Editing Leucippus (section)

=== Modern era ===
Ancient atomism was revived in the 16th and 17th centuries,{{Sfn|Gregory|2020|p=26}}{{Sfn|Taylor|1999|pp=219–220}} especially by proponents of the [[mechanical philosophy]] such as [[Pierre Gassendi]] (1592–1655) and [[Robert Boyle]] (1627–1691).{{sfn|Chalmers|2005–2014}} Nevertheless, in practice experimental chemists such as Boyle rather relied on the tradition of [[corpuscularianism]] which had developed in medieval [[alchemy]] and ultimately goes back to works such as Aristotle's [[Meteorology (Aristotle)|''Meteorology IV'']].{{sfn|Berryman|2005–2022}} Throughout the 18th century chemists worked independently from philosophical atomism, which only changed when [[John Dalton]] (1766–1844) proposed a form of atomism that was rooted in chemical experiment.{{sfn|Chalmers|2005–2014}}

Although Leucippus' ideas form an important historical precedent for the concept of atoms in general, they only bear a superficial resemblance to modern [[atomic theory]]. Leucippus's philosophy was conjecture based on ''[[a priori]]'' evidence, while modern atomic theory is supported by empirical evidence found through the [[scientific method]].{{Sfn|McKirahan|2011|pp=341–342}}{{Sfn|Barnes|2012|pp=343–344}} The main practical difference between Leucippus's atomism and modern atomic theory is the introduction of non-tangible phenomena such as [[mass–energy equivalence]] and [[fundamental force]]s. Instead of the purely material atoms of Leucippus, modern atomic theory shows that fundamental forces combine [[subatomic particle]]s into atoms and link atoms together into [[molecule]]s.{{Sfn|McKirahan|2011|p=342}} The 20th-century physicist [[Werner Heisenberg]] argued that Plato's [[theory of forms]] was closer to the 20th-century understanding of physics than Leucippus's conception of atoms, saying that modern atoms are more like the intangible Platonic forms than the discrete material units of Leucippus.{{Sfn|Barnes|2012|p=344}}

==== Scholarship on Leucippus ====

Modern philosophy generally takes more interest in Leucippus's concept of atoms than his cosmology.{{Sfn|Graham|2008|p=344}} Two major systems have been created to distinguish Leucippus and Democritus. The 20th-century philosopher {{Ill|Adolf Dyroff|de}} developed a set of distinctions between Leucippus and Democritus: he proposed that Leucippus was responsible for the atomist response to the Eleatics while Democritus responded to the [[Sophists]] and that Leucippus was a cosmologist while Democritus was a [[polymath]].{{Sfn|Graham|2008|p=335}} The 20th-century classicist [[Cyril Bailey]] proposed another system to differentiate the two philosophers, attributing atomism and belief in the void to Leucippus while attributing ''The Great Cosmology'' to Democritus as an application of Leucippus's philosophy.{{Sfn|Graham|2008|p=336}} Unlike Democritus, Leucippus is only known to have studied cosmology and physics.{{Sfn|Hasper|2014|p=65}}