A summary of the scientific method is: (1) Make observations (collect facts) (in chemistry, this usually means experimentation);summarize facts with generalizations (laws). (2) State postulates of a hypothesis (an explanation of the facts and laws).(3) Test the hypothesis by seeking new facts predicted by (deduced from) the hvoothesis: (more exnerimentation).If the new facts -. do not exist. repeat steps 2 and 3. (4) If the new facw exist, call the hypothesisa theory. ( 5 ) If a theory cannot explain a fact it shcdd explain, begin again at step 2. Literature Clted 1. Nonhrop, F. S. C. The MeetingofEoaf ond Wesf; Maemillm: Nen York. 1946: p 297.
In fact. this explanation for the Latin word is somehow misleading. It is ;rue that the Latin rectus means .'right". But the meanine of "right" in this case is "proper" or .'correct" and not "on the side opposite to left". A kin word for 'right' in the latter meaning is dexter. Thus the proper pairing of Latins for right and left would he dexter and sinister. Of course, i t is conceivable that the letter D (or L) was t o he excluded from the choice to avoid confusion with the older notation. But still i t does not justify the false, or superficial a t best, appropriateness of the pair, R and S. I do not know if there can be any rational explanation for the choice. Or are they simply to commemorate dear Robert Sidney? Gen Koga lbaraki University 2-1-1 Bunkyo, Milo
E. Dean Calloway Box 650, Rt. 7 Columbus, MS 39701
310 Japan
Literature Cited I. Robin-, F. A,, Chorn.Brit., 198,18,359. 2. Cahn, R.S.: Ingoid, C. K.; Prelog, V. Experientio
To the Editor:
I am amused and pleased t o see Calloway's response to my "Provocative Opinion". A column with that title should provoke opposing opinions. The main point that I see in Calloway's letter is that he doesn't like my exposition of the scientific method. I t should he clear that neither his nor mine is the onlv . way- to describe the scientific method. In particular, neither he nor I included the step in which new facts, ideas. and interpretations are shared wkh the rest of t h e community. Most scientists would insist that ~ublicationof results is a necessary component of the s c i e n h method. (See Isaac Asimov's introduction in his New Guide to Science.) Moreover, both of us are overly simplistic in failing toadmit that veryoften this is not at all the was science actually works; scientific advances are rarely as neat and clean as either of us would suggest. I have a personal prejudice against teaching "hypotheses". Students don't find this concept very helpful in either understanding or doing science, and perhaps consequently the "hvnothesis" eets overused and misused. I t often comes across as pseudoscience, or is used t o cover u p pseudoscience. (By pseudoscience, I mean trying to use "science" to explain something outside the purview of science.) I have found the Daradigm that I presented to be useful in teaching chemistryto both scienceand nonscience majors, and I do not hesitate to recommend it to readers of the Journal of Chemical Education. I hope that Calloway's interesting criticism doesn't obscure the point that I was trying to make. We need to have balance in our teaching and not present either descriptive or theoretical chemistry as the only aspect of the science. ~~
~
~~
..
B. P. Huddle Roanoke College Salem, VA 24153
A Query on the Etymology of the Symbols, Rand S
To the Editor: Every textbook states that the chirality symbols of the CIP system,R andS, originally chosen hy Cahn ( I ) , stand for Latin words rectw and sinister. which mean "rieht" and "left", respectively, in English. ~.o a r e n t l vwas taken from the original This explanation a . one: he-suggested indications for asymmetry leading, under the sequence and conversion rules, t o a right- and lefthanded pattern, are capital italic I( and ~ , r e s ~ e c t i v e l y , where R derives from the Latin recros, meaning 'right', and S from sinister. This last word means 'left'. . . " ( 2 ) . 534
Journal of Chemical Education
1956.12,SI.
