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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bird A. (2000). Thomas Kuhn. Princeton, Princeton University Press
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 Press
Collins H.M. (1981). Stages in the empirical programme of relativism. Social Studies of Science 11 (1): 3–10
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. 85–114
Dupré J. (1993). The disorder of things: Metaphysical foundations of the disunity of science. Cambridge and London, Harvard University Press
Giere R. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press
Kuhn T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed). Enlarged. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press
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. 137–146
Kuhn T. (1980). The halt and the blind: Philosophy and history of science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 31, 181–192
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.
Niiniluoto I. (1999). Critical scientific realism. Oxford, Oxford University Press
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. 111–118
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.
Scerri E.R. (1999). Editorial 2. Foundations of Chemistry 1(2): 107–109
Schummer J. (1997a). Towards a philosophy of chemistry. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 28, 307–336
Schummer J. (1997b). Challenging standard distinctions between science and technology: The case of preparative chemistry. Hyle 3, 90–91
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. 19–39
Toulmin S. (1967). The philosophy of science. An introduction. London, Hutchinson
van Brakel J. (1999). On the neglect of the philosophy of chemistry. Foundations of Chemistry 1(2): 111–174
van Brakel J. (2000). Philosophy of chemistry: Between the manifest and the scientific images. Leuven, Leuven University Press
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.
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. 69–91
van Fraassen B.C. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford, Clarendon Press
Vihalemm, R. (1982). The dilemma of ‘aprioristic rationality’ and ‘historiographic positivism’ in the Western philosophy of science. Voprosy Filosofii, 2, 55–65 [in Russian].
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.
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. 83–88
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. 185–200
Vihalemm R. (2003a). Are laws of nature and scientific theories peculiar in chemistry? Scrutinizing Mendeleev’s discovery. Foundations of Chemistry 5(1): 7–22
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.
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.
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.
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 –182
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Previous versions of this paper were read at the 12th International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Oviedo (Spain), 7–13 August 2003, and at the 7th Summer Symposium of the International Society for the Philosophy of Chemistry, Tartu (Estonia), 16–20 August 2003; its Sect. 3–5 are partially a revised version of the section ‘φ-Science, Non-φ-Science, and Chemistry’ of my earlier paper (Vihalemm, 2001). Thanks are due to Kluwer Academic Publishers (now Springer) for the kind permission to reproduce a few paragraphs from it here.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vihalemm, R. Philosophy of chemistry and the image of science. Found Sci 12, 223–234 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-006-9105-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-006-9105-0