The WiZard is In
International Hazard
Posts: 1617
Registered: 3-4-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
So why does chemistry often take a back seat to other sciences?
Science 18 March 2011:
Vol. 331 no. 6023 p. 1365
DOI: 10.1126/science.1204757
EDITORIAL
Inspirational Chemistry
Harry Gray1,* and Jay Labinger2,*
So why does chemistry often take a back seat to other sciences?
Traditionally (for most of the 20th century, at least), the
paradigmatic face of science in the public view was physics; more
recently, biology appears to be sharing (or even taking over) that
role. Curiously, chemistry has never been able to claim a
comparable place in the sun. Some people have argued that
chemistry is ultimately reducible to physics; others, that chemistry
is merely technology, a collection of enabling methodologies,
posing no deep questions and offering no profound meaning.
Although chemistry unquestionably has its own eloquent
spokespersons, few if any are household names—counterparts to
the likes of Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, or Stephen Jay Gould.
The grand themes that attract so much interest to physics and
biology—the origin of the cosmos, the workings of life, a theory of
everything—are not so widely recognized in chemistry. Why is this
so, inasmuch as almost everything is chemistry?
I file this under — Apparent rari nantes in gurgite vasco. Virgil.
Attachment: Inspirational Chemistry.pdf (166kB)
This file has been downloaded 716 times
|
|
|
Morgan
International Hazard
Posts: 1694
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
"The grand themes that attract so much interest to physics and biology—the origin of the cosmos, the workings of life, a theory of everything—are
not so widely recognized in chemistry. Why is this so, inasmuch as almost everything is chemistry?"
I suppose physics is the field that most look to to explain the Theory of Everything, but it is a curious point why one aspect of matter should
overshadow other perspectives.
"I do not think, if someone finally twists the key successfully in the tiniest and most humble house of life that many of these questions will be
answered, or that the dark forces which create lights in the deep sea and living batteries in the waters of tropical swamps, or the dread cycles of
parasites, or the most noble workings of the human brain, will be much if at all revealed. Rather, I would say that if `dead' matter has reared up
this curious landscape of fiddling crickets, song sparrows, and wondering men, it must be plain even to the most devoted materialist that the matter
of which he speaks contains amazing, if not dreadful powers, and may not impossibly be, as Hardy has suggested, `but one mask of many worn by the
Great Face behind.'" (Eiseley, Loren C. [Professor of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania], "The Secret of Life," in "The Immense Journey,"
[1946], Vintage: New York NY, 1957, reprint, p.210)
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/ceqcphil.html
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
A few things to explain this:
Because ultimately everything can be explained through physics, especially chemistry.
Biology has a large public appeal because we are biological organisms and it directly affects us. It has more of an "emotional connection" with the
average person. I have noticed that biologists tend to be more "people people" than chemists or physicists.
People associate chemistry with 'deadly toxic' chemicals.
Physics deals with high energy events and large celestial objects. The "cool" factor is more prominent there which attracts more of the average
people. It's harder to see instantly gratifying "cool" effects with chemistry (explosions being the exception).
Chemistry did have quite a heyday in the late 19th century, by the way.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
frobber777
Harmless
Posts: 7
Registered: 2-3-2011
Location: Perth, Australia
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
physical & biology are in vogue at the moment.
chemistry is applied physics.
and I guess biology is applied chemistry.
|
|
|
Morgan
International Hazard
Posts: 1694
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
[The physicist Ernest Rutherford claimed that "All science is either physics or stamp-collecting" ]
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/06/pz_myers_at_glasg...
|
|
|
The WiZard is In
International Hazard
Posts: 1617
Registered: 3-4-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
All sciences start with "stamp-collecting" - the patient accumulation
of multicoloured facts which are then stuck into an album until a pattern
emerges. This pattern is known as theory, and is used to predict other
patterns of facts, which may or may not turn out to be correct. Those
new patterns which do emerge are then used to create yet more
theory. And so the subject progresses.
A secret fear of many scientists, though, is that having started with
stamp-collecting, their subject will also end with it - that facts will
accumulate endlessly with out any new theory becoming apparent. And it
is a fear of chemists, in particular, that this has already happened - to
chemistry, Having explained in enormous detail over the last two
centuries which chemical elements exist and how they react together
to form molecules, all that has seemed to be left to chemists is to
make more and more of those molecules without advancing the
subjects theory.
Extracted from:— The Economists November 30th 1996
djh
----
At a Scottish wedding the bridegroom, as was
customary at a wedding breakfast, arose to
respond to the toast of the health of the bride. He
was not used to public speaking and, words
failing him, he contented himself with the response,
"Well, there's naething wrang with the woman" ; and
in proposing the toast of "Applied Science" he
should like to point the moral of this story, and say
that there was nothing wrong with it ; that it was in a
state of absolute health, and in this country, as well
as in others, it was in a state of marvelous fertility,
and as each branch of Applied Sciences was apparently
capable of producing any number of other branches of
Applied Science, as time went on they might expect
a somewhat numerous family.
Sir William Ramsay K.C.B.. D.Sc., LL.D., IF.R.S.
Bradford, Wednesday, July 15, 1903.
|
|
|
Morgan
International Hazard
Posts: 1694
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I'm not sure how this podcast fits in with the "front seat" of physics topic, but it does seem to suggest the credit of discovery coming from a
strange, predeterminded source if you will. Or to quote Loren Eiseley again ...
"Rather, I would say that if `dead' matter has reared up this curious landscape of fiddling crickets, song sparrows, and wondering men, it must be
plain even to the most devoted materialist that the matter of which he speaks contains amazing, if not dreadful powers, and may not impossibly be, as
Hardy has suggested, `but one mask of many worn by the Great Face behind.'"
Anyway this is a little fluffy at first but a few good points to ponder.
What Does Technology Want?
http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2010/nov/16/idea...
[Edited on 9-6-2011 by Morgan]
|
|
|
The WiZard is In
International Hazard
Posts: 1617
Registered: 3-4-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Morgan  | | I'm not sure how this podcast fits in with the "front seat" of physics topic, but it does seem to suggest the credit of discovery coming from a
strange, predeterminded source if you will. |
Let me take this to a new level, or out into the swamp!
God deserves a cosmological explanation
New Scientist
01 June 2011
COSMOLOGISTS have always had an uneasy relationship with
God. After all, cosmology provides grist to the mill for those
looking for signs of a creator: what better evidence than a
moment of creation such as the big bang? Another trophy, for
scientifically sophisticated deists, is the fact that we see the
universe as a single observable thing rather than a fuzzy
superposition of many states simultaneously.
The laws of quantum mechanics must apply to the universe as a
whole, just as they do to electrons. But this suggests that the
way to collapse the universe's superposition of states is for
something on the outside to observe it. Ask cosmologists who
or what plays this observer role and they'll shuffle their feet.
In "When the multiverse and many-worlds collide", we report
that cosmologists claim to have found a way to rid themselves
of the need for a God-like observer. Along the way, they may
have unified two of the most bizarre ideas dreamed up by
scientists - the many worlds interpretation of quantum
mechanics and the multiverse.
That will be a relief. Cosmologists can now begin to take God
seriously, precisely because they can explain him (or her) away.
Complete article —http://tinyurl.com/3zyd74w
djh
----
…Through the nominative diarrhea of
the solar system may have gone a little
far, a well-chosen name is both
picturesque and memorable. Perhaps,
therefore, it is time to change the
convention and give such a name to an
extrasolar planet. [Kepler-10b] And an
ideal candidate has just turned
up—one that matches one of
astronomy’s own myths: the
legendary, non-existent planet Vulcan.
…smallest extrasolar planet yet
discovered. Its diameter is a mere
1.4 times that of Earth, though it
weighs 4.6 terrestrial masses.
…its high mass probable means
it is made of iron, an appropriate
material for a planet named after a divine
smith.
The Economist
15i11
|
|
|
BromicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 3245
Registered: 13-7-2003
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Rock n' Roll
|
|
Chemistry is supposedly the central science that connects the ethereal realms to the physical. If I have an input in a system and a desired output,
only the scientific minded might wonder about the goings on between that input and output. Chemistry is that boiler room over there that people like
to forget. Gas comes into the building, heat keeps the building warm, what's missing in the middle? Thankfully, despite the incestuous past of
chemistry it still has good enough genetics to grind through the day to day without utter failure.
|
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
