3
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on December 7, 2015 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: January 1, 1967 | doi: 10.1021/ba-1967-0062.ch003
Effect of the Fixity of Ideas on the Werner-Jørgensen Controversy PAUL SHEA COHEN Chemistry Department, Trenton State College, Trenton, N. J.
The Werner-Jørgensen controversy is viewed through graphics and models to represent molecular structures. Werner's development of the coordination sphere concept and his synthesis of an inorganic coordination isomer was not traditional in approach. He was not hesitant to express his theories even though he did not have "absolute" proof; his analysis was qualitative and relied on a bubbling of gas or a rapid color change. Jørgensen, the tradi tionalist, could not accept such hastily conceived notions. He insisted on complete, exacting studies of each reaction. The "fixity of ideas" prevented the needed breakthrough in chemistry. A man who did not play by the rules, who was impulsive, yet sharp of mind, was needed for the next step. Alfred Werner was such a man.
' T h i s paper attempts to explore one of the basic problems that has plagued the sciences since their very inception and perhaps delayed their growth as well. This is the problem of "fixity of ideas." I will attempt to show that while model building has helped the scientist, it has hindered him just as much if not more. Two recent, separate, and totally unrelated papers {32, 45) have indicated the severity of this situation. B y using the Werner-J0rgensen coordination bonding controversy in chemistry as the example, we will see through the historical sequence of events that chemists had worked themselves into a blind alley by using only established principles and methods. The genius of the Nobel prize winner, Alfred Werner, was needed to get them out of this predicament. Since the days of earliest man there has been a desire to represent objects and concepts in a graphical manner. Cave drawings, idols, and statues have all been used by the most primitive and the most sophisticated i
8 In Werner Centennial; Kauffman, G.; Advances in Chemistry; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1967.
3.
COHEN
Werner-J0rgensen Controversy
9
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on December 7, 2015 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: January 1, 1967 | doi: 10.1021/ba-1967-0062.ch003
cultures to represent events and folklore. As a logical outgrowth, we find graphical representation in the sciences. Such graphics can, indeed, help the mind to perceive the abstract thought in terms that activate the senses and allow earlier conceptualization. One should note that graphics and model building have helped to clarify and elucidate the theories and hypotheses of the science of chemistry. B u t have they always done this? M a n often gets himself trapped in a "fixity of ideas." H i s ability to perceive ideas in a new and different light is often limited by his i n ability to reperceive ideas, to modify the previous model, or conceive a totally different model. "The direct availability of a habitual mode of response may make it much harder to break with habit and approach a problem afresh" (45). "Insight is the essential element in intelligent problem solving; fixation is its archenemy" (45). This was, and is, one of the basic problems scientists face. Such a problem is the basis for one of the best-known controversies in chemistry—the Werner-J0rgensen coor dination bonding argument. How did such a dispute develop? To study the problem in a meaningful manner one must follow several developmental trends, graphical representations, chemical data, and i n terpretations of the data. To avoid excess confusion we will attempt herein to avoid notation of the side arguments of various theories that developed along with the graphics. This may lead one to wonder why certain pictures and models developed. However, such will be necessary to keep this paper reasonable in length. Let us begin many years before the actual controversy appeared. In 1798, Tassaert, in his "Analyse du Cobalt de Tunaberg," describes this com pound of which he claims "ses proprietes les plus remarquables" (47). He describes an analysis of its components and discusses its magnetic properties and its combining and reacting powers with ammonia. Little other work was initiated with ammonia compounds for some 39 years. During this time, however, other trends of thought appeared. Dalton in 1808 proposed a " N e w System of Chemical Philosophy" which outlined compound formation in a graphical manner (IS). This was perhaps the first attempt at graphics since the alchemists. Dalton, usually given credit for the circle diagram, used these sketches in his works of 1803 and those works which followed. Starting with this primary attempt at formula writing, a whole series of " l a w s " of the com bining power of elements in a quantitative manner evolved as shown in Figure 1. Berzelius in 1819 presented a system of writing compounds which used letters and symbols as abbreviations (1). (See Figure 2.) The basics of these two systems (Dalton's and Berzelius') have affected scientific notations since their inception. We shall see them occur and reoccur again and again throughout this paper.
In Werner Centennial; Kauffman, G.; Advances in Chemistry; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1967.
WERNER
10
JBLXMXlfTS i
y
