Abstract
During the second half of the nineteenth century, electronegativity (EN) has been one of the most relevant chemical concepts to explain the relationships between chemical substances and their possible reactions. Specifically, EN is a property of the substances that allows them to attract external electrons in bonding situations. The problem arises because EN cannot be measured directly. Indeed, the only way to measure it is through different properties that do can be directly measured, for instance enthalpy, ionization energies or electron affinities. What is particularly troubling about this case in quantum chemistry is that the different models used to describe and quantify EN are incompatible but, in a certain sense, equivalent because the same EN scale results in all of them. By analyzing Linus Pauling’s and Robert Mulliken’s models of EN, it will be argued that, if we remain cling to a traditional representative conception of models, we cannot understand the meaning of the information provided by those models. Indeed, if we do not want to adopt an instrumentalist point of view concerning chemical knowledge, we should reconsider by virtue of what a model represents the system, or, in other words, which the factors that determine the representative power of a model are. I will propose a new perspective that incorporates the role of experimental techniques in the very notion of representation; this perspective allows us to understand how supposedly incompatible models of the same target system can be both simultaneously representative.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Accorinti, H., Martínez González, J.C.: Acerca de la independencia de los modelos respecto de las teorías. Theoria 31, 225–245 (2016)
Allred, A.L.: Electronegativity values from thermochemical data. J. Inorg. Nucl. Chem. 17, 215–221 (1961)
Boeyens, J.C., du Toit, J.: The theoretical basis of electronegativity. Electron. J. Theor. Chem. 2, 296–301 (1997)
Bueno, O.: Empirical adequacy: a partial structures approach. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. Part A 28, 585–610 (1997)
Bueno, O., French, S., Ladyman, J.: On representing the relationship between the mathematical and the empirical. Philos. Sci. 69, 452–473 (2002)
Carnap R.: Empiricism, semantics and ontology. Reprinted in the Supplement to Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1950)
Cartwright, N., Shomar, T., Suárez, M.: The tool box of science. In: Herfel, W., Krajewski, W., Niniiluoto, I., Wójcicki, R. (eds.) Theories and Models in Scientific Processes, Poznań Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, pp. 137–149. Rodopi, Amsterdam (1995)
Da Costa, N., French, S.: Models, theories, and structures: thirty years on. Philos. Sci. 67, 116–127 (2000)
Da Costa, N., French, S.: Science and Partial Truth: A Unitary Approach to Models and Scientific Reasoning. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2003)
Dunn, J.M.: Relevant predication: intrinsic properties and internal relations. Philos. Stud. 60, 177–206 (1990)
Fischer, G.: Content, design, and representation in chemistry. Found. Chem. 19, 17–28 (2017)
Frigg, R.: Models and fiction. Synthese 172, 251–268 (2010)
Frigg, R.: Models and representation: why structures are not enough. In: Measurement in Physics and Economics Project Discussion Paper Series. DP MEAS 25/02. London School of Economics, London (2002)
Frigg, R.: Scientific representation and the semantic view of theories. Theoria 55, 46–65 (2006)
Giere, R.: How models are used to represent physical reality. Philos. Sci. 71, 742–752 (2004)
Giere, R.: An agent-based conception of models and scientific representation. Synthese 172, 269–281 (2010)
Giere, R.: Representing with physical models. In: Humphreys, P., Imbert, C. (eds.) Models, Simulations and Representations, pp. 209–215. Routledge, New York (2011)
Hughes, R.I.G.: Models and representation. Philos. Sci. 64, S325–S336 (1997)
Jensen, W.B.: Electronegativity from Avogadro to Pauling. Part I: origins of the electronegativity concept. J. Chem. Educ. 73, 11–20 (1996)
Jensen, W.B.: Electronegativity from Avogadro to Pauling: II. Late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century developments. J. Chem. Educ. 80, 279–287 (2003)
Langton, R., Lewis, D.: Defining ‘intrinsic’. Philos. Phenomenol. Res. 58, 333–345 (1998)
Lewis, D.: Extrinsic properties. Philos. Stud. 44, 197–200 (1983)
Lombardi, O., Labarca, M.: The ontological autonomy of the chemical world. Found. Chem. 7(2), 125–148 (2005)
Marshall, D., Weatherson, B.: Intrinsic vs. extrinsic properties. In: E. N. Zalta (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/intrinsic-extrinsic/ (2018). Accessed 21 Jan 2018
Morrison, M.: One phenomenon, many models: inconsistency and complementarity. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 42, 342–351 (2011)
Mulliken, R.: A new electroaffinity scale; together with data on valence states and on valence ionization potentials and electron affinities. J. Chem. Phys. 2, 782–793 (1934)
Pauling, L.: The nature of the chemical bond. IV. The energy of single bonds and the relative electronegativity of atoms. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 54, 3570–3582 (1932)
Pauling, L.: College Chemistry: An Introductory Textbook of General Chemistry, 2nd edn. W. H. Freeman & Company, San Francisco (1950)
Putnam, H.: Reason, Truth and History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1981)
Ruthenberg, K., Martínez González, J.C.: Electronegativity and its multiple faces: persistence and measurement. Found. Chem. 19, 61–75 (2017)
Sanderson, R.T.: Chemical Bonds and bond Energy, 2nd edn. Academic Press, New York (1976)
Sider, T.: Intrinsic properties. Philos. Stud. 83, 1–27 (1996)
Suárez, M.: The role of models in the application of scientific theories: epistemological implications. In: Morgan, M., Morrison, M. (eds.) Models as Mediators, pp. 168–196. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)
Suárez, M.: Scientific representation: against similarity and isomorphism. Int. Stud. Philos. Sci. 17, 225–244 (2003)
Suárez, M.: An inferential conception of scientific representation. Philos. Sci. 71, 767–779 (2004)
Suárez, M.: Fictions in Science: Philosophical Essays on Modeling and Idealization. Routledge, New York (2009)
Suárez, M.: Scientific realism, the Galilean strategy and representation. In: González, W. (ed.) Scientific Realism and Democratic Society: The Philosophy of Philip Kitcher. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, pp. 269–292. Rodopi, Amsterdam (2012)
Suárez, M., Cartwright, N.: Theories: tools versus models. Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys. 39, 62–81 (2008)
Vallentyne, P.: Intrinsic properties defined. Philos. Stud. 88, 209–219 (1997)
Wells, P.R.: Group electronegativities. In: Streitwieser Jr., A., Taft, R.W. (eds.) Progress in Physical Organic Chemistry, pp. 111–145. Wiley, Berkeley (1968)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Accorinti, H.L. Incompatible models in chemistry: the case of electronegativity. Found Chem 21, 71–81 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10698-018-09328-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10698-018-09328-x