The Nature of Chemistry

Keywords are highlighted In bold and color in the margin to alert you to new terms defined In the text. 

The chemist, like other scientists, observes nature and attempts to understand its secrets What makes a tulip red Why is sugar sweet What is occurring when iron rusts Why is carbon monoxide poisonous Problems such as these— some of which have been solved, some of which are still to be solved— are all part of what we call chemistry. 

A chemist may interpret natural phenomena, devise experiments that reveal the composition and structure of complex substances, study methods for improving natural processes, or synthesize substances. Ultimately, the efforts of successful chemists advance the frontiers of knowledge and at the same time contribute to the well-being of humanity. 

---

What is the nature of scientific study What is the nature of chemistry ... 

Perhaps no scientific field is less understood and appreciated by the public, and in particular by students, than chemistry. A general misunderstanding of the nature of chemistry and even the meaning of the word chemical pervades our society. 

As the nature of chemistry space depends upon the way in which compounds are represented, an absolute or universal chemistry space does not exist. Thus, any procedure that utilizes chemistry space may be subject to considerable uncertainty, and the results obtained in different chemistry spaces are likely to differ, sometimes in quite significant ways. This rather daunting circumstance has necessitated the use of practical, heuristic approaches that, while imperfect, have nevertheless performed in a reasonably satisfactory manner over the last three years. During this period about 120000 diverse, quality compounds have been added to our corporate compound collection. This does not include the many compounds obtained from combinatorially derived libraries and special target-directed (e.g., kinase) libraries. 

The nature of chemistry is such that the fields of study in many areas naturally cross over into other areas. A biochemist naturally works in the area of organic chemistry, and an environmental chemist who studies radiation is concerned with nuclear chemistry. 

Results similar to those discussed by Redish and Steinberg (25) have also been found in chemistry. Carter (27) found that general chemistry students beliefs about the nature of chemistry affected their ability to solve problems and learn chemistry. She noted that instrumental learners view chemical knowledge as a series of rules and facts to be memorized. Moreover, such students made few, if any, connections between these facts. They believed their job was to reproduce the pieces of knowledge presented to them and considered assigned... 

There are also a vast number of reactions known between alkoxides and non-trivial alcoholic reagents such as glycol, catechols, alkanolamines and hydroxylamines. The fundamental reaction involves elimination of alcohol, but with the reaction products complicated by the nature of chemistry of the other substituents.1... 

We have covered a great deal of territory. We discussed the nature of chemistry, the structure of atoms and chemical compounds, and the properties of elements as reflected in the periodic table. We explored fundamental classes of chemical reactions such as redox reactions, acid-base reactions, and displacement reactions. We laid out the theory that describes the nature of the chemical bond and the principles of chemical reactions. We discussed the practical considerations of intermolecular forces and concentration and considered the rarefied properties and reactions of gases. We contrasted the slippery properties of solutions with the concrete properties of solids. We delved into thermo-... 

Scerri, Eric R. 1996. "Stephen Brush, the Periodic Table and the Nature of Chemistry." In P. Jannich 8t N. Psarros, eds. Die Sprache der Chemie, Proceedings of the Second Erlen-meyer Colloquium on Philosophy of Chemistry (pp. 169-176). Wurtzburg Koningshausen Neumatm. 

I think that this suggests an even further stage in the kind of bootstrapping I have been urging in this paper. The nature of chemistry, more than physics or biology perhaps, could serve as a model for the kind of philosophical approach based on attitudes rather than hard and fast positions which one is typically supposed to maintain and defend at all costs. This seems especially appropriate since chemistry, as its practitioners, as well as chemical educators know only too well, requires us to operate on many different levels simultaneously. It demands the adoption of several attitudes. To show you what I have in mind let me end by quoting from the work of a South African chemical educator Michael Laing ... 

Chemical education can serve three purposes. First, it can provide a preparation for those who are to conduct research and/or development in chemistry or to staff the production processes of chemical-based industries. Second, it can provide a component of the general education of the population. Third, it can act, to some degree, as an exemplar for the conduct and outcomes of science . However, whatever the purpose addressed, any chemical education provided must be based on a sound understanding of the subject of chemistry itself. The difficulty in following this precept is that the distinctive nature of chemistry has not yet been clearly established. Its boundaries with other subjects, for example physics, biology, earth science, remain fuzzy. The four chapters in this section are each concerned with one aspect of the nature of chemistry that has important implications for chemical education, whatever its purposes. 

How can it be made evident to teachers that the introduction of a model-based teaching and learning approach can be a way to shift the emphasis in chemical education from the transmission of existing knowledge to a more contemporary perspective in which students will really understand the nature of chemistry and be able to deal critically with chemistry-related situations ... 

Chemical evolution is not simply the change and transformation of chemical elements, molecules and compounds as is often asserted - that is the nature of chemistry itself. It is essentially the process by which increasingly complex elements, molecules and compounds develop from the simpler chemical elements that were created in the Big Bang. The chemical history of the universe began with the generation of simple chemicals in the Big Bang. Depending on the size and density of the star, the fusion reactions can end with the formation of carbon or they can continue to form all the elements up to iron. 

Regarding the motions of atomic nuclei, those that remain are the rotational motions. In this section, rotational motion is explained in somewhat more detail, because it is concerned with the nature of chemistry. What is important to consider is that the energies associated with the rotational motions of molecules are part of the kinetic energies, and therefore overlap with the translational motion energies without operation. That is, a variable separation is required for the translational motions, which are the motions of entire systems, and the rotational motions, which are internal motions (Gasiorowicz 1996). In the case of diatomic molecules, the Hamiltonian operator is given as... 

The second problem is that not all chemical properties are defined functionally. What does this situation teU us with respect to the nature of chemistry as a science, and its autonomy from physics In my view, this situation refiects the status of chemistry as the first of the special sciences. Some chemical properties (Uke the property of being an alcohol) can be reductively identified with microphysical... 

It is certainly very important to teach these ideas as theoretical, because although the models are successful and central to modern chemistry, it is not helpful if students think our models of atoms and molecules are precise realistic descriptions. Certainly the models introduced at secondary level fall somewhat short of this. As just one example, the notion that atoms contain shells of electrons should not be taken to imply either that there is any kind of physical shell which contains the electrons (as some students assume), nor that the electrons in a shell can always be considered as equivalent. Students who select chemistry as a subject for further study will soon run into problems if they develop fixed ideas along these lines. It is much better to teach that atoms often behave as though they have electrons arranged in shells, but to warn students that scientists have found this to be a simplification. This approach provides students with a more authentic understanding, avoids over-commitment to the model that might impede more advanced learning, and better reflects the nature of chemistry as a science. 

---