Introduction - Philosophy of Chemistry - page 2

scope and written by some of the most eminent scholars in the field, to plant a flag
indicating not only how far the field has come but where it might be going as well.
In recognition of this growth, it is important to point out that over the last decade the
philosophy of chemistry has become an increasingly international discipline,
drawing special attention from Latin America. Toward the end of the last decade,
our publisher came to us with a proposal to translate Philosophy of Chemistry into
Spanish and we were proud to see Filosofia de la quimica appear in 2012. It is our
hope that the present volume will match this recognition and perhaps even surpass it
by being translated into other languages as well.
A good deal has happened in recent years, including greater acceptance from
both the chemistry and the philosophy of science communities. Of course much
remains to be done and we hope that this volume will continue to stimulate scholars
and educators within these larger fields as well as those within the philosophy of
chemistry itself. We cannot deny that a gulf still remains between chemists and
philosophers. Chemists favor dwelling on specific details and are seldom quite so
interested in the big picture or in reflecting on what their theories and findings
generally might mean. At the same time philosophers tend to favor grand general-
izations which sometimes means ignoring the grubby details of chemical research.
There is always the danger that the philosopher might not have a sufficient
understanding of the technical details and might not therefore be taken very
seriously by the chemist. This is why continued cross-fertilization and criticism
from both sides remains essential to the growth of the field. 3
In considering a second edition, it was one of our contributors who suggested that
we refresh the subtitle - substituting “growth” for “synthesis” - such that the present
volume recognizes a link with its past, but moves beyond celebrating a beginning,
now that we are two decades out from the founding of the field. Indeed, within these
pages readers will find one of the surest signs of maturity in any field: controversy.
One of the most hotly debated questions in the philosophy of chemistry in recent
years concerns whether it makes sense to say that chemistry is “ontologically”
autonomous from physics. In her paper “The Ontological Autonomy of the Chem-
ical World: Facing the Criticisms,” Olimpia Lombardi considers and responds to
criticisms that were generated by her earlier paper, in which she put forward the
thesis that there is a potentially ontological break between chemical and physical
phenomena. 4 Both fans and foes of reductionism were thus provoked into action -
some claiming that of course chemistry is reducible to physics and others that this
particular defense of autonomy gave too much fodder for those who would see any
kind of emergence claim as spiritual nonsense - generating some of the most
interesting scholarship to come out of the philosophy of chemistry in recent years.

3 Such cross-disciplinary criticism has not occurred to a sufficient degree in our opinion. In
addition, philosophers of chemistry have not always responded to criticisms from within their
own community. We believe that such a fledgling discipline as philosophy of chemistry can
ill-afford such omissions. It is all very well to hold sessions at meetings like the Philosophy of
Science Association to air views among the small audiences that typically attend these gatherings.
It is another matter to put one

s own house in order so as to be of some relevance to the far wider

'

chemical community.
4 Lombardi and Labarca ( 2005 ).