  Third, Locke arguably takes the corpuscular hypothesis to have limitations or shortcomings so serious that they amount to fatal flaws, an interpretation that Margaret Wilson (1979) was perhaps the first to defend. Wilson develops her line of argument mainly in connection with difficulties Locke raises about the corpuscular hypothesis’ purported ability to explain sensation and more generally, the relation between thought and  matter,[16] but some other phenomena are troublesome as well. Locke appears to consider such phenomena to be so obscure that we can attempt to understand them only by attributing them to God’s direct action.