Providing metaphysical sense and orientation: Nature-chemistry relationships in the popular historiography of chemistry
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Historians of science, like all historians, know well that every account of the history of science is necessarily an interpretation of the history of science. It requires decisions on what is important and what not, it requires ordering, contextualizing, and interpreting the available material, and presenting the results in a final form that sounds plausible to readers. Because a majority of the readers of histories of science are scientists, the degree of plausibility and acceptability depends on what scientists expect from the historiography of science. As a rule, scientists expect much, too much than historians of science can fulfill without giving up their scholarly standards. Indeed, many scientist wish to read entertaining stories that make science, or their discipline, look particular attractive and interesting to a broader public. They may have their personal heroes, schools, or nations that they expect to be duly honored and celebrated. They want historians to focus on what they consider essential in order to carve socio-historical identities of disciplines or subdisciplines. They like to see progress in the historical development with one or the other revolution. They are yearning for meaning of the historical whole, such that individual scientific activities, including their own, make sense in the whole, and that one can draw extrapolations from the past to provide directions and goals for the future. In order to meet all these expectations, a meta-narrative is required that professional historians are reluctant to adopt. And so scientists are inclined to write their own histories of science for personal satisfaction. In chemistry, the most powerful meta-narrative that satisfies all the mentioned and other historiographic needs of chemists is a story about “chemistry versus nature”. It was invented and is still cultivated by chemists alone, without support and without objections thus far, from historians of chemistry. While the story has provided strong metaphysical orientation to chemists, it has caused rather alienation and hostility outside of chemistry. In this paper I will provide a brief history of the meta-narrative “chemistry versus nature”..
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
J. van Brakel (1999). On the Neglect of the Philosophy of Chemistry. Foundations of Chemistry 1 (2):111-174.
Joachim Schummer, Historical Roots of the “Mad Scientist”: Chemists in Nineteenth-Century Literature.
Eric Scerri (2005). Some Aspects of the Metaphysics of Chemistry and the Nature of the Elements. Hyle 11 (2):127 - 145.
Rein Vihalemm (2007). Philosophy of Chemistry and the Image of Science. Foundations of Science 12 (3):223-234.
Hinne Hettema (2000). Quantum Chemistry: Classical Scientific Papers. World Scientific.
Joachim Schummer (2003). The Notion of Nature in Chemistry. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 34 (4):705-736.
Davis Baird, Eric R. Scerri & Lee C. McIntyre (eds.) (2006). Philosophy of Chemistry: Synthesis of a New Discipline. Springer.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads21 ( #170,910 of 1,790,408 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #142,533 of 1,790,408 )
How can I increase my downloads?