There has been a lot of debate on this list about the relevance of philosophy to science and the relative importance of science and common sense for the foundations of ontology. (01) As an illustration of the issues, the hypothesis of atoms has undergone a slow development with many surprising twists and turns since it was first proposed around 440 BC. A century ago, the physicist/philosopher Ernst Mach was still fighting a losing battle against the hypothesis of "unobservable" atoms. But the latest electron microscopes can now produce pictures of atoms at the picometer scale. (02) The attached picture shows four kinds of atoms in a crystal: lead (white circles), zirconium and titanium (fuzzy white blobs), and oxygen (smaller fuzzy gray blobs). For the article see (03) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080724150342.htm (04) Note that one nanometer would correspond to a line of about 8 zirconium, titanium, and oxygen atoms in this crystal. (05) Following is a brief summary of the development of the atomic hypothesis from Leucippus and Democritus (440 BC) to the middle ages, the Renaissance, and the early days of modern chemistry: (06) http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/AtomicStructure/Democritus-to-Dalton.html (07) The chemists were far ahead of the physicists in adopting the atomic hypothesis. Robert Boyle (1661) used the term "corpuscles" in his influential book _The Sceptical Chymist_. The modern theory is based on John Dalton's book of 1803. For an excerpt, see (08) http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/dalton.html (09) At the bottom of that excerpt is Dalton's table of atomic weights, which are systematically skewed by his erroneous assumption that a molecule of water is composed of one atom of oxygen and one atom of hydrogen. For other classic papers in chemistry, see (010) http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/papers.html (011) William Whewell, who first coined the words 'scientist' and 'physicist', made important contributions to the history and philosophy of science. But he also expressed doubts about the atomic hypothesis (1840): (012) http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/whewell.html (013) Many physicists were highly skeptical about atoms, and Boltzmann had to fight an uphill battle to get acceptance for his theory of statistical mechanics. See (014) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/statphys-Boltzmann/ (015) Following is a more detailed history of atomism from the 17th to the 20th century: (016) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atomism-modern/ (017) This brief survey suggests several points that are important for foundational issues in ontology: (018) 1. There has never been a consensus about detailed foundational issues in philosophy, science, or common sense. (019) 2. Developments in one of those three areas have major impacts on the others, and what is called common sense is very strongly influenced by currently fashionable ideas. (020) 3. We should be highly skeptical about any proposed foundation for an upper ontology, despite any claims of support from science, philosophy, common sense, mathematics, or "mainstream" fashions. (021) This cautionary note does not imply that we should *never* have an upper ontology, but that the detailed axioms are likely to undergo major revisions over time. The term 'atom', for example, is still in use after 2500 years. But the axioms associated with it have changed enormously over the centuries, and they are likely to continue developing over time. (022) As I have said many times, a loosely axiomatized terminology is immensely valuable. Detailed axioms are essential for many important applications. But they are much less likely to be universally acceptable, and they will inevitably undergo major revisions when applied to different kinds of problems. (023) John Sowa (024)
_________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01) |
