The article contrasts the way that laws are regarded by some philosophers of science with the way that they are regarded by scientists and science educators. After a brief review of the Humean and necessitarian views of scienfic laws, I highlight difference between scientists who regard laws as being merely descriptive and philosophers who generally regard them as being explanatory and, in some cases, as being necessary. I also discuss the views of two prominent philosophers of science who deny any (...) role for scienfic laws. I conclude that science educators should be wary of adopng the necessitarian view of scienfic laws. (shrink)

In this paper, we present a bibliometric analysis of the Periodic Table. We have conducted a comprehensive analysis of Scopus based database using the keyword “Mendeleev Periodic Table". Our findings suggest that the Periodic Table is an influential topic in the field of Inorganic as well as Organic Chemistry. Areas for future research could include on expanding our analysis to include other bibliometric indicators to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of the Periodic Table in the chemistry-based scientific (...) investigations and even in the field of astrochemistry, which explores chemical processes in space, is intricately linked to fundamental chemistry. In this context, the quote of Carl Sagan is relevant where he eloquently expressed an inherent connection between chemistry and astrophysics: “The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars.” In the ongoing study we have presented a ground level investigation of the conjecture of Sagan via Periodic Table based on bibliometric analysis whereas in the next level our aim is to present the stellar connection of it through Hertzsprung-Russel diagram as well as cluster of stars. The Periodic Table holistically serves as a foundational platform for understanding chemical elements both on the Earth and in celestial bodies. The present investigation fundamentally identifies the main working field of research and lays the groundwork for potential connections to astrochemical studies. (shrink)

In this article I examine several related views expressed by Robin Hendry concerning molecular structure, emergence and chemical bonding. There is a long-standing problem in the philosophy of chemistry arising from the fact that molecular structure cannot be strictly derived from quantum mechanics. Two or more compounds which share a molecular formula, but which differ with respect to their structures, have identical Hamiltonian operators within the quantum mechanical formalism. As a consequence, the properties of all such isomers yield precisely the (...) same calculated quantities such as their energies, dipole moments etc. The only means through which the difference between the isomers can be recovered is to build their structures into the quantum mechanical calculations, something that is carried out by the application of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation. Consequently, it has been argued by many authors that molecular structure is written in ‘by hand’ rather than derived. Robin Hendry is one such author, but he goes a great deal further by proposing that this situation implies the existence of emergence and downward causation. In the current article I argue that there are alternative explanations which render emergence and downward causation redundant. Such an alternative lies in the notion of quantum decoherence and the appeal to work in the foundations of physics, which posits that the various isomers exist as a superposition until their wavefunctions are collapsed either by observation or by interacting with their environment. Hendry also alludes to a debate among chemists as to whether chemical bonds are real or not, in the sense of directional connections between two or more nuclei in any given molecule. I reject this view and propose that the structural and energetic views of chemical bonding, that have been discussed by some philosophers of chemistry including Hendry, do not refer to any essential ontological differences. I agree that chemists view bonding in a more realistic fashion and may consider bonds to be in some senses real, while physicists may consider bonding in more abstract energetic terms. However, I do not believe that such differences in scientific practice and attitudes should be considered to offer a window as to the ontological status of bonding or whether bonding is real. Finally, I discuss the kinetic energy school of chemical bonding which would seem to challenge any notion of bonds as directional entities, since bonding is no longer regarded as being primarily due to the build-up of electron density between nuclei. (shrink)

Kripke-Putnam argument for natural kind essentialism can be said to depend on placeholder essentialist intuitions. But some argue that such philosophical intuitions are merely preschooler cognitive biases which are not supported by scientific knowledge of natural kinds. Chemical substances, for instance, whether elements or compounds do not have such privileged set of underlying properties (‘same substance’ relation) which are present in all members of the kind and which provide necessary and sufficient condition for kind membership. In this paper, I argue (...) that placeholder essentialism works for at least some of the scientific natural kinds especially for the basic chemical natural kind, i.e., element. I argue that the dual sense of the element (the basic substance and the simple substance) along with microstructuralism helps explain the essence of an element not only at the abstract level but also at the more concrete level. Based on this essentialist account of element, I conclude that placeholder essentialism is not completely without merit, and it fits nicely with at least some of our scientific natural kinds. (shrink)

The Periodic Table of Elements is one of the greatest achievements of the human intellect but is far from a finished work. Generations of chemists and physicists have improved on it, in light of the discovery of new elements and advancements in the domain of Quantum Mechanics. Specially, the role of the four quantum numbers that dictates the distribution of the elements throughout the Table has been clarified. However, as the Table grew older and venerable, a tradition developed that froze (...) its overall shape, obfuscating somewhat the comprehension of its underlying principles. Proposals of reforming it has been made but face the opposition of scientists, professionals and educators who are comfortable with the Table as it has been for several decades. Here, the author advocates for possible alternatives, discuss potential advantages and answer to some criticisms on them. (shrink)