Chemical Education Today
Book & Media Reviews
Hyle, The International Journal for the Philosophy of Chemistry, Special Issue on Modeling, Volume 5, Number 1, and Volume 6 edited by Joachim Schummer Department of Philosophy, University of Karlsruhe: Karlsruhe, Germany, 1999 and 2000. http://www.uni-karlsruhe.de/ ~philosophie/hyle.html reviewed by Joseph E. Earley Sr.
Chemistry is a useful science. Prehistoric salt harvesters, 18th century gunpowder makers, and recent investors in “big pharma” all made handsome profits exploiting chemical knowhow. But chemistry’s practical significance should not overshadow another important aspect. Our outlook on the human condition—our concept of how Nature works, the world view we adopt—is intimately connected with chemical understanding. When 19th century chemists produced conclusive evidence that (as Whitehead observed) “the world is incurably atomic”, they settled a philosophical debate that had dragged on for centuries. (It can be argued that one of the main societal functions of general chemistry courses is to convince the rising generation that everything, without exception, is made up of atoms.) The cultural significance of this finding was generally recognized almost as soon as the scientific results were obtained. In Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamatzov (1880), Ivan, the over-educated sibling, claimed that if everything consists only of atoms (as chemists had recently shown) then traditional morality has no basis, and “all is permitted”. Society’s investment in chemical research and education derives, in part, from well-founded expectation of continued improvement in the material basis of life, but the level of long-term public support for our science may well ultimately depend on how decision makers understand the philosophical impact of chemical science. For many years, “philosophy of science” was usually understood to deal with physics. More recently, philosophical discussions connected with biology have been prominent. Recognition of the mutual significance of chemistry and philosophy is only now emerging. Two journals, Hyle (edited by Joachim Schummer at Karlsruhe) and Foundations of Chemistry (edited by Eric Scerri at UCLA), deal with the current flowering of scholarly activity in philosophy of chemistry. An international society for chemical philosophy now exists (http://www.georgetown.edu/earleyj/ISPC.html ). Monographs and volumes of collected papers dealing with philosophy and chemistry are appearing with increasing frequency. (Hyle maintains a bibliographic list.) The progress of chemical science has dissolved problems that once puzzled the greatest of philosophers (Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, …). In the more recent past, a Hungarian-born British chemistry professor, Michael Polanyi (1891–1976), and
an American consulting chemical engineer, Charles S. Peirce (1839–1914), made truly major contributions to philosophy. (Active societies of philosophers now specialize in the ideas of each of these two scholars.) The special experience of chemists seems likely to be crucial in resolving one of the major concerns of present-day philosophy. During the early part of the 20th century, Anglo-American philosophy was generally inspired by a “positivist” understanding of science—one that considered physical mechanics as the prototypical science, in relation to which all other claimants to the name of science should be judged. During the last third of the century, this approach, now disparagingly called “the received view”, was generally recognized as being seriously wrong. Philosophers are now groping toward a revised understanding of science. They are showing a lively interest in the role played by models in theoretical understanding and scientific practice. Clearly, chemists have much experience and insight regarding the scientific use of many types of models. Two recent issues of Hyle (1999, 5 [1], and 2000, 6 ) deal with philosophical questions connected with how chemists construct and use models. One of the excellent features of Hyle (pronounced who-lay) is that the entire contents (including these special issues) is available at no cost on the World Wide Web (http://www.uni-karlsruhe.de/~philosophie/hyle.html ) as well as in the usual printed format. The development of understanding of the principles of molecular architecture during the 19th century was greatly aided by the use of various contraptions made of metal, rubber, and wood. The successors of these gadgets—sophisticated molecular models and their computer-screen analogs—are now indispensable features of every chemical research and teaching laboratory. Many of the articles in this collection deal with aspects of the use and interpretation of such concrete items. The styles of these articles are varied, ranging from Pawel Zeidler’s technical philosophizing on the epistemological status of molecular models to Pierre Laszlo’s elegant humanistic reflection on the role of playfulness in chemists’ use of such models. Other papers concern the central role that manipulation of models played in the historical development of understanding of molecular structure (Peter Ramberg) and the close relationship between molecular models and other types of analogical reasoning (Giuseppe Del Re). Eric Francoeur points out that “physical” molecular models (modelsm) should be distinguished from the “mathematical” conceptual models (modelsc) used to understand—and in favorable cases to control—complex systems. Editor Joachim Schummer has assembled a remarkable collection of papers that nicely illustrates the variety and sophistication of the use of conceptual models in chemistry and related disciplines. Each paper makes specific philosophic points, but the entire collection clearly shows that any attempt to arrive at a facile and simple characterization of the scientific enterprise would be hazardous at best.
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 78 No. 4 April 2001 • Journal of Chemical Education
455
Chemical Education Today
Book & Media Reviews Papers deal with the use of conceptual models in quantum chemistry (Jacopo Tomasi), reaction mechanism studies (Michael Akeroyd), chemical engineering (Jaap van Brakel), environmental sciences (Daniel Haag and Martin Kaupenjohann), and biochemistry (Sylvia Nagl). The massive computational power employed in modern chemical system modeling raises its own philosophic issues (Klaus Mainzer, and Carl Trindle). Nonlinear dynamic relationships determine the evolution of complex systems in all fields—from microbiology through economics to astrophysics—but chemical systems are uniquely amenable to controlled experimentation and also to detailed modeling. Several papers in this collection clearly demonstrate the important place that chemistry (broadly construed to include biochemistry and ecology) will play in introducing to a wider public the often counterintuitive insights that are gained from modeling studies of nonlinear dynamic systems. Even though these two issues of Hyle span a remarkably wide range of chemical subject matter (often in considerable technical detail) they also include at least one paper that speaks to the metaphysical concern voiced by Dostoyevsky through Ivan Karamatzov. Robin Hendry attempts to show that the way chemists use quantum mechanics to describe molecules raises serious questions for physicalism, the doctrine that “the physical facts determine all the facts”. Hendry’s
456
ultimate interest (like Ivan’s) is in the philosophy of mind, but he claims (rightly, I believe) that the essential points at issue between physicalists and their opponents (including Hendry) are seen most clearly at the level of chemistry. The reader will have to consult the paper to find out how persuasive Hendry’s argument is, but the mere presence of this piece in this collection shows that current activity in the philosophy of chemistry is deep as well as wide. Many kinds of activity pass through similar developmental phases: a chaotic initial stage, a period of quick increase, then mature consolidation, and ultimate gradual decline. Philosophy of chemistry appears to be in its exciting phase of rapid growth. Conventions and expectations have not yet fully congealed. In this field, at this time (as Ivan prophesied), all is permitted. One take-home message that chemical educators can gather from perusing these issues of Hyle is that both chemists and philosophers can contribute to progress in the emerging field of philosophy of chemistry, if each is willing to do the homework in the other field. Another notable point is that this rapidly developing area deals with interesting and important research problems, many of which are directly related to what gets taught in chemistry courses at all levels. Joseph Earley is in the Department of Chemistry, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 20057;
[email protected].
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 78 No. 4 April 2001 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
