Abstract:In his classic work The Mind and its Place in Nature published in 1925 at the height of the development of quantum mechanics but several years after the chemists Lewis and Langmuir had already laid the foundations of the modern theory of valence with the introduction of the covalent bond, the analytic philosopher C. D. Broad argued for the emancipation of chemistry from the crass physicalism that led physicists then and later—with support from a rabblement of philosophers who knew as much about chemistry as etymologists—to believe that chemistry reduced to physics. Here Broad’s thesis is recast in terms more familiar to chemists. In the hard sell of particle physics, several prominent figures in chemistry—Hoffmann, Primas, and Pauling—have had their views interpreted to imply that they were sympathetic to greedy reductionism when in fact they were not. Indeed, being chemists without physicists as alter egos, they could not but side with Broad’s contention that chemistry, as a science that deals primarily in emergent phenomena which are beyond the purview of physicalism, owes no acquiescence to particle physics and its ethereal wares. Historically, among the most widely used expediencies in chemistry and materials science are additivity or mixture rules and their cohort transferability, all of which are devised and used under the mantle of naive reductionism. Here it is argued that while the transfer of functional groups between molecules works empirically to an extent, it is strictly outlawed by the no-cloning theorem of quantum mechanics. Several illustrative examples related to chemistry’s irreducibility to physics are presented and discussed. The failure of naive reductionism exhibited by the deep-inelastic scattering of leptons by A > 2 nuclei is traced to the same flawed reasoning that was the original basis of Moffitt’s ‘atoms in molecules’ hypothesis, the neglect of context, nuclei in the case of high-energy physics and molecules in the case of chemistry. A non-exhaustive list of other contexts from physics, chemistry, and molecular biology evidencing similar departures from the ideal of additivity or reductionism is provided for the perusal of philosophers. Had the call by the mathematician J. T. Schwartz for developments in mathematical linguistics possessed of a less single, less literal, and less simple-minded nature been met, perhaps it might have persuaded scientists to abandon their regressive fixation with unphysical reductionism and to adapt to new methodologies that engender a more nuanced handling of ubiquitous emergent phenomena as they arise in Nature than is the case today.

Ernest Nagel's Model of Reduction and Theory Change

The Model Theory of Falsification

A Philosophical Analysis of the Concept of "Reduction"

Reduction, Emergence and Physicalism

Reduction, Emergence and Renormalization

Reductionism and its heuristics: Making methodological reductionism honest

On the Development of Scientific Theory

Quantum Theory Needs (And Probably Has) Real Reduction

Quantum Field Theory and the Limits of Reductionism

Reductionism and the Universal Calculus

Model reduction in chemical dynamics: slow invariant manifolds, singular perturbations, thermodynamic estimates, and analysis of reaction graph

Towards rational and minimal change propagation in model evolution

On non-strictly hyperbolic systems and models of natural sciences reducible to them

On Action Theory Change

NP-Logic Systems and Model-Equivalence Reductions

Reduction Theory and the Lagrange–Routh Equations

Model-theoretic semantics as model-based science

The emancipation of chemistry

What are acceptable reductions? Perspectives from proof-theoretic semantics and type theory

The Revisability of Logic Revisited

Thermodynamics for Reduced Models of Chemical Reactions by PEA and QSSA