(A written shortened version of the talk given at the English Department, University of Pune)
Chemistry(etymology: Chymistry, with the purpose of studying the properties of dyes) was said to be thought of as an experimental science which had developed through touch, feel, taste perceptions. Its initial developments and systematics came from solutions, substances that could be weighed in specific metric systems and colours that could be recognized by human perceptions. These led to some empirical rules and classification. Formulating the combination of substances required the basic assumption of the existence of atoms without seeing them. This was probably the first instance of the use of an entity that could not be seen or felt but was just percieved. The first step in this was the formuation of a periodic table, assuming the existence of atoms as basic entities. This was at a time when atoms could not even be seen or understood.
A very interesting connection with this is often seen in literature, media and cartoons, when the chemist is shown as one who broods over over smoking vessels of exotic morphology filled with liquids of colours that capture your imagination. An example that is close to your hearts would be the honorary membership of Sherlock Holmes to the Royal Society of Chemists in 2002. The declaration was made by the secretary at that time James Watson and it states due to his valuable contributions to detective science via his abilities in chemistry.
Taking a jump from here to the 1930's (after the electron was discovered in 1897, and the atom was instrumentally found to exist with its basic structure known), the beginnings of quantum mechanics started changing the subject. The first thing that we learn in school after the periodic table is something called an electronic configuration which is based on certain terms such as orbitals which are derived from quantum mechanics. This courses on to several other noumenal terms like bonding, valence, reactivity so on and so forth.
Thus did language of chemistry evolve and it went onto get a symbolic language of its own, derived from Latin, Greek and some sort of chemical heiroglyphics. This chemical heiroglyphics involved alphabets, single straight lines for bonds, forward and backward arrows for reactions, upward arrows for gases evolving in reactions, downward arrows for substances settling down in solutions, and even curly arrows for the movement of electrons in organic reactions. The development of the subject required notations. It all went on to such an extent that a chemists basic reasoning and communication was along the lines of this heiroglyphics. Rules were put down for it.
With years gone by to the present, the boundaries of chemistry have slowly started dissolving. The development of quantum mechanics has brought about the development of quantum chemistry. More sophisticated instruments have brought about the a feeling that the previous perception of atoms was not just a noumenon. The chemists have now actually started seeing molecules instead of just drawing logical conclusions as to what they look like. Computers and their advancement have facilitated the perception of molecules in terms of numbers that could be picturised. So now molecules look like this, in terms of abstract numbers which evolved into pictures. Hence the language of chemistry involving bonds and electrons moving on arrows in reactions have become a seeming reality.
But still the traditional chemist educated via all the chemical language that brought the subject to him, does have steadfast belief in all the empirical factors that he has studied. Due to this several so-called surprising interpretations pop up from time to time, exceptions that do not follow the empirical rules set up and the heiroglyphics. It is in order to understand these exceptions that one has to resort to forgetting what we have been traditionally taught. For example in our schools we say that carbon in methane will always have only 4 other neighbouring atoms arranged in four corners of a tetrahedron. But of recent several other variants of the same compound have been found.
In order to easily facilitate, such new developments it is perhaps necessary to understand that bonds, valence, electronegativity, and all the other terms which we learn in school do not really exist. They are a noumenon in the sense of Kant and serve as only as means of communication.
But at this point there is always that relevant question how else do we depict chemistry, when it is a medium to be taught, understood and communicated.
A change in the language is not really required. The best one can do is instill doubts in the minds of people regarding the absoluteness of the concepts that we learn. The doubt remains with the person and that bit of it helps him in advancing the science beyond traditional beliefs and perception. (Afterall it is just a historical accident that the electrons are negatively charged and the atoms are positive) In this sense, science is not very different from literature and language. Although science proceeds from observations and experiment it is finally the interpretation that advances it. The same is probably the case for languages.
Chemistry(etymology: Chymistry, with the purpose of studying the properties of dyes) was said to be thought of as an experimental science which had developed through touch, feel, taste perceptions. Its initial developments and systematics came from solutions, substances that could be weighed in specific metric systems and colours that could be recognized by human perceptions. These led to some empirical rules and classification. Formulating the combination of substances required the basic assumption of the existence of atoms without seeing them. This was probably the first instance of the use of an entity that could not be seen or felt but was just percieved. The first step in this was the formuation of a periodic table, assuming the existence of atoms as basic entities. This was at a time when atoms could not even be seen or understood.
A very interesting connection with this is often seen in literature, media and cartoons, when the chemist is shown as one who broods over over smoking vessels of exotic morphology filled with liquids of colours that capture your imagination. An example that is close to your hearts would be the honorary membership of Sherlock Holmes to the Royal Society of Chemists in 2002. The declaration was made by the secretary at that time James Watson and it states due to his valuable contributions to detective science via his abilities in chemistry.
Taking a jump from here to the 1930's (after the electron was discovered in 1897, and the atom was instrumentally found to exist with its basic structure known), the beginnings of quantum mechanics started changing the subject. The first thing that we learn in school after the periodic table is something called an electronic configuration which is based on certain terms such as orbitals which are derived from quantum mechanics. This courses on to several other noumenal terms like bonding, valence, reactivity so on and so forth.
Thus did language of chemistry evolve and it went onto get a symbolic language of its own, derived from Latin, Greek and some sort of chemical heiroglyphics. This chemical heiroglyphics involved alphabets, single straight lines for bonds, forward and backward arrows for reactions, upward arrows for gases evolving in reactions, downward arrows for substances settling down in solutions, and even curly arrows for the movement of electrons in organic reactions. The development of the subject required notations. It all went on to such an extent that a chemists basic reasoning and communication was along the lines of this heiroglyphics. Rules were put down for it.
With years gone by to the present, the boundaries of chemistry have slowly started dissolving. The development of quantum mechanics has brought about the development of quantum chemistry. More sophisticated instruments have brought about the a feeling that the previous perception of atoms was not just a noumenon. The chemists have now actually started seeing molecules instead of just drawing logical conclusions as to what they look like. Computers and their advancement have facilitated the perception of molecules in terms of numbers that could be picturised. So now molecules look like this, in terms of abstract numbers which evolved into pictures. Hence the language of chemistry involving bonds and electrons moving on arrows in reactions have become a seeming reality.
But still the traditional chemist educated via all the chemical language that brought the subject to him, does have steadfast belief in all the empirical factors that he has studied. Due to this several so-called surprising interpretations pop up from time to time, exceptions that do not follow the empirical rules set up and the heiroglyphics. It is in order to understand these exceptions that one has to resort to forgetting what we have been traditionally taught. For example in our schools we say that carbon in methane will always have only 4 other neighbouring atoms arranged in four corners of a tetrahedron. But of recent several other variants of the same compound have been found.
In order to easily facilitate, such new developments it is perhaps necessary to understand that bonds, valence, electronegativity, and all the other terms which we learn in school do not really exist. They are a noumenon in the sense of Kant and serve as only as means of communication.
But at this point there is always that relevant question how else do we depict chemistry, when it is a medium to be taught, understood and communicated.
A change in the language is not really required. The best one can do is instill doubts in the minds of people regarding the absoluteness of the concepts that we learn. The doubt remains with the person and that bit of it helps him in advancing the science beyond traditional beliefs and perception. (Afterall it is just a historical accident that the electrons are negatively charged and the atoms are positive) In this sense, science is not very different from literature and language. Although science proceeds from observations and experiment it is finally the interpretation that advances it. The same is probably the case for languages.
