30 JOHN A. OESTERLE 



a universal that is predicable of certain individuals, and the way 

 it would signify if we knew, once and for all, just what a swan 

 is as we know what a plane triangle is. In other words, we can 

 name things before we know precisely what the thing is that 

 we name. The history of biology proves that what we had 

 long considered to be a species turns out to be a genus. 



That simple naming, as distinguished from enunciation, does 

 not presume that we know exactly what it is that we name is 

 strikingly plain in the instance of the word " atom." It is taken 

 from the Greek " indivisible," in common usage. Democritus 

 imposed a further meaning upon it to signify what he believed 

 to be the indivisible elements of all things, differing from 

 one another by their geometrical figure. Dalton, for quite 

 different reasons, was led to an analogous conception, but his 

 minute spheres still retained the meaning of " indivisible." 

 Rutherford finally broke down these indivisibles, and they are 

 becoming unceasingly the opposite of what the name was first 

 intended to mean. The word " atom " continues to make 

 history, a history reflecting progress in our knowledge of the 

 basal entities of the physical world. But the original meaning 

 has dropped from sight, and the physicist will no longer refer 

 us to nature except most indirectly. He will explain what he 

 means when using this word by relating certain observations, 

 such as the Brownian movement, and operations of measure- 

 ment which led to interrelated measure-numbers permitting 

 him to establish equations, etc., which he then goes on to 

 explain in terms of hypotheses and theory that lead to further 

 experiments, etc. This elaborated understanding becomes very 

 atomic in one sense, if you will, but Democritus might well be 

 puzzled about his word " atom." 



Of course, someone might say of Democritus that he did not 

 know what he was talking about, and the same of Dalton. 

 But of course they knew. What they were ignorant of was the 

 real import of what they said, which could be no more than 

 vague, as the history of science has proved. What we must 

 recognize is that there can be uncertainty, not only as to 



