Inherent Tensions of Chemistry

If you expect a nobel prize winner being a crank who can think of nothing but his subject, then read Roald Hoffmann's The Same and Not the Same and test your hypothesis. This book is about chemistry, to be sure – but in the broadest scope including sociology, psychology , ethics and philosophy of chemistry. 51 nice little chapters grouped in ten parts reflect on chemistry from different aspects. Since they neither bore chemists nor deter non-chemists, Hoffmann succeeds in attracting both groups (I will refer to this again). The underlying idea is that chemistry is not only important and influential on our cultural life, it is also interesting in a very special sense, both for chemists and non-chemists. Instead of presenting a series of smart and admirable achievements of modern chemistry (remember the 18th-century (pseudo-) scientific cabinets), Hoffmann discusses inherent tensions of chemistry. Why that? Tensions indicate dynamics, something balanced for the moment between driving forces, something living that attracts our attention , our interest. Miracles and showpieces do also, for sure, but even the laymen gets fed up soon. Tensions, on the other hand, raise our interest more continually. And abstract tensions invite for intellectual discussions to maintain the balance, again and again. The central topics of Hoffmann's book, the inherent tensions of chemistry , may at best be presented by a list of questions: The ontological (" central ") question of identity: In what sense are chemical substances/molecules the same and not the same? Epistemology: Do chemists discover or do they create new substances and rules. Semiotics: Are chemical signs iconic or symbolic, do they represent the real or the ideal? Philosophy of nature: Are new chemical substances natural or unnatural? Philosophy of science/technology: Is chemistry guided by academic or industrial interest? Ethics: Does chemistry causes utility or harm to the society? So-cial/ political philosophy: Is risk evaluation subjective or objective, and should political decisions be made according to expertises or to the majority of personal preferences? And among many further questions: Is there a primacy of synthesis or analysis in chemistry? Is chemistry concerned with statics or dynamics? Are chemistry journal articles purely informative and dispassionate or also expressive and impassioned. All these topics are dealt with in a very sensible way finding a respectable balance that convinced me in most cases (although I do not share the theorist's view, that chemistry is about molecules, not …