DOCSLIB.ORG

BPY-012 Philosophy of Science and Cosmology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
BPY-012 Philosophy of Science and Cosmology BLOCK 1 Today science is considered as one of the best sources of reliable knowledge, especially for providing the knowledge of the reality around us. But today’s science and philosophy has its basis in the mythology of the past. The ancient people were in search of an explanation of the nature that was externally obvious to them, yet the origin, nature and structure was too transcendent to their limited minds. This is the reason they took refuge in the myths. Although these myths were not so clear and satisfactory, these gave them the momentum to go ahead and search for more convincing answers. This is the story of the development and growth of science. Today’s science was the myth of the past. Both strive to explain the reality; both have the same goal; but the methods followed are different. Myths when elaborated and rationalized become philosophy. Also philosophy becomes a reflection on the data furnished by science which will help in furthering human knowledge. Philosophy and science are the two sides of the same coin i.e. knowledge. Even this discipline of knowledge has its foundation laid down long ago by the Greek thinkers, by 6th century BC. This block consists of four units introducing us to the philosophy of science and the Greek roots from which it developed. Unit 1 will introduce the course that we will study: Introduction to Philosophy of Science and Cosmology. It gives the various stages of how the so called contemporary science has developed. Beginning with an analysis of myths, it will show the relationship that exists between philosophy and science, philosophical cosmology and what we understand by philosophy of science. Unit 2 familiarizes us with the contributions of Pre-Socratic thinkers. The entire academic edifice of the western world is founded on firm foundation laid down by the Greeks. The major schools during this period were the Ionian school, the Pythagorean brotherhood, the Eleatic, and the Atomists schools. All their thinking revolved around two questions: What is the basic stuff of everything? How can we explain the process of change? 1 Unit 3 deals with the Socratic thinkers and their contribution. This unit carries with it two of the most important foundation stones of the western thinking: Plato and Aristotle. They have elaborated on topics like universe, its origin, teleology, structure, development and matter and motion. Animism is a common feature in both the accounts. Unit 4 highlights the growth of philosophy of science and cosmology in the Middle Ages. This unit gives us an immediate account of what happened in Europe after Aristotle. There was interplay of three movements: Aristotelianism, scholasticism and Arabic science. Ptolemy’s system is one of the important achievements of this period. Roger Bacon tried his best to introduce his experimental science. The whole of western tradition has its basis in the Greek thought. The whole of western tradition carries forward the torch of knowledge lit by the Greeks. The great thinkers such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were the main contributors. 2 BPY 012- PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE AND COSMOLOGY (4 credits) COURSE INTRODUCTION Philosophical cosmology is a discipline within philosophy that deals with questions concerning the origin, structure and nature of the universe. The study of the Universe has a long history involving science, philosophy, esotericism, and religion, but the name cosmology was first used only in the later 18th century. Philosophy began with wonder at the reality that was obvious to human eyes, yet its origin, makeup and growing up during the times gone by has surprised most of the thinkers. It is different from the science as well as myth. The goal of all the three is to explain the reality, but the methods and course that they hold on to are quite different. There is a slow development from myth to philosophy and then to science. Myths are not existentially true and meaningful; philosophy tries to be factually true and meaningful by rational investigation. Science attempts to be factually true and does not directly influence the existential meaning. Myths provide us with intuitive and existential meaning. Philosophy gives us rational meaning. Science shows us empirical facts. This block contains four blocks, each of the block having four units. Block 1 is on Pre-Copernican Philosophy of Science and Cosmology and introduces to us the study of cosmology, pre-Socratic, Socratic, and middle age thinkers. Block 2 introduces Mechanical philosophy of nature as contributed by Copernicus, Newton and other schools and its implications. Block 3 studies the contributions of the contemporary philosophy of science with special reference to logical positivism, historicism and historical realism Block 4 deals with the contributions of the contemporary philosophy of nature and the various movements that emerged during this time. This course consisting of 16 units as a whole will enlighten us on the subject of cosmology and philosophy of science. 1 UNIT 1 INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE AND COSMOLOGY Contents 1. 0 Objectives 1. 1 Introduction 1. 2 Myths of Yesterday 1. 3 Myth, Philosophy and Science 1. 4 Introducing Cosmology 1. 5 Introducing Philosophy of Science 1. 6 Let Us Sum Up 1. 7 Key Words 1. 8 Further Readings and References 1. 9 Answers to Check Your Progress 1.0 OBJECTIVES The main objective of this Unit is to give a pre-taste of philosophy of science and philosophical cosmology without going into details. Although the details of the ‘how’ of philosophizing are not considered in this unit, it is a very important Unit as it is the basis for all that will follow during this course. In this unit we shall try to give a definition of philosophy, both etymological and real; and then we shall show as to how philosophy is to be differentiated from or related to ‘philosophizing’. But the notion of wisdom will be clarified in greater depth and width in relation to ‘philosophy’ and in contrast to ‘knowledge’. Philosophy is not just one of the disciplines of knowledge, as any other one. Hence clarification of its all-comprehensive character by referring to its scope is yet another objective of this unit of study. Finally the importance of philosophy is also to be paid attention to. Thus by the end of this Unit you should be able: • to have a general understanding of philosophy of science; 1 • to appreciate some features of cosmology • to articulate differences between myth, science and philosophy • to realize the need for cosmology serving as the data for philosophising • to appreciate some of the wider and deeper philosophical questions arising from science and cosmology. 1. 1 INTRODUCTION OLBER’S PARADOX Let us start with a contemporary story. During a warm summer evening, some friends were sitting at Varanasi on the banks of river Ganges and conversing. At first it was just chit- chatting. Then when they saw the sun-set, the mood become more serious and appreciative of nature. So the conversation turned to serious issues like the origin and effect of the sun on river, ecological problems of today and the human role in it. As evening proceeded, the group of friends get into much more involved discussion. Gradually, a myriad of stars began to materialize above our dark-adapted eyes, while a voluptuous Milky Way unquestionably assumed the leading role of such great spectacle. Less than ten minutes later everyone had become completely engrossed by the marvellous scene over our heads. Still out of the blue, one young and educated man asked: “Please, tell me, if there are almost infinite suns as you say, doesn’t the night have to be pretty much lighted?” Apparently simple and naive, he had posed a very hard question. Were the Universe filled with infinitely many stars for an also infinite time, it sounded reasonable that no night could exist, as heavens would be bright by other stars even when our Sun disappeared into horizon. The question about the night’s darkness involves not only a difficult topic by itself, but a truly essential one, as it is intimately connected with the structure and evolution of the universe as a whole. Assuming an infinite old universe with stars scattered more or less randomly 2 throughout infinite space -the usual model since the end of medieval times- the night sky should not be dark as it obviously has ever been. This evident contradiction between theory and reality became generically known as “Olbers’ paradox”, after the German amateur astronomer who wrote about it in 1823. Newton thought that the universe had to be a static, infinitely old, unlimited expanse of stars homogeneously distributed. This model effectively resolved the otherwise problematic appearance of a privilege centre of gravity -in a non homogenous universe large gravitational forces would not be compensated at all- but failed to solve the riddle of the sky darkness. We now know that space and time are no longer independent entities as previously thought, but integrate a single reality called spacetime. According to Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity, spacetime has the property to grip mass, telling it how to move, while at the same time mass grips spacetime, telling it how to curve. This helps us today to understand the problem of the night sky. By joining together theoretical solutions derived from General Relativity, with practical compelling evidence obtained from our best observational instruments, most cosmologists agree that our universe (that is, all the space, matter, time, and energy) was “created” in a singular episode called the Big Bang, some 13.7 billion years ago, and it has been expanding ever since. Basing ourselves on this widely accepted model, Olbers’ paradox has now become resolved.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Architectural Theory and Practice, and the Question of Phenomenology
    Architectural Theory and Practice, and the Question of Phenomenology (The Contribution of Tadao Ando to the Phenomenological Discourse) Von der Fakultät Architektur, Bauingenieurwesen und Stadtplanung der Brandenburgischen Technischen Universität Cottbus zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktor-Ingenieurs genehmigte Dissertation vorgelegt von Mohammadreza Shirazi aus Tabriz, Iran Gutachter: : Prof. Dr. Eduard Führ Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Karsten Harries Gutachter: Gastprofessor. Dr. Riklef Rambow Tag der Verteidigung: 02. Juni 2009 Acknowledgment My first words of gratitude go to my supervisor Prof. Führ for giving me direction and support. He fully supported me during my research, and created a welcoming and inspiring atmosphere in which I had the pleasure of writing this dissertation. I am indepted to his teachings and instructions in more ways than I can state here. I am particularly grateful to Prof. Karsten Harries. His texts taught me how to think on architecture deeply, how to challenge whatever is ‘taken for granted’ and ‘remain on the way, in search of home’. I am also grateful to other colleagues in L.S. Theorie der Architektur. I want to express my thanks to Dr. Riklef Rambow who considered my ideas and texts deeply and helped me with his advice at different stages. I am thankful for the comments and kind helps I received from Dr. Katharina Fleischmann. I also want to thank Prof. Hahn from TU Dresden and other PhD students who attended in Doktorandentag meetings and criticized my presentations. I would like to express my appreciation to the staff of Langen Foundation Museum for their kind helps during my visit of that complex, and to Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Russell's Second Philosophy of Time (1899–1913)
    Russell’s Second Philosophy of Time (1899–1913) Nikolay Milkov, Bielefeld, Germany 1. Introduction 3. The History of Russell’s Seconds Russell’s second philosophy of time (1899–1913), which Philosophy of Time will be the subject of this paper, is of special interest for Though idealistic, Russell’s philosophy was pluralistic from two reasons. (1) It was basic to his New Philosophy, later the very beginning. His motivation for accepting pluralism called the “philosophy of logical atomism”. In fact, this were two early beliefs of his: First, in order for thinking to philosophy didn’t initially emerge in the period of 1914– be possible at all, its object must be complex. Indeed, a 1919, as many interpreters (e.g. A. J. Ayer) suggest, but simple thing “is unthinkable, since every object of thought with the introduction of Russell’s second philosophy of time can only be thought by means of some complexity”. (1896, (and space). The importance of Russell’s second philos- 564) Secondly, this complexity can be achieved only when ophy of time for his early and middle philosophy can be referring to unique individuals (terms), which are different seen from the fact that it survived the dramatic changes in from any other individual. This was the kernel of Russell’s his philosophy of August–December 1900, and of July atomism.1 1905. There is of course no surprise about this point: it served as their fundament. (2) Russell’s second philos- Thus Russell’s The Foundations of Geometry ophy of time is a locus classicus of all so called B-theories (finished in October 1896) claimed that the objects of of time which define it in terms of the relations of before, cognition have to be complex: in order to know them, we after and simultaneous between events or moments.
    [Show full text]
  • The Absolute Theory of Time Is Intimately Connected With
    The Absolute and the Relational Theories of Space and •rime 1. ·rhe Absolute Theory of Space and Time ; The absolute theory of time is intimately connected with the absolute theory of space, which is to be found first, in 1 clear terms, in Newton's conception of space and time. In Newton • s theory space and time are real indepe~dent entities; each of them constitutes a continuum such that any one part of that continuum is indistinguishab~e from any such other part. The different parts of space and time are due to the things that occupy place and. the events. that happen at moments; they are not due to space apd time themselves. Both space and time are absolutely immutable and homogeneous. · The basic attributes of space and time follow 1 from their h01rogenei ty : "their irtde·pendence from physical contents, their uniformity, continuity and infinity. As 7 space is independent of rnatter, time is also independent in regard to the concrete c.'langes that take place in it. 'I'his has been explicitly formulated by Newton in the following sentences : 11 Absolute, true and mathematical >cime of itself and by its ·own nature flows uniformly, without regard to anything external. It is called duration. Relative, apparent and vu.lgax- time is sane sensible and external measure of absolute time (duration), estimated by the motions of bodies ••• , and is c~m~nly .ll.s.~d .i~stead of true time, 11 2 such as· an hour, a day, a month a week • According to this theory time flows irrespective of the events or changes occurring or not in it.
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACT Author's Name Jack Glazbrook Title of Thesis Berkeleyts
    ABSTRACT Author's Name Jack Glazbrook Title of Thesis Berkeleyts Analysis of Science Department Philosophy Degree M.A. Summary The purpose of this dissertation is to examine Berkeley's philosophy of science in the context of his general philosophy (Part One) and to trace the influence of his analysis of science on later ~hought (Part Two). Part One begins by reviewing the influence of other think­ ers - Locke, Newton and r~lebranche in particular - after which his rejection of abstraction is taken up as a prelude to an examination of his metaphysics. The opening discus­ sion of Part Two concludes that Berkeley's philosophy of science is well integrated into his philosophic system. His two main critiques of Newtonian theory, the doctrine of motion and the calculus, are examined as part of his theory of scientific methodology and his concept of nature. The influence of Berkeley's analysis of science is pre­ sented less in its direct impact on individual thinkers than as a contribution to the general intellectual climate of later scientific thought. Short Title BERKELEY'S ANALYSIS OF SCIENCE BERKELEY'S ANALYSIS OF SCIENCE by Jack Glazbrook, B.A. A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of ~~ster of Arts. Department of Philosophy, McGill University, ...... r1ontreal • March, 1970 , (e) Jack G1azbrook 1970 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface i Part One. Berkeley's Philosophy in General Chapter 1. The Context of His Philosophy l Chapter 2. His Rejection of Abstraction 12 Chapter 3. On Physical Objects 22 Chapter 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematics at the International Con- Gress Of
    1901.] THE PARIS CONGRESS OF PHILOSOPHY. 157 MATHEMATICS AT THE INTERNATIONAL CON­ GRESS OF PHILOSOPHY, PARIS, 1900. THE first international congress of philosophy was held at Paris, August 1-5, 1900, under the presidency of M. E. BOUTROUX, professor at the Sorbonne. The proceedings of the third section, devoted to logic and history of the sciences, are of especial interest to mathematicians. The delibera­ tions of this section were directed by Professor JULES TANNERY. In his inaugural address as president of the section, after the usual felicitations and customary acknowl­ edgments, Professor Tannery emphasized the union be­ tween science and philosophy, a union which, he said, is better designated by the term unity. Any separation be­ tween scientists and philosophers is only apparent. The savants of the present century have set most important re­ sults before philosophers for speculation. Count the power­ ful geniuses who from the beginning of the century to its end have attacked the notion of space ; measure how much the critique of this notion has done for the problem of knowledge. "What illumination has been thrown upon the notion of function and, ascending farther, on the notion of number, by the revision of the principles of analysis ! Will not the theory of ensembles show somewhat how we ought to think of infinity? Will not mathematical logic furnish us a sure instrument for the discernment and transformation of the data of intuition ? Will not the al­ gebra of logic enable us to penetrate deeper into the mech­ anism of deduction? Every hope seems legitimate, after what has been accomplished in the foundations of geometry.
    [Show full text]
  • On Models, Objects, Fantasy Christina Vagt & Robert M
    This is an unpublished working paper, please do not circulate it further. We appreciate written feedback to [email protected] or [email protected] ​ ​ ​ On Models, Objects, Fantasy Christina Vagt & Robert M. T. Groome This article presumes that a media theoretical discourse on modeling can be effectively stated in structural and functional terms that are shared to a certain extent by mathematics and science. This leads to constructions in non-classical logic, set theory, and topology that are necessary to understand questions that are usually excluded from scientific discourses because they challenge the dominant paradigms of causality, representation, or identity. We are primarily interested in writing practices or media operations that demonstrate different aspects of model-object relations, and not in models as immaterial, purely formal, non-temporal, or non-spatial entities or ideas. The insight that practices such as writing, diagramming, counting, imaging, etc. predate any specific philosophical or scientific concept or theory of text, image, and number is not new: it belongs to the premises of so-called ‘German media theory’ that emerged among European philosophers, historians, and literary scholars in the late 1980s around questions of textuality, structuralism, technology, knowledge, and science.1 Even though a few scholars in this field have successfully engaged with the history and philosophy of science, mathematics, logic, or engineering to a degree that one could say the subject of media theory is science, mathematics, and technology, the discourse over all has so far failed to formulate any consistent methods that would enable an actual dialogue with mathematics, logic, or science beyond the individual scholarship.
    [Show full text]
  • The Strong Theory of Relative Identity
    The Strong Theory of Relative Identity Daniel Molto PhD University of York Philosophy September 2014 2 0.1 Abstract This dissertation considers a theory of numerical identity, first presented by P.T. Geach (1962). I label this theory `the strong theory of relative identity'. I suggest that the strong theory of relative identity involves three theses, which I name `GT', `RI', and `SRI'. I argue that each of these theses is logically independent. I consider arguments for and against each of these theses in turn. I conclude that none of the arguments for GT, RI, or SRI are conclusive. However, I also argue that the arguments against GT, RI and SRI are unsuccessful. I argue, further, that the strong theory of relative identity, and GT in particular, is incompatible with classical semantics and classical first-order logic with identity. I consider alternative non-classical logical systems and semantics which might be compatible with the strong theory of relative identity. Finally, I consider the philosophical applications of the strong theory of relative identity. I focus on one area, specifically philosophical theology, and I argue, with respect to the logical problem of the Trinity, that either GT is true or orthodoxy is false. 3 CONTENTS 0.1 Abstract . 3 0.2 Acknowledgements . 5 0.3 Declaration . 6 0.4 Introduction . 7 0.4.1 Chapter 1: The Strong Theory of Relative Identity . 8 0.4.2 Chapter 2: Geach's Argument Against Absolute Identity 11 0.4.3 Chapter 3: RI . 12 0.4.4 Chapter 4: SRI . 12 0.4.5 Chapter 5: Objections to Relative Identity .
    [Show full text]
  • "Scientific Rationality and Methodological Change
    "Scientific Rationality and Methodological Change: A Critical Examination of Some Recent Attempts to Naturalize Methodology11 By Kolapo Ogunniyi Abimbola (London School of Economics and Political Science) Submitted in August 1993 to the University of London for the Degree of Ph.D in Philosophy of Science UMI Number: U055801 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U055801 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Abstract Following the work of Popper and especially of Kuhn in the 1960s, the attention of philosophers of science has been very much concentrated onchange in science. Popper’s picture was of constant change ("revolution in permanence") at the level of scientific theories, but constant change in accordance with fixed methodological standards of evaluation. Drawing on Kuhn’s work, however, many recent philosophers of science have held that the phenomenon of scientific change is much more radical and far-reaching than anything allowed by Popper: specifically, that there have been major changes in methodological standards during the history of science alongside changes in accepted fundamental theory.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mathematical Roots of Russell's Naturalism and Behaviorism
    Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication Volume 4 200 YEARS OF ANALYTICAL PHILOSOPHY Article 10 2008 The Mathematical Roots Of Russell’s Naturalism And Behaviorism James Levine Trinity College Dublin, IRE Follow this and additional works at: https://newprairiepress.org/biyclc This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Levine, James (2008) "The Mathematical Roots Of Russell’s Naturalism And Behaviorism," Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication: Vol. 4. https://doi.org/10.4148/ biyclc.v4i0.134 This Proceeding of the Symposium for Cognition, Logic and Communication is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at New Prairie Press. It has been accepted for inclusion in Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication by an authorized administrator of New Prairie Press. For more information, please contact [email protected]. From Moore to Peano to Watson 2 The Baltic International Yearbook of with meaning, which in earlier days I had completely ignored” (1968, Cognition, Logic and Communication 194) when “I had regarded language as ‘transparent’ and had never examined what makes its relation to the non–linguistic world” (1959, August 2009 Volume 4: 200 Years of Analytical Philosophy 145). pages 1-126 DOI: 10.4148/biyclc.v4i0.134 Until relatively recently (in particular, before the 1990’s with the publication of Hylton (1990) and Griffin (1991)), the main focus of interest
    [Show full text]
  • Information to Users
    INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 30 0 North Z eeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 Order Number 9427800 Newton’s “De gravitatione” argument: Cartesian relationalist dynamics and the structure of space and time Slowik, Edward Steven, Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • General Covariance and the Foundations of General Relativity: Eight Decades of Dispute
    Rep. bog. Phys. 56 (1993) 791458. Printed in the UK General covariance and the foundations of general relativity: eight decades of dispute John D Norton Department of History and Philosophy of Science, Univeniry of Pinsburgh. Pinsburgh. PA 15260, USA Abstract Einstein offered the principle of general covariance as the fundamental physical principle of his general theory of relativity and as responsible for extending the principle of relativity to accelerated motion. This view was disputed almost immediately with the counter-claim that the principle was no relativity principle and was physically vacuous. The disagreement persists today. This article reviews the development of Einstein’s thought on general covariance, its relation to the foundations of general relativity and the evolution of the continuing debate over his viewpoint. This review was received in March 1993. 00344885/93M70791+68$30.00 63 1993 IOP Publishing Ltd 79 1 792 J D Norton Contents Page 1. Introduction 794 2. The background of special relativity 796 2.1. Lorentz covariance and the relativity of inertial motion 796 2.2. Minkowski’s introduction of geometrical methods 196 2.3. Covariance versus invariance in special relativity 797 3. Einstein’s development of general relativity 797 3.1. The early years 1907-1912 principle of equivalence and the relativity of inertia 798 3.2. The ‘Entwuff theory 1912-1915 general covariance gained and lost 799 3.3. The hole argument: general covariance condemned 801 3.4. Einstein’s 1916 account of the foundations of general relativity: general covariance regained 802 3.5. The point-coincidence argument 804 3.6.
    [Show full text]
  • Absolute Reaction Rate Theory
    The Unity of Chemistry and Physics: Absolute Reaction Rate Theory Hinne Hettema Abstract: Henry Eyring’s absolute rate theory explains the size of chemical re- action rate constants in terms of thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and quantum chemistry. In addition it uses a number of unique concepts such as the ‘transition state’. A key feature of the theory is that the explanation it pro- vides relies on the comparison of reaction rate constant expressions derived from these individual theories. In this paper, the example is used to develop a naturalized notion of reduction and the unity of science. This characterization provides the necessary clues to the sort of inter-theoretic linkages that are pre- sent in the theory of reaction rates. The overall theory is then further charac- terized as a theory network, establishing connections between non-reductive notions of inter-theory connections. This characterization also sheds new light on the unity of science. Keywords: reduction of chemistry to physics, unity of science, chemical kinetics, absolute theory of reaction rates, explanation . Introduction The unity of chemistry and physics should be paradigmatic for the unity of science. With the advent of atomic theory, quantum theory, and statistical mechanics, the fields of chemistry and physics have become increasingly in- tertwined, perhaps even up to the point where, as Needham (2010) argues, it would be hard to imagine chemistry with the physics removed. Hence it is a valid question to ask how this unity of science is constituted in terms of the inter-relationship between theories. In the present paper, these inter-relations will be considered for theories of chemistry and physics, specifically focusing on Eyring’s theory of absolute reaction rates.
    [Show full text]