Paul Needham

An exposition of Pierre Duhem’s formulation of the structure of chemical substances as expressed by their formulas is given, presenting it as a development of his essentially Aristotelian view of mixtures. Duhem’s masterly development of the subject displays an eye for logical clarity familiar from his work in thermodynamics but applied here to the extraction of what he regarded as true from the history of chemistry. Though no longer defensible, the account has a conceptual interest in its own right and illuminates a less frequently discussed side of Duhem’s views.

In response to difficulties in understanding the notion of chemical substance at issue in Gibbs’ phase rule, there is a long tradition of reformulating the simple statement of the rule. The leading idea is to rewrite the rule with a term for the number of substances actually present and to introduce additional terms making explicit the various kinds of restrictions which in the original formulation are taken to be incorporated into Gibbs’ notion of the number of independent substances. Although the number of independent substances cannot in general be interpreted as the number of substances actually present, it is not an entirely derivative concept as the authors of the reformulations sometimes seem to presuppose. In particular, it is doubtful whether the number of substances actually present is a clearly delimited concept which can be determined prior to the application of the phase rule. In that case, the phase rule provides a useful source of information for the determination of the number and nature of the substances actually present in a mixture which should be properly reflected in an adequate interpretation of Gibbs’ notion of independent substances. For this purpose, I propose a mereological interpretation of the way independent substances are related to the substances actually present which makes sense of the fact that the former are not uniquely fixed but can be chosen from the latter in several ways

Prima facie, there are two kinds of expression used in English to make reference to time: those involving explicit mention of time and temporal ordering relations, and tenses involving no such explicit reference. Taking as a criterion of adequacy the unification of both these aspects, a systematization is proposed (owing much to Reichenbach) which provides a characterization of tenses. The theory is not based on the notion of a proposition with variable truth value which formed the cornerstone of Arthur Prior’s work. His conception receives a good deal of criticism, ultimately on the ground that relativising to exactly one time is inadequate. We don’t know in advance whether or not no time of perhaps more than one time is relevant, and where this is the case, the analysis cannot be reduced to propositions true at just one time.

The historical development of the understanding of water is traced in the light of the development of the general concept of chemical substance. From the times of the earliest known ancient Greek philosophers, water has played a central role in the conception of the material constitution of the world. But it was Aristotle who developed the most sophisticated understanding of water to have come down to us from the ancients. He viewed it as part of an intricate and systematic theory of chemical substance, which classified water as an element along with earth, fire and air. His view exerted a considerable influence on Arabic and European thinkers throughout the Middle Ages, and wasn’t successfully challenged until the eighteenth century. After Lavoisier, it was recognised that water, though unlike air a single substance and not a mixture, is neither an element nor always liquid. General features of chemical substances, distinguishing elements, compounds and mixtures, were elaborated in a general theory and harmonised with the mechanical features of matter towards the end of the nineteenth century. Finally, the continuous conception of matter underlying the Aristotelian view, which had been unsuccessfully challenged in the seventeenth century, was definitely overturned in the twentieth century, and the intricate microstructure of water was revealed.

Are there events? If so, how are they to be conceived? A line of argument motivating ontological commitment to what I prefer to call processes is presented, drawing primarily on the development of the elementary understanding of thermal processes, but pointing to a broader view by analogical extension. Suggestions are made for an approach to the mereological structure of processes, and some comments are offered of linguistic distinctions sometimes applied to processes and to modal features of events mentioned in the literature.

The accumulation of knowledge concerning the character and transformations of substances from ancient times constitutes progress in chemistry, which has accelerated enormously since the end of the 17th century. The present short article focuses on some themes in the development of theorising and conceptual clarification at the macroscopic and microscopic levels during the 19th and 20th centuries. This covers the general understanding of substances in relation to phase and the general notion of a mixture, the distinction between daltonides and berthollides, and issues connected with the notion of molecular structure. Together with the enormous body of factual material accumulated particularly over the last two centuries, this is progress in chemistry. The epistemological approach seems to give the best account of it amongst philosophical views on progress currently on offer.

Chemistry builds on distinctions of substance, which presupposes that matter can be divided into substances and compared with other matter and itself on different occasions as being of the same substance. Even identifying a quantity of matter as comprising a single substance presupposes the same substance relation, it being a quantity all of whose spatial parts are the same substance. But criteria of purity have been important for isolating substances and investigating their characteristic properties, which can in turn be used for establishing sameness of substance. With the development of chemistry into a theoretical science it became important that such criteria and characteristics should have a systematic theoretical basis. Thermodynamics was, perhaps, the first comprehensive theory to systematically divide the mass of the bodies with which it deals into distinct substances and offer general criteria governing the number of substances present. But the applicability of such macroscopic criteria is restricted to equilibrium conditions on a macroscopic time scale. They can be compared with microscopic conceptions of molecular structure, with which they have been complemented—some would say superseded. Since many substances are not molecular, however, the general formulation of a microscopic sameness of substance criterion remains unclear.

Prior left us with a problem which he stated in the following way: ‘Very roughly, it would seem that countable “things” are made or grow from bits of stuff, or from other countable “things”, that are already there. The precise logic of this process hasn’t been worked out yet, and until it has been, it seems likely that any tensed predicate logic can only be provisional in character.’ Although I disagree with much of the philosophy of time underlying Priorean tense logic, the problem of presenting a coherent view of ‘countable things’ and ‘bits of stuff’ within a framework accommodating temporal reference and modal expressions along broadly the lines Prior proposed remains an interesting one. The present paper sketches a general framework within which more specific questions raised by this general issue can be addressed, and makes a number of tentative suggestions without, however, proceeding so far as to settle on and develop a definite logical theory.

Chemistry, the science of substances and their transformations with roots in antiquity, provides as rich a source as any of the claims about what is not directly observable in the light of ideas reflecting both constancy and change. An important distinction in chemistry is that between macroscopic and microscopic realms, mistaken by positivists as a distinction between observable and theoretical and later by certain realists as a distinction between the merely superficial and the deeply theoretical. Recent realist themes about the preservation of the extension of substance predicates typified by “water” and the view that 20th century scientific atomism vindicates earlier philosophical speculations about the corpuscular constitution of matter are unjustified. The relation between quantum and general chemistry is vexed. Despite questioning particular realist theses, however, none of this raises doubts about the basic realist stance that science seeks and sometimes achieves knowledge of a world independent of our thoughts.