BELL TELEPHONE LABORATORIES
INCORPORATED
463 WEST STREET NEW YORK
CHELSEA 3-1000 May 23, 1932
IN REPLY REFER TO
KKD-LU
REPLYING TO
PROFESSOR LINUS PAULING
Massachusetts Institute of Technology-
Cambridge, Mass.
Dear Linus:
Concerning "stochastic hypotheses": from the 1909 edition of Alexander Smith's "Inorganic
Chemistry", page 142, I extract the following:
"......When Mitscherlich discovered that Glauber's
salt gave a definite pressure of water vapor, he at once
formed the hypothesis, that is, supposition, that other
hydrates would be found to do likewise. Experiments showed
this supposition to be correct. The hypothesis was at once
displaced by the fact. This sort of hypothesis predicts
the probable existence of certain facts or connections of
facts, hence, reviving a disused word, we call it a
stochastic hypothesis, (Greek stochastikos, apt to divine
the truth by conjecture). It differs from the other kind
in that it professes to be composed entirely of verifiable
facts and is subjected to verification as quickly as pos-
sible. In the case of a formulative hypothesis we have no
expectation, or at best a very remote one, of verifying
the hypothesis, because many of its essential elements are
contrary to experience .. "
Instead of going on to quote his involved definition of "the other kind" of hypothesis,
I will merely mention that his instances thereof comprise the atomic theory of matter
and the undulatory theory of light; also, the (in 1909 defunct) corpuscular theory
of light.
I am not sure that the word "stochastic" was worth reviving; but this and the adjacent
passages and many other passages of the book offer good examples of Smith's keen
Professor Linus Pauling: - 2 -
thinking. I suspect that in later editions of his book these passages, implying as
they do a good deal of distrust of the atomic theory, may have been softened.
Sincerely yours,
Karl K. Darrow.
