Advertisement

Types of Discourse and the Reading of the History of the Physical Sciences

  • Kostas Gavroglu
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 151)

Abstract

It is always more attractive to examine scientific debates in terms of differences in types of discourse rather than examining theories. Independent of anything else, the following is the most significant feature of a type of discourse: It provides a framework where it becomes legitimate to pose certain kinds of questions and to discuss a particular class of phenomena. This legitimizing framework provides the possibility to discuss a whole new set of issues and, at the same time, it creates all those problems that make it difficult for the scientific community to have a consensus both about the formulation of the new questions as well as about the proposed answers. The success of a new theoretical approach has always been the result of a curious mix of persuasion and proof. Though absolutely essential, proofs were by no means sufficient. Persuasion, however, became indispensable whenever the novelties introduced by a new type of discourse were at stake. “To persuade” meant two things at the same time: consensual activities and legitimizing procedures.

Keywords

Quantum Mechanic Hydrogen Molecule Diatomic Molecule Theoretical Entity Chemical Valence 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Hacking “Styles of Scientific Reasoning,” in Post-Analytic Philosophy,eds. J. Rajchman and Cornel West, Cornell University Press, 1985; p. 146.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ibid., p. 155.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ibid., p. 162.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Interview with Walter Heitler at the Archive for the History of Quantum Physics (A.H.Q.P.), American Institute of Physics.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heitler to London, September (?) 1927.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heitler to London, September (?) 1927.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Interview with E. Wigner by T. S. Kuhn, December 4, 1963, p. 14.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heitler to London, December 7, 1927.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Division of Physical and Inorganic Chemistry.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    G. L. Clark, “Introductory remarks in the Symposium on Atomic Structure and Valence,” Chemical Reviews 5 1928, p. 362.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    W. H. Rodebush “The electron theory of valence,” Chemical Reviews 5 1928, p. 511.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rodebush who was a student of Lewis does not mention Heitler and London by name when he comes to the quantum mechanical treatment of the hydrogen molecule.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    H. S. Fry, “A pragmatic system of notation for electronic valence conceptions in chemical formulas,” Chemical Reviews 5 1928, pp. 557–568.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ibid., pp. 558–559.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    F. Hund, “Chemical binding”, Trans. Far. Soc. 25 1929 pp. 645–647.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. E. Lennard-Jones, “The electronic structure of some diatomic molecules”, Ibid., pp. 665–686.Google Scholar
  17. 18.
    L. Pauling, “The shared-electron chemical bond,” Proc. Nat. Acad. Sc. 14 1928, p. 359. te Ibid., p. 361.Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    For a comprehensive analysis of Pauling’s work and a full list of his papers up to 1968 compiled by G. Albrecht, see Structural Chemistry and Molecular Biology, edited by A. Rich and N. Davidson, Freeman and Co. 1968. In the same volume see J. H. Sturdivant, “The scientific work of Linus Pauling,” pp. 4–11.Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    Pauling’s unpublished Notebooks. Deposited at the American Institute of Physics, Archive for the History of Quantum Theory. Notes titled “1928 London’s paper. General ideas on bonds”. There follows a note by Pauling: Here we have the first discussion of hybridization (pp. 14, 18),p. 22. Pauling’s unpublished notebooks provide us with an insight about some of the early developments of the theory of the chemical bond. We notice extensive notes on the papers of both Heitler and London on group theory.Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    L. Pauling, “The nature of the chemical bond I”, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 53 1931, p. 1367; Ibid., p. 3225; Ibid., 54 1932, p. 988.Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    Pauling interview, p. 16.Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    G. Wheland, The Theory of Resonance and its Applications to Organic Chemistry, New York, John Wiley, 1944, p. 31.Google Scholar
  23. 24.
    L. Pauling “Modern Structural Chemistry,” in Les Prix Nobel, Stockholm 1955, p. 95.Google Scholar
  24. 25.
    R. S. Mulliken, “The assignment of quantum numbers for electrons in moleculs. II. The correlation of molecular and atomic states,” Phys. rev. 32 1928, pp. 761–772.Google Scholar
  25. 26.
    R. S. Mulliken, “The assignment of quantum numbers for electrons in moleculs. I,” Phys. Rev. 32 1928, pp. 186–222. p. 186.Google Scholar
  26. 27.
    R. S. Mulliken, “Interpretation of band spectra. III. Electron quantum numbers and states of molecules and their atoms,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 4 1932, pp. 1–86; “Electronic structures of polyatomic molecules and valence. I,” Phys. Rev. 40 1932, pp. 55–62; “Electronic structures of polyatomic molecules and valence. II. General Considerations,” Phys. Rev. 41 1932, pp. 49–71.Google Scholar
  27. 28.
    Ibid., p. 52.Google Scholar
  28. 29.
    Ibid., pp. 54–55.Google Scholar
  29. 30.
    Ibid., p. 60.Google Scholar
  30. 31.
    Ibid., p. 64.Google Scholar
  31. 33.
    W. Heitler to F. London, November 4, 1935.Google Scholar
  32. 33.
    W. Heitler to F. London, November 7, 1935.Google Scholar
  33. 34.
    F. London to W. Heitler, November 6, 1935.Google Scholar
  34. 35.
    W. Heitler to F. London, November 12, 1935.Google Scholar
  35. 36.
    W. Heitler to F. London, November 12, 1935.Google Scholar
  36. 37.
  37. 38.
    F. London to W. Heitler, October or November 1935.Google Scholar
  38. 39.
  39. 40.
    W. Heitler to F. London, February 6, 1936. Heitler to London, October 7, 1936.Google Scholar
  40. 42.
  41. 43.
    Interview with Linus Pauling, A.H.Q.P.Google Scholar
  42. 44.
    L. Pauling, “The Nature of the chemical bond. Application obtained from the quantum mechanics and from a theory of paramagnetic susceptibility to the structure of molecules,” Journal of Am. Chem. Soc. 53, 1931, pp. 1367–1400. Quote on p. 1367.Google Scholar
  43. 45.
    L. Pauling, The Nature of the Chemical Bond, p. 219.Google Scholar
  44. 46.
    Nobel Prix, p. 92.Google Scholar
  45. 47.
    Pauling, Private communication.Google Scholar
  46. 48.
    R. S. Mulliken, “Electronic structures of polyatomic molecules and valence. VI. On the method of molecular orbits,” Jour. Chem. Phys. 3, 1935, pp. 375–378; p. 376.Google Scholar
  47. 49.
    Ibid., p. 525.Google Scholar
  48. 50.
    Ibid., p. 378.Google Scholar
  49. 51.
    Interview with R. S. Mulliken by T. S. Kuhn, February 1, 1964. p. 17.Google Scholar
  50. 52.
    Ibid., p. 17.Google Scholar
  51. 53.
    Interview with E. Wigner by T. S. Kuhn, December 4, 1963, p. 13.Google Scholar
  52. 54.
    Hund to London, July 13, 1928.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kostas Gavroglu
    • 1
  1. 1.National Technical UniversityAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations