Chemistry Reference
In-Depth Information
familiar terms, models, instruments, etc., are applied to objects and domains beyond
those in and for which they were originally designed and intended.
Mary Jo Nye
s conceptual history of chemistry,
From Chemical Philosophy to
Theoretical Chemistry
, self-consciously traces the development of a specifically
chemical approach to science, as distinct from physics. Nye briefly notes the
relevance of metaphor throughout the history of chemistry and discusses specific
examples in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
13
She distinguishes
“conventionalized metaphor,” what nineteenth century chemist Wurz referred to
as “a way of expressing a fact rather than giving an explanation,” from whimsical
and playful descriptions, such as A. Laurent
'
s 1854 descriptions of atoms on the
“chase,” in “copulation,” and in “marriages of convenience” (Nye
1994
, 78-80).
But all metaphor is a play on language and an alteration of everyday usage. While
the extremes seem obviously distinct, the line that divides them is not easily
discerned—certainly not during the period when such metaphors are suggested.
For “as the problems change, so, often, does the standard that distinguishes a real
scientific solution from a mere metaphysical speculation, word game, or mathe-
matical play.” (Kuhn
1962
, 103)
The history of the concept of chemical affinity presents an interesting case in
point. Nye demonstrates how this concept, originally considered explanatory, was
later rejected in the light of other concepts and relevant new experimental data.
The affinity concept reaches from its ancient origins in alchemy (like attracts
like
14
), to its application in E. F. Geoffroy
'
s 1718 table of chemical “
rapports
”
'
for
replacement
reactions. The
concept
enjoyed new acceptance with
H. Boerhaave
s (1733) subsequent reinterpretation of affinity in terms of Newto-
nian forces of attraction and repulsion. Chemical affinity
'
s gradual decline from
mid- to late-nineteenth century, culminated in its rejection by J. L. Meyer as merely
fictional. Nevertheless, the concept played an important role in the development of
thermodynamic models of chemical reaction, and in the classifications of chemical
elements. Nye
'
s foreclosure on the nineteenth century history of affinity is some-
what premature, Meyer
'
s objections notwithstanding. The concept enjoyed active
use into the twentieth century: Van
'
t Hoff refers positively to affinity as a central
link in his 1907 Nobel prize winning integration of gas laws and osmotic pressure.
'
13
Nye completely excludes alchemy from her account—this is an important omission that follows
in the steps of nineteenth and early twentieth century historiography of science. I. Stengers and
B. Bensaude-Vincent
'
s
History of Chemistry
, published only a few years after Nye (
1994
), showed
how fundamental concepts of chemistry, such as analysis, isolation and purification were devel-
oped to a high degree of sophistication. From the late 1990s to the early 2000s, W. Newman and
L. Principe provided a wealth of documentary evidence to support the inclusion of alchemy in the
history of chemistry. Tara Nummedal discusses the versatility of alchemy
s promotion of
'
chemistry.
14
The term “like attracts like” still enjoys broad usage ranging from matchmaking websites to
titles and abstracts of research articles in academic journals of physics, chemistry and molecular
biology.
