Eric R. Scerri

The case for the philosophy of chemistry

The philosophy of chemistry has been sadly neglected by most contempory literature in the philosophy of science. This paper argues that this neglect has been unfortunate and that there is much to be learned from paying greater philosophical attention to the set of issues defined by the philosophy of chemistry. The potential contribution of this field to such current topics as reduction, laws, explanation, and supervenience is explored, as are possible applications of insights gained by such study to the philosophy of mind and the philosophy of social science.

Prediction and the periodic table

Abstract The debate about the relative epistemic weights carried in favour of a theory by predictions of new phenomena as opposed to accommodations of already known phenomena has a long history. We readdress the issue through a detailed re-examination of a particular historical case that has often been discussed in connection with it—that of Mendeleev and the prediction by his periodic law of the three ‘new’ elements, gallium, scandium and germanium. We find little support for the standard story that these predictive successes were outstandingly important in the success of Mendeleevs scheme. Accommodations played an equal role—notably that of argon, the first of the ‘noble gases’ to be discovered; and the methodological situation in this chemical example turns out to be in interesting ways different from that in other cases—invariably from physics—that have been discussed in this connection. The historical episode when accurately analysed provides support for a different account of the relative weight of prediction and accommodation—one that is further articulated here.

THE NATURE OF CHEMICAL KNOWLEDGE AND CHEMICAL EDUCATION

In this chapter we have argued that chemistry education needs to be reconceptualised to incorporate salient themes from the emerging field of philosophy of chemistry. We have outlined an example framework for the application of philosophy of chemistry in chemistry education. In particular we have presented reduction, explanation, laws and supervenience as critical themes that provide the foundation for philosophy of chemistry, and have suggested some implications for theories of learning, curriculum design and teacher education. In so doing, we have indicated that future efforts in the inclusion of HPS in science education will need to take domain-specificity of disciplinary knowledge more seriously. The application of philosophy of chemistry in chemistry education has the potential to make Schwab’s foreseen recommendations for effective science teaching a reality.

The Failure of Reduction and How to Resist Disunity of the Sciences in the Context of Chemical Education

The failure, by philosophers of science, to reduce special sciences such as chemistry to quantum mechanics has produced many responses including the notion of supervenience and that of the disunity of the sciences. This article criticizes these responses and proposes an alternative one, namely the autonomy of chemistry. After examining the history of the atomic orbital model I argue that chemical educators should legitimately continue to view terms such as orbital and configuration in a realistic manner although they are deemed to be strictly non-referring in quantum mechanics. Such a view of autonomous though related levels is opposed in particular to the increasingly prevalent notion of disunified sciences.

Prediction of the nature of hafnium from chemistry, Bohr's theory and quantum theory

Summary The chemical nature of element 72, subsequently named hafnium, is generally regarded as a prediction from Bohrs theory of the periodic system and hence as a prediction from quantum theory. It is argued that both of these views and in particular the latter are mistaken. The claim in favour of Bohrs theory is weakened by his accommodation of independent chemical arguments and the claim in favour of quantum theory is untenable since the prediction is not strictly deductive.

Just how ab initio is ab initio quantum chemistry

Quantum Mechanics has been the most spectacularly successful theory in the history of science. As is often mentioned the accuracy to which the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron can be calculated is a staggering nine decimal places. Quantum Mechanics has revolutionized the study of radiation and matter since its inception just overonehundredyears ago. Theimpactof thetheoryhas been felt in such fields as solid state physics, biochemistry, astrophysics, materials science and electronic engineering, not to mention chemistry, the subject of this conference. Quantum Mechanics offers the most comprehensive and most successful explanation of many chemical phenomena such as the nature of valency and bonding as well as chemical reactivity. It has also provided a fundamental explanation of the periodic system of the elements that summarizes a vast amount of empirical chemical knowledge. Quantum Mechanics has become increasingly important in the education of chemistry students. The general principles provided by the theory mean that students can now spend less time memorizing chemical facts and more time in actually thinking about chemistry. I hope that with these opening words I have succeeded in convincingtheaudiencethat Ido notcomebefore youto denythepower and influence of Quantum Mechanics in the field of chemistry. � A previous version of this article appeared as ‘Lowdin’s Remarks on the Aufbau Principle and a Philosopher’s View of Ab Initio Quantum Chemistry’ in E.J. Brandas, E.S. Kryachko (Eds.) Fundamental World of Quantum Chemistry, Vol. II, 675‐694, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2003.

Has the Periodic Table Been Successfully Axiomatized

Although the periodic system of elements is central to the study of chemistry and has been influential in the development of quantum theory and quantum mechanics, its study has been largely neglected in philosophy of science. The present article is a detailed criticism of one notable exception, an attempt by Hettema and Kuipers to axiomatize the periodic table and to discuss the reduction of chemistry in this context.

THE NEW PHILOSOPHY OF CHEMISTRY AND ITS RELEVANCE TO CHEMICAL EDUCATION

This article tries to analyze briefly the reasons why philosophy of chemistry has only recently emerged, whereas the philosophical study of physics and biology are far better established fields of knowledge. Some key issues in contemporary philosophy of chemistry are reviewed and the ways in which this new branch of philosophy of science can be of potential benefit to chemical education are discussed. [Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. Eur.: 2001, 2, 165-170]

Popper's naturalized approach to the reduction of chemistry

Abstract Sir Karl Popper is one of the few authors to have discussed the reduction of chemistry. His approach consists of what I term naturalistic reduction, which I suggest bears close similarities to the way in which scientists regard reduction. The present article aims to build on Poppers insights into the nature of reduction in science and more specifically to suggest an approach to characterizing a specific sense of the notion of approximate reduction in the context of chemistry. In the course of the discussion, one of Poppers better known passages on the reduction of chemistry is analysed in some detail.

Reduction and Emergence in Chemistry—Two Recent Approaches

Two articles on the reduction of chemistry are examined. The first, by McLaughlin (1992), claims that chemistry is reduced to physics and that there is no evidence for emergence or for downward causation between the chemical and the physical level. In a more recent article, Le Poidevin (2005) maintains that his combinatorial approach provides grounding for the ontological reduction of chemistry, which also circumvents some limitations in the physicalist program.