Haris, old chap, do try and ask one question at a time!

Thanks for launching the topic - I'd intended to do as much, but was layed low by a sudden migraine...

"Is water H2O" is a question about identity... surely, water = H2O iff for any property F water is F iff H2O is F.

What is the extension of the NK term "water", and does it coincide with the extension of the description "H2O"?

Can we get any further without mentioning Putnam?

What is the ontological status of "water" and of "H20" with respect to the ontological status of their "constituent atoms"? Does "water" HAVE constituent atoms, or are the "consituent atoms" of water "drops"? (this is a CONCEPTUAL remark)

Are chemical reactions time-oriented, and does their orientation correspond to the "thermodynamical arrow"? (oh, sorry, we weren't talking about time...

Let's let Eric speak for himself before we overwhelm him with OUR programmes!

Such energetic gusto Haris!

Gosh there's danger of an increase in productivity in Philo this week :)

Welcome Eric. Looking forward to reading [and learning] more.

Don't encourage him - he still thinks that the best way to do philo is to stun your interlocutor with a list of questions...

The answer to each lies perhaps in careful formulation of the question itself...

i will now duly shut up then until tonight and contemplate how i don't like Putnam and his XYZ stuff.

Dear Eric, here's something i've been thinking about, triggered mostly by a related article by Lena Soler on contingentism vs inevitabilism in the natural sciences. the idea is the following. even if one did provide the bridge principles required, would it still be the original two disciplines that would be reduced one to the other, ie even if we did manage to reduce some part of chemistry (i don't know, i suppose element chemistry since i can't possibly imagine a Schrodinger equation for a protein atom, though i suppose it's doable in principle) to qm, would that imply that it was reducible all along, or would it be an (is it called ex post facto) ad hoc move to join the two disciplines in some more or less ad hoc theory?

on the contrary, there does still seem to be a push to develop a loose hierarchy among the sciences, with something called fundamental physics (which we are far from, according to James Ladyman who uses this term) at the base. what do you think?

Loose or strict, it's still a hierarchy...

He CAN be rather periphrastic, I'm afraid - taking out the self-qualifications, I'd understand :

"Even if one did provide the bridge principles required, would it still be the original two disciplines that would be reduced one to the other?

Even if we did manage to reduce some part of chemistry to qm, would that imply that it was reducible all along, or would it be an ad hoc move to join the two disciplines in some more or less ad hoc theory?"

thanks david, it does seem sometimes that i need a philo-interpreter or somebody to make sense of muddles in my brain. i try to correct that when in papers, though i suppose i still have to do some work on my 'looser' talk ie in oral talk or rg. i suppose it's a sign of me never pausing to get my thoughts together. By the way Eric, what david summarised was exactly the idea i had and wanted your comments on.

Dear Eric

~"...the question of reduction has more recently been approached by looking to see just how much of a piece of chemistry, say the periodic table, can be strictly predicted, or derived, from QM."~

Just so that I am on the same page as it were, could you explain to me, in this context, what YOU mean by 'reduction', 'strictly predicting or deriving' and what 'bridging' [regularities?] are seen as 'linking' the laws of chemistry to the laws of QM?

(My terminology may very well be inaccurate as I am far from knowledgeable but keen in interest to this discipline - please bear with me and guide me where possible :-)

Thanks!

Eric - if the electron shell ordering doesn't explain why potassium has similar properties to lithium and sodium, what does?

David, i think the answer to your question would be 'qm by itself doesn't explain why potassium is the next one in the series, ie QM doesn't explain why the electron shell ordering should be the way it is for atoms bigger than a certain number'.

Eric, isn't that a problem in the sense that writing down a Schrodinger equation for big atoms is currently impossible, so further approximations come in play in order to make the problem mathematically tractable?

i always had the idea that QM is practically useless for big molecules such as proteins. though, maybe you could help us here, but isn't the application of the periodic table also rather limited in current chemistry, in the sense that supramolecular chemistry (i understand it as studying complexes of molecules) and colloid chemistry or yield are much more interesting fields of study than simple element chemistry? so the question would be, is there any fundamental theory in chemistry which captures the complexity of compounds, given that application of the properties described in the periodic table (which is anywaY empirical) and that QM are more or less useless? (please excuse and if you have the time correct me on any inaccuracies in the above post)

Could one demand new prediction(s), in addition to (just) explanations, from a philosophical theory like one does from a scientific theory? I guess something novel could come in by way of increase in complexity (assuming strict reductionism doesn't fully work). At what size of a collection of elementary constituents do statistical aspects start being relevant? This does have to do with thermodynamic arrow of time, which was rather apologetically mentioned. (Please forgive (and ignore) me for writing down somewhat random thoughts that came to me as I read the discussion!)

David: ~ "...if the electron shell ordering doesn't explain why potassium has similar properties to lithium and sodium, what does?" ~

Let's see if I got this right:

Aren't these two entirely 'seperate types' of theories or models? I.e. the *shell ordering* of elements refers to *universal [animation] laws*, yes? And the *properties* of elements refer to structural laws? My point is, surely universal laws cannot be entirely reduced to structures.

Eric (thanks):

Does this explain why you are attempting a naturalistic approach, as answers may very well appear as it were by virtue of new events and discovery? My reasoning is that the *models* (as they represent conditions) and structures of Chemistry and Physics, as a 'finished science', may rather successfully be used in establishing *further theories* (not models) that attempt to explain animation in both areas.

Welcome Dilip :)

Dear Dilip, interesting question about the nature of philosophizing. though i'm not sure that philosophy produces 'theories' just like the sciences do, in the sense that nobody goes out (or rather nobody used to go out, before naturalism) searching for empirical data that would confirm or discomfirm philosophical theories. although reading your question again, i suppose a philosopher of biology or a philosopher of some area of physics could grapple with it and produce an answer. though it is equally likely that they would defer to the physicists or biologists :) (also please don't apologise)

Thanx, Natasha and Haris.

I guess being a physicist for a while now, although I did take a course in philosophy of science (taught by a philosopher) and one in logic and the foundations of mathematics (taught jointly by an electrical engineer + a philosopher) a long time ago, I look for going ahead to something tangible with (philosophical) discussion, rather than just explanation.

Related question: Taking spirituality to be experience-based, how to charactrize and distinguish between the two types of experience - those (including precise measurements) leading to (modern) science, and those (mostly subjective, but common to all serious students) leading to (ancient?) spirituality? [I guess this question properly belongs to another thread!]

If it mentions spirituality, it belongs in an entirely different group.

"I am a newcomer to this group and to ResearchGate as a whole and am finding some things frustrating. First of all, the philosophy group has disappeared from my own list of groups. Secondly and probably as a result I do not revceive E-mail prompts to the effect that this thread has been progressing."

Eric - make sure you click the "my groups" tab at the top of the "groups" page - otherwise you just get a reduced overview. Also, to get e-mail updates, click on the "discussions" tab on the group's homepage - at the right of each topic you have a button "subscribe". If you click on the button, it'll be ticked and you'll then get email updates.

Best regards,

David

Dear Eric,

one doesn't have to subscribe to James' views, especially when he talks of some future 'fundamental physics' which will explain everything and ground everything. i'm also not convinced that physics can give answers to metaphysical problems, rather than the other way around.

concentrating on what's on the table, does that mean that you take what's on the table as true or as fundamental? does one have to be a scientific realist if they're a naturalist? i suppose what i'd be against would be the scientific realism.

I don't think one needs to be a "scientific realist" to be a naturalist; then again, there are degrees of scientific realism...

As to the good Dr Ladyman - so far, just two comments: I'd already read Hawley 2006; and if I were Dr Ladyman's tutor I wouldn't give him very good marks for either his knowledge or his understanding of the philosophy of time. Also, his writing is abominable. He does seem to know his physics, though...

I've just got to quantum gravity, so perhaps it'll get better (the content, I mean - I think the style's beyond hope)

(this is perhaps not in the right thread - if we're going to carve up Ladyman, it should be in the "science and metaphysics" thread)

I think the paper must have been a preprint...

In fact, "Does Physics Answer Metaphysical Questions?" DOES get better, and indeed underlines your comments, Eric. From what I understand he's simply refusing to lay any bets - he suggests that we should "suspend judgement", but doesn't say that "future physics" WILL provide the answers.

I must admit that I haven't read "Every Thing Must Go", but on the question of structural realism I was particularly struck by a remark in Ladyman's "Structural Realism" entry at Stanford : "Ladyman and Ross argue that objects are pragmatic devices used by agents to orient themselves in regions of spacetime, and to construct approximate representations of the world". I would echo this wholeheartedly.

Sorry, the link : http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/

Dear Eric,

Can you elaborate a bit on the elements as abstract entities? what exactly do you mean by that? also it seems that what you're referring to as structure is rather different to what Ladyman is referring to as structure in physics, but then i suppose you're more of an expert on this than us. As i understand it the main motivations behind Worrall and the rest of the structural realist was to explain theory change and progress in physics, am i right? (the structure is what gets carried over, as the underlying ontologies change)

this motivation seems to be absent from your schema for the extension of structural realism in chemistry.

David: James' area of expertise is philosophy of physics so i think he does know his physics. anybody want to open a thread on James? though not sure i can nail down a particular question.

Haris - for the instant, I think we can pursue the discussion of Ladyman in the Phil of Physics topic, the "physics as a guide to metaphysics" thread - where I've already pitted him against the Great Callender...

However, let's stick to chemistry in this thread (which of course reduces me to almost complete silence)

Eric

An aside on the "Ladyman question" - there's a thread in the philosophy of physics topic on "physics as a guide to metaphysics" - we'd appreciate your input. I'd agree that Ladyman is not a "philosopher of physics" in the sense of Callender or Pooley....

well, according to our website, James is writing a textbook on phil of physics, though you are right that he hasn't actually got his degrees in physics (in pure maths rather). anyway.

as regards the abstract entities. i would be against positing the elements as abstract entities, i think i'd go for a more historical explanation of the style that the periodic table was a description that a) has proved useful and nothing has been offered to replace it and b) the periodic table was written before the discovery of isotopes, so it's a bit unfair to ask of it to distinguish between C12, C13 and C14. though of course i haven't answered the question of what the common thread between C12-C13 and C14 is, ie in virtue of what do they behave similarly. maybe i could insist that the similarity relation is purely a conventional thing? Eric, has there been anybody who proposes different classifications of chemical substances? (i say substances because i want to include complexes of atoms and compounds). does this make sense?

"according to our website, James is writing a textbook on phil of physics"

Since when has knowing something about the subject been a requirement for writing textbooks?

Eric, any short texts i can study on the conception of elements as abstract entities? i just give a take on the subject based on what we got in this discussion, or maybe advance an alternative take on substances or elements. i'm not sure whether i'm entitled to do this or not before studying it at length (which i can't do anyway because i should prioritise with my phd), but then that would mean condemning myself to silence on most discussions that are going on here, since i haven't studied them in depth. i still want to defend my view of the elements as reflected above though.

this ties in with the textbooks discussion. if james is allowed to write textbooks on subjects he doesn't know about (let's make it a fictional James, so that the above is true by assumption) then shouldn't we be allowed to discuss things we're not experts on? if the fictional James should not write the textbook, then by analogy we should all just make a presentation of our current research only, no? (past one may have been superceded by advances in the literature)

Eric - forgive my sense of humour; you'll get used to it.

well, that condemns me into eternal silence then and only talk through 5000 word papers, since anything less would be an injustice to the authors, plus everybody has been in the game longer than me. though this seems to defeat the point of researchgate, don't you think? or at least of the philosophy forum. as regards James, i have a lot of respect for him, but i don't see how that should translate into eternal silence as regards his views. i still ask him my questions whenever i get the chance to.

given that much of what would go in this group would be criticism of positions that very good philosophers have held, it seems to me that any further comments from me (which will necessarily be unjust to the authors, even simply in terms of space) would be redundant and actually disrespectful of them. so again, the conclusion may be that i have to shut up.

Come on, Haris; you know we all love you!

The "writing about what you know" comment is interesting, if I may allow myself an aside: I think there's a distinction between good academic work and good pedagogy (or even good didactics), and while it's always better to combine both aspects if possible, it's often better to get a good pedagogue (or didactian) to order the contents & establish the style of presentation in any kind of "tool for aiding learning" (book, distance learning module, whatever). Experts are frequently unable to establish a clear distinction between what is essential to an *initial* understanding and what is essential to a *full*understading - for them, no understanding less than a full understanding is sufficient.

However, a good pedagogue with a reasonable non-specialist understanding of the subject can often reproduce those elements that she found most valuable in getting a "good grasp" on the subject. Of course, her "grasp" is liable to be woefully inadequate by the standards of the true expert, but if it's sufficient to orient the neophyte and to allow him (1) to 'position' the subject with respect to a more general understanding of the wider domain and (2) to develop an interest which can be developed more fully if desired, then the learning objective has been attained. I think we can say much the same for RG discussions - even those who have a certain "expertise" are not necessarily expert in the domains of OTHER "experts" in the group. Our diversity is our strength, and can lead to interesting collaborations (I've got one co-authored paper underway already, and a second if I can persuade Tristan...)

The problem with short posts is that they can never be more than a throwaway - you can perhaps give a definition, or cite a particular problem, but you can't really develop an argument. I must say that I treat them as an opportunity for playing Oscar Wilde...

Now, dear James: Of course I'm not suggesting that James is in the category of "non-experts" and, irony apart, I'm quite sure that he has an entirely sufficient grasp of both physics itself and of the kind of philosophical problems that "physics itself" poses. I only wish I knew a third of what he knows (that part which concerns GR, in particular; and I'd give my eye teeth for his knowledge of QM).

I shall comfort myself by re-reading the pig's ear he made of his presentation of the philosophy of time - there, at least, I feel I could have done as well (if not slightly better. But then I'm good at making pig's ears out of silk purses).

Sorry for this parenthesis, delete it if you wish.

#H1-125: Ref Dilip Banhatti 0525091622 and Haris Shekeris 0525091721.

@*. 1. After a chemical model has been discovered, philosophy, need it re-examine it,except for the sake of improving the model? ie raising a question against what had been empirically confirmed, that's unrequired words; eg if molecular orbital theory (say) explains the property and the arrangement of periodic table, do we still again need to discover further reasons? Nothing wrong, but how many multiple new reasons are going to be there for that?

2. H2O and water: there may be differences, [testing ocean for water!], but philosophy rather than microscopy, these days. I thought names should reflect properties. I think both water and H2O are names. If not, can they be compared? If H2O is a formula [does intend more?] is not that part of the attributes of the name water?

3. Chemistry WAS my subject; but i was afraid to tread so far in PhilChem RG. Please bear with, i usually intend "good thought-making" only, but hopes need not become realisations. I wish to claim "Open Note", but am aware RG has no need for half-boiled ideas. Trust, you may bear my learning in your midst.

#H1-126. Ref Eric Scerri, 0528090818.

1.

@*. Does this more or less mean abstraction/conceptualisation/modelling of an element? Reverse of reification? It is nice, and may be able to make things easier. Like what used to be many-step-solutions in the past now have been reduced to a single touch command in software like Excel spreadsheet.

2.

@*. I would say: after all the C was intended to represent Carbon, the Carbon atom, and not carbon isotopes, or ores. The properties of Carbon,are supposed,and indeed quiet easily can follow. [As properties of a compound can be easily followed form the way organic nomenclature has been conceived]. The interpretation of any "meaningful name" ["reasoned noun" in Tamil] is up to the limits of the user's literacy, and therefore each person would understand even a "meaningful name" differently.

Philosophy in science is good but needs experimental proofs.