Tuesday, February 23, 2010

“Just what is chemical philosophy? (SciScoop)” plus 3 more

“Just what is chemical philosophy? (SciScoop)” plus 3 more

Just what is chemical philosophy? (SciScoop)

Posted: 22 Feb 2010 11:03 AM PST

Message from fivefilters.org: If you can, please donate to the full-text RSS service so we can continue developing it.

Eric R. Scerri (2008) Collected Papers on Philosophy of Chemistry. Imperial College Press, London. ISBN-13 978-1-84816-137-5: ISBN-10 1-84816-137-9: 248 pages. Price: $101 / 56.

Reviewed by: Joseph E. Earley, Department of Chemistry, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.

What has philosophy to do with chemistry? Robert Boyle (1627-1691) a founder of modern chemistry had a low opinion of many philosophers. He claimed that the School-philosophers have their recourse to Agents that are not onely [sic] invisible, but inconceivable. Present-day chemists frequently form similar opinions on reading philosophical discussions of possible worlds in which water is XYZ or where items display the color grue. (X is grue if X is green and was examined before time t or blue and was not examined before t.)

Recently some British philosophers attacked many of their well-recognized colleagues (analytical metaphysicians) as neo-scholastics and accused them of being practitioners of the philosophy of A-level chemistry. This taunt does not suggest that secondary-school and elementary-level university chemistry courses (roughly corresponding to the British A-level) do not connect with significant conceptual issues, but rather it claims that adequately dealing with present philosophical problems requires real acquaintance with current work in advanced contemporary science adequate familiarity that cannot be gained merely from elementary-level instruction, or by means of thumbing indexes of beginners textbooks.

Collected Papers on Philosophy of Chemistry contains a generous sampling of the work of Eric Scerri, a chemist, historian and philosopher of science who brings a mature grasp of relevant current science to bear on the important philosophical problems that intersect elementary chemistry instruction. He does not engage in elaborate flights of philosophical fancy such as those that working chemists (and many others) find at best unconvincing, but rather he brings sound chemical, historical, and philosophic scholarship to bear on the many aspects of chemical teaching that concern long-standing philosophical puzzles. Such work illuminates chemical education in interesting and unexpected ways, and also may well contribute to resolving problems in academic philosophy that have resisted other approaches. The main topic of first part of the body of the book is whether or not chemistry has been reduced to physics, as physicist Paul Dirac (1902-1984) famously claimed or, if not, whether such reduction is possible. The obverse of this issue is the question of whether (or to what extent) truly novel coherences can properly be considered to arise ( emerge ) from simpler components. (These discussions are clearly relevant to whether chemistry should be recognized an autonomous science, rather than considered a mere off-shore colony of physics.)

The second main section of the book deals with the periodic table of the elements. Papers in this section provide the basis of parts of the author s well-received recent book The periodic table: its story and its significance, (NY: Oxford University Press, 2007). Scerri argues that much of the success of the work of Dmitri Mendeleev (1834-1907) was due to his use of a concept of chemical element that was rather different from that used by other nineteenth-century chemists. As Scerri points out (page 127) For Aristotle, the elements are themselves unobservable. the elements are immaterial qualities impressed on an otherwise undifferentiated primordial matter and are [all] present in all substances. Like this ancient concept, Renaissance and early-modern notions of elements those of Paracelsus (1493 1541) or Boyle, for instance were all more or less metaphysical. (The ancient element water was not the concrete liquid we all know and use. The Paracelsian principle sulfur was not the same as the yellow powder in the apothecary s jar.) Scerri claims that: this view was first seriously challenged by Lavoisier during the course of the chemical revolution. Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier (1743 1794) identified certain concrete kinds of tangible stuff as elements properly so called. Specific kinds of solids, liquids, and gases yellow solid sulfur, metallic liquid mercury, and pungent gaseous chlorine all merited the designation element. In the 1920s, Austrian-born chemist Friedrich (Fritz) Paneth (1887- 1958) pointed out that Mendeleev had employed a more complicated notion of elementarity than was usual in the century that followed Lavoisier s death. Paneth pointed out that the Russian chemist had used two quite different meanings of the term element depending on the circumstances. One the one hand, he construed the word element to denote concrete materials (solid sodium metal and gaseous dichlorine, for example) and, on the other hand, he interpreted the same word to refer to each of the several chemically ultimate constituents of specific compounds the sodium and chlorine in common salt, for instance. Paneth noted that this second meaning was quite different from the first meaning and also that is was just as metaphysical as Aristotle s concept of element had been. Contemporary chemists routinely follow Mendeleev s example and use a two-fold concept of element but generally they do so automatically and quite unconsciously. Chemistry instructors expect students to understand that the sodium that is a component of common salt is not a soft metal, and that chlorine (as a component) is not a pungent gas but they generally do not call attention to fact that they commonly use each of the terms element, sodium and chlorine with two quite distinct meanings. It seems likely that they themselves do not recognize this double-speak (more politely, polysemy or ambiguity ). Scerri usually designates one-component stable materials as simple substances and uses the term basic substance to refer to chemically-ultimate components of compounds. Elsewhere I have suggested that elementary substance instead of simple substance be used to stand for one-component stable materials (Lavoisier s elements ) and that the word element be reserved to designate components of compounds what Scerri calls basic substances. This minor shift in word usage would remove serious but unnecessary difficulties for English-speaking chemistry students.

The second section of the book also deals with aspects of quantum chemistry that pertain to whether or not the periodic law so important to chemistry has been (or could be) deduced from quantum physics. From the exact solution of the Schrödinger equation for the hydrogen atom one can reasonably infer the maximum population of each electron-shell and electron-sub-shell in multi-electron atoms but all known methods of prediction of the order of filling of sub-shells (the basis of the periodic law) require that empirical data be fed by hand into approximate computations. The degree to which chemical periodicity can be inferred from quantum physics is arguably much less than has widely been supposed (and claimed). The third section of the book contains papers that inter-connect the main themes of the earlier parts of the book and relate them to principal problems of science education and of recent philosophy of science. Several papers conclude that chemists generally adopt an intermediate attitude between naïve realism on the one hand and anti-realistic empiricism on the other hand. Scerri notes that philosophers of science have moved away from normative approaches that concerned how science should be done toward more naturalistic attitudes which deal with how science actually is (or has been) done. In the last chapter the author points out something that perceptive readers may have already noticed that his thinking has shifted and significantly developed over the period covered by this book. For instance, for the past half-century chemists have effectively interpreted their experimental results in terms of atomic and molecular orbitals even though quantum physics clearly teaches that such orbitals do not exist. for the multiple-electron systems with which chemists deal. For some years Dr. Scerri advised chemists to repent their errors and mend their ways a normative counsel. More recently he has come to a more complex ( naturalistic ) view. He reports:

The thought came to me that it is quite appropriate for chemists and chemical educators to not only use orbitals but to do so in a realistic fashion in spite of their status according to the fundamental theory of quantum mechanics. I fully realized at this moment the truly paradoxical situation that chemistry is an autonomous science while at the same time resting on fundamental physics. (Page 218)

This paradoxical situation of chemistry may account for the fact that, as the back cover of the book claims, the Philosophy of Chemistry is one of the newest and fastest-growing areas in the Philosophy of Science. General readers (or chemists, science educators, or philosophers) seeking an overview of this area could find no more effective, concise, convenient entry into this important and actively developing field than the one that this volume provides.

1 Ladyman, James and Ross, Don (2007). Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Section 1.2, especially page 24.

2 Earley. Joseph, (2009). How Chemistry Shifts Horizons: Element, Substance, and the Essential, Foundations of Chemistry, Volume 11, pages 65-77.

Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction.

Talk’s focus is the philosophy of world’s future obligations (Corvallis Gazette-Times)

Posted: 22 Feb 2010 09:26 PM PST

Message from fivefilters.org: If you can, please donate to the full-text RSS service so we can continue developing it.

The Spring Creek Café, a new series of engaged philosophy conversations, will debut at 7 p.m. Thursday with a discussion on the topic, "Do We Have Any Obligations to the Future?"

The free, public event is scheduled for the main meeting room at the Corvallis-Benton County Public Library, 645 N.W. Monroe Ave.

Modeled on the Socrates Cafe, the Spring Creek Café will feature philosophers Michael Nelson and Kathleen Dean Moore, Portland writer Brian Doyle, and singer/songwriter Libby Roderick.

Nelson and Moore have just completed a book, "Moral Ground: Why It's Wrong to Wreck the World," which presents arguments from 100 of the world's moral leaders about obligations to the future in a time of climate change.

Doyle, one of the contributors to "Moral Ground," will join them for the event. The Corvallis discussion will be filmed as a pilot for a nationwide series of town hall meetings about the ethical urgency of climate change.

Moore is a philosophy professor at Oregon State University, where she directs the Spring Creek Project for Ideas, Nature, and the Written Word. Her award-winning books about our cultural and spiritual relation to the natural world include "Riverwalking," "The Pine Island Paradox," and the forthcoming, "Wild Comfort."

Nelson is professor of environmental ethics and fisheries and wildlife at Michigan State University and is co-editor of The Great New Wilderness Debate. He also is resident philosopher of the Isle Royale wolf/moose project – the longest continuous study of a predator-prey relationship in the world.

Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction.

Jamie Samuelsen's blog: Damon signing is a good one, but what's the plan for the Tigers? (Detroit Free Press)

Posted: 22 Feb 2010 12:39 PM PST

Message from fivefilters.org: If you can, please donate to the full-text RSS service so we can continue developing it.

Jamie Samuelsen, the sports director for the morning show on WCSX-FM (94.7), blogs for freep.com. His opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the Detroit Free Press nor its writers. You can reach him at jamsam22@gmail.com, follow him on Twitter @jamiesamuelsen and read more of his opinions at freep.com/jamie.

The saga is over. Johnny Damon is a Tiger. Good move, bad move?

The Tigers' off-season reminds me a lot of the first year of the Barack Obama administration. Both started off with clear goals in mind. Both stumbled badly in terms of public perception. Both kind of retooled and went back to the drawing board. And then both emerged with seemingly new philosophies that run counter to everything they had insisted upon up until that point.

For Obama, it was an obsession with health care reform. He admitted that success in his first year would be defined by the passage of comprehensive health care reform. After about 10 months of hearing most Americans telling him to adjust things a bit, he came out at his State of the Union Address and said, "Jobs! I'm all about jobs!" For the Tigers, it was all about cost-cutting. They were going to trim the payroll, no matter what the critics said. The fans were less than thrilled. Johnny Damon was available and Mike Ilitch stepped in and said "Buy! Buy! Buy!" instead of sell. And thus, the weirdest off-season in recent memory concludes.

The Damon signing is a good one. It makes the team better. Whatever happens from this point forward in this blog, just remember my thesis – this is a good move. I support it 100%. He's a good hitter and he makes the lineup better. In a bottom line business, that's the bottom line.

Still, the signing is a weird capper to the off-season. The best GM in Detroit over the last decade is Ken Holland. The worst – take a guess – is Matt Millen. You don't need me to list off the reasons. But one of the biggest is simple. Holland had a plan. Millen didn't. Holland knew exactly what he wanted to whether there was a salary cap or not. Millen seemed to shift like the wind, switching philosophies, coaches, coordinators and traveling back and forth between Detroit and Pennsylvania. I think Dave Dombrowski is a lot closer to Holland than Millen, but this leaves us all scratching our heads.

Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction.

Artist Avenue: Logan Migliore (The New Mexico Daily Lobo)

Posted: 22 Feb 2010 11:18 PM PST

Message from fivefilters.org: If you can, please donate to the full-text RSS service so we can continue developing it.

DL: What sorts of movies do you guys make?
Logan: We make music videos; we make movies out of short stories. And it's not so much that we try to make a specific type of movie — it's more that we try to make something that is thought provoking or different. It might be heavily action sequenced. For example, we made a movie based on the video game "Half-Life," so there was a lot of fighting zombies. Then we made another movie that was more like a psychological thriller that dealt with this guy's memories.
Alex: A lot of it is other film. What we find that happens a lot of the time is our films will boil down to the basic question of identity and losing your identity. And really two major films that deal with that, that we use for inspiration are Flight Club and Momento. So we just like to look at a diverse selection of films for not only ideas for plots and subplots but also for technique and things we would like to figure out how to do.
DL: We've all probably had moments in our lives where we lose our identity in some way. Why do you think your films focus on a loss of identity? Have you guys had that happen to you in your lives?
LM: What it boils down to is the fact that in the long run you've got your identity, and it's kind of a security blanket for some people. And when that's taken away from you — like one of the worst feelings is not knowing who you are or what you're doing or deep philosophical questions like that. And since those seem to bother people so much, it seems to be what we grasp onto so tightly. To strip these characters away from that, really, it's sort of a character study of humans in general. When you take that away from them you've got this sort of shell that's willing to go to any sort of length to discover what that identity is. In the long run, if you've got a character with no identity and it's not resolved by the end of the movie, then it's a really sad feeling.
DL: How do you guys represent that vulnerability and loss of
identity in music videos?
Alex: Before we started working together, we both did two music videos. The one that I worked on was a video for this song "Life 2: The Unhappy Ending" by a band called Stars. What the song talks about is how the main character, they want to live this sort of idealized life as they see it portrayed from film. And how their regular life is just completely contrary to what they think it should be. In the music video, how it works is it's the main character telling the story and then it will switch back to the main character as film hero. At the end he thinks the best sort of fate is to die dramatically for a cause. And in the end in (reality) he ends up just ruining his relationship with his life and ended up being alone because he can't come to terms with reality.
DL: How do you guys choose the songs you make videos for?
LM: A lot of times I'll just use the Internet tool StumbleUpon or I'll take Pandora and I'll find things that I haven't listened to before and even things that I don't generally like, so that way I can try and draw a story from something that's outside of my comfort zone. And I think that really helps to expand in coming up with new and original ideas. You can get sort of locked into this cycle of making the same movie over and over again. For a little while that happened to us where we made the same movie twice.
AP: I enjoyed it both times.
LM: I enjoyed it both times, too, but when you're trying to tell different stories to keep people coming back, and you're trying to express yourself, it's not really conducive to that. So we're trying to expand because, as someone putting out art, you need to be taking in art, too.
AP: As far as choosing music or songs that we want to make videos out of: A lot of times before I go to sleep, and right on that verge of when you're about to fall asleep, the songs that really inspire these images in my head, those are the ones that I want to pursue. Even if it's just one still frame or whatever, if it's especially vivid or anything like that, I think it's worth going after.
DL: What is your process for shooting these videos? Do you guys have casting calls and a script?
AP: For the most part we try to do a script. Sometimes we're more successful than others. But usually we end up with some sort of written thing that we can follow just so we don't forget to shoot a scene, because that's always fun, to be editing and find out that you're missing something crucial. But as far as casting goes it's kind of who's available, at least for the extras. And for the speaking parts, we have a pool of people we draw from.

Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)