贝壳电子书 > 英文原著电子书 > a history of science-1 >

第33章

a history of science-1-第33章

小说: a history of science-1 字数: 每页4000字

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页,按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页,按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部!
————未阅读完?加入书签已便下次继续阅读!



 germ of the science of the nineteenth…century chemistry; but perhaps the germs also of the yet undeveloped chemistry of the twentieth century。 Yet we dare suggest that in their enthusiasm for the atomic theory of Democritus the historians of our generation have done something less than justice to that philosopher's precursor; Anaxagoras。 And one suspects that the mere accident of a name has been instrumental in producing this result。 Democritus called his primordial element an atom; Anaxagoras; too; conceived a primordial element; but he called it merely a seed or thing; he failed to christen it distinctively。 Modern science adopted the word atom and gave it universal vogue。 It owed a debt of gratitude to Democritus for supplying it the word; but it somewhat overpaid the debt in too closely linking the new meaning of the word with its old original one。 For; let it be clearly understood; the Daltonian atom is not precisely comparable with the atom of Democritus。 The atom; as Democritus conceived it; was monistic; all atoms; according to this hypothesis; are of the same substance; one atom differs from another merely in size and shape; but not at all in quality。 But the Daltonian hypothesis conceived; and nearly all the experimental efforts of the nineteenth century seemed to prove; that there are numerous classes of atoms; each differing in its very essence from the others。 As the case stands to…day the chemist deals with seventy…odd substances; which he calls elements。 Each one of these substances is; as he conceives it; made up of elementary atoms having a unique personality; each differing in quality from all the others。 As far as experiment has thus far safely carried us; the atom of gold is a primordial element which remains an atom of gold and nothing else; no matter with what other atoms it is associated。 So; too; of the atom of silver; or zinc; or sodiumin short; of each and every one of the seventy…odd elements。 There are; indeed; as we shall see; experiments that suggest the dissolution of the atomthat suggest; in short; that the Daltonian atom is misnamed; being a structure that may; under certain conditions; be broken asunder。 But these experiments have; as yet; the warrant rather of philosophy than of pure science; and to…day we demand that the philosophy of science shall be the handmaid of experiment。 When experiment shall have demonstrated that the Daltonian atom is a compound; and that in truth there is but a single true atom; which; combining with its fellows perhaps in varying numbers and in different special relations; produces the Daltonian atoms; then the philosophical theory of monism will have the experimental warrant which to…day it lacks; then we shall be a step nearer to the atom of Democritus in one direction; a step farther away in the other。 We shall be nearer; in that the conception of Democritus was; in a sense; monistic; farther away; in that all the atoms of Democritus; large and small alike; were considered as permanently fixed in size。 Democritus postulated all his atoms as of the same substance; differing not at all in quality; yet he was obliged to conceive that the varying size of the atoms gave to them varying functions which amounted to qualitative differences。 He might claim for his largest atom the same quality of substance as for his smallest; but so long as he conceived that the large atoms; when adjusted together to form a tangible substance; formed a substance different in quality from the substance which the small atoms would make up when similarly grouped; this concession amounts to the predication of difference of quality between the atoms themselves。 The entire question reduces itself virtually to a quibble over the word quality; So long as one atom conceived to be primordial and indivisible is conceded to be of such a nature as necessarily to produce a different impression on our senses; when grouped with its fellows; from the impression produced by other atoms when similarly grouped; such primordial atoms do differ among themselves in precisely the same way for all practical purposes as do the primordial elements of Anaxagoras。 The monistic conception towards which twentieth… century chemistry seems to be carrying us may perhaps show that all the so…called atoms are compounded of a single element。 All the true atoms making up that element may then properly be said to have the same quality; but none the less will it remain true that the combinations of that element that go to make up the different Daltonian atoms differ from one another in quality in precisely the same sense in which such tangible substances as gold; and oxygen; and mercury; and diamonds differ from one another。 In the last analysis of the monistic philosophy; there is but one substance and one quality in the universe。 In the widest view of that philosophy; gold and oxygen and mercury and diamonds are one substance; and; if you please; one quality。 But such refinements of analysis as this are for the transcendental philosopher; and not for the scientist。 Whatever the allurement of such reasoning; we must for the purpose of science let words have a specific meaning; nor must we let a mere word…jugglery blind us to the evidence of facts。 That was the rock on which Greek science foundered; it is the rock which the modern helmsman sometimes finds it difficult to avoid。 And if we mistake not; this case of the atom of Democritus is precisely a case in point。 Because Democritus said that his atoms did not differ in quality; the modern philosopher has seen in his theory the essentials of monism; has discovered in it not merely a forecast of the chemistry of the nineteenth century; but a forecast of the hypothetical chemistry of the future。 And; on the other hand; because Anaxagoras predicted a different quality for his primordial elements; the philosopher of our day has discredited the primordial element of Anaxagoras。 Yet if our analysis does not lead us astray; the theory of Democritus was not truly monistic; his indestructible atoms; differing from one another in size and shape; utterly incapable of being changed from the form which they had maintained from the beginning; were in reality as truly and primordially different as are the primordial elements of Anaxagoras。 In other words; the atom of Democritus is nothing less than the primordial seed of Anaxagoras; a little more tangibly visualized and given a distinctive name。 Anaxagoras explicitly conceived his elements as invisibly small; as infinite in number; and as made up of an indefinite number of kindsone for each distinctive substance in the world。 But precisely the same postulates are made of the atom of Democritus。 These also are invisibly small; these also are infinite in number; these also are made up of an indefinite number of kinds; corresponding with the observed difference of substances in the world。 〃Primitive seeds;〃 or 〃atoms;〃 were alike conceived to be primordial; un… changeable; and indestructible。 Wherein then lies the difference? We answer; chiefly in a name; almost solely in the fact that Anaxagoras did not attempt to postulate the physical properties of the elements beyond stating that each has a distinctive personality; while Democritus did attempt to postulate these properties。 He; too; admitted that each kind of element has its distinctive personality; and he attempted to visualize and describe the characteristics of the personality。 Thus while Anaxagoras tells us nothing of his elements except that they differ from one another; Democritus postulates a difference in size; imagines some elements as heavier and some as lighter; and conceives even that the elements may be provided with projecting hooks; with the aid of which they link themselves one with another。 No one to…day takes these crude visualizings seriously as to their details。 The sole element of truth which these dreamings contain; as distinguishing them from the dreamings of Anaxagoras; is in the conception that the various atoms differ in size and weight。 Here; indeed; is a vague fore…shadowing of that chemistry of form which began to come into prominence towards the close of the nineteenth century。 To have forecast even dimly this newest phase of chemical knowledge; across the abyss o

返回目录 上一页 下一页 回到顶部 0 0

你可能喜欢的