It is true that the Critical School denied the reality of atoms and molecules. Needless to say, that’s where they went astray. However, concrete historical analysis of this issue is required. There was no fully reliable experimental evidence regarding the existence of atoms before the 1908 Perrin experiment. Relying on his empiricist philosophy, Mach rejected atomic theory because “atoms…can never be made the object of sensuous contemplation.”31 Poincare merely reserved judgement on this question. He argued that, since the atomic assumption has not been experimentally demonstrated, it cannot be considered either true or false. Moreover, its usefulness as a supplementary assumption is not yet determined. In fact, atomic theory encountered some difficulties in explaining problems concerning the second law of thermodynamics, heat of vaporization, osmotic pressure, chemical equilibria, etc. Ostwald proposed a theory of energetics based on his search for a common foundation which would integrate physics and chemistry. Thus it’s obvious that the major proponents of the Critical School disagreed on this issue. Moreover, to varying degrees, they later recognized their errors. In 1913 Mach admitted that he would have to accept the atomic assumption if it could be shown to be capable of logically connecting observable phenomena which cannot otherwise be connected. After the Perrin experiment, Ostwald immediately publicly admitted his mistake and wrote in the new edition (1909) of Outline of General Chemistry,
I am now convinced…that we have recently become possessed of experimental evidence of the discrete or grained nature of matter for which the atomic hypothesis sought in vain for hundreds and thousands of years… [New discoveries] justify the most cautious scientist in now speaking of the experimental proof of the atomic theory of matter.32
In 1912 Poincare also solemnly stated, “the long existing mechanical hypothesis is now considered to be fully reliable…atomic theory has achieved an absolute victory…the atom…is now a reality.”33
The Critical School also behaved conservatively in some respects in the revolution in physics. Now matter how many mistakes they made, however, during the period of crisis in physics at the turn of the century and the early period of revolution, the Critical School was essentially reformist and promoted the development of physics.
II. Two Philosophical Roots
The quite different reactions of the Mechanical and Critical Schools can be partially explained by their philosophical origins.
The Mechanical School adhered to the cognitive line of mechanistic materialism which, on the one hand, tremendously promoted the development of classical mechanics and classical physics. On the other hand, to a certain degree it became an obstacle to the development of physics because “it did not understand the relativity of all scientific theories, failed to comprehend dialectics, and exaggerated the role of mechanism,”34 thus basically losing its positive value under the particular historical conditions which existed at the turn of the century.
百度搜索“77cn”或“免费范文网”即可找到本站免费阅读全部范文。收藏本站方便下次阅读，免费范文网，提供经典小说英语论文TWO SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT IN THE REVOLUTION IN PHYSICS AT THE T(6)在线全文阅读。
