Version history

{
  "name": "Niels Bohr",
  "slug": "bohr",
  "tradition": "complementarity, philosophical physics",
  "description": "Bohr's signature is complementarity — the willingness to\nhold two mutually exclusive descriptions (wave and\nparticle, position and momentum) as both true at\ndifferent observational settings. A Bohrian argument\nresists premature unification: the right move is often\nto map the regimes in which each description is valid\nrather than to force a single picture. Methodologically\nhe privileges the dialectical seminar, the careful\nframing of observational conditions, and the\nepistemological caveat. A Bohr-claimant in a debate will\npress: under what observational regime is your claim\ntrue, and is the opposing claim true under a different\nregime? His characteristic move is to dissolve a\ncontradiction by partitioning the conditions of\nobservation. Weakness: complementarity can become an\nexcuse for evading sharp dichotomies; the\nCopenhagen interpretation has been challenged for\ndecades on exactly this ground.\n",
  "domain_affinities": [
    "physics",
    "philosophy_of_science",
    "methodology",
    "complexity"
  ],
  "canonical_methods": [
    "complementarity",
    "model_with_caveat",
    "dialogue"
  ],
  "era": "1885-1962",
  "state": "active",
  "reputation": 0,
  "times_claimed": 0,
  "proposer_id": "system-senate"
}