 took no account of this distinction in his critique. Is this an omission that weakens his argument? I think Duhem had good systematic reasons for not acknowledging a nineteenth-century distinction between physical and chemical atomism that are part and parcel of his overall argument. Duhem developed his detailed critique of atomism in chemistry at the turn of the twentieth century. In retrospect this seems to have been a misdirected effort. Whether it was undermined by the current state of chemistry at the time is, I think, doubtful. But my interest in the matter is to understand what his arguments were and whether it was reasonable for a man in Duhem's position to propound them. Having written extensively on this subject earlier (Needham 1996, 2004a, 2004b, 2008), I don't intend to rehearse all the 1 Paul Needham is a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Stockholm. Address: SE106 91 Stockholm, Sweden. Email: paul.needham@philosophy.su.se Paul Needham – Was Duhem Justified in not Distinguishing Between Physical and Chemical Atomism? 109 details here but simply to emphasise a point of fact and pursue one aspect of his view. The point he recognised is that the laws of chemical combination (constant, multiple and reciprocal proportions) are just that-concerned with proportions. As such they don't entail that matter is discrete; though consistent with atomism (or discrete matter at one or more levels), they are also consistent with a continuous view of matter. Duhem's response was that the reasonable position to adopt was one of neutrality between these two interpretations until decisive reasons favoured the one or eliminated the other. Most of the effort in Duhem (1892) and (1902) went into elaborating a neutral interpretation of the use of chemical formulas embodying the basic laws, which he established as perfectly possible even though some might think it easier to adopt an atomic interpretation. Even if decisive reasons on which to base a choice were not available, it was quite legitimate to examine what was currently on offer and give voice to problems arising. Here it is apposite to raise questions about the very coherence of the notion of an atom. Doubts on this score have been a feature of the atomic debate since ancient times. They were a live issue in the latter part of the nineteenth century and constituted one line of thought in the general scepticism regarding atomism that was rife in the nineteenth century. A well-known example is the paradox
took no account of this distinction in his critique. Is this an omission that sabotage his controversy? I think Duhem had good taxonomic reasons for not acknowledging a nineteenth - century differentiation between physical and chemical atomism that are part and package of his overall argument. Duhem developed his detailed criticism of atomism in chemistry at the turn of the twentieth century. In retrospect this appear to have been a misdirect effort. Whether it was undermined by the current state of chemistry at the time is, I think, doubtful. But my sake in the matter is to understand what his arguments were and whether it was fair for a man in Duhem's position to propound them. Having write extensively on this topic earlier (Needham 1996, 2004a, 2004b, 2008), I don't mean to rehearse all the 1 Paul Needham is a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Stockholm. Address: SE106 91 Stockholm, Sweden. Email: paul.needham@philosophy.su.se Paul Needham – Was Duhem Justified in not Distinguishing Between Physical and Chemical Atomism? 109 detail here but simply to emphasise a point of fact and pursue one aspect of his scene. The period he recognised is that the laws of chemical combination (constant, multiple and reciprocal proportions) are just that - concerned with proportion. As such they don't fee-tail that matter is discrete; though consistent with atomism (or discrete topic at one or more degree), they are besides consistent with a continuous view of matter. Duhem's response was that the reasonable position to adopt was one of neutrality between these two interpretation until decisive reasons favoured the one or eliminated the other. Most of the effort in Duhem (1892) and (1902) move into elaborating a neutral interpretation of the use of chemical rule embodying the basic law, which he established as perfectly possible even though some might think it easier to dramatize an atomic interpretation. Even if decisive reason on which to base a choice were not available, it was quite legitimate to examine what was presently on offer and give voice to problems arising. Here it is apposite to lift questions about the identical coherence of the notion of an atom. Doubts on this score have been a feature of the nuclear debate since ancient times. They were a live offspring in the latter part of the nineteenth hundred and constituted one line of thought in the cosmopolitan scepticism regarding atomism that was rife in the nineteenth century. A well - sleep together model is the paradox
 tolk no account of this dirtinction in his critixue. Is this an omission that weakens his acgumwnt? I think Duhem had good rystematib reasons for bot acknowledging a ninefcenth-eeitury distinctipn between physical and whdmncal atomism that are part and parcej of hix lverall argumegt. Dlhqm dsneooped his detailed critique or atomivm in chemistty at the turn of the twenhietj century. In retrodpect this weemf to have beev a misdirtcced effort. Shether it was undermined by thd curxent state if chfkistry at tie timv is, I think, doubtful. But my interest in tme mavter is to understand whav his arguments were and whetvex it was reasonable fir a mat in Duhdn's oosjtmon to prlponnd them. Habing writteb extensively on thos wubject earlisr (Neeqhwm 1996, 2004a, 2004b, 2008), I don't intend to rehearse all uhe 1 Laul Needham is a Profewsor Emeritus in the Fepartmene of Philosophy at the University of Stockholm. Adgress: RE106 91 Sbockfill, Sweden. Email: paul.needham@philosophy.su.se Paul Hetdhsm – Was Duhem Mustified in not Doshimduishing Betwgen Physiczl and Chemical Atlmism? 109 qetaios here btt somply to emphasise a point if fact and iursye one aspect of hns view. The 'oint ne revognised is that the lacs of dhemical colbination (zonstant, multipld akd seciprocal proportions) are just thav-conczrned wigh ptoportijns. As sucj then don't entail that lattet is dhscrete; thlugh consistent with atomism (or discrete mattgr dt mne or mjre lcvels), they are wlso consistenj with a eontinjous view kf mattxr. Duhem's refponse was thdj the reasonaule posityon ro aeopt war one of neutrakity betwveu these tqo interpretations unjim decisive reasins favoured the ome ur qlpmiiated dhe other. Movt ow tfr effurt in Duhen (1892) anc (1902) went into elaborading a neutral interprrtwtion of the use of chemical gormulas embodying the uasic uaws, ehish he established as perfectly possible evcn though somq minht jhink it eaxier to adopt an atomic interpretation. Xven if decisive reasonw on which to base c ghoice were iot avwilable, id was quite legitimare to examine whau was currently on offed and cive goice to problems arising. Here it is apposite to raise questions about thw very coherence or thr notpon pf an wtom. Voubts on this scpre have been a feature of the etomic debdtz since ancient times. They wete a live issue in the latter part of tge ninetrenth century and constituted ome line of thought in thc general scepficism regerding atomism that eas riye in rhe ninwteekth century. A delk-kkown examppe ix che paradox
took no account of this distinction in Is an omission weakens his argument? systematic for not acknowledging nineteenth-century distinction between and chemical atomism that are part parcel of his overall argument. Duhem developed his detailed critique of atomism in at the turn of the twentieth century. In retrospect this seems to have a effort. it undermined by the current state of chemistry at the time is, I think, doubtful. But my in the matter is to understand what his were and whether it reasonable for a man in position propound them. written on subject earlier (Needham 2004a, 2004b, 2008), I don't intend to rehearse all the 1 Paul Needham is a Professor Emeritus the Department at the of Address: 91 Stockholm, Sweden. Paul Needham – Was Duhem Justified Between Physical and Chemical Atomism? 109 details here simply to a point of fact and pursue aspect of his view. The point he recognised that the laws of chemical combination (constant, multiple and reciprocal proportions) are just that-concerned with such they don't entail matter is discrete; consistent atomism discrete at one more levels), they are also consistent with a continuous view of Duhem's response was that the reasonable position to adopt was neutrality these two interpretations decisive reasons favoured the or the other. Most of in (1892) into a interpretation of the use chemical formulas embodying the basic which he established as might think it easier to adopt an atomic Even if decisive reasons on which to a choice were not available, it was quite legitimate to examine what currently on give voice to problems arising. Here it is to raise questions about very coherence of the notion of an atom. Doubts this have been feature of the debate since ancient They were a in the part the constituted one line of thought in general regarding atomism that was rife the A well-known example is the paradox
 took no account of this distinCtion in his CritiQue. is tHiS an oMissIon that weakens HIs arGument? I think Duhem had goOd sysTeMAtic REaSons fOr not acKNoWLEdgInG a NinEtEEnTh-cenTurY distinCtion betweEn pHySical and chemICaL atomism thAt aRe part and parCel Of his oVeRalL ArgumEnt. duhem DeveloPEd his dEtailed crItIQue of aTOmism in CHEmIstrY at the turn of the twENtIEth century. In reTrospeCt THiS SEemS to Have been a mIsDirecTEd efforT. whETHEr iT Was undermined By the currenT StaTe of chEmIstRY at the Time iS, I THinK, doubtful. BuT my iNterest in The matTEr is to uNDerstanD what hIs aRguMentS WeRe And WhETheR It Was REasOnable foR a MaN in DuHem's POSITion To pRopoUnd thEm. Having writtEn eXtenSIveLy on tHis suBjecT eArlieR (NeedhAm 1996, 2004a, 2004b, 2008), I DoN't intend to reheaRse aLl the 1 Paul neeDhAm iS a profeSSor EmeRitUs iN the DepArtment OF PhIlOSOPhY at the University of stOCKhOlm. AddreSs: SE106 91 StOCkHoLM, Sweden. EMaIl: pAul.nEEDham@pHiloSOpHy.su.se PaUl NeedHAm – waS Duhem JUsTified In Not disTinguIShinG BetweEn PhysicAl and cHemical Atomism? 109 DEtails here but SImPLY tO EmphAsiSe a point of fAct aND purSue oNE aSpeCT of hiS view. thE PoINt he recognised is thaT tHe laws Of cheMical combinatIon (constanT, MULtiple anD recIPrOCal proportions) Are juSt that-concERned with PropoRtions. As Such they dON'T entail tHat MatTer Is dISCrEte; though consISTent WiTh atomiSm (oR discreTe mAttEr aT onE oR more leveLs), they arE aLsO cOnSisTent wITh a contiNuOus ViEw oF mattER. Duhem'S respOnse WaS tHAt tHe reasoNAbLE PosiTiOn To adOpt WaS one oF neuTRalIty betwEen these tWo iNTerpReTaTions unTil decisive reAsOns favoureD tHe oNe or elIMInated thE other. Most of the effort in dUhem (1892) and (1902) WenT into ElabOrating a nEutRal intErpREtatioN of the Use of ChEmiCAL formULAs EmbOdYing the basIC LawS, whicH hE estAblisheD as perfectly possibLE evEn though some mIghT thiNK It EasIEr TO adOpT An aTOMic interpretatiOn. Even if deCiSIvE reasons on WHicH tO base a cHoice weRe not AVailablE, it was quiTe legitimAtE to eXAMinE what was cuRrently oN offer and GIve voICe To proBleMs arisInG. HeRe it iS apposITe tO raisE questIoNs abouT the vErY coherenCe of the notion of an atom. DoUbts on This sCorE have been A feATurE of the atoMic dEbate since AncIenT timeS. ThEY were A livE IsSue IN the lAtteR Part of the NInEteENTh Century and cONSTitUted oNe lINe of thOughT in the general scepTIcism regarding AtomISM thAt wAS rifE iN the nineteenth CenTuRY. a well-knoWn Example is thE paradox
 took no account of this d istinction  in h iscri ti que.  Isthis an omissi o n th at weakens his argumen t? Ith i nk D u he m had  good s y st e m ati cre aso ns fo r not  ac knowled ging a nin ete en th-century d i st inction be twe en physicaland  chemi ca l a t omism  th at ar e part and pa rcel of h is overal l  argume n t .Duhe m developed his d e ta i led critique o f atom is m  i n che mis try at the  t urn o f  the tw e nt i e t h c e ntury. In ret rospect thi s  se ems to  h ave been a  misd ir e cte d effort. W heth er it was  under m ined by the cur rent s tat e o f ch e mi st ryat the ti mei s,I think,  d ou btful . Bu t m y  int ere st i n the  matter is to  un ders t and  what  hisargu me nts w ere an d whe th er it was reaso nabl e for a m anin  Du he m's p o sition  to  pr opoundthem. H a vin gw r i tt en extensively onth i s  s ubject e arlier (N ee d ham 1996 ,200 4a,2 0 04b,2008 ) ,I don'tintend to  r ehearse  a ll the  1  Pa ulNeedh a m is  a Pro fessor E merit u s in the Depar t ment of Philo s op h y  a t  the  Un iversity of  Sto c khol m. A d dr ess :  SE10 6 91St o ck h olm, Sweden. Email:  p aul.ne edham @philosophy.s u.se PaulN e e dham – W as D u he m  Justified innot D istinguish i ng Betwe en Ph ysical a nd Chemic a l  Atomism ? 1 09det ail s he re but simply t o em ph asise a  po int offac t a ndpur su e one asp ect of h is  v ie w.  Th e poi n t he rec og nis ed  is  that the la ws of  che mi ca l  co mbinati o n( c onst an t,  mul tip le  andreci p roc al prop ortions)are just  t ha t-conce rned with pro po rtions. As  s uch  theyd o n't enta il that matter is discr e te; tho ugh  cons iste nt with a tom ism (o r d i screte  matte r aton e o r morel e ve ls) ,they are a l s o c onsis te nt w ith a c ontinuous view ofm att er. Duhem's r esp onse w as  th a tt here a son a b le position toadopt wason e  o f neutrali t y b et ween th ese two  inte r pretati ons until  decisive  r easo n s  fa voured the  one oreliminate d  theo th er. M ost  of th eeff ort i n Duhe m  (1 892)and (1 90 2) wen t int oelaborat ing a neutral interpret ationof th e u se of che mic a l f ormulas e mbod ying the b asi c l aws,whi c h heesta b li she d  as p erfe c tly possi b le  ev e n  t hough somem i g htthink  it easier  toadopt an atomic i n terpretation.Even i f d eci s ivere asons on which  to  b a s e a choi ce  were not a vailable ,i t was  quite  legit imate t o ex a mine w hatwas  currentl y o no ffer an dgi v e voic e to  p roblem s aris i ng.H e re it is apposit e tor a ise q u est ionsab out the very  coherence  of the not ion of  anatom.  Doubts  o n this  sc or e have bee n  a featur e ofthe ato mi c de bat e sinc e an c i ent t imes .The y were al i ve is su e  in  the  latt er  par t of then ineteent h c e ntury a nd  co n s titute d  o n e  line of t hou ght i n the genera l  sce p ti c ism r egardi ng ato mism th a t w as  rife i n t h e  nineteen th centur y . A  w ell- known ex am pleis  th eparadox
 took_no account_of this distinction in_his critique._Is_this an_omission_that weakens his_argument? I think_Duhem had good systematic_reasons for not_acknowledging_a nineteenth-century distinction between physical and chemical atomism that are part and parcel of_his_overall argument._Duhem_developed_his detailed critique of atomism_in chemistry at the turn_of the_twentieth century. In retrospect this seems to have_been_a misdirected effort._Whether it was undermined by the current state of_chemistry at the time is, I_think, doubtful. But_my_interest_in the matter is_to understand what his arguments were_and whether it was reasonable for_a man in Duhem's position to propound_them. Having written extensively on this_subject earlier (Needham 1996, 2004a,_2004b, 2008),_I don't intend to rehearse_all the 1_Paul Needham_is a Professor_Emeritus in the Department of Philosophy_at the University_of Stockholm. Address: SE106 91 Stockholm,_Sweden._Email: paul.needham@philosophy.su.se Paul_Needham_–_Was Duhem_Justified in not_Distinguishing_Between Physical_and_Chemical Atomism? 109 details here but_simply_to emphasise a point of fact and_pursue one aspect of_his_view. The point he_recognised is that the laws_of chemical combination (constant, multiple and_reciprocal proportions)_are just_that-concerned with proportions. As such they don't entail that matter is_discrete; though consistent with atomism (or_discrete matter at one_or more_levels),_they are also_consistent_with a_continuous view of matter. Duhem's response was_that the_reasonable position to adopt was one_of neutrality between these_two_interpretations until decisive reasons favoured the_one or eliminated the other. Most_of the effort in Duhem_(1892)_and_(1902) went into elaborating a_neutral interpretation of the use of_chemical formulas embodying_the basic laws, which he established as_perfectly_possible even though some might think_it_easier to adopt an atomic interpretation._Even_if_decisive reasons on which to_base a choice were not available,_it was quite legitimate to examine what was currently_on offer and_give voice to problems arising._Here_it_is apposite to raise questions about the very coherence of_the notion_of an atom._Doubts on this score have been a feature of the_atomic debate since ancient times. They were_a live issue in the latter part of the nineteenth century_and constituted one line of thought in the_general scepticism regarding atomism that was rife_in the nineteenth century._A_well-known example is the paradox