Foundations of Chemistry

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 7–22 | Cite as

Are Laws of Nature and Scientific Theories Peculiar in Chemistry? Scrutinizing Mendeleev's Discovery

  • R. Vihalemm

Abstract

The problem of the peculiarcharacter of chemical laws and theories is a central topic in philosophy of chemistry. Oneof the most characteristic and, at the sametime, most puzzling examples in discussions onchemical laws and theories is Mendeleev'speriodic law. This law seems to be essentiallydifferent in its nature from the exact laws ofclassical physics, the latter being usuallyregarded as a paradigm of science byphilosophers. In this paper the main argumentsconcerning the peculiar character of chemicallaws and theories are examined. The laws ofchemistry are natural laws to the same extentas are the laws of physics. The law discoveredby Mendeleev is a normal law of nature. It isnot a law of physics, nevertheless, it is exactin the same philosophical sense as are the lawsof physics. The periodic system of chemicalelements was established by constructing anidealized system of idealized elements. Thefundamental idealization substantiated byexperimental chemistry was the chemicalelement as a place in the periodicsystem.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. N. Bhushan and S. Rosenfeld (Eds.). Of Minds and Molecules: New Philosophical Perspectives on Chemistry. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  2. N. Cartwright. How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  3. M. Christie and J. Christie. “Laws” and “Theories” in Chemistry Do Not Obey the Rules. In N. Bhushan and S. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Of Minds and Molecules: New Philosophical Perspectives on Chemistry, pp. 34–50. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  4. R.N. Giere. Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  5. B.S. Gryaznov. Logic, Rationality, Creativity. Moscow: Nauka, 1982 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  6. B.M. Kedrov. The Evolution of the Concept of Element in Chemistry. Moscow: RSFSR Academy of Pedagogical Sciences Press, 1956 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  7. B.M. Kedrov. The Day of a Great Discovery. Moscow: Publishers of Social-Economic Literature, 1958 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  8. B.M. Kedrov. A Philosophical Analysis of D.I. Mendeleev's Early Works on the Periodic Law. Moscow: USSR Academy of Sciences Press, 1959 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  9. B.M. Kedrov. The Three Aspects of Atomism. III. Mendeleev's Law. The Logico-Historical Aspect. Moscow: Nauka, 1969 [This volume is a collection of papers first published in 1940–1953; in Russian].Google Scholar
  10. J.H. Kultgen. Philosophic Conceptions in Mendeleev's Principles of Chemistry. Philosophy of Science 25(3): 177–183, 1958.Google Scholar
  11. J. McAllister. Laws of Nature, Natural History, and the Description of the World. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 11(3): 245–258, 1997.Google Scholar
  12. D.I. Mendeleev. The Periodic Law. Compilation with an Article and Commentaries by B.M. Kedrov. Moscow: USSR Academy of Sciences Press, 1958 [a modern edition of the main articles and related matters on the Periodic Law by D.I. Mendeleev, in Russian].Google Scholar
  13. F.A. Paneth. The Epistemological Status of the Chemical Concept of Element. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science XIII:1–14, 144–160, 1962.Google Scholar
  14. E.R. Scerri. Has Chemistry Been at Least Approximately Reduced to Quantum Mechanics? In D. Hull, M. Forbes and R. Burian (Eds.), PSA 1: 160–170, 1994.Google Scholar
  15. E.R. Scerri. Realism, Reduction, and the “Intermediate Position”. In N. Bhushan and S. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Of Minds and Molecules: New Philosophical Perspectives on Chemistry, pp. 51–72. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  16. E.R. Scerri. The Failure of Reduction and How to Resist Disunity of the Sciences in the Context of Chemical Education. Science & Education 9: 405–425, 2000a.Google Scholar
  17. E.R. Scerri and L. McIntyre. The Case for the Philosophy of Chemistry. Synthese 111: 213–232, 1997.Google Scholar
  18. E.R. Scerri and J. Worrall. Prediction and the Periodic Table. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 32: 407–452, 2001.Google Scholar
  19. J. Schummer. Challenging Standard Distinctions between Science and Technology: The Case of Preparative Chemistry. Hyle 3: 90–91, 1997.Google Scholar
  20. J. Schummer. The Chemical Core of Chemistry I: A Conceptual Approach. Hyle 4(2): 129–162, 1998.Google Scholar
  21. S. Toulmin. The Philosophy of Science. An Introduction. London: Hutchinson, 1967.Google Scholar
  22. J. van Brakel. On the Neglect of the Philosophy of Chemistry. Foundations of Chemistry 1: 111–174, 1999.Google Scholar
  23. J. van Brakel. Philosophy of Chemistry: Between the Manifest and the Scientific Image. Leuven University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  24. R. Vihalemm. Can Chemistry be Handled as its Own Type of Science? In N. Psarros and K. Gavroglu (Eds.), Ars mutandi – Issues in Philosophy and History of Chemistry, pp. 83–88. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 1999.Google Scholar
  25. R. Vihalemm. Chemistry as an Interesting Subject for the Philosophy of Science. In R. Vihalemm (Ed.), Estonian Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 219), pp. 185–200. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Vihalemm
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of PhilosophyUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations