Ernan McMullin – författare

This anthology represents the first large-scale attempt to present—and draw some morals and predictions from—the complex history of the concept of matter from Thales and Plato down to Marx and Heisenberg.The Concept of Matter is a collection of twenty-seven papers, each by a philosopher or scientist whose particular contribution to the dialogue on the concept is well known and here summarized and extended. From the symposium held in the fall of 1961 at the University of Notre Dame, Father McMullin has included not only the revised versions of those twenty-seven papers, but also an edited selection of comments and interchanges at the symposium itself—the dialogues of a distinguished gathering, some of the world's greatest scholars.The discussions bridge the concept of matter from the Greek and medieval interpretations through the transformation of the concept of matter into the redefinition of the concept of mass, to finally the dematerialization of matter by "modern science."A study of the evolution of this crucial concept illuminates the interrelation between the philosophical and the scientific approaches tto Nature which can be more thoroughly grasped in terms of the development and constantly changing views towards related concepts like matter and mass.Contributors: C. Lejewski, L. Esliek, J. Fitzgerland, J. Owens, N. Luyten, E. McMullin, A. Wolter, M. Fisk, M. B. Hall, C. Taliaferro, M. B. Hesse, C. Mast, J. Smith, A.R. Caponigri, N. Lobkowiez, K. Sayre, R. Rorty, R. Johann, N.R. Hnason, A.E. Woodruff, C. Misner.

This anthology represents the first large-scale attempt to present—and draw some morals and predictions from—the complex history of the concept of matter from Thales and Plato down to Marx and Heisenberg.The Concept of Matter is a collection of twenty-seven papers, each by a philosopher or scientist whose particular contribution to the dialogue on the concept is well known and here summarized and extended. From the symposium held in the fall of 1961 at the University of Notre Dame, Father McMullin has included not only the revised versions of those twenty-seven papers, but also an edited selection of comments and interchanges at the symposium itself—the dialogues of a distinguished gathering, some of the world's greatest scholars.The discussions bridge the concept of matter from the Greek and medieval interpretations through the transformation of the concept of matter into the redefinition of the concept of mass, to finally the dematerialization of matter by "modern science."A study of the evolution of this crucial concept illuminates the interrelation between the philosophical and the scientific approaches tto Nature which can be more thoroughly grasped in terms of the development and constantly changing views towards related concepts like matter and mass.Contributors: C. Lejewski, L. Esliek, J. Fitzgerland, J. Owens, N. Luyten, E. McMullin, A. Wolter, M. Fisk, M. B. Hall, C. Taliaferro, M. B. Hesse, C. Mast, J. Smith, A.R. Caponigri, N. Lobkowiez, K. Sayre, R. Rorty, R. Johann, N.R. Hnason, A.E. Woodruff, C. Misner.

"Newton on Matter and Activity shows persuasively that while the Principia remains within the first two stages of inquiry (mathematical and physical) into nature, Newton spent the next forty years of his life making a philosophical analysis of matter, force, and transmission of force. Close attention is paid to methodological issues, especially Newton's move beyond inductivism and toward a reproductive theoretical schema of interpretation required to treat of attraction, hardness, and impenetrability." —Cross Currents

From the beginning, the implications of quantum theory for our most general understanding of the world have been a matter of intense debate. Einstein argues that the theory had to be regarded as fundamentally incomplete. Its inability, for example, to predict the exact time of decay of a single radioactive atom had to be due to a failure of the theory and not due to a permanent inability on our part or a fundamental indeterminism in nature itself.In 1964, John Bell derived a theorem which showed that any deterministic theory which preserved "locality" (i.e., which rejected action at a distance) would have certain consequences for measurements performed at a distance from one another. An experimental check seems to show that these consequences are not, in fact, realized. The correlation between the sets of events is much stronger than any "local" deterministic theory could allow. What is more, this stronger correlation is precisely that which is predicted by quantum theory. The astonishing result is that local deterministic theories of the classical sort seem to be permanently excluded. Not only can the individual decay not be predicted, but no future theory can ever predict it.The contributors in this volume wrestle with this conclusion. Some welcome it; others leave open a return to at lease some kind of deterministic world, one which must however allow something like action-at-a distance. How much lit it? And how can one avoid violating relativity theory, which excludes action-at-a-distance? How can a clash between the two fundamental theories of modern physics, relativity and quantum theory, be avoided? What are the consequences for the traditional philosophic issue of causality explanation and objectivity? One thing is certain; we can never return to the comfortable Newtonian world where everything that happened was, in principle, predictable and where what happened at one measurement site could not affect another set of measurements being performed light-years away, at a distance that a light-signal could not bridge.Contributors: James T. Cushing, Abner Shimony, N. David Mermin, Jon P. Jarrett, Linda Wessels, Bas C. van Fraassen, Jeremy Butterfield, Michael L. G. Redhead, Henry P. Stapp, Arthur Fine, R. I. G. Hughes, Paul Teller, Don Howard, Henry J. Folse, and Ernan McMullin.

From the beginning, the implications of quantum theory for our most general understanding of the world have been a matter of intense debate. Einstein argues that the theory had to be regarded as fundamentally incomplete. Its inability, for example, to predict the exact time of decay of a single radioactive atom had to be due to a failure of the theory and not due to a permanent inability on our part or a fundamental indeterminism in nature itself.In 1964, John Bell derived a theorem which showed that any deterministic theory which preserved "locality" (i.e., which rejected action at a distance) would have certain consequences for measurements performed at a distance from one another. An experimental check seems to show that these consequences are not, in fact, realized. The correlation between the sets of events is much stronger than any "local" deterministic theory could allow. What is more, this stronger correlation is precisely that which is predicted by quantum theory. The astonishing result is that local deterministic theories of the classical sort seem to be permanently excluded. Not only can the individual decay not be predicted, but no future theory can ever predict it.The contributors in this volume wrestle with this conclusion. Some welcome it; others leave open a return to at lease some kind of deterministic world, one which must however allow something like action-at-a distance. How much lit it? And how can one avoid violating relativity theory, which excludes action-at-a-distance? How can a clash between the two fundamental theories of modern physics, relativity and quantum theory, be avoided? What are the consequences for the traditional philosophic issue of causality explanation and objectivity? One thing is certain; we can never return to the comfortable Newtonian world where everything that happened was, in principle, predictable and where what happened at one measurement site could not affect another set of measurements being performed light-years away, at a distance that a light-signal could not bridge.Contributors: James T. Cushing, Abner Shimony, N. David Mermin, Jon P. Jarrett, Linda Wessels, Bas C. van Fraassen, Jeremy Butterfield, Michael L. G. Redhead, Henry P. Stapp, Arthur Fine, R. I. G. Hughes, Paul Teller, Don Howard, Henry J. Folse, and Ernan McMullin.

"The 'Galileo affair' has been the object of innumerable studies, which (taken as a whole) have spread nearly as much fog as they have sunshine. The studies in this volume, many of them based at least in part on newly discovered or released sources, have convincingly blown away much of that fog. This is easily the most important volume on the 'Galileo affair' ever produced." –David C. Lindberg, University of WisconsinThis collection of first-rate essays aims to provide an accurate scholarly assessment of the relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and Galileo. In 1981, Pope John Paul II established a commission to inquire into the Church's treatment of Galileo "in loyal recognition of wrongs, from whatever side they came," hoping this way to "dispel the mistrust . . . between science and faith." When the Galileo Commission finally issued its report in 1992, many scholars were disappointed by its inadequacies and its perpetuation of old defensive stratagems. This volume attempts what the Commission failed to provide—a historically accurate, scholarly, and balanced account of Galileo and his difficult relationship with the Roman Catholic Church.Contributors provide careful analyses of the interactions of the Church and Galileo over the thirty years between 1612 and his death in 1642. They also explore the attitudes of theologians to the Copernican innovation prior to Galileo's entry into the fray; survey the political landscape within which he lived; assess the effectiveness (or otherwise) of censorship of his work; and provide an analysis and occasional critique of the Church's later responses to the Galileo controversy. The book is divided into three sections corresponding to the periods before, during, and after the original Galileo affair. Particular attention is paid to those topics that have been the most divisive among scholars and theologians. The Church and Galileo will be welcomed by all those interested in early modern history and early modern science.Contributors: Michel-Pierre Lerner, Irving A. Kelter, Michael Shank, Ernan McMullin, Annibale Fantoli, Mariano Artigas, Rafael Martínez, William R. Shea, Francesco Beretta, Stéphane Garcia, John Heilbron, Michael Sharratt, and George Coyne.