal and external. I delineate and contextualize the two as the atomistic and ecological models, and add two frameworks to consider environments, the spatial and placed-based models, in order to show various ways in which features of the individual, autonomy, and social contexts are used in examining notions of thinking for oneself and moral responsibility. I argue that the external, ecological, and placed-based models have superior descriptive and normative power and are better (...) suited to accommodate the externally arising social obstructions around race that constrain and obstruct autonomy, but that the two models are inconsistently used as a way to socially advantage some over others. (shrink)

How should we treat the cosmogonies of the early ancient Greek philosophers? Much work has been done in showing how these cosmogonies differ from creation myths and how they relate to philosophical issues such as change, persistence through change and matter theory. Here, using Leucippus and Democritus as examples, Gregory tries to show that interesting light can be shed on these cosmogonies by looking at them in relation to perennial problems in cosmogony and perennial types of solutions to these problems. (...) Ancients and moderns have formulated both in different ways, but there are significant structural similarities. To understand ancient cosmogonies, we need to understand how these perennial problems were perceived, and what types of solutions were available. We then need to analyse how the basic ontological and aetiological principles of their systems lead them to choose certain types of solution over others. (shrink)

while it should go without saying, it bears mentioning: the history of atomism in the medieval Islamic East is not the same as that of the medieval Christian West. One simply cannot assume that what is true of the conception of the atom in the West also need be true of the conception of the atom in the East, or even that the two traditions are drawing upon and responding to the same set of literature. In fact, the question (...) is open as to whether these two histories even share a common origin. While there certainly is a presumption that the history of Islamic atomism is a continuation of Greek atomism, this remains very much a presumption. Indeed, Shlomo Pines, in his groundbreaking Beiträge zur islamischen... (shrink)

The testimonia concerning weight in early Greek atomism appear to contradict one another. Some reports assert that the atoms do have weight, while others outright deny weight as a property of the atoms. A common solution to this apparent contradiction divides the testimonia into two groups. The first group describes the atoms within a κόσμος, where they have weight; the second group describes the atoms outside of a κόσμος, where they are weightless. A key testimonium for proponents of this (...) solution is Aëtius 1.3.18. It apparently denies weight as a property of the atoms, and supposedly describes the atoms when they are outside of a κόσμος. I argue against this interpretive solution by demonstrating, first, that Aëtius 1.3.18 does not deny that weight is a property of the atoms. Second, I argue that the report does not describe the atoms when they are outside of a κόσμος. Although these are largely negative conclusions, I contend that we are not left without a solution to the present interpretive difficulty. Once our testimonia concerning weight in early Greek atomism are examined thoroughly, it is clear that there is no conflict among them. (shrink)

Total permissiveness can be captured by the phrase “anything goes.” Psychological atomism can be informally characterized by the idea that in the mind anything goes with anything. There is a strong tendency toward such thinking in Western philosophical thought—both in classical antiquity and during and since the Enlightenment. Perhaps the two most important philosophers of the Enlightenment, Hume and Kant, accepted more or less limited forms of atomism, and I shall explain in what follows in the main text (...) and footnotes, why and how I think their atomism goes astray. Since much of Western philosophy since the Enlightenment to some extent bears its imprint, we shall also be seeing some recent examples of ill-conceived atomism. However, and despite the main themes of the present volume, I shall go well beyond the task of dealing with themes in Enlightenment thinking. In fact, I shall be relying on some unfamiliar aspects of Chinese thought to correct quite generally what I take to be erroneous atomistic thinking. (shrink)