Rather than rehash my thesis, I've decided to talk about something related, but also new: the absolute theory of chemical reaction rates. The reason for this is that it is surprising to some degree that this theory has not attracted more attention in the philosophy of chemistry community. It is a very nice example of physical chemistry at its best.
I actually tried introducing this theory in my thesis, but found that it did not really integrate well in the structure of that particular argument, so finally, before Christmas, decided to leave it out.
Anyway, my abstract reads:
Henry Eyring's absolute rate theory provides a good insight into what it might take to reduce a realistic theory of chemistry to a collection of physical theories. The theory of absolute reaction rates is an example of how the unity of science works in practice. The theory explains the size of chemical reaction rate constants in terms of thermodynamics, statistical mechanics and quantum chemistry, but also uses a number of notions unique to chemistry, such as the 'transition state'. Moreover, the explanation relies in important measure on the comparison of reaction rate constant expressions derived from these individual theories. This example can be used to evaluate the philosophical notions of reduction deriving from Nagel, Spector, and Kemeny and Oppenheim, as well as Darden and Maull's notion of 'interfield theories'. These various theories of reduction are the key building blocks in the idea of unity of science. I argue that philosophical ideas about the unity of science need to consider theories of sufficient complexity to avoid the trap of oversimplification. On the other hand, we must also avoid a lazy conclusion of disunity, to which the theory of absolute reaction rates provides a robust counterexample.
This will be my first full conference in about 12 years, and I don't really know what to expect. But I'm going to have fun. I'm coming on my own wing, so see it as a holiday...
No comments:
Post a Comment