Foundations of Chemistry

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 149–169 | Cite as

Explaining Models: Theoretical and Phenomenological Models and Their Role for the First Explanation of the Hydrogen Spectrum

Article
  • 120 Downloads

Abstract

Traditional nomological accounts of scientific explanation have assumed that a good scientific explanation consists in the derivation of the explanandum’s description from theory (plus antecedent conditions). But in more recent philosophy of science the adequacy of this approach has been challenged, because the relation between theory and phenomena in actual scientific practice turns out to be more intricate. This critique is here examined for an explanatory paradigm that was groundbreaking for 20th century physics and chemistry (and their interrelation): Bohr’s first model of the atom and its explanatory relevance for the spectrum of hydrogen. First, the model itself is analysed with respect to the principles and assumptions that enter into its premises. Thereafter, the origin of the model’s explanandum is investigated. It can be shown that the explained “phenomenon” is itself the product of a host of modelling accomplishments that stem from an experimental tradition related to 19th century chemistry, viz. spectroscopy. The relation between theory and phenomenon is thus mediated in a twofold way: by (Bohr’s) theoretical model and a phenomenological model from spectroscopy. In the final section of the paper an account is outlined that nevertheless permits us to acknowledge this important physico-chemical achievement as a case of (nomological) explanation.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Achinstein, P. 1968Concepts of Science: A Philosophical AnalysisJohns Hopkins PressBaltimore and LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Balmer, J.J. 1885Notiz über die Spectrallinien des WasserstoffsAnnalen der Physik and Chemie N.F.258087Google Scholar
  3. Bohr, N. 1981

    On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules I

    Hoyer, U. eds. Niels Bohr: Collected WorksNorth HollandAmsterdam161185vol. 2 [1913]
    Google Scholar
  4. Bohr, N. 1981

    On the Spectrum of Hydrogen

    Hoyer, U. eds. Niels Bohr:Collected WorksNorth HollandAmsterdam283301vol. 2 1914
    Google Scholar
  5. Bromberger, S. 1966

    Why-Questions

    Colodny, R.G. eds. Mind and CosmosUniversity of Pittsburgh PressPittsburgh86108
    Google Scholar
  6. Cartwright, N. 1983How the Laws of Physics LieOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Cartwright, N. 1989Nature’s Capacities and their MeasurementClarendon PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. N. Cartwright, T. Shomar and M. Suárez. The Toolbox of Science: Tools for the Buildings of Models with a Superconductivity Example. In W. H. Herfel et al. (Ed.), Theories and Models in Scientific Process, (= Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities), vol. 44, pp.137–149, Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. Darrigol, O. 1992From c-Numbers to q-Numbers: The Classical Analogy in the History of Quantum TheoryUniversity of California PressBerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  10. B. Falkenburg. Modelle, Korrespondenz and Vereinheitlichung in der Physik. In B. Falkenburg and S. Hauser (Eds.), Modelldenken in den Wissenschaften (= Dialektik 1997/1), pp. 27–42. Hamburg: Meiner, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. Haken, H., Wolf, H.C. 1993Atom- and Quantenphysik: Einführung in Die Experimentellen and Theoretischen Grundlagen5SpringerBerlin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. J.L. Heilbron. Lectures on the History of Atomic Physics 1900–1922. In C.Weiner (Ed.), History of Twentieth Century Physics, (= Rendiconti della scuola internazionale di fisica “Enrico Fermi” 57), pp. 40–108. New York and London: Academic Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  13. Heilbron, J.L. 1985Bohr’s First Theories of the AtomPhysics Today382836Google Scholar
  14. Heilbron, J.L., Kuhn, T.S. 1969The Genesis of the Bohr AtomHistorical Studies in the Physical Sciences1211290Google Scholar
  15. Hempel, C.G. 1965Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of ScienceThe Free PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Hempel, C.G., Oppenheim, P. 1953

    The Logic of Explanation

    Feigl, H.Brodbeck, M. eds. Readings in the Philosophy of ScienceAppleton-Century-CroftsNew York319352
    Google Scholar
  17. Hesse, M.B. 1963Models and Analogies in ScienceSheed and WardLondon and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Kitcher, P., Salmon, W. 1987Van Fraassen on ExplanationThe Journal of Philosophy48315330Google Scholar
  19. Lloyd, E.A., Anderson, C.G. 1993Empiricism, Objectivity and ExplanationMidwest Studies in Philosophy18121131Google Scholar
  20. McGucken, W. 1969Nineteenth-Century Spectroscopy: Development of the Understanding of Spectra 1802-1897Johns Hopkins PressBaltimore and LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. McMullin, E. 1968

    What Do Physical Models Tell Us?

    Rootselaar, B.Staal, J.F. eds. Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science IIINorth-HollandAmsterdam385396
    Google Scholar
  22. McMullin, E. 1985Galilean IdealizationStudies in History and Philosophy of Science16247273CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. Mehra, J., Rechenberg, H. 1982The Historical Development of Quantum TheorySpringerNew York, Berlinvol. 1 part 1Google Scholar
  24. Morgan, M.S.Morrison, M. eds. 1999Models as Mediators: Perspectives on Natural and Social ScienceCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. M. Morrison. Models as Autonomous Agents. In Morgan and Morrison (Eds.), 1999, pp. 38–65.Google Scholar
  26. Schellen, H. 1883Die Spectralanalyse in ihrer Anwendung auf die Stoffe der Erde und die Natur der Himmelskörper3WestermannBraunschweigvol. 1Google Scholar
  27. Fraassen, B. 1980The Scientific ImageClarendon PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. H.W. Vogel. Über die photographische Aufnahme von Spectren der in Geisslerröhren eingeschlossenen Gase. Monatsberichte der königlich preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, pp. 115–119, 1879a.Google Scholar
  29. H.W. Vogel. Über die Spectra des Wasserstoffs, Quecksilbers und Stickstoffs. Monatsberichte der königlich preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, pp. 586–604, 1879b.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyBielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations