Abstract
A recent article by Vihalemm (Foundations of Chemistry, 2003) is critical of an earlier essay. We find that there is some justification for his criticism of vagueness in defining terms. Nevertheless the main conclusions of the earlier work, when carefully restated to deflect Vihalemm’s criticisms, are unaffected by his arguments. The various dicta that are used as the bases of chemical explanations are different in character, and are used in a different way from the laws and theories in classical physics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
REFERENCES
H.H. Bauer. Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992.
N. Cartwright. How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983.
M. Christie. Philosophers versus Chemists Concerning “Laws of Nature”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 25: 613–629, 1994.
M. Christie and J.R. Christie. “Laws” and “Theories” in Chemistry do not Obey the Rules. In N. Bhushan and S. Rosenfeld (Eds.) Of Minds and Molecules, pp. 34–50. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
R.N. Giere. Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.
D.I. Mendeleev. The Principles of Chemistry, 2 Volumes. English translation of the Russian 5th edn. In G. Kamensky and A.J. Greenaway (Eds.). London: Longmans, 1891.
E.R. Scerri and L. McIntyre. The Case for the Philosophy of Chemistry. Synthese 111: 213–232, 1997.
R. Vihalemm. Are Laws of Nature and Scientific Theories Peculiar in Chemistry? Scrutinizing Mendeleev's Discovery. Foundations of Chemistry 5: 7–22, 2003.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Christie, J.R., Christie, M. Chemical Laws and Theories: A Response to Vihalemm. Foundations of Chemistry 5, 165–174 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023631726532
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023631726532