{"title":"酸是天然的吗?","authors":"Pieter Thyssen","doi":"10.1007/s10698-023-09485-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Are acids natural kinds? Or are they merely relevant kinds? Although acidity has been one of the oldest and most important concepts in chemistry, surprisingly little ink has been spilled on the natural kind question. I approach the question from the perspective of microstructural essentialism. After explaining why both Brønsted acids and Lewis acids are considered functional kinds, I address the challenges of multiple realization and multiple determination. Contra Manafu and Hendry, I argue that the stereotypical properties of acids are not multiply realized. Instead, given the equivalence between the proton-donating and electron-accepting mechanisms of Brønsted and Lewis, respectively, I show that acidity as a property type can be identified with a unique microstructural property, namely the presence of a LUMO or other low energy empty orbital. In doing so, I defend the view that the Lewis theory encompasses Brønsted–Lowry, and that all Brønsted acids are also Lewis acids. Contra Hacking and Chang, I thus maintain that the different concepts of acidity do not crosscut, and that the hierarchy requirement is met. Finally, by characterizing natural kinds as powerful objects and by adopting a dispositional view of functions, I illustrate how the microessentialist can make sense of the latent and relational character of most acids. In sum, I contend that acids are genuine natural kinds, even for the microstructural essentialist.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":568,"journal":{"name":"Foundations of Chemistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are acids natural kinds?\",\"authors\":\"Pieter Thyssen\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10698-023-09485-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Are acids natural kinds? Or are they merely relevant kinds? Although acidity has been one of the oldest and most important concepts in chemistry, surprisingly little ink has been spilled on the natural kind question. I approach the question from the perspective of microstructural essentialism. After explaining why both Brønsted acids and Lewis acids are considered functional kinds, I address the challenges of multiple realization and multiple determination. Contra Manafu and Hendry, I argue that the stereotypical properties of acids are not multiply realized. Instead, given the equivalence between the proton-donating and electron-accepting mechanisms of Brønsted and Lewis, respectively, I show that acidity as a property type can be identified with a unique microstructural property, namely the presence of a LUMO or other low energy empty orbital. In doing so, I defend the view that the Lewis theory encompasses Brønsted–Lowry, and that all Brønsted acids are also Lewis acids. Contra Hacking and Chang, I thus maintain that the different concepts of acidity do not crosscut, and that the hierarchy requirement is met. Finally, by characterizing natural kinds as powerful objects and by adopting a dispositional view of functions, I illustrate how the microessentialist can make sense of the latent and relational character of most acids. In sum, I contend that acids are genuine natural kinds, even for the microstructural essentialist.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":568,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Foundations of Chemistry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Foundations of Chemistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"92\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-023-09485-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foundations of Chemistry","FirstCategoryId":"92","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-023-09485-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Are acids natural kinds? Or are they merely relevant kinds? Although acidity has been one of the oldest and most important concepts in chemistry, surprisingly little ink has been spilled on the natural kind question. I approach the question from the perspective of microstructural essentialism. After explaining why both Brønsted acids and Lewis acids are considered functional kinds, I address the challenges of multiple realization and multiple determination. Contra Manafu and Hendry, I argue that the stereotypical properties of acids are not multiply realized. Instead, given the equivalence between the proton-donating and electron-accepting mechanisms of Brønsted and Lewis, respectively, I show that acidity as a property type can be identified with a unique microstructural property, namely the presence of a LUMO or other low energy empty orbital. In doing so, I defend the view that the Lewis theory encompasses Brønsted–Lowry, and that all Brønsted acids are also Lewis acids. Contra Hacking and Chang, I thus maintain that the different concepts of acidity do not crosscut, and that the hierarchy requirement is met. Finally, by characterizing natural kinds as powerful objects and by adopting a dispositional view of functions, I illustrate how the microessentialist can make sense of the latent and relational character of most acids. In sum, I contend that acids are genuine natural kinds, even for the microstructural essentialist.
期刊介绍:
Foundations of Chemistry is an international journal which seeks to provide an interdisciplinary forum where chemists, biochemists, philosophers, historians, educators and sociologists with an interest in foundational issues can discuss conceptual and fundamental issues which relate to the `central science'' of chemistry. Such issues include the autonomous role of chemistry between physics and biology and the question of the reduction of chemistry to quantum mechanics. The journal will publish peer-reviewed academic articles on a wide range of subdisciplines, among others: chemical models, chemical language, metaphors, and theoretical terms; chemical evolution and artificial self-replication; industrial application, environmental concern, and the social and ethical aspects of chemistry''s professionalism; the nature of modeling and the role of instrumentation in chemistry; institutional studies and the nature of explanation in the chemical sciences; theoretical chemistry, molecular structure and chaos; the issue of realism; molecular biology, bio-inorganic chemistry; historical studies on ancient chemistry, medieval chemistry and alchemy; philosophical and historical articles; and material of a didactic nature relating to all topics in the chemical sciences. Foundations of Chemistry plans to feature special issues devoted to particular themes, and will contain book reviews and discussion notes. Audience: chemists, biochemists, philosophers, historians, chemical educators, sociologists, and other scientists with an interest in the foundational issues of science.