Advertisement

Foundations of Chemistry

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 255–270 | Cite as

Another scientific practice separating chemistry from physics: thought experiments

  • R. J. SnooksEmail author
Article

Abstract

Thought experiments in the history of science display a striking asymmetry between chemistry and physics, namely that chemistry seems to lack well-known examples, whereas physics presents many famous examples. This asymmetry, I argue, is not independent data concerning the chemistry/physics distinction. The laws of chemistry such as the periodic table are incurably special, in that they make testable predictions only for a very restricted range of physical conditions in the universe which are necessarily conditioned by the contingences of chemical investigation. The argument depends on how ‚thought experiment’ is construed. Here, several recent accounts of thought experiments are surveyed to help formulate what I call ‚crucial’ thought experiments. These have a historical role in helping to judge between hypotheses in physics, but are not helpful in chemistry past or present.

Keywords

Thought Experiment Scientific Practice Hypothetical Reasoning Auxiliary Hypothesis Imaginary Experiment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. A. Aspect, P. Grangier and G. Roger. Experimental Realization of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm Gedanken experiment: A New Violation of Bell's Inequalities. Physical Review Letters 49: 91–94, 1982Google Scholar
  2. Brown J.R. (1991). The Laboratory of the Mind: Thought Experiments in the Natural Sciences. New York, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  3. A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen. Can Quantum–Mecanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete? Physical Review 47: 777–780, 1935Google Scholar
  4. Friedrich B. (2004). Hasn’t it? A Commentary on Eric Scerri’s paper “Has Quantum Mechanics Explained the Periodic Table?”, now published under the title “Just HowAb Initio is Ab Initio Quantum Chemistry?’’. Foundations of Chemistry 6: 117–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gendler T.S. (1998). Galileo and the Indispensability of Scientific Thought Experiments. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49: 397–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Norton J.D. (1996). Are Thought Experiments Just What You Thought? Canadian Journal of Chemistry 26: 333–366Google Scholar
  7. Scerri E. (2004). Just How Ab Initio is Ab Initio Quantum Chemistry? Foundations of Chemistry 6: 93–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. M.S. Silberburg. Chemistry: The Molecular Nature of Matter and Change, 2nd edn. Toronto: McGraw-Hill, 2000.Google Scholar
  9. Sorensen R. (1992). Thought Experiments. New York, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Vančik H. (1999). Opus Magnum: An Outline for the Philosophy of Chemistry. Foundations of Chemistry 1: 241–256Google Scholar
  11. Wilkes K. (1992). Real People: Personal Identity without Thought Experiments. Toronto, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations