Reductionism philosophers views

Mendeleev s philosophical views relating to the philosophy of chemistry can be broken down into three general areas questions of ontology concerning fundamental entities in chemistry questions of reductionism and the relation between physics and chemistry and questions of the character of natural laws. The categorizations and language used throughout this section, unless specified otherwise, are the present author s and not Mendeleev s. 

As to the general issue of reduction, chemists would do well to consider the work of philosophers of science, who have for some time renounced the notion that any particular branch of science may be strictly reduced to a more basic science. The classic work giving conditions for strict reduction is by Nagel (53), and several detailed criticisms of his views have been published (54, 55). More recently there appears to be a partial return to reductionism under the guise of supervenience . Chemistry is said to supervene over physics even though it cannot be shown to be strictly reducible in the sense of Nagel. Whether supervenience represents merely a hope and whether it holds any explanatory power is the focus of much current work in philosophy (56-58). 

As already stated, modern science - even without reaching the extreme reductionism of Richard Dawkins and his Blind Watchmaker (Dawkins, 1990) - does not conform to this view. Paley s metaphor was already negated in his time by Hume and other contemporary philosophers. This does not mean that all scientists are necessarily atheist the meeting point (the easy one) between science and religion is to accept the idea of a God, who created the beginning and the laws of nature, leaving them... 

According to Primas (1991, p. 163), "the philosophical literature on reductionism is teeming with scientific nonsense," and he quotes, among others, Kemeny and Oppenheim (1956), who said "a great part of classical chemistry has been reduced to atomic physics." Perhaps it was not philosophers who invented this story after all. Almost certainly, Oppenheim and other philosophers of science at the time were familiar with the influential statements of Dirac, Heisenberg, Reichenbach, and Jordan on this issue. " Notoriously, the physicist Dirac (1929, p. 721) said, the underlying laws necessary for the mathematical theory of a large part of physics and the whole of chemistry are thus completely known, and the difficulty is only that exact applications of these laws lead to equations which are too complicated to be soluble." Less famously, the philosopher of science Reichenbach (1978, p. 129) reiterated that "the problem of physics and chemistry appears finally to have been resolved today it is possible to say that chemistry is part of physics, just as much as thermodynamics or the theory of electricity." These views clearly stuck. For example, in a recent review of quantum electrodynamics (QED), to which Dirac made important contributions, the historian of science Schweber (1997, p. 177) says, "the laws of physics encompass in principle the phenomena and the laws of chemistry."... 

---