Pragmatist Physics: William James and Niels Bohr

Jan D. Kucharzewski

When it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry.
(Niels Bohr)

This paper examines potential correlations between William James's pragmatist philosophy and the epistemological implications emerging from Niels Bohr's pioneering work in quantum physics. At the beginning of the 20th century a variety discoveries on the atomic and subatomic scale made by physicists such as Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, and Niels Bohr put a strain on the Newtonian model of the world and necessitated a reexamination of fundamental assumptions about the constitution of 'physical reality.' The 'Copenhagen Interpretation,' which Bohr developed in cooperation with Heisenberg in 1927, soon became the dominant model for explaining a variety of vexing quantum phenomena, despite the fact that its conclusions seem to venture into an epistemological skepticism atypical of the natural sciences. Although a philosophical appropriation of quantum physical concepts for a discussion of epistemological ideas is regarded by some critics as a 'category mistake' (cf. e.g. Christopher Norris, Quantum Mechanics and the Flight from Realism, 2000), the first person to frame quantum physics in a decisively philosophical context was Bohr himself. Indeed, his philosophical writings are collected in four volumes and these texts demonstrate a close affinity to the questions and concerns that also motivate James's philosophy. In his study Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought: Kepler to Einstein (1973) Gerald Holton already identified aspects of Jamesian pragmatism in Bohr's writing and the present paper continues to develop this argument by postulating conceptual analogies between pragmatist philosophy and the epistemological implications of modern physics. In a final argumentative step it will be demonstrated how additional resonances can be generated by relating both James's philosophy and Bohr's inquiries to the writings of Gertrude Stein and thereby activate a transdisciplinary dialogue between philosophy, literature, and science.

Back to Abstracts
Back to Program