 of atomic collision. Either direction is changed instantaneously, requiring what is impossible, namely an infinitely large force, or the "atoms" are elastic in virtue of a structure of subatomic parts and hence not atoms after all. Another example is the discrepancy between the specific heat ratios of diatomic gases as observed on the basis of thermodynamic reasoning and as calculated on the basis of the kinetic theory. But aren't these worries about the physical nature of atoms, which chemists could circumvent by focusing on chemical atoms? This strategy might be interpreted to the effect that chemists were thereby avoiding any claim to adopt an atomic theory of chemical substances. The term "chemical atomism" should in that case be understood as being used in what analytic philosophers like Nelson Goodman called a syncategorematic sense. It is not a certain kind of atomic theory, just as a broken glass is not a certain kind of glass-not something which is both a glass and broken. Although the expression is built from two distinct words, they don't each retain their separate senses in the combined expression. If this is so, and what is meant is simply a theory founded on the laws of proportion, then it is not substantially different from Duhem's account, which is not an atomic theory. I find it very difficult to see how a view or theory can be regarded as an atomic view or theory unless it says something about atoms-ascribes to them properties from which the macroscopic properties of chemical substances can be derived. This brings us to the related line of questioning concerning how the atomic hypothesis could provide any explanation of chemical combination or whatever it is they are postulated to explain. Dalton was clear about this. He ventured to explain his law of partial pressures by endowing his atoms with a coating of caloric, so distributed about the atoms of a particular kind that they repulsed other atoms of the same kind but not atoms of different kinds. This raises a number of questions, of course: What distributions of caloric could function in this way? Would the repulsive power of caloric allow atoms of the same and different kinds to combine chemically to form polyatomic molecules of elements and compounds, as distinct from a mechanical mixture? What is it that explains the combining power if the caloric explains the repelling power? Above all, there is the question of whether trying to explain repulsion or combination by postulating a substance endowed with just these proclivities isn't directly circular or leads to an infinite regress, as Lavoisier realised when speaking of the tendency of air to expand
of atomic collision. Either direction is changed instantaneously, requiring what is impossible, namely an boundlessly big force, or the " atoms " are elastic in merit of a structure of subatomic share and hence not atoms subsequently wholly. Another example is the discrepancy between the specific heat ratios of diatomic gases as observed on the footing of thermodynamic reasoning and as calculated on the basis of the kinetic theory. But aren't these worries about the forcible nature of atoms, which chemists could hedge by focusing on chemical atoms? This scheme might be interpreted to the effect that chemists were thereby debar any claim to adopt an nuclear theory of chemical message. The term " chemical atomism " should in that character be understood as being used in what analytic philosophers like Nelson Goodman predict a syncategorematic sense. It is not a certain kind of atomic theory, just as a broken looking glass is not a certain kind of glass - not something which is both a glass and broken. Although the expression is built from two distinct words, they don't each retain their separate senses in the unite expression. If this is so, and what is mean is simply a theory founded on the laws of symmetry, then it is not substantially unlike from Duhem's account, which is not an atomic theory. I rule it very difficult to see how a view or theory can be regarded as an atomic view or theory unless it says something about atoms - ascribes to them properties from which the macroscopic property of chemical means can be derived. This brings us to the related line of questioning concerning how the atomic guess could provide any explanation of chemical combination or whatever it is they are postulated to explain. Dalton was clear about this. He ventured to explain his law of partial pressures by endow his atoms with a application of caloric, so distributed about the atoms of a particular kind that they repulsed early atoms of the same kind but not atoms of different kind. This raises a number of questions, of class: What distributions of caloric could officiate in this way? Would the repulsive power of caloric allow atoms of the same and different kinds to combine chemically to shape polyatomic molecules of elements and compound, as distinct from a mechanical mixture? What is it that explains the combining power if the caloric explains the repelling exponent? Above all, there is the question of whether trying to explain repulsion or combination by postulating a substance endow with merely these proclivities isn't directly circular or leads to an infinite regress, as Lavoisier gain when speaking of the tendency of air to extend
 of atomic collision. Either direction is ckqnged mnstantzneously, requiring what is impossiblx, nanely qn infinitely large fofce, or thv "atoms" aee eoqstic in vmdtue of a strhgture if subatomic psrts and hance not atoms awtzr all. Another example is the discre[ancy brtaeen the specisic nqat datios of diatomic gases as observsd on tie basis of thetmodynamic reasoning and ad capculated on the badis of the jineeuc theory. Bug aren't thtsz worries agout the physical nature of atoos, whnch chemistw xoupg circumvenv by fjcusing on cmvmical dtoms? Tnis strategy mlght ue ibterpreted to the effxct that chemists wete thereby aroiding any claim to qdipt at atmmic rheury oh cgemicap snbstances. Tge term "chenical atomism" shoulc yb that case bs undewseood as being used in what analytic phinoskphers like Nelson Goodnan called a syncateglrematic fense. It is not a certain kind of atomic theory, jgst aa a yvjywn glass is not a certain kind of glass-not someegimg which is both a glass anc hrphen. Although jhe expxssaion is built from two diftincr words, trey con't each retain their sepaeate senses pn tye combined expresdion. If thir is so, amd what is meant is sim'ly a fheory founfed on ths laws of proportkon, tven it is not substantiallr differeit frpm Duheo's avcount, which is jot ak atomic theory. I flnd ij very difficult to see how a view or theory cai be regarded av at atomic view or theory unjess it says spmethiny aboug atoms-ascgibes to vhem propertyes from whicv the macroscmpic pro[ertues if chemkzal substances can be dvrnved. This brings us to the velatgd line of questiinibg concerning hpw ghe anommc hy[mthesis coulg pruviar any explanatiok ow chrmical combination os whztever it is they src postulajed to ex[lain. Dalton eas clear about thls. He veitured to explain his law of partial prsssures bj ekdowing his aeoms with a coatnng of caloric, so distributed about the etoms of a particular kund that they repulxtd other atomx of ehe same nind but not atoms od different kinds. This raises a number of quastiojs, of course: What distributions of caloric could function in this way? Wouod the repulsive pkwer of cdljxic alljw avoos of the same amd different kinds to combine ciemically do form polyatomic molecules og dlements and zompounds, as distinct frkm a mecnanical mixture? What is it that explains the combining iower if rhe czloric expuains the repellinb powex? Abovw all, tyere is the questkon on whether hryiig co explain repulsion or combinatiin by podtulating a subsvance endowef with just jhese proclivitiea ish'h dirgctly circular or leads to am infinite regress, av Javoisier realuaed when spesking ox the tendenry of air to expand
of atomic collision. Either direction is changed what impossible, namely infinitely large force, in of a structure subatomic parts and not atoms after all. Another example the discrepancy between the specific heat ratios of diatomic gases as observed on basis of thermodynamic reasoning and as calculated on the basis of the kinetic But these about physical nature of atoms, which chemists could circumvent by focusing on chemical atoms? This strategy might interpreted to the effect that chemists were thereby any claim to adopt atomic theory of chemical substances. term atomism" should that be as being used what analytic philosophers like Nelson Goodman called a syncategorematic sense. It is not a certain kind of theory, just broken glass not certain of glass-not something both a glass and broken. Although built from two distinct words, they don't each their separate in the combined expression. If this so, and what is meant is simply a founded on the laws of proportion, then it is not substantially different from Duhem's account, not an atomic theory. find it very to how view theory can regarded as an atomic view or theory unless it says something atoms-ascribes to them properties from which the macroscopic properties of can derived. This brings to the related line questioning how the atomic hypothesis any of whatever is are postulated to explain. was clear about this. He to explain his law his atoms with a coating of caloric, so about the atoms of a particular kind they repulsed other atoms of the same kind but not atoms of kinds. This number of questions, of course: What distributions of could function in this Would the repulsive power of caloric allow atoms of same different kinds combine chemically to polyatomic molecules of and compounds, as a mechanical What it combining power if the caloric explains repelling Above all, there is the of to explain repulsion or combination by postulating a substance endowed with just these proclivities isn't or leads to an regress, Lavoisier realised when speaking of the tendency of air to expand
 of atomic collision. Either diRection is cHangeD inStaNtAneoUsly, Requiring what iS ImpoSsible, namely an infiniteLy larGe FOrce, OR tHe "atoMs" are elAStIC In vIrTuE of A sTRuCture Of sUbatomiC parts and hEncE nOt atoms after ALl. another exaMplE is the discrePanCy betwEeN thE SpeciFic Heat rAtios oF DiatomIc gases as ObSErved oN The basiS OF tHermOdynamic reasoning ANd AS calculated on tHe basiS oF ThE KIneTic Theory. But aReN't theSE worrieS AbOUT The PHysical nature Of atoms, whicH CheMists cOuLd cIRcumveNt by fOcUSinG on chemical AtomS? This straTegy miGHt be intERpreted To the eFfeCt tHat cHEmIsTs wErE TheREbY avOIdiNg any claIm To Adopt An atOMIC TheoRy oF cheMical Substances. The TerM "cheMIcaL atomIsm" shOuld In That cAse be uNdersToOd as being used in What Analytic pHilOsOphErS like nElson GOodMan Called a SyncateGOreMaTIC SeNse. It is not a certain KiND Of Atomic thEory, juST aS a BRoken glaSs Is nOt a cERTain kInd oF GlAss-not soMethinG WhIcH is both A gLass anD bRokEn. ALthouGH the ExpresSion is buIlt frOM two distinct woRDs, they don't eacH ReTAIn THeir SepArate senses In thE CombIned EXpResSIon. If This iS sO, AnD What is meant is simply A tHeory fOundeD on the laws of pRoportion, tHEN It is not sUbstANtIAlly different fRom DuHem's accounT, Which is nOt an aTomic theOry. I find iT VEry diffiCulT to See How A VIeW or theory can bE REgarDeD as an atOmiC view or TheOry UnlEss It Says sometHing abouT aToMs-AsCriBes to THem propeRtIes FrOm wHich tHE macroScopiC proPeRtIEs oF chemicAL sUBStanCeS cAn be DerIvEd. ThiS briNGs uS to the rElated linE of QUestIoNiNg conceRning how the atOmIc hypothesIs CouLd provIDE any explAnation of chemical combinATion or wHatEver iT is tHey are posTulAted to ExpLAin. DalTon was Clear AbOut THIs. He vENTuRed To Explain his LAW of PartiAl PresSures by Endowing his atoms wiTH a cOating of calorIc, sO disTRIbUteD AbOUt tHe ATomS OF a particular kinD that they rEpULsEd other atoMS of ThE same kiNd but noT atomS Of diffeRent kinds. this raiseS a NumbER Of qUestions, of Course: WhAt distribUTions OF cAloriC coUld funCtIon In thiS way? WoULd tHe repUlsive PoWer of cAloriC aLlow atomS of the same and different kInds to CombiNe cHemically To fORm pOlyatomic MoleCules of eleMenTs aNd comPouNDs, as dIstiNCt FroM A mechAnicAL mixture? WHAt Is iT THaT explains thE COMbiNing pOweR If the cAlorIc explains the repeLLing power? Above All, tHERe iS thE QuesTiOn of whether tryIng To EXPlain repUlSion or combiNation by PoSTulatIng a suBstancE endoweD WItH Just thEse pRocLivities iSn't DiREctly ciRcUlAR or leaDs to An InfiniTe regrESs, as lAVoisier realised wHen spEAKing oF The TendeNcY of air tO ExpaNd
 of atomic collision. Eith er directi on is  ch ang ed  ins tant aneously, requ i ring  what is impossible, n amely  a n  inf i ni telylarge f o rc e ,  or  t he  "a to m s"  areela stic in  virtue of  ast ructure of s u ba tomic part s a nd hence not  at oms af te r a l l. An oth er ex amplei s thediscrepan cy betwee n  the sp e c if ic h eat ratios of dia t om i c gases as obs ervedon th e bas isof thermod yn amicr easonin g  a n d asc alculated onthe basis o f  th e kine ti c t h eory.But a re n 'tthese worri es a bout thephysic a l natur e  of ato ms, wh ich  ch emis t sco uld  c i rcu m ve ntb y f ocusingon  c hemic al a t o m s ? Th isstra tegymight be inte rpr eted tothe e ffect  tha tchemi sts we re th er eby avoiding an y cl aim to ad opt  a n a to mic t h eory o f c hem ical su bstance s . T he t e rm  "chemical atomism "s h ou ld in th at cas e  b eu nderstoo dasbein g usedin w h at  analyti c phil o so ph ers lik eNelson  G ood man  call e d asyncat egoremat ic se n se. It is nota  certain kind of a to m ic t heo ry, just as  a b r oken  gla s sisn ot acerta in ki n d of glass-not some th ing wh ich i s both a glas s and brok e n .  Althoug h th e  e x pression is bu ilt f rom two di s tinct wo rds,they don 't each r e t ain thei r s epa rat e s e n se s in the comb i n ed e xp ression . I f thisisso,  an d w ha t is mean t is sim pl yath eor y fou n ded on t he  la ws  of  prop o rtion,  then  itis  n o t s ubstant i al l y  dif fe re nt f rom  D uhem' s ac c oun t, whic h is notana tomi cth eory. I  find it very  d ifficult t osee  how a v iew or t heory can be regarded a s  an ato mic  view  ortheory un les s it s ays someth ing ab out a to ms- a s cribe s to  th em  propertie s fro m whi ch  the  macros copic properties o f  ch emical substa nce s ca n be  de r iv e d.Th i s b r i ngs us to the r elated lin eo fquestionin g  co nc erninghow the  atom i c hypot hesis cou ld provid eanye x pla nation ofchemical  combinat i on or wh ateve r i t is t he y a re po stulat e d t o exp lain.Da lton w as cl ea r aboutthis. He ventured to ex plainhis l awof partia l p r ess ures by e ndow ing his at oms  wi th acoa t ing o f ca l or ic, so di stri b uted abou t  t hea t om s of a part i c u lar  kind  th a t they  rep ulsed other atoms of the same ki nd b u t  no t a t omsof  different kin ds.  T h i s raises  a  number ofquestion s, of co urse:What d istribu t i on s  of ca lori c c ould func tio ni n thiswa y? Wouldthere pulsiv e powe r  ofc a loric allow atom s oft h e sam e  an d dif fe rent ki n ds t o combinechemicallyto for m po lyato mic mol ec ules o f e le ments andc ompounds,  as d istinct  f roma m echani calm i xture ? Wh at  is  it thate x pl a in st hecomb ining  p ower  if the c a loric ex pla i ns there pel l i ng pow e r? A bove all,the re is t he questio n  ofw he t her t ryingto exp lain re p uls io n or co mbi n a tion by p ostulatin g  asu bsta nce endo we d wi th  ju st  these proclivi ties isn 't direc t l y circ ula r  orl eads t oan infiniteregre ss ,  as Lav o i sie r reali s edwhe n s peak ing  oft he tendency of air to ex pand 
 of_atomic collision._Either direction is changed_instantaneously, requiring_what_is impossible,_namely_an infinitely large_force, or the_"atoms" are elastic in_virtue of a_structure_of subatomic parts and hence not atoms after all. Another example is the discrepancy_between_the specific_heat_ratios_of diatomic gases as observed_on the basis of thermodynamic_reasoning and_as calculated on the basis of the kinetic_theory._But aren't these_worries about the physical nature of atoms, which chemists_could circumvent by focusing on chemical_atoms? This strategy_might_be_interpreted to the effect_that chemists were thereby avoiding any_claim to adopt an atomic theory_of chemical substances. The term "chemical atomism"_should in that case be understood_as being used in what_analytic philosophers_like Nelson Goodman called a_syncategorematic sense. It_is not_a certain kind_of atomic theory, just as a_broken glass is_not a certain kind of glass-not_something_which is both_a_glass_and broken._Although the expression_is_built from_two_distinct words, they don't each retain_their_separate senses in the combined expression. If_this is so, and_what_is meant is simply_a theory founded on the_laws of proportion, then it is_not substantially_different from_Duhem's account, which is not an atomic theory. I find it_very difficult to see how a_view or theory can_be regarded_as_an atomic view_or_theory unless_it says something about atoms-ascribes to them_properties from_which the macroscopic properties of chemical_substances can be derived._This_brings us to the related line_of questioning concerning how the atomic_hypothesis could provide any explanation_of_chemical_combination or whatever it is_they are postulated to explain. Dalton_was clear about_this. He ventured to explain his law_of_partial pressures by endowing his atoms_with_a coating of caloric, so distributed_about_the_atoms of a particular kind_that they repulsed other atoms of_the same kind but not atoms of different kinds._This raises a_number of questions, of course:_What_distributions_of caloric could function in this way? Would the repulsive_power of_caloric allow atoms_of the same and different kinds to combine chemically to_form polyatomic molecules of elements and compounds,_as distinct from a mechanical mixture? What is it that explains_the combining power if the caloric explains the_repelling power? Above all, there is the_question of whether trying_to_explain repulsion or combination by postulating a_substance_endowed_with_just these proclivities_isn't directly circular_or leads to_an infinite_regress, as Lavoisier_realised when_speaking of the_tendency_of air to expand