The law of definite proportion and the law of multiple proportions are two of the important laws of chemistry associated with the development of the atomic theory in the early nineteenth century. A detailed study of these laws shows that they have characters which cannot be reconciled with philosophers’ accounts of laws of nature. They are non-universal, and one of them is imprecise. Philosophers have approached an account of laws of nature by trying to fit their character to a particular (...) model. Duhem, in particular, who introduces the law of multiple proportions as an example, misrepresents the law to make it fit his conventionalist model. The various models adopted by philosophers have differed widely, but there has been a universal failure even to recognize the possibility of diversity among laws, let alone face its reality. A more liberal and pluralistic view of just what is a law of nature is required. Contrary to standard accounts, laws of nature are a diverse group of dicta, of widely varying character. Unlike philosophers, chemists have recognized this diversity for at least a hundred years. In many ways the differences between the characters of laws are more interesting than the similarities. The analysis will show that some laws are approximations, while others are exact; and that some laws are purely formal, but not all of them. But on a more revolutionary note, it will also show that many quite respectable laws of science are non-universal, and even that there are a few that cannot be formulated as precise propositions. There is a possible escape for the philosophical accounts, in the claim that laws of character inconvenient for a particular model are not really laws. This course will be considered, and found inadvisable. The more appropriate course of action would rather seem to be a recognition of the scientists’ broader notions of scientific law, and acceptance of a wide diversity of character among laws of nature. (shrink)

The Ozone Layer: A Philosophy of Science Perspective provides the first thorough and accessible history of stratospheric ozone, from the discovery of ozone in the nineteenth century to current investigations of the Antarctic ozone hole. Drawing directly on the extensive scientific literature, Christie uses the story of ozone as a case study for examining fundamental issues relating to the collection and evaluation of evidence, the conduct of scientific debate and the construction of scientific consensus. By linking key debates in the (...) philosophy of science to an example of real-world science, the author not only provides an excellent introduction to the philosophy of science but also challenges many of its preconceptions. This accessible book will interest students and academics concerned with the history, philosophy and sociology of science, as well as having general appeal on this topic of contemporary relevance and concern. (shrink)

A recent article by Vihalemm (Foundations of Chemistry, 2003) is critical of an earlier essay. We find that there is some justification for his criticism of vagueness in defining terms. Nevertheless the main conclusions of the earlier work, when carefully restated to deflect Vihalemm’s criticisms, are unaffected by his arguments. The various dicta that are used as the bases of chemical explanations are different in character, and are used in a different way from the laws and theories in classical physics.

It is like an irony of the history of science that philosophy of chemistry emerged at a time when disciplinary research became increasingly replaced with transdisciplinary problem-orientated research. From bio-medical research via materials science to nanotechnology, chemists and chemical approaches are strongly involved in these areas. If the boundaries of the philosophies of science were to be defined by the boundaries of classical disciplines, we would not only get into demarcation troubles but also miss some of the most fascinating recent (...) research fields. One such field is the study of the dynamics of the stratosphere, which in the 1970s, by the calculations of two chemists, turned from marginality to the greatest importance to securing future conditions of life. (shrink)