Foundations of Science

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 223–234 | Cite as

Philosophy of chemistry and the image of science

OriginalPaper

Abstract

The philosophical analysis of chemistry has advanced at such a pace during the last dozen years that the existence of philosophy of chemistry as an autonomous discipline cannot be doubted any more. The present paper will attempt to analyse the experience of philosophy of chemistry at the, so to say, meta-level. Philosophers of chemistry have especially stressed that all sciences need not be similar to physics. They have tried to argue for chemistry as its own type of science and for a pluralistic understanding of science in general. However, when stressing the specific character of chemistry, philosophers do not always analyse the question ‘What is science?’ theoretically. It is obvious that a ‘monistic’ understanding of science should not be based simply on physics as the epitome of science, regarding it as a historical accident that physics has obtained this status. The author’s point is that the philosophical and methodological image of science should not be chosen arbitrarily; instead, it should be theoretically elaborated as an idealization (theoretical model) substantiated on the historical practice of science. It is argued that although physics has, in a sense, justifiably obtained the status of a paradigm of science, chemistry, which is not simply a physical science, but a discipline with a dual character, is also relevant for elaborating a theoretical model of science. The theoretical model of science is a good tool for examining various issues in philosophy of chemistry as well as in philosophy of science or science studies generally.

Keywords

Philosophy of chemistry Theoretical model of science Demarcation problems φ-Science The dual character of chemistry 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bird A. (2000). Thomas Kuhn. Princeton, Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  2. Chalmers A.F. (1986). What is this thing called Science? An assessment of the nature and status of science and its methods. Milton Keynes / Philadelphia, Open University PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Collins H.M. (1981). Stages in the empirical programme of relativism. Social Studies of Science 11 (1): 3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Collins H.M. (1983). An empirical relativist programme in the sociology of scientific knowledge. In: Knorr-Cetina K.D., Mulkay M(eds) Science observed: Perspectives in the social study of science. London, Sage Publications, pp. 85–114Google Scholar
  5. Dupré J. (1993). The disorder of things: Metaphysical foundations of the disunity of science. Cambridge and London, Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Giere R. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago, The University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  7. Kuhn T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed). Enlarged. Chicago, The University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Kuhn T. (1971). Notes on Lakatos. In: Buck R.C., Cohen R.(eds) Boston studies in the philosophy of science. Vol. VIII. PSA 1970. In memory of Rudolf Carnap. Dordrecht, Reidel, pp. 137–146Google Scholar
  9. Kuhn T. (1980). The halt and the blind: Philosophy and history of science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 31, 181–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lakatos, I. (1971). History of science and its rational reconstructions. In R. C. Buck & R. Cohen (Eds.), Boston studies in the philosophy of science. Vol. VIII. PSA 1970. In memory of Rudolf Carnap (pp. 91–136). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  11. Niiniluoto I. (1999). Critical scientific realism. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Psarros N. (1999). Are there laws of nature in chemistry?. In: Psarros N., Gavroglu K.(eds) Ars mutandi—issues in philosophy and history of chemistry. Leipzig, Leipziger Universitätsverlag, pp. 111–118Google Scholar
  13. Rorty, R. (1991). Is natural science a natural kind? In: Philosophical papers volume I: Objectivity, relativism, and truth, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 46–62.Google Scholar
  14. Scerri E.R. (1999). Editorial 2. Foundations of Chemistry 1(2): 107–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schummer J. (1997a). Towards a philosophy of chemistry. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 28, 307–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schummer J. (1997b). Challenging standard distinctions between science and technology: The case of preparative chemistry. Hyle 3, 90–91Google Scholar
  17. Schummer J. (2006). The philosophy of chemistry: From infancy toward maturity. In: Baird D., Scerri E., MacIntyre L.(eds) Philosophy of chemistry: Synthesis of a new discipline (Boston studies in the philosophy of science 242). Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 19–39Google Scholar
  18. Toulmin S. (1967). The philosophy of science. An introduction. London, HutchinsonGoogle Scholar
  19. van Brakel J. (1999). On the neglect of the philosophy of chemistry. Foundations of Chemistry 1(2): 111–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. van Brakel J. (2000). Philosophy of chemistry: Between the manifest and the scientific images. Leuven, Leuven University PressGoogle Scholar
  21. van Brakel, J. (2003). The ignis fatuus of reduction and unification: Back to the rough ground. In J. E. Earley, Sr. (Ed.), Chemical explanation: characteristics, development, autonomy. (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 988) (pp. 30–43). New York: NYAS.Google Scholar
  22. van Brakel J. (2006). Kant’s legacy for the philosophy of chemistry. In: Baird D., Scerri E., MacIntyre L.(eds) Philosophy of chemistry: Synthesis of a new discipline. (Boston studies in the philosophy of science 242). Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 69–91Google Scholar
  23. van Fraassen B.C. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford, Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
  24. Vihalemm, R. (1982). The dilemma of ‘aprioristic rationality’ and ‘historiographic positivism’ in the Western philosophy of science. Voprosy Filosofii, 2, 55–65 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  25. Vihalemm, R. (1995). Some comments on a naturalistic approach to philosophy of science. In Studia philosophica II (38), University of Tartu, Tartu, pp. 9–18.Google Scholar
  26. Vihalemm R. (1999). Can chemistry be handled as its own type of science?. In: Psarros N., Gavroglu K.(eds) Ars mutandi—issues in philosophy and history of chemistry. Leipzig, Leipziger Universitätsverlag, pp. 83–88Google Scholar
  27. Vihalemm R. (2001). Chemistry as an interesting subject for the philosophy of science. In: Vihalemm R.(eds) Estonian studies in the history and philosophy of science. (Boston studies in the philosophy of science. Vol. 219. Dordrecht, Kluwer, pp. 185–200Google Scholar
  28. Vihalemm R. (2003a). Are laws of nature and scientific theories peculiar in chemistry? Scrutinizing Mendeleev’s discovery. Foundations of Chemistry 5(1): 7–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vihalemm, R. (2003b). Natural kinds, explanation, and essentialism in chemistry. In J. E. Earley, Sr. (Ed.), Chemical explanation: Characteristics, development, autonomy. (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 988) (pp. 59–70). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  30. Vihalemm, R. (2004a). The problem of the unity of science and chemistry. In D. Sobczyńska, P. Zeidler & E. Zielonacka-Lis (Eds.), Chemistry in the philosophical melting pot. (Dia-Logos: Studies in philosophy and social sciences, Vol. 5) (pp. 39–58). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
  31. Vihalemm, R. (2004b). Foreword: Some remarks on the emergence of philosophy of chemistry in the East and West. In R. Vihalemm, J. E. Earley, Sr., T. Hallap (Eds.), Proceedings of the7th Summer Symposium of the International Society for the Philosophy of Chemistry (Tartu, 16–20 August, 2003). Studia philosophica, IV (40) (pp. 7–15). Tartu: Tartu University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Vihalemm R. (2005). Chemistry and a theoretical model of science: On the occasion of a recent debate with the Christies. Foundations of Chemistry 7(2): 171 –182CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations