Content deleted Content added
→"Atoms" and "vacuum" vs. religion: expanded citation |
→Corpuscularianism: separated clumped citation |
||
Line 198:
{{main article|Corpuscularianism}}
[[File:Portret van Robert Boyle, RP-P-OB-4578 (cropped).jpg|thumb|192x192px|[[Robert Boyle]]]]
[[Corpuscularianism]] is similar to atomism, except that where atoms were supposed to be indivisible, corpuscles could in principle be divided. In this manner, for example, it was theorized that mercury could penetrate into metals and modify their inner structure, a step on the way towards transmutative production of gold. Corpuscularianism was associated by its leading proponents with the idea that some of the properties that objects appear to have are artifacts of the perceiving mind: 'secondary' qualities as distinguished from 'primary' qualities.<ref>[http://www.vernonpratt.com/conceptualisations/d06bl2_1mechanical.htm The Mechanical Philosophy] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080611053822/http://www.vernonpratt.com/conceptualisations/d06bl2_1mechanical.htm |date=June 11, 2008 }} - Early modern 'atomism' ("corpuscularianism" as it was known)</ref> Not all corpuscularianism made use of the primary-secondary quality distinction, however. An influential tradition in medieval and early modern alchemy argued that chemical analysis revealed the existence of robust corpuscles that retained their identity in chemical compounds (to use the modern term). [[William R. Newman]] has dubbed this approach to matter theory "chymical atomism," and has argued for its significance to both the mechanical philosophy and to the chemical atomism that emerged in the early 19th century.<ref>William R. Newman, “The Significance of ‘Chymical Atomism’,” in Edith Sylla and W. R. Newman, eds., ''Evidence and Interpretation: Studies on Early Science and Medicine in Honor of John E. Murdoch'' (Leiden: Brill, 2009), pp. 248-264
[[File:Isaac Newton by James Thronill, after Sir Godfrey Kneller.jpg|left|thumb|187x187px|[[Isaac Newton]]]]
Corpuscularianism stayed a dominant theory over the next several hundred years and retained its links with [[alchemy]] in the work of scientists such as [[Robert Boyle]] (1627–1692) and [[Isaac Newton]] in the 17th century.<ref name="Levere">{{cite book|last = Levere | first = Trevor, H. | title= Transforming Matter – A History of Chemistry for Alchemy to the Buckyball|publisher=The Johns Hopkins University Press|year=2001| isbn=978-0-8018-6610-4}}</ref><ref>[http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/c9.htm Corpuscularianism] - Philosophical Dictionary</ref> It was used by Newton, for instance, in his development of the [[corpuscular theory of light]]. The form that came to be accepted by most English scientists after Robert Boyle was an amalgam of the systems of Descartes and Gassendi. In [[The Sceptical Chymist]] (1661), Boyle demonstrates problems that arise from chemistry, and offers up atomism as a possible explanation. The unifying principle that would eventually lead to the acceptance of a hybrid corpuscular–atomism was [[mechanism (philosophy)|mechanical philosophy]], which became widely accepted by [[physical sciences]]. <!-- ~~ With Boyle? for sure by the end of the 18th... cite? Despite the problems with atomism, it was clear by the end of the 17th century that it was a better alternative than Aristotelian physics, especially since it was compatible with the [[mechanism (philosophy)|mechanical philosophy]]. -->
| |||