Philosophy
Taught a class this semester on the philosophy of chemistry with a friend who is a physical chemist. (You can always tell the physical chemists, they're the one's with the bruises -- much tougher crowd than those chemists who don't get physical.)
What is interesting for me is that it is a rare chance for an academic to be able to teach a field that is in its infancy. There are two journals -- Hyle which has been around since 1995 and Foundations of Chemistry which began in 1999. There are a handful of scholars devoted to the field, Eric Scerri from UCLA is probably the biggest name and, as editor of Foundations of Chemistry and a number of very nice authored and edited volumes, one of the main organizational engines driving it forward. I was fortunate enough to attend the annual meeting of the International Society for the Philosophy of Chemistry a couple of years back when it was at Georgetown. A dedicated group of smart folks who together fit comfortably into a good sized classroom.
This is certainly not the case with philosophy of physics which has a long and storied history. Philosophy of biology and psychology likewise are significant intellectual forces in their own right. Political, sociological and economic theory go back to ancient Greece with significant advances in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. Even the philosophy of geography has been an organized field of study for the better part of at least half a century. Why so late with chemistry, a study whose alchemical roots go back to the ancient Egyptians?
This was the last question on the final exam, and it's one to which I'm not sure I know the answer. Why has there been no serious movement around the philosophy of chemistry until the late 1990s?
Seems like there are four possible answers:
(1) There are no big questions in chemistry that are not already somewhere else.
Physics has the origin of the universe, biology has the nature of life, but chemistry doesn't have anything deep that is particular to chemistry.
(2) Chemistry does not actually exist -- or at least it won't forever.
Maybe the reason is that chemistry is not really a science, just a placeholder connecting physics to biology and once we have the proper physical theory to reduce everything chemists do, it'll all go away. Right now we have chemists because physicists haven't completed the reduction yet, but it's really just a matter of time.
(3) It's the chemists -- they just aren't a philosophical bunch
Chemistry is to its core a practical science, funded by corporations in order to find practical solutions to real life problems. Chemists think in terms of things they can manipulate and solutions they can create. Theory is only important as far as it serves practical, hands-on chemistry. As such, there is no philosophical culture amongst chemists to worry about the philosophical questions there.
(4) It's the philosophers -- they just don't know any chemistry
Maybe the problem isn't that the philosophical problems aren't there, it's just that we don't have chemically trained philosophers the way we have philosophers who have backgrounds in physics, biology, psychology, mathematics,... Philosophically-minded chemists could only do so much until they actually had legitimizing figures in the phil depts -- and those folks simply were not to be found.
So, which one is it? A combination or some other factor?
- A Career Of Teaching Chemistry...jim Baker
Jim Baker 1976 He reminds me of James Hilton's Mr. Chips...a dedicated teacher over the decades. "Teaching chemistry is my career and my hobby" Jim Baker went into teaching because he enjoyed passing on his knowledge. After 42 years, despite how...
- Chemistry Books Of The Past..."the Golden Book Of Chemistry Experiments" And "the Boy Chemist"
The Golden Book of Chemistry Experiments, written by Robert Brent and illustrated by Harry Lazarus, is a 1960s children's book that tells kids how they can set up a home chemistry lab to conduct simple chemistry experiments. Supposedly the US government...
- International Year Of Chemistry 2011
I don't know how I missed this. "The theme of IYC2011 is "Chemistry–our life, our future," and it will focus on the “achievements of chemistry and its contributions to the well-being of humankind.”[1] It aims to raise awareness of chemistry...
- Banned By The U. S. Government--a Chemistry Book
Yes, it is true, The United States Government banned a chemistry book from being placed on library shelves. The reason...too dangerous for the targeted audience. The book...The Golden Book of Chemistry Experiments by Robert Brent and illustrated by Harry...
- Element #112=copernicium [cp]--maybe
A few months to wait for a definitive name and the debate continues. "Element 112’s Likely To Be Called Copernicium" by Mitch Jacoby July 16th, 2009 Chemical & Engineering News What's in a name? That all depends on who's doing the naming....
Philosophy
Philosophy of Chemistry: Why Only Now?
Taught a class this semester on the philosophy of chemistry with a friend who is a physical chemist. (You can always tell the physical chemists, they're the one's with the bruises -- much tougher crowd than those chemists who don't get physical.)
What is interesting for me is that it is a rare chance for an academic to be able to teach a field that is in its infancy. There are two journals -- Hyle which has been around since 1995 and Foundations of Chemistry which began in 1999. There are a handful of scholars devoted to the field, Eric Scerri from UCLA is probably the biggest name and, as editor of Foundations of Chemistry and a number of very nice authored and edited volumes, one of the main organizational engines driving it forward. I was fortunate enough to attend the annual meeting of the International Society for the Philosophy of Chemistry a couple of years back when it was at Georgetown. A dedicated group of smart folks who together fit comfortably into a good sized classroom.
This is certainly not the case with philosophy of physics which has a long and storied history. Philosophy of biology and psychology likewise are significant intellectual forces in their own right. Political, sociological and economic theory go back to ancient Greece with significant advances in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. Even the philosophy of geography has been an organized field of study for the better part of at least half a century. Why so late with chemistry, a study whose alchemical roots go back to the ancient Egyptians?
This was the last question on the final exam, and it's one to which I'm not sure I know the answer. Why has there been no serious movement around the philosophy of chemistry until the late 1990s?
Seems like there are four possible answers:
(1) There are no big questions in chemistry that are not already somewhere else.
Physics has the origin of the universe, biology has the nature of life, but chemistry doesn't have anything deep that is particular to chemistry.
(2) Chemistry does not actually exist -- or at least it won't forever.
Maybe the reason is that chemistry is not really a science, just a placeholder connecting physics to biology and once we have the proper physical theory to reduce everything chemists do, it'll all go away. Right now we have chemists because physicists haven't completed the reduction yet, but it's really just a matter of time.
(3) It's the chemists -- they just aren't a philosophical bunch
Chemistry is to its core a practical science, funded by corporations in order to find practical solutions to real life problems. Chemists think in terms of things they can manipulate and solutions they can create. Theory is only important as far as it serves practical, hands-on chemistry. As such, there is no philosophical culture amongst chemists to worry about the philosophical questions there.
(4) It's the philosophers -- they just don't know any chemistry
Maybe the problem isn't that the philosophical problems aren't there, it's just that we don't have chemically trained philosophers the way we have philosophers who have backgrounds in physics, biology, psychology, mathematics,... Philosophically-minded chemists could only do so much until they actually had legitimizing figures in the phil depts -- and those folks simply were not to be found.
So, which one is it? A combination or some other factor?
- A Career Of Teaching Chemistry...jim Baker
Jim Baker 1976 He reminds me of James Hilton's Mr. Chips...a dedicated teacher over the decades. "Teaching chemistry is my career and my hobby" Jim Baker went into teaching because he enjoyed passing on his knowledge. After 42 years, despite how...
- Chemistry Books Of The Past..."the Golden Book Of Chemistry Experiments" And "the Boy Chemist"
The Golden Book of Chemistry Experiments, written by Robert Brent and illustrated by Harry Lazarus, is a 1960s children's book that tells kids how they can set up a home chemistry lab to conduct simple chemistry experiments. Supposedly the US government...
- International Year Of Chemistry 2011
I don't know how I missed this. "The theme of IYC2011 is "Chemistry–our life, our future," and it will focus on the “achievements of chemistry and its contributions to the well-being of humankind.”[1] It aims to raise awareness of chemistry...
- Banned By The U. S. Government--a Chemistry Book
Yes, it is true, The United States Government banned a chemistry book from being placed on library shelves. The reason...too dangerous for the targeted audience. The book...The Golden Book of Chemistry Experiments by Robert Brent and illustrated by Harry...
- Element #112=copernicium [cp]--maybe
A few months to wait for a definitive name and the debate continues. "Element 112’s Likely To Be Called Copernicium" by Mitch Jacoby July 16th, 2009 Chemical & Engineering News What's in a name? That all depends on who's doing the naming....