Micah G.

Dela Austria
ABM 12

Leucippus and Democritus

Atoms (Leucippus and Democritus)

Our senses suggest that matter is continuous. The air that surrounds us, for example, feels like a c
ontinuous fluid. (We do not feel bombarded by individual particles in the air.) The water we drink look
s like a continuous fluid. (We can take a glass of water, divide it in halves, and repeat this process ag
ain and again, without appearing to reach the point at which it is impossible to divide it one more tim
e.)

Because our senses suggest that matter is continuous, it isn't surprising that the debate about the e
xistence of atoms goes back as far as we can trace and continued well into this century. The first pro
ponents of an atomic theory were the Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus who proposed th
e following model in the fifth century B.C.

1. Matter is composed of atoms separated by empty space through which the atoms move.

2. Atoms are solid, homogeneous, indivisible, and unchangeable.

3. All apparent changes in matter result from changes in the groupings of atoms.

4. There are different kinds of atoms that differ in size and shape.

5. The properties of matter reflect the properties of the atoms the matter contains.

This model attracted few supporters among later generations of Greek philosophers. Aristotle, in par
ticular, refused to accept the idea that the natural world could be reduced to a random assortment of
atoms moving through a vacuum.

The Atomists: Leucippus & Democritus

Leucippus — probably of Miletus — and Democritus of Abdera were physicians. Le

ucippus was the founder of the Atomist School; but his disciple Democritus, who was
born about 460 B.C., and lived about ninety years, was its greater exponent. A natu
ralist and an avid searcher for knowledge, he journeyed into many regions to increas
e his notions, and many fragments of his works remain.

In Democritus, as in those who preceded him, we assist at the breaking up of the

being of Parmenides into an infinity of particles, each of them indivisible. Democritus
called these particles “atoms.” The atoms are material, qualitatively homogeneous,
but of different form and gravity and are endowed with motion “ab aeterno,” from hi
gher to lower.

Because atoms are endowed with motion, Democritus admits a second primordial e
lement, the void, that is, infinite space which surrounds the atoms and gives them th
e possibility of movement. The differences in gravity cause the atoms to whirl into m
otion, thus giving origin to the formation of things. Every union of atoms indicates a
birth, just as every separation of atoms indicates a death. Thus from the primitive vo
id have come the stars and the earth and all beings, including man.

The soul also is formed of light atoms similar to those of fire, and with death it is r
esolved into atoms.

Democritus does not deny the gods, but even they, he says, are subject to the univ
ersal mechanism: they arose from the composition of atoms, and will be reduced to
their component parts by decomposition. They live in interastral space, happy and n
ot concerned with the destiny of men. The wise man does not fear them because th
ey are powerless to do either good or evil.

Democritus admits only sensitive cognition, a product of the motion of atoms, whic
h in a light form separate themselves from the body, penetrate the empty spaces of
our organism and set in motion the atoms of our sensitive faculties. The movement
produces cognition. Indeed, not everything that comes to us through the senses is r
eally outside the sensitive faculty.

To this end, Democritus distinguishes the objective properties which are real in bodi
es — such as form, size, movement, etc.; and the subjective qualities which are due
to the reactions of our faculties — for example, odor, color, taste, etc. These are in t
he objects only as a point of origin; in the subject they exist as specific qualities.

The system of Democritus, the model upon which all the materialistic systems will
more or less be re-formed, presents to us a world regulated by mechanics (motion)
and by the natural laws which act in the picture of cosmic necessity. No rationality is
possible in this world of mechanical forces and hence no finality or purpose.

Thus are formed and are broken up the heavens and earth; thus human generation
s succeed one another, without there being a reason for their birth or for their deco
mposition; they are unconscious effects of unconscious causes. Life and death have
no value, and everything is swallowed up in the night of atoms, whence everything t
ook its origin. Such a system does not solve, but aggravates the problem of life, and
inclines one to despair without comfort.

Atomism
Atomism, any doctrine that explains complex phenomena in terms of aggregates of
fixed particles or units. This philosophy has found its most successful application in
natural science: according to the atomistic view, the material universe is composed o
f minute particles, which are considered to be relatively simple and immutable and t
oo small to be visible. The multiplicity of visible forms in nature, then, is based upon
differences in these particles and in their configurations; hence, any observable chan
ges must be reduced to changes in these configurations.

The Basic Nature Of Atomism

Atomism is in essence an analytical doctrine. It regards observable forms in nature

not as intrinsic wholes but as aggregates. In contrast to holistic theories, which expl
ain the parts in terms of qualities displayed by the whole, atomism explains the obse
rvable properties of the whole by those of its components and of their configurations
.

In order to understand the historical development of atomism and, especially, its rel
ation to modern atomic theory, it is necessary to distinguish between atomism in the
strict sense and other forms of atomism. Atomism in the strict sense is characterize
d by three points: the atoms are absolutely indivisible, qualitatively identical (i.e., dis
tinct only in shape, size, and motion), and combinable with each other only by juxta
position. Other forms of atomism are less strict on these points.

Atomism is usually associated with a “realistic” and mechanistic view of the world. I
t is realistic in that atoms are not considered as subjective constructs of the mind em
ployed for the sake of getting a better grip upon the phenomena to be explained; ins
tead, atoms exist in actual reality. By the same token, the mechanistic view of things
, which holds that all observable changes can be reduced to changes of configuratio
n, is not merely a matter of employing a useful explanatory model; the mechanistic t
hesis holds, instead, that all observable changes are caused by motions of the atoms
. Finally, as an analytic doctrine, atomism is opposed to organismic doctrines, which
teach that the nature of a whole cannot be discovered by dividing it into its compone
nt parts and studying each part by itself.

Various Senses Of Atomism

The term atomism is derived from the Greek word atoma—“things that cannot be c
ut or divided.”

Two basic types of atomism

The history of atomism can be divided into two more or less distinct periods, one p
hilosophical and the other scientific, with a transition period between them (from the
17th to the 19th century). This historical fact justifies the distinction between philos
ophical and scientific atomism.

Aristotle
Aristotle (384-322 BC) established the philosophical basis of physics with his “natur
al philosophy,” and is also considered one of the greatest philosophers in history.
 As such, much of his work in physics is speculative but offers a great deal of insight
. He did contribute real research to several areas of science, and had incredible fores
ight for an intellectual from the age of classical antiquity.

Significantly, Aristotle espoused a certain belief in inductive reasoning which was no

t found in his more deductive teacher, Plato. Therefore, Aristotle’s philosophical met
hod at least more closely resembled the current scientific method that did his teache
r’s. According to Aristotle, he studied phenomena which were caused by “particular,”
which was then a reflection of the “universal,” or the set of physical laws. Aristotle a
lso described “science” as “… either practical, poetical, or theoretical.”

One of the many fields to which Aristotle contributed was the field which he called “
natural philosophy.” He regarded “natural philosophy” as a “theoretical” science. Aris
totle devoted most of his life to the natural sciences, contributing original research to
physics, astronomy, chemistry, zoology, etc. Aristotle expressed an early teleological
belief in saying that natural things tend to certain goals or ends. Teleology is the phi
losophical belief that there are certain final causes in nature. According to Istvan Bod
nar, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Nature, according to Aristotle, is a
n inner principle of change and being at rest (Physics 2.1, 192b20–23). This means t
hat when an entity moves or is at rest according to its nature reference to its nature
may serve as an explanation of the event.” Essentially, Aristotle believed that referen
ce to the innate qualities of an object (whether it is at rest or in motion naturally) wo
uld assist in determining what caused an event. Of course, we now know that object
s are set in motion when acted upon by a net force and tend to stay in motion until
another net force acts upon it. However, Aristotle made an important point with this
idea: that forces acting upon objects can either set them in motion or make them te
nd towards rest.

One of Aristotle’s more famous ideas of natural philosophy is his addition of the cel
estial “aether” to the four natural elements suggested by Empedocles. The “aether” i
s, according to Aristotle, the “greater and lesser lights of heaven.” By this, Aristotle
meant the stars of the universe which were visible to him in the night sky. The other
four natural elements (fire, earth, air, and water) are able to change and mix, accor
ding to Aristotle. This is an early precursor to modern ideas of phase transition. Thes
e elements are capable of “generation and destruction,” as opposed to the aether, w
hich is unchanging. Aristotle concludes that these bodies cannot be composed of the
four elements, because they are not capable of change. Fire, earth, air, and water a
re terrestrial elements while aether is a celestial element. The most important point i
s that Aristotle redefined natural elements to include early ideas of phase transition.

Aristotle also made an important attempt to explain gravity. His theory was that all
bodies move toward their “natural place.” Natural places are also based largely on co
mposition (of the natural elements). For example, since many commonplace liquids a
re composed at least partially of water, they move towards sea-level, where the oce
ans are, or down towards the ground, where ground water can be found. Or, since s
moke is air-like, it moves up into the atmosphere where air is. This was the way in w
hich Aristotle described general motion. Aristotle also believed that vacuums did not
exist, but that if they did, terrestrial motion in a vacuum would be infinitely fast.

Aristotle described celestial motion in terms of crystal spheres, which carried the su
n, moon, and stars in unchanging endless circular motion. In Metaphysics, Aristotle s
ays “that there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all
wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world. And he is able … to discover a goo
d deal about that being…” This is his concept of the “unmoved mover,” which is cap
able of moving other things without being moved. An “unmoved mover” is reminisce
nt of the modern idea of gravity, which is not actually a physical object but does cau
se motion without any other motion being necessary.

Highly significant was Aristotle’s argument that the Earth was actually spherical. He
believed that the Earth was a small sphere. Since he could see stars in Egypt and Cy
prus which he could not see further north, he concluded that this was because the E
arth is a sphere and is small because such a significant change in the sky would not
happen unless on a small sphere. Based on his theory that the earth element tends t
owards a center, just as all water heads down to seal level towards the concentricall
y spherical ocean and all air tends to move upwards to form a concentrically spheric
al atmosphere, he theorized that the Earth was a sphere. Further evidence Aristotle
used to support his round Earth theory was that the shadow the Earth imposes on th
e Moon during a lunar eclipse is round.

Clearly, Aristotle made some significant contributions to the field of physics. He ma

de several further contributions to physics, cosmology, and astronomy. Aristotle defi
ned the scope with which Western culture would observe nature and theorize about
physics for centuries. There would have been no Newtonian physics without the strid
es made by Aristotle. There are several more contributions to physics which could be
covered here, but due to limited space, they must be discounted for now. In the ne
xt post, the ideas of Archimedes will be discussed, perhaps along with those of some
later Greeks.

Jabir ibn Hayyan (Geber)

C. 721-c. 815

Arab Alchemist and Physician

Jabir ibn Hayyan, often known as Geber, is sometimes confused with a fourteenth-c
entury Spanish mystic who also called himself Geber. In fact the latter deliberately to
ok on the name of his distinguished predecessor, and thus is typically known as "the
false Geber." As for the true Jabir, he is widely credited as the Father of Chemistry,
the first alchemist to take his studies beyond superstition and into the realm of pure
science. Among his many practical discoveries were arsenic, sulphur, and mercury.

Born Abu Musa Jabir ibn Hayyan, Jabir practiced alchemy and medicine professionall
y in the town of Kufa, now in Iraq, beginning around 776. Little else is known of his
biography, except the fact that at one point he worked under the patronage of a vizi
er from the Barmakid dynasty, and that he was in Kufa when he died. Far more is kn
own concerning Jabir's work, including the fact that he produced some 100 writings,
of which 22 were on the subjects of chemistry and alchemy.

By recognizing that it was necessary to use specific amounts of a given substance t

o produce a particular reaction, and by emphasizing experimentation, observation, a
nd reproducible methods, Jabir laid the groundwork for chemistry as a science. He id
entified three basic types of chemical substances: spirits such as arsenic and ammon
ium chloride, which vaporize with heat; metals; and compounds that may be crushe
d into powder. Today this distinction between volatile substances, metals, and nonm
etals remains in use. In addition to his discoveries of specific chemicals—which inclu
de nitric, hydrochloric, citric, and tartaric acids—Jabir contributed to knowledge conc
erning distillation, sublimation, crystallization, calcination, and evaporation.

He also discovered the fact that heating a metal adds to its weight, and his experim
ents with the darkening effects of light on silver nitrate provided a forerunner for the
idea of photographic negative images. Among the instruments developed by Jabir w
as the alembic, a vessel used in distillation. He also was the first to use manganese
dioxide for making glass, and developed aqua regia as a means of dissolving gold. In
addition, he created a number of practical applications for chemistry in areas such a
s steelmaking, rust-prevention, gold lettering, cloth-dyeing, leather-tanning, and wat
erproofing.

Finally, evidence of Jabir's lasting impact can be discerned from the many Arabic ter
ms—most notably, alkali—that made their way into European languages through his
writings. Of Jabir's many books, among the most influential in the West have been Ki
tab al-Kimya, translated in 1144 by Robert of Chester as "The Book of the Compositi
on of Alchemy," and Kitab al'-Sab'een, which Gerard of Cremona (1114-1187) transla
ted. Numerous other translations appeared in Latin, and during later centuries works
of the false Geber were mixed in with those of the true Jabir.

Alchemy
Alchemy is an ancient practice shrouded in mystery and secrecy. Its practitioners m
ainly sought to turn lead into gold, a quest that has captured the imaginations of pe
ople for thousands of years. However, the goals of alchemy went far beyond simply
creating some golden nuggets.

Alchemy was rooted in a complex spiritual worldview in which everything around us

contains a sort of universal spirit, and metals were believed not only to be alive but
also to grow inside the Earth. When a base, or common, metal such as lead was fou
nd, it was thought to simply be a spiritually and physically immature form of higher
metals such as gold. To the alchemists, metals were not the unique substances that
populate the Periodic Table, but instead the same thing in different stages of develo
pment or refinement on their way to spiritual perfection.
 As James Randi notes in his "Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Oc
cult and Supernatural," "Beginning about the year 100 and reaching its flower in me
dieval times, alchemy was an art based partly upon experimentation and partly upon
magic. Early investigators of natural processes centered their search on a mythical s
ubstance they knew as philosopher's stone, which was supposed to possess many va
luable attributes such as the power to heal, to prolong life, and to change base meta
ls into precious metal — such as gold." (This "philosopher's stone" was not a literal s
tone but instead a wax, liquid, or powder that held magical powers.)

History of alchemy
Historian Nevill Drury, in his book "Magic and Witchcraft," notes that, "The word alc
hemy is thought to derive from an Egyptian word, 'chem' or 'qem,' meaning black —
a reference to the black alluvial soils bordering the Nile ... We know that the Greek
word 'chyma,' meaning to fuse or cast metals, established itself in Arabic as 'al kimia'
— from which alchemy is derived." The Arabic role in the spread of alchemy is signif
icant; many books on alchemy were translated into Arabic from the Greek before bei
ng introduced to European audiences.
Having the ability to turn lead into gold has obvious benefits these days, but ancient
alchemists did not seek to change base metals into gold simply out of greed; as Drur
y notes, "The alchemists did not regard all metals as equally mature or 'perfect.' Gol
d symbolized the highest development in nature and came to personify human rene
wal and regeneration. A 'golden' human being was resplendent with spiritual beauty
and had triumphed over the lurking power of evil. The basest metal, lead, represent
ed the sinful and unrepentant individual who was readily overcome by the forces of
darkness ... If lead and gold both consisted of fire, air, water, and earth, then surely
by changing the proportions of the constituent elements, lead could be transformed i
nto gold. Gold was superior to lead because, by its very nature, it contained the perf
ect balance of all four elements."

Alchemy shows up in some odd places. For instance, Isaac Newton, best known for
his study of gravity and his laws of motion, also wrote more than a million words of
alchemical notes throughout his lifetime, historians have estimated.

In March 2016, the Chemical Heritage Foundation bought a 17th-century alchemy

manuscript written by Newton. Buried in a private collection for decades, the manusc
ript detailed how to make "philosophic" mercury, thought to be a step toward makin
g the philosopher's stone — a magical substance thought to have the ability to turn
any metal into gold and give eternal life. Curator of rare books at the Chemical Herit
age Foundation, James Voelkel said the text was likely copied from an American che
mist named George Starkey. The Latin text — whose title translates to "Preparation
of the [Sophick] Mercury for the [Philosophers'] Stone by the Antimonial Stellate Reg
ulus of Mars and Luna from the Manuscripts of the American Philosopher" — will be
available online for those interested to peruse.
 Protoscience
In the philosophy of science, the term protoscience is used to describe a new area
of scientific endeavor in the process of becoming established.
While protoscience is often speculative, it is to be distinguished from pseudoscience
and pathological science by its adherence to the scientific method and standard prac
tices of good science, most notably a willingness to be disproven by new evidence (if
and when it appears), or supplanted by a more-predictive theory.

Fields such as astrology and alchemy prior to the invention of the scientific method
can also be regarded as protosciences. With the advent of the scientific method, the
y rapidly produced the scientific fields of astronomy and chemistry respectively, leavi
ng those who refused to adopt the scientific method to practice pseudoscience.

Most typically a protoscientific field is one where the hypothesis presented is in acc
ordance with the known evidence at that time, and a body of associated predictions
have been made, but the predictions have not yet been tested.

Some protosciences go on to become an accepted part of mainstream science. Oth

ers fail to become established, or become pseudoscientific, as their followers persist i
n the face of lack of scientific evidence for their views.

Examples of protosciences

The most famous modern example of protosciences might be the theory of continen
tal drift as originally proposed by Alfred Wegener (which eventually became an acce
pted scientific model when the mechanisms of plate tectonics became understood).
Other examples include:

 the various string theories of physics, or the cognitive science of mathematics.

 Astrobiology, the protoscientific study of extraterrestrial life forms, including
speculation on the properties of life forms based on things other than carbon.
 Memetics, the study of hypothetical self-reproducing objects called memes

Such fields as acupuncture and lucid dreaming can also be categorized as protoscien
ces, pending more evidence and theoretical underpinning.

Other fields, like parapsychology are nearer the boundary between protoscience an
d pseudoscience.