Can you discover the periodic table?
I follow the excellent historian and philosopher of chemistry Eric Scerri on Facebook and a recent post of his intrigued me.In it, Eric uses the verb 'discovered' for what Mendeleev did with periodic table. When I queried this, he suggested that the use of the term depended on whether or not you are a realist. But I'm not sure if that's true.
Let's take a simpler example, then come back to the periodic table. Specifically, we'll use the star Betelgeuse, the distinctly red one of the four main stars of Orion.
If I'm a realist*, then I think there is something real out there that I am labelling Betelgeuse. In good Kantian fashion, I can't know the reality - the 'Ding and sich' - but I can report on the sensory data from Betelgeuse and believe that I am talking about something that really exists. As it exists independent of humanity, we can discover it. However, Betelgeuse is also a class M star on the endearingly random looking stellar classification system that goes from O to B, A, F, G, K, and M. This system is not part of the reality that is Betelgeuse, it is a classification system that people devised - it's a representation of something - a different class of thing to a star. As such, the classification system cannot be discovered: it has to be invented or created by human beings.
If I am a non-realist, who presumably doesn't thing there is a defined reality behind the label Betelgeuse, this has no effect on the constructed classification system, which is still invented or created.
Let's now shift that picture to Mendelev and the periodic table. As a realist I can accept that there are relationships between different atoms based on their atomic weights and properties - that is something that can be discovered. But like the stellar classification system, I would suggest that a periodic table is a representation, a model, not an aspect of reality. As such, even as a realist, I would suggest it can only be created or devised, not discovered.
* Note this is my interpretation of these terms - not everyone will necessarily agree
date
newest »
newest »
Perhaps Mr. Jim would be so kind as to explain how what I wrote suggests that I am making such an elementary mistake as he implies I made.Eric Scerri
Dr. Scerri, It appears you are a Doctor of Chem and Biochem.
The only other one I knew about was Dr. Asimov.
You privately objected to my assertion that you:
confused the thing for a description thereof.
I accept that you have not done that - please accept my apology.
The impetus was your response that the "discovery of the periodic table" depends on whether ones world-view is "realist or anti-realist".
I risk making a trivial statement to say that the periodic table is a model.
More broadly, I never imagined, trapped in my individual cave, that any hard-scientists are anti-realists. I admit I may have made an invalid inference here and invite clarification.
In part, classification systems are "invented", because before they did not exist. But, you can invent non-existent things, imaginary worlds, fictions. The difference is that in science, those inventions of systems, are reflections (representations, says Dr. Scerri) very approximate of the structure of reality, for that reason, because we did not know them before and supposing that they already existed in reality independently of human existence, is that we consider them scientific "discoveries".In Chemistry, the Periodic Table or the Periodic System of Mendeleev and its followers in almost a century and a half of work, has managed to be a representation very similar to the physical (or chemical) reality of the matter of the universe and serves to interpret it, study it, use it and put it at the service of humanity and peace, be it goods, food, medicines, supplies, etc. Although, also, it can be used to build fearsome weapons of mass destruction. Julio Gutiérrez Samanez
Mr. Scerri has confused the thing for a description thereof.
The perceiver's model of a thing is not the thing itself, even if the model is verified. The very act of creating a model - choosing its attributes - necessarily simplifies it - and neglects some aspects of it. Various ancients knew and expressed this. Our "cave" is brighter with more detailed shadows, but it's still a cave with shadows.