The ontological autonomy of the chemical world: facing the criticisms

OLIMPIA LOMBARDI

Philosophy of Chemistry: Growth of a New Discipline (Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science)

Springer

Lugar: Dordrecht; Año: 2015; p. 23 - 38

The explicit defense of the ontological autonomy of the chemical world on the basis of an ontological pluralist view first appeared in a paper by Lombardi and Labarca (2005). On the basis of the fact that science has access to reality only throughout its theories, in that paper we rejected the metaphysically realist position of God´s Eye, according to which scientific knowledge indefinitely approaches the description of reality as it is in itself. From our Kantian-inspired perspective, the object of scientific knowledge is always the result of a synthesis between the conceptual schemes embodied in scientific theories and the independent noumenal reality. However, unlike Kantian theses, our position admits the existence of different conceptual schemes, both diachronically and synchronically, and this leads to an ontological pluralism that allows for the coexistence of different, even incompatible ontologies. When the ontologically pluralist perspective is applied to the relationship between chemistry and physics, a picture completely different than the traditional appears. Once the epistemological irreducibility of chemistry to physics is admitted, the ontological priority of the physical world turns out to be a mere metaphysical prejudice. From the pluralist viewpoint, concepts like bonding, molecular shape and orbital refer to entities belonging to the chemical ontology, which only depends on the theory that constitutes it. Chemical entities do not owe their existence to an ontologically more fundamental level of reality, but to the fact that they are described by theories whose immense predictive and creative power cannot be ignored. The original 2005 paper, as well as the subsequent works (Lombardi & Labarca 2006, Labarca & Lombardi 2008, 2010, 2011), had a fast and relevant impact, and received both support as criticisms. More than eight years after that original work, it is time to take into account those criticisms and to try to answer them. This is the main purpose of the present work.