Chemistry Reference
In-Depth Information
This view about intertheoretic relationships should lead us to leave behind a
traditional assumption about theories, according to which the entire nomological
content of science is concentrated in laws, and any condition necessary to establish
intertheoretic links represents an auxiliary and contingent aspect of a particular
situation (see discussion in Wilson
1989
). From the perspective of our ontological
pluralism, the links between scientific theories do not play a role as secondary and
accessory as usually assumed, but they represent a central and substantive part of
the scientific knowledge. Intertheoretic relationships are
symmetric nomological
links
: they work as “bridges” between theories, which can be “crossed” in the two
directions. In other words, besides intratheoretic laws, there exist
intertheoretic
laws
that do not impose relationships of priority or dependence between the
corresponding ontologies; this kind of laws is what establishes a non-reductive
and non-hierarchical articulation between theories.
The relationship between two theories and their corresponding ontologies is a
single local nexus in a plural and complex structure. From the pluralist perspective,
intertheoretic relations, when they can be established, do not lead necessarily to a
hierarchy of levels, that is, to a “chain” where each “shackle” is connected only with
the two immediately adjacent ones. On the contrary, the theories simultaneously
accepted by the scientific community form a web, where each theory may be
connected with more than two other theories, and through different links with each
one of them. For instance, classical mechanics is related with classical statistical
mechanics, with special relativity and with quantum mechanics by means of
completely different links. As Gordon Belot and John Earman (
1997
,p.162)make
the point, “
we have a web of independent theories
,
each of which is thought to be
empirically adequate within its own domain of applicability
[
]
Web
rather than
...
'
'
'
here because theories often have more than one limit
:
for instance
,
special relativity is the curvature
hierarchy
'
0 limit of general relativity
,
while the curved
spacetime formulation of Newtonian gravity is its c
!
limit
.” Scientific theories
thus form a lattice structure on the basis of the nomological bridges connecting them.
In this lattice, disciplinary boundaries become less important than usually conceived.
This is precisely the case of the relationship between chemistry and physics: the
domain traditionally considered proper to chemistry is organized as a lattice of
theories with their intertheoretic links: those links, in certain cases, cross the tradi-
tional boundaries of the discipline to establish relations with theories belonging
specifically to physics
!1
without, nevertheless, diminishing the autonomy of the
chemical theories and of their corresponding ontologies.
Summing up, the fears of authors such as Needham and Hettema are unfounded:
the rejection of reduction does not undermine the unification of science. Far from
leading to a disintegrated science, our Kantian-rooted pluralism incorporates a wide
and meaningful articulation between scientific theories and disciplines. By recog-
nizing the variety of intertheoretic relationships possible in science, this
non
-
reductive unification
transcends the conventional boundaries that separate
rather
than bring closer
the different disciplines of science.
