Chemistry Reference
In-Depth Information
include: entities, processes, phenomena, properties, laws. To this list one may add
explanations, if they are viewed ontically, not just epistemically.
5
If all these turn
out to be physical entities, properties, etc. in disguise, then it is pretty clear that
chemistry cannot be autonomous from physics. For chemistry to be ontologically
autonomous from physics, chemistry must talk about its own entities, processes,
properties, laws. These must be
sui generis
. In other words, they must be
chemical
properties, laws, etc. in their own right, not just species of physical properties,
laws, etc.
The ontological autonomy of chemistry is tied with the failure of (at least some
versions of) reductionism. Indeed, if all chemical laws are obtainable from
quantum-mechanical laws, then how could the belief in the autonomy of this
discipline be maintained? Since emergence makes possible the existence of sui
generis chemical properties, laws, and explanations, it is natural to think that
emergence can justify the ontological autonomy of chemistry.
Here is the plan of this paper. The next section summarizes the current state of
the debate regarding ontological emergence in chemistry. The current approaches
to ontological emergence in chemistry have been met with scepticism, and some
have argued that the appropriate attitude regarding ontological emergence in
chemistry is agnosticism (Scerri
2012
). In the third section I offer a novel approach
to emergence in chemistry; the approach is in some sense weaker than the existing
approaches, but I argue that it can justify the ontological autonomy of chemistry. In
the fourth section I discuss a couple of objections to this approach and speculate a
bit on what it entails about the nature of chemistry as a science and about the
appropriate model of the relationship between the special sciences. The concluding
section summarizes the main points.
4.2 The Present State of the Debate About Emergence
in Chemistry
There are several contemporary approaches to emergence which are applicable to
chemistry, including Humphreys (
1996
,
1997a
,
b
), Luisi (
2002
), Hendry (
2003
,
2006
,
2010a
,
b
), Llored (
2012
).
6
In this section I will focus only on some accounts
which claim to be ontological (as opposed to merely epistemic) and which apply
explicitly to chemistry. More precisely, I will be focusing on the account of
emergence recently defended by Hendry.
5
An ontology includes objects, phenomena, as well as relations between them. If one includes
explanations, then they could be regarded as objective relations between laws and phenomena. The
idea that explanations could be seen ontically does not sound as implausible if one thinks that it
makes sense to say that for a certain phenomenon an explanation exists but it may never be found.
6
For a comprehensive review see Manafu (
2013a
).
