Chemical reductionism revisited: Lewis, Pauling and the physico-chemical nature of the chemical bond
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 39 (1):78-90 (2008)
The wave-mechanical treatment of the valence bond, by Walter Heitler and Fritz London, and its ensuing foundational importance in quantum chemistry has been traditionally regarded as the basis for the argument that chemistry may be theoretically reduced to physics. Modern analyses of the reductionist claim focuses on the limitations to achieving full reduction in practice because of the approximations used in modern quantum chemical methods, but neglect the historical importance of the chemical bond as a chemical entity. This paper re-examines these arguments with a study of the development of the valence bond by chemist Gilbert Lewis within a chemically autonomous framework, and its extension by Linus Pauling using Heitler and London’s methods. Here, we see that the chemical bond is best described as a theoretical synthesis or physico-chemical entity, to represent its full interdisciplinary importance from the philosophical and historical perspectives.Keywords: Reductionism; Chemical bond; Linus Pauling; Gilbert Lewis; Heitler–London; Chemical
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Michael R. Gardner (1979). Realism and Instrumentalism in 19th-Century Atomism. Philosophy of Science 46 (1):1-34.
Andrea I. Woody (2000). Putting Quantum Mechanics to Work in Chemistry: The Power of Diagrammatic Representation. Philosophy of Science 67 (3):627.
Kostas Gavroglu & Ana SimÕes (2002). Preparing the Ground for Quantum Chemistry in Great Britain: The Work of the Physicist R. H. Fowler and the Chemist N. V. Sidgwick. [REVIEW] British Journal for the History of Science 35 (2):187-212.
Stephen G. Brush (1999). Dynamics of Theory Change in Chemistry: Part 1. The Benzene Problem 1865–1945. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 30 (1):21-79.
Zack Jenkins (2003). Do You Need to Believe in Orbitals to Use Them?: Realism and the Autonomy of Chemistry. Philosophy of Science 70 (5):1052-1062.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Joachim Schummer (1998). The Chemical Core of Chemistry I: A Conceptual Approach. Hyle 4 (2):129 - 162.
Paul Hoyningen-Huene (2008). Thomas Kuhn and the Chemical Revolution. Foundations of Chemistry 10 (2):101-115.
Joachim Schummer (2004). Editorial: Substances Versus Reactions. Hyle 10 (1):3 - 4.
Leo Näpinen (2007). The Need for the Historical Understanding of Nature in Physics and Chemistry. Foundations of Chemistry 9 (1):65-84.
G. K. Vemulapalli (2008). Theories of the Chemical Bond and its True Nature. Foundations of Chemistry 10 (3):167-176.
William Marias Malisoff (1941). Book Review:The Nature of the Chemical Bond Linus Pauling. [REVIEW] Philosophy of Science 8 (1):133-.
Hinne Hettema (2008). A Note on Michael Weisberg's: Challenges to the Structural Conception of Chemical Bonding. [REVIEW] Foundations of Chemistry 10 (2):135-142.
Eamonn Healy (2011). Heisenberg's Chemical Legacy: Resonance and the Chemical Bond. [REVIEW] Foundations of Chemistry 13 (1):39-49.
Robin Findlay Hendry (2008). Two Conceptions of the Chemical Bond. Philosophy of Science 75 (5):909-920.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads19 ( #148,918 of 1,727,972 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #354,177 of 1,727,972 )
How can I increase my downloads?