Foundations of Chemistry

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 65–95

Why are Chemists ‘Turned Off’ by Philosophy of Science?

  • Robert J. Good


The most immediate reason why chemists are unenthusiastic about the philosophy of science is the historic hostility of important philosophers, to the concept of atoms. (Without atoms, discovery in chemistry would have proceeded with glacial slowness, if at all, in the last 200 years.) Other important reasons include the anti-realist influence of the philosophical dogmas of logical positivism, instrumentalism, of strict empiricism. Though (as has been said) these doctrines have recently gone out of fashion, they are still very influential.

A diagram of the methodology of experimental research is proposed, in the form of a flow sheet, with feedback. The model is developed as a multi-level expansion of a diagram of the hypothetico-deductive model. It recognizes that strong mutual support, or interlocking, of research endeavors is important, at the underlying level of levels where explanatory causation contributes to scientific understanding. (Mutual support at the laboratory level is generally weak or trivial.) The multiplicity of explanatory levels, and the interlocking, point to solutions to some well-known problems, such as the origin of the hypotheses, and even a resolution to the underdetermination problem.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. P. Achinstein and S.F. Barker, The Legacy of Logical Positivism, Johns Hopkins Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  2. J. Agassi, Michael Faraday as a Natural Philosopher. University of Chicago Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  3. J.L. Aronson, R. Harré and Eileen C. Way, Realism Rescued: How Scientific Progress is Possible. Open Court, Chicago, IL, 1995.Google Scholar
  4. F. Bacon, Novum Organum (1628).Google Scholar
  5. R.M. Blake, C.J. Ducasse and E.H. Madden, Theories of the Scientific Method: The Renaissance through the 19th Century. University of Washington Press, Seattle, 1960.Google Scholar
  6. R. Boyd, P. Gasper and J.D. Trout, eds., The Philosophy of Science. MIT Press, 1991; Indroduction, pp. xi–xiv; R. Boyd, p. 7 and pp. 349–377; Glossary, pp. 774–781.Google Scholar
  7. S.G. Brush, Transmuted Past: The Age of the Earth and the Evolution of the Elements. Cambridge University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. R.E. Butts and J.W. Davis, eds., The Methodological Heritage of Newton. University of Toronto, 1970, p. 137.Google Scholar
  9. E.F. Caldin, The Structure of Chemistry in Relation to the Philosophy of Science. Sheed and Ward, London & New York, 1961.Google Scholar
  10. R.A.G. Dolby, Uncertain Knowledge. Cambridge, University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  11. S. Drake, The Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo. Doubleday, 1957.Google Scholar
  12. P. Duhem, The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory (1906, 1914), translated by P. Wiener, Princeton University Press, 1954.Google Scholar
  13. H. Feigl, The Origin and Spirit of Logical Positivism, in: P. Achinstein and S.F. Barker, eds., The Legacy of Logical Positivism. Johns Hopkins Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  14. R.N. Giere, Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach. University of Chicago Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  15. R.J. Good, Search and Research. Chemtech 10: 100–109, Feb. 1980.Google Scholar
  16. Ian Hacking, Representing and Intervening. Cambridge University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  17. N.R. Hanson, Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge University Press, 1958.Google Scholar
  18. N.R. Hanson, Hypothesis Fingo, in: R.E. Butts and J.W. Davis, eds. The Methodological Heritage of Newton. University of Toronto, 1970, pp. 14–33.Google Scholar
  19. S. Harding, ed., Can Theories by Refuted?, Essays on the Duhem-Quine Thesis, D. Reidel, Dordrecht-Holland, 1976. See especially chapters by Grunbaum, by Quine, and by Hesse.Google Scholar
  20. G. Harman, Skepticism and the Definition of Knowledge. Garland Publishing Co., New York, 1990.Google Scholar
  21. R. Harré, The Principles of Scientific Thinking. University of Chicago Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  22. R. Harré, The Philosophies of Science. Oxford University Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  23. Rom Harré, personal communication, 1997.Google Scholar
  24. J.F.W. Herschel, A Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy, Longman's London, 1830; Johnson Reprint Corp., NY and London, 1966. The 46-page Introduction to the reprint, by M. Partridge, is worth study.Google Scholar
  25. M. Hesse, Models and Analogies in Science. University of Notre Dame Press, 1960.Google Scholar
  26. M.B. Hesse, Positivism and the Logic of Scientific Theories, in: P. Achinstein and S.F. Barker, eds., The Legacy of Logical Positivism. Johns Hopkins Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  27. M. Hesse, The Structure of Scientific Inference. University of California Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  28. G. Holton, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought. Harvard, 1973.Google Scholar
  29. G. Holton, Galileo Against the Philosophers (1605 and 1606) translated by Stillman Drake, Zeitlin & Verbrugge, Los Angeles, 1976.Google Scholar
  30. G. Holton, Times Literary Supplement, London 2: 1231–1234, November, 1984.Google Scholar
  31. G. Holton, Science and Anti-Science. Harvard University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  32. D. Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748). Open Court, Chicago, 1927.Google Scholar
  33. J.R. Josephson and S.G. Josephson, Abductive Inference. Cambridge University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  34. T.S. Knight, C.S. Peirce. Twayne Publishers, Inc., Washington Square Press, NY, 1965, pp. 116–119.Google Scholar
  35. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, 1962; 2nd ed., 1970.Google Scholar
  36. L. Laudan, Science of Hypothesis. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, 1981.Google Scholar
  37. J. Losee, A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Oxford University Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  38. J. Losee, Philosophy of Science and Historical Inquiry. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1987.Google Scholar
  39. E. Mach, Die Mechanik in ihres Entwiklung (5th ed.), 1904, translated by T. M. McCormick, as The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and Historical Account. Chicago, 1960.Google Scholar
  40. S.H. Mauskopf, ed., Chemical Sciences in the Modern World. University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  41. E. McMullin, The Inference that Makes Science. Marquette University Press, Milwaukee, 1992.Google Scholar
  42. P. Medawar, Is the Scientific Paper Fraudulent? The Listener: 377, Sept. 12, 1963, The Saturday Review of Literature: 42, Aug. 1, 1964.Google Scholar
  43. P. Medawar, Pluto's Republic. Oxford University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  44. J.S. Mill, System of Logic, 8th ed. Harper & Brothers, NY, 1874.Google Scholar
  45. W.H. Newton-Smith, The Rationality of Science. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1981.Google Scholar
  46. M.J. Nye, Molecular Reality: A perspective on the Scientific Work of Jean Perrin. Macdonald & Co., London, and American Elsevier, NY, 1972.Google Scholar
  47. C.S. Peirce, The Collected Papers of Charles Saunders Peirce, C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss eds. Vol. 5, Harvard Univ. Press, 1931–1935.Google Scholar
  48. J.R. Platt, Science 146: 347, 1964.Google Scholar
  49. J.R. Platt, The Step to Man. Wiley, 1966.Google Scholar
  50. K. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Basic Books, 1959, First edition, in German, 1934.Google Scholar
  51. W. v O. Quine, From a Logical Point of View. Harvard, 1953.Google Scholar
  52. O. Sacks, Hidden Histories of Science. NY Review of Books, R.B. Silver, ed., 1975.Google Scholar
  53. W.G. Salmon, Foundations of Scientific Inference. University of Pittsburgh Press, 1957.Google Scholar
  54. J.W. Servos, Physical Chemistry from Ostwald to Pauling. Princeton University Press, 1990, p. 81.Google Scholar
  55. S. Shapin, The Scientific Revolution. University of Chicago Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  56. V.E. Smith, Science and Philosophy. Bruce Publishing Co., Milwaukee, 1965.Google Scholar
  57. G. Stent, Scientific American, December, 1972.Google Scholar
  58. C.J. Suckling, K.E. Suckling and C.W. Suckling, Chemistry through Models. Cambridge University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  59. A. Thackray, Atoms and Powers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1970. The reference to Newton and ‘transdiction’ is on p. 14.Google Scholar
  60. P. Thagard, Computational Philosophy of Science. MIT Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  61. P. Thagard, Conceptual Revolutions. Princeton University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  62. B. Van Fraassen, The Scientific Image. Oxford University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  63. A.G. Van Melsen, From Atmos to Atom, translated by H.G. Koren. Duquesne University Press, 1952.Google Scholar
  64. S. Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory. Vintage Books, 1993.Google Scholar
  65. S. Weinberg, Nature 386: 213–215, 1997.Google Scholar
  66. John Archibald Wheeler, At Home in the Universe. American Institute of Physics, Woodbury, NY, 1994.Google Scholar
  67. W. Whewell, The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences. J.W. Parker, London, 1847.Google Scholar
  68. W. Whewell, The History of the Inductive Sciences. J.W. Parker, London, 1857.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert J. Good
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Chemical EngineeringState University of New York at BuffaloBuffalo

Personalised recommendations