Tradition is Our Moral Code
When Andreas Libavius was organizing his thoughts in preparation for writing what appears to he the first textbook of chemistry (Alchemia, published in Frankfort in 1597)-a book he hoped would result in creation of chemistry as a new academic discipline--he used the expression chymia uera (true chemistry) to distinguish what he perceived as philosoohic or "nrofessional" chemistrv from its vulgar and fraudulent variation, Paracelsian alchemy. In ~ihavi;s' mind was a vision of chemistrv as a legitimate, indenendent branch of philcnophic inquiry&e thaicould be sustained by ita own integrity, and that could produce nut juqt isulatnl speculatim hut useful and beneficial fruits for ariety. lncluded in his idra of chymia uera was the notion that the teacher of chemistry should teach not his own art or his personal perception of the subject; rather, he should teach only what has been confirmed hv the leeitimate nractitioners of chemistrv. h he re:ord of aeademic chemistry since lg97 indicates that, on the whole. teachers of chemistrv have remained faithful to Libavius' concept of chymia uera.kowever, as the chemical art has grown to a science and the science to an institution whose influence pervades virrually eveg. aspert ( 4human life, the teachers of rhemisrrs particularly those involved in introductory courses-have ekperienced difficulty not only in keeping ahreast of what is heing "confirmed by chemical practitioners," hut also in selecting material that will faithfully represent modern chemistry and be useful and enlightening to the ever increasine numbers of students who seek to understand the material world in which they live. This has led in our time to general dissatisfaction with introductory courses a t the secondary and university levels, and to controversy and uneasiness over the entire undergraduate curriculum. All of this means that chemical education and those who identify themselves as chemical educators now have a far more important and creative role to play than ever before. The kind of effort and imagination needed to make the courses truly representative of modern chemistry and t o organize and present the material in learnable and useable form is every hit as challenging and time intensive as much research heing conducted in academic institutions today. It also is every hit as imoortant as research in the total context of communicatine "truechemistry" and its traditions. Few teachers of chemistry appear to he fully aware of the importance of chemical traditions or of the essential part teachers must play in connection with them. T o clarify this, let us consider the question: How does a practitioner know when he has discovered or confirmed something that can he described as true chemistry? As we know, chemistry (as all science) advances in two ways: by discovery of new facts and by discovery of mechanisms or systems that account for facts already known. The outstandine truths of science have been mainlv of the second kind. ~ i w e v e r the , hypotheses and theories embodied in discoveries of the second kind are not derived by any definite rule from the data of experience. They are first arrived at by a form of intelligent guessing. The guessing is based on an intuitive perception that comes from premises of science held by the practitioner.' Although these premises are fundamental feelings about the nature of things, many of which may have been acquired in childhood, they are hy no means apparent For s more detailed examinstion of these and related pointa, spe Polanyl. Michael, "Seionee, Faith and Saiety" Phoenix, University of Chicago, 1966.
or inescapable, and cannot he clearly defined. After a hypothesis has been advanced it must, of course, he verified by a orocess of observational conditionine that alwavs leaves room for the chrmist's personal judgment. Every judgment ofchemical validitv has hehind it thesunurnition that we can accept the premis"es of science used in 'developing the hynothesis, and that the chemist's knowledee, - . conscience and integrity can he relied upon. I t is thought that the creative guesswork processes are guided by an urge to make contact with a reality of the world as yet undetected, hut felt to he there and waiting t o he realized. In strueeline to develon or validate a hwothesis. the chemist experiences continuing personal conflict between creative imnulses drivine" him to . orooose . or validate somethime new, and critical cautions compelling him to remain with what currentlv is acceoted. In the end. the conflicts are resolved hv his scientific conscience. The remarkable thing is that d e s ~ i t the e exercise of so much personal judgment, a
