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.

The Chemical Theory of Phlogiston in the Cultural Economy of Fire: From the Enlightenment to Contemporary Times

The "Revolution in chemistry and physics." Overthrow of a reigning paradigm or competition between contemporary research programs?

Elemental Documentary: Fire, Forensics and Pyro-Epistemologies

The History of the Phlogiston Theory

Richard Kirwan's Phlogiston Theory: Its Success and Fate

The rise and fall of the phlogiston theory: a tool to explain the use of models in science education

An anthropocene-framed transdisciplinary dialog at the chemistry-energy nexus

Combustion in the future: The importance of chemistry

Scientific pluralism and the Chemical Revolution

Reimagine fire science for the anthropocene

Combustion at a Crossroads: Status and Prospects

Metamorphosis of basic concepts in political economy

Democritus and the motive power of fire

The Aesthetics and Politics of Elemental Agency

Structural correspondence, indirect reference, and partial truth: phlogiston theory and Newtonian mechanics

The emancipation of chemistry

The End of Alchemy?

Physical and Chemical Processes in Flames

Economic history and the political economy of energy transitions: A research overview

The Archaeology of Alchemy and Chemistry: Past, Present, and Ideas for the Future