Science & Education

, Volume 22, Issue 7, pp 1655–1667 | Cite as

Emergence, Supervenience, and Introductory Chemical Education



In learning chemistry at the entry level, many learners labor under misconceptions about the subject matter that are so fundamental that they are typically never addressed. A fundamental misconception in chemistry appears to arise from an adding of existing phenomenal concepts to newly-acquired chemical concepts, so that beginning learners think of chemical entities as themselves having the very same ‘macro’ properties that we observe through the senses. Those who teach or practice chemistry never acquire these misconceptions because they were able to naturally pick up the nature of the subject to begin with. But as a result, they remain unaware of the foundational assumptions and understanding that they operate with and that many beginning learners persistently lack. Thus, a systematic picture of the workings of chemical theory as they relate to observable phenomena needs to be elucidated so that the attention of chemical educators is drawn to the fundamental understanding of the subject that they already possess and that beginning learners of chemistry lack, so that beginning learners can be given the opportunity to gain an understanding of how chemical explanations are in general related to observable phenomena. The ‘layered’ way in which chemical and physical entities are related to each other within chemical theory can also be clarified in this way. To afford this picture, the philosophical concepts of supervenience and emergence are explained and applied to chemistry, as philosophers of chemistry have already done. The result provides a model for teaching chemistry that, if consistently applied, has the potential to greatly enhance fundamental understanding of the subject matter.


Empty Space Chemical Entity Basic Substance Phenomenal Concept Chemical Education 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



I thank participants at the 2009 Summer Symposium of the International Society for the Philosophy of Chemistry for helpful comments and feedback on an earlier version of this paper, which was presented there. I also thank the Department of Philosophy at the University of Connecticut for partial funding towards attending that conference.


  1. Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1986). Is an atom of copper malleable? Journal of Chemical Education, 63, 64–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Broad, C. D. (1999). Mechanism and emergentism. In J. Kim & E. Sosa (Eds.), Metaphysics: An anthology (pp. 487–498). New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Earley, J. E. (1998). Modes of chemical becoming. Hyle: The International Journal for the Philosophy of Chemistry, 2, 105–115.Google Scholar
  4. Earley, J. E. (2005). Why there is no salt in the sea. Foundations of Chemistry, 7, 85–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Erduran, S. (2005). Applying the philosophical concept of reduction to the chemistry of water: Implications for chemical education. Science & Education, 14, 161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Erduran, S., & Scerri, E. (2003). The nature of chemical knowledge and chemical education. In J. Gilbert, O. de Jong, R. Justi, D. Treagust, & J. van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 7–27). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Erduran, S., Bravo, A. A., & Naaman, R. M. (2007). Developing epistemologically empowered teachers: Examining the role of philosophy of chemistry in teacher education. Science & Education, 16, 975–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gabel, D. L., Samuel, K. V., & Hunn, D. (1987). Understanding the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 695–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Johnston, M. (1997). Manifest kinds. Journal of Philosophy, 94, 564–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Luisi, P. L. (2002). Emergence in chemistry: Chemistry as the embodiment of emergence. Foundations of Chemistry, 4, 183–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McIntyre, L. (2007). Emergence and reduction in chemistry: Ontological or epistemological concepts? Synthese, 155, 337–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Moore, J. T. (2003). Chemistry for dummies. Indianapolis: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Myers, T., Oldham, K., & Tocci, S. (2006). Holt chemistry. Austin: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  14. Nakhleh, M. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 69, 191–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Needham, P. (2000). What is water? Analysis, 60, 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Newman, M. (2008). Chemical supervenience. Foundations of Chemistry, 10, 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Paneth, F. A. (1962). The epistemological status of element. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 14(1–14), 144–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Scerri, E., & McIntyre, L. (1997). The case for philosophy of chemistry. Synthese, 111, 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sellars, W. (1963). Philosophy and the scientific image of man. In W. Sellars (Ed.), Science, perception, and reality. New York: The Humanities Press.Google Scholar
  20. Simonian, J. (2005). The paradoxes of chemical classification: Why ‘water is H2O’ is not an identity statement. Foundations of Chemistry, 7, 49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Weisberg, M. (2006). Water is not H2O. In D. Baird, E. Scerri, & L. McIntyre (Eds.), Philosophy of chemistry: Synthesis of a new discipline (Vol. 242, pp. 337–346). Dordrecht: Boston studies in the Philosophy of Science, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wiggins, D. (2001). Sameness and substance renewed. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DallasUSA

Personalised recommendations