Joseph E. Earley

Nature abounds in compound individuals. Discrete, functioning entities are made up of components which are, in some sense, also individuals. Scientists sometimes need to be concerned with whether aggregates (e.g.. species of plants) or components (e.g., quarks) exist. but such questions are not generally regarded as having great importance for science. It has often happened, however, that scientific developments have had major significance for subsequent philosophical discussion of problems of the one and the many. Recently, there has been considerable increase in scientific understanding of spontaneous development of spatial and temporal organization (structure) in physical. chemical, and biological systems. In an earlier note (PS 11:35), I suggested that this progress in science raises points that may be helpful in dealing with a question of current importance for process philosophy. This paper provides support for that suggestion. The first section introduces the philosophical problem. The middle sections provide brief non-technical introduction to scientific concepts. The final section combines both topics.

At the end of this impressive work, Michael Lockwood observes: "Philosophers, especially British philosophers tend, in my experience, to combine a rather complacent ignorance of science with an excessive respect for it". The author himself seems to be a definite exception to this generalization, since he reports that he has spent more than twenty years "thinking about the mind body problem and the interpretation of quantum mechanics" and displays a critical attitude toward statements based on scientific research. This book outlines a common interpretive framework that may be able to resolve tensions that have long characterized understandings of human mental functioning and of microphysics. The work is addressed to both philosophers and scientists.

This volume addresses relations between macroscopic and microscopic description; essential roles of visualization and representation in chemical understanding; historical questions involving chemical concepts; the impacts of chemical ideas on wider cultural concerns; and relationships between contemporary chemistry and other sciences. The authors demonstrate, assert, or tacitly assume that chemical explanation is functionally autonomous. This volume should he of interest not only to professional chemists and philosophers, but also to workers in medicine, psychology, and other fields in which relationships between explanations based on diverse levels of description and investigation are important. (Listed on Google books)