Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:02:29.405Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Erkenntnistheoretiker's Dilemma: J. B. Stallo's Attack on Atomism in his Concepts and Theories of Modern Physics (1881)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

John V. Strong
John V. Strong*
Affiliation:
Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh and Boston College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Notable among the by-products of the late nineteenth-century controversies over the atomic theory of matter was the first full-scale contribution to the philosophy of science written in America, John Bernard Stallo's The Concepts and Theories of Modem Physics. The work of a lawyer and jurist largely self-trained in philosophy, its publication in 1881 provoked considerable (and mostly hostile) reaction, for Stallo attacked atomism and mechanism at a time when scientists were still divided into vociferously opposing camps over the question of whether or not the ultimate structure of matter was atomic - indeed, were in sharp disagreement over even the utility of the hypothetical concept ‘atom’ in physics and chemistry.

Evér since the early 1800s, when Dalton had transformed the corpuscular hypothesis from a commonplace of the prevailing natural philosophy into a working part of chemistry, the fortunes of atomism had risen and fallen as competing atomic and non-atomic theories were matched against the accumulating experimental evidence.

Type
Contributed Papers: Session I
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1974 , 1974 , pp. 105 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © 1976 by D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht-Holland

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, H.: 1946, The Education of Henry Adams, Modern Library, New York.Google Scholar
Bridgman, P. W.: 1927, The Logic of Modern Physics, Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
Bridgman, P. W.: 1960, ‘Introduction’, CT, pp. vii–xxix.Google Scholar
Brock, W. H., and Knight, D.: 1967, ‘The Atomic Debates’, in Brock, W. H. (ed.), The Atomic Debates: Brodie and the Rejection of the Atomic Theory. Three Studies, Leicester University Press, Leicester, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
Buchdahl, G.: 1959, ‘Sources of Scepticism in Atomic Theory’, Brit.J. Phil. Sci. 10, 120-134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cournot, A. A.: 1861, Traité de I'Enchaînement des Idées Fondamentales dans les Sciences et dans I'Histoire, L. Hachette, Paris, I, p. 103.Google Scholar
Drake, S.: 1959, ‘J. B. Stallo and the Critique of Classical Physics’, in Evans, H. M. (ed.), Men and Moments in the History of Science, University of Washington Press, Seattle, pp. 22-37.Google Scholar
Drake, S.: 1967, ‘Stallo, John Bernard’, in P. Edwards (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Macmillan and the Free Press, New York, 8, pp. 4–6.Google Scholar
Easton, L.: 1966, Hegel's First American Followers. The Ohio Hegelians: John B. Stallo, Peter Kaufmann, Moncure Conway, and August Willich, with Key Writings, Ohio University Press, Athens, Ohio.Google Scholar
Kleinpeter, H.: 1901, ‘J. B. Stallo als Erkenntniskritiker’, Vierteljahrsschrift fur wiss. Phil. 25, 401–440.Google Scholar
Kleinpeter, H.: 1913, Der Phdnomenalismus: Eine naturwissenschaftliche Weltanschauung, Barth, J., Leipzig.Google Scholar
Knight, D. M. (ed.): 1968, Classical Scientific Papers: Chemistry, American Elsevier, New York.Google Scholar
Mach, E.: 1901, ‘Vorwart’ to J. B. Stallo, Die Begrijfe und Theorien der modernen Physik, Barth, J., Leipzig, pp. III-XIII.Google Scholar
Maxwell, J. C : 1965, Scientific Papers, Dover, New York.Google Scholar
Meyerson, E.: 1962, Identity and Reality, Dover, New York. (Original French edition 1907.)Google Scholar
Newton, I.: 1952, Opticks, Dover, New York. (Based on the 4th edition, London, 1730.)Google Scholar
Rattermann, H. A.: 1902, Johann Bernhard Stallo, Deutsch-amerikanischer Philosoph, Jurist und Staatsmann, Verlag des Verfassers, Cincinnati, Ohio.Google Scholar
Royce, J.: 1946, ‘Introduction’ (1913) to Poincare, H., The Foundations of Science, The Science Press, Lancaster, Pa.Google Scholar
Russell, B.: 1956, An Essay on the Foundations of Geometry, Dover, New York. (Original edition 1897).Google Scholar
Tait, P. G.: 1882, ‘Modern Physics’, Nature 26, 521–522.Google Scholar
Thiele, J.: 1969, ‘Karl Pearson, Ernst Mach, J. B. Stallo’, Isis 60, 535–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whewell, W.: 1847, The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, 2nd ed., John Parker, London.Google Scholar
Whittaker, E.: 1960, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity, Volume Two: The Modern Theories 1900-1926, Harper, New York.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, G. D.: 1951, ‘John B. Stallo's Criticism of Physical Science’, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar