1.1 Conclusions
The adequacy of the idea about the autonomy of chemistry as science follows from
the analysis of the complexity levels of matter. Such a hierarchical structure of
complexity is constructed starting from the energies of interaction between the
entities (particles) of lower level to form particles on the higher level. Autonomy of
science, as well as autonomy of chemistry is justified by the fact that every scientific
discipline develops its epistemology starting from the emergent properties and
processes occurring within its complexity level. Although chemistry was almost
absent in the early development of philosophy of science because the main
philosophical circle in history was oriented to other sciences such as physics or
biology, and because of the prevailing idea about the proper sciences based on
strong mathematical representations, its role in the shaping of the deepest concepts
of modern science is out of questions. Chemistry has its own epistemology and the
system of models for the representation of nature: system of elements, valence,
structure, as well as the interpretation and practice of transformation of substance.
References
1. Popper K (1963) Conjectures and refutations, London
2. van Brakel J (2000) Philosophy of chemistry. Leuven University Press, Leuven
3. Vollmer G (1990) Evolutionäre Erkenntnistheorie. S. Hirzel Verlag, Stuttgart
4. Duhem P (1991) The aim and structure of physical theory. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ
5. Needham P (2000) Atomic notation and atomistic hypotheses. Found Chem 2:127–180
6. Vančik H (2003) Philosophy of chemistry and limits of complexity. Found Chem 5:237–247
7. Vančik H (2004) Philosophy of chemistry and generalization of the concept of complexity, in
chemistry in the philosophycal melting pot. Peter Lang, New York
8. Simon HA (1996) The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
9. Primas H (1983) Chemistry, quantum mechanics and reductionism. Springer, Berlin
10. Vančik H (1999) opus Magnum: An outline for the philosophy of chemistry. Found Chem
1:241
11. Scerri ER (2007) Reduction and emergence in chemistry: two recent approaches. Philos Sci
74:920–931. See also: Scerri ER (2007). The ambiguity of reduction. HYLE 13:67–81
12. Emmeche C, Koppe S, Stjernfelt F (1997) J Gen Phyl Sci 28:83–119
13. Wolfenden R (2006) Chem Rev 106:3379–3396
14. van Brakel J (2005) Kant’s legacy for the philosophy of chemistry. In: Scerri E, Baird D,
McIntire L (eds) Boston studies in the philosophy of science. Springer, Berlin
15. Blomme H (2015) Kants conception of chemistry in the Danziger Physik. In: De Gruyter RC
(ed) 2015 Reading Kants Lectures
16. Tetens H (2006) Kants “Kritik der reinen Vernunft”: ein systematischer Kommentar. Reclam,
Stuttgart
17. Ruschig U (2001) HYKE 7:5–22
18. Hettema H (2012) The unity of chemistry and physics: absolute reaction rate theory. HYLE
18:145
19. Kuhn ThS (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago
1.1 Conclusions
17
The adequacy of the idea about the autonomy of chemistry as science follows from
the analysis of the complexity levels of matter. Such a hierarchical structure of
complexity is constructed starting from the energies of interaction between the
entities (particles) of lower level to form particles on the higher level. Autonomy of
science, as well as autonomy of chemistry is justified by the fact that every scientific
discipline develops its epistemology starting from the emergent properties and
processes occurring within its complexity level. Although chemistry was almost
absent in the early development of philosophy of science because the main
philosophical circle in history was oriented to other sciences such as physics or
biology, and because of the prevailing idea about the proper sciences based on
strong mathematical representations, its role in the shaping of the deepest concepts
of modern science is out of questions. Chemistry has its own epistemology and the
system of models for the representation of nature: system of elements, valence,
structure, as well as the interpretation and practice of transformation of substance.
References
1. Popper K (1963) Conjectures and refutations, London
2. van Brakel J (2000) Philosophy of chemistry. Leuven University Press, Leuven
3. Vollmer G (1990) Evolutionäre Erkenntnistheorie. S. Hirzel Verlag, Stuttgart
4. Duhem P (1991) The aim and structure of physical theory. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ
5. Needham P (2000) Atomic notation and atomistic hypotheses. Found Chem 2:127–180
6. Vančik H (2003) Philosophy of chemistry and limits of complexity. Found Chem 5:237–247
7. Vančik H (2004) Philosophy of chemistry and generalization of the concept of complexity, in
chemistry in the philosophycal melting pot. Peter Lang, New York
8. Simon HA (1996) The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
9. Primas H (1983) Chemistry, quantum mechanics and reductionism. Springer, Berlin
10. Vančik H (1999) opus Magnum: An outline for the philosophy of chemistry. Found Chem
1:241
11. Scerri ER (2007) Reduction and emergence in chemistry: two recent approaches. Philos Sci
74:920–931. See also: Scerri ER (2007). The ambiguity of reduction. HYLE 13:67–81
12. Emmeche C, Koppe S, Stjernfelt F (1997) J Gen Phyl Sci 28:83–119
13. Wolfenden R (2006) Chem Rev 106:3379–3396
14. van Brakel J (2005) Kant’s legacy for the philosophy of chemistry. In: Scerri E, Baird D,
McIntire L (eds) Boston studies in the philosophy of science. Springer, Berlin
15. Blomme H (2015) Kants conception of chemistry in the Danziger Physik. In: De Gruyter RC
(ed) 2015 Reading Kants Lectures
16. Tetens H (2006) Kants “Kritik der reinen Vernunft”: ein systematischer Kommentar. Reclam,
Stuttgart
17. Ruschig U (2001) HYKE 7:5–22
18. Hettema H (2012) The unity of chemistry and physics: absolute reaction rate theory. HYLE
18:145
19. Kuhn ThS (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago
1.1 Conclusions
17