Scerri Eric R
Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Stud Hist Philos Sci. 2020 Feb;79:87-93. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2019.06.001. Epub 2019 Jun 11.
The philosopher of chemistry Andrea Woody has recently published a wide-ranging article concerning the turn to practice in the philosophy of science. Her primary example consists of the use of different forms of representations by Lothar Meyer and Mendeleev when they presented their views on chemical periodicity. Woody believes that this distinction can cast light on various issues including why Mendeleev was able to make predictions while Meyer was not. Secondly, she claims that it can clarify the much-debated question concerning the relative values of prediction and accommodation of data in the way that the periodic system was accepted. Thirdly, Woody believes that such differences in the representation of periodicity can be used to argue for the explanatory nature of the periodic table in contrast with the more traditional view that the periodic table is not explanatory. This discussion examines each of these claims and argues that they need to be qualified and in some cases rejected.
化学哲学家安德里亚·伍迪最近发表了一篇内容广泛的文章，论述了科学哲学向实践的转向。她的主要例证是洛塔尔·迈尔和门捷列夫在阐述他们关于化学元素周期律的观点时使用了不同形式的表征。伍迪认为，这种差异能够阐明诸多问题，包括为何门捷列夫能够做出预测而迈尔却不能。其次，她声称这能够以元素周期系被接受的方式，澄清有关预测和数据调适的相对价值这一备受争议的问题。第三，伍迪认为，周期律表征中的此类差异可用于论证元素周期表的解释性本质，这与元素周期表不具有解释性的更为传统的观点形成对比。本讨论审视了这些主张中的每一项，并认为它们需要加以限定，在某些情况下甚至应予以摒弃。
