Ordinary Objects By Amie L. Thomason Analysis

In The Controversy over the Existence of Ordinary Objects, Amie L. Thomasson discusses controversy surrounding whether atoms exist, or ordinary objects exist. The idea mentions only atoms exist and therefore, ordinary objects do not exist. Thomasson rejects the claim that only atoms or ordinary objects can exist; Both cannot exist. Thus, Thomasson defends the existence of ordinary objects by discrediting arguments to vagueness and misuses of language. I agree that ordinary objects exist. In Section 1 I will describe this claim in depth. In Section 2 I will present an objection to this claim and argue for it.

Section 1: Argument

The claim above begins with the idea that an object and atoms cannot both exist. Either atoms exist or ordinary objects exist. It is impossible for atoms to be the underlying structure of an ordinary object. One must be chosen. Thomasson begins by introducing a short passage from Sir Arthur Eddington. He establishes a difference

If atoms exist, then ordinary objects do not exist. During the discovery of the atom, chemists such as J. J. Thompson, Ernest Rutherford, Niels Bohr, and more utilized the scientific method2. Through their procedural testing, data was collected and conclusions were made. These findings are well accepted in the scientific community and are relevant to the argument which is scientific in nature. The data to back these findings of atoms exist. If scientific questions should only consider scientific thinking, then atoms do exist and ordinary objects are comprised of an atomic structure. Thus, where there is factual scientific evidence available to support a claim, philosophy shouldn’t be in the picture. An easy conclusion would be to accept the scientific proof. If philosophy and metaphysics cannot be approached scientifically, then the other way around should be treated the