Three Concepts of Chemical Closure and their Epistemological Significance

In Jean-Pierre Llored (ed.), The Philosophy of Chemistry: Practices, Methodology, and Concepts. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press. pp. 506-616 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Philosophers have long debated ‘substrate’ and ‘bundle’ theories as to how properties hold together in objects ― but have neglected to consider that every chemical entity is defined by closure of relationships among components ― here designated ‘Closure Louis de Broglie.’ That type of closure underlies the coherence of spectroscopic and chemical properties of chemical substances, and is importantly implicated in the stability and definition of entities of many other types, including those usually involved in philosophic discourse ― such as roses, statues, and tennis balls. Characteristics of composites are often presumed to ‘supervene on’ properties of components. This assumption does not apply when cooperative interactions among components are significant. Once correlations dominate, then adequate descriptions must involve different entities and relationships than those that are involved in ‘fundamental-level’ description of similar but uncorrelated systems. That is to say, descriptions must involve different semantics than would be appropriate if cooperative interactions were insignificant. This is termed ‘Closure Henri Poincaré. Networks of chemical reactions that have certain types of closure of processes display properties that make other more-complex coherences possible. This is termed ‘Closure Jacques Cauvin.’ Each of these three modes of closure provides a sufficient basis for warranted recognition of causal interaction, thus each of them has epistemological significance. Other modes of epistemologically-important closure probably exist. It is important to recognize that causal efficacy generally depends on closure of relationships of constituents.

Similar books and articles

Knowledge and deductive closure.James L. White - 1991 - Synthese 86 (3):409 - 423.
Fuzzy closure systems on L-ordered sets.Lankun Guo, Guo-Qiang Zhang & Qingguo Li - 2011 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 57 (3):281-291.
Knowledge-Closure and Inferential Knowledge.Guido Melchior - 2010 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 10 (3):259-285.
Causal closure principles and emergentism.E. J. Lowe - 2000 - Philosophy 75 (294):571-586.
Van Cleve versus closure.John Bacon - 1990 - Philosophical Studies 58 (3):239-242.
A conjunction in closure spaces.Andrzej W. Jankowski - 1984 - Studia Logica 43 (4):341 - 351.
Contractions of Closure Systems.Stephen Pollard & Norman M. Martin - 1994 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 35 (1):108-115.
Counter Closure and Knowledge despite Falsehood.Brian Ball & Michael Blome-Tillmann - 2014 - Philosophical Quarterly 64 (257):552-568.
When does epistemic closure fail?M. Yan - 2013 - Analysis 73 (2):260-264.
Living without closure.Krista Lawlor - 2005 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 69 (1):25-50.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-09-07

Downloads
190 (#101,070)

6 months
46 (#86,257)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Joseph E. Earley
Georgetown University

References found in this work

Ethics without ontology.Hilary Putnam - 2004 - Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
How to make our ideas clear.C. S. Peirce - 1878 - Popular Science Monthly 12 (Jan.):286-302.
Particulars in particular clothing: Three trope theories of substance.Peter Simons - 1994 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54 (3):553-575.
"Bare particulars".Theodore Sider - 2006 - Philosophical Perspectives 20 (1):387–397.
Sketch for a Systematic Metaphysics.D. M. Armstrong - 2010 - Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press UK.

View all 28 references / Add more references