{"title":"化学中的反应性:倾向观点","authors":"Mauricio Suárez, Pedro J. Sánchez Gómez","doi":"10.1007/s10698-023-09477-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>We argue for an account of chemical reactivities as chancy propensities, in accordance with the ‘complex nexus of chance’ defended by one of us in the past. Reactivities are typically quantified as proportions, and an expression such as “A + B → C” does not entail that under the right conditions some given amounts of A and B react to give the mass of C that theoretically corresponds to the stoichiometry of the reaction. Instead, what is produced is a fraction α < 1 of this theoretical amount, and the corresponding percentage is usually known as the <i>yield</i>, which expresses the relative preponderance of its reaction. This is then routinely tested in a laboratory against the observed actual yields for the different reactions. Thus, on our account, reactivities ambiguously refer to three quantities at once. They first refer to the underlying propensities effectively acting in the reaction mechanisms, which in ‘chemical chemistry’ (Schummer in Hyle 4:129–162, 1998) are commonly represented by means of Lewis structures. Besides, reactivities represent the probabilities that these propensities give rise to, for any amount of the reactants to combine as prescribed. This last notion is hence best understood as a single case chance and corresponds to a theoretical <i>stoichiometric yield.</i> Finally, reactivities represent the <i>actual yields</i> observed in experimental runs, which account for and provide the requisite evidence for/against both the mechanisms and single case chances ascribed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":568,"journal":{"name":"Foundations of Chemistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10698-023-09477-8.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reactivity in chemistry: the propensity view\",\"authors\":\"Mauricio Suárez, Pedro J. Sánchez Gómez\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10698-023-09477-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>We argue for an account of chemical reactivities as chancy propensities, in accordance with the ‘complex nexus of chance’ defended by one of us in the past. Reactivities are typically quantified as proportions, and an expression such as “A + B → C” does not entail that under the right conditions some given amounts of A and B react to give the mass of C that theoretically corresponds to the stoichiometry of the reaction. Instead, what is produced is a fraction α < 1 of this theoretical amount, and the corresponding percentage is usually known as the <i>yield</i>, which expresses the relative preponderance of its reaction. This is then routinely tested in a laboratory against the observed actual yields for the different reactions. Thus, on our account, reactivities ambiguously refer to three quantities at once. They first refer to the underlying propensities effectively acting in the reaction mechanisms, which in ‘chemical chemistry’ (Schummer in Hyle 4:129–162, 1998) are commonly represented by means of Lewis structures. Besides, reactivities represent the probabilities that these propensities give rise to, for any amount of the reactants to combine as prescribed. This last notion is hence best understood as a single case chance and corresponds to a theoretical <i>stoichiometric yield.</i> Finally, reactivities represent the <i>actual yields</i> observed in experimental runs, which account for and provide the requisite evidence for/against both the mechanisms and single case chances ascribed.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":568,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Foundations of Chemistry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10698-023-09477-8.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Foundations of Chemistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"92\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-023-09477-8\",\"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/s10698-023-09477-8","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}
引用次数: 0
摘要
摘要:我们主张将化学反应解释为偶然倾向,根据我们中的一个人在过去捍卫的“复杂的机会关系”。反应性通常用比例来量化,像“A + B→C”这样的表达式并不意味着在适当的条件下,一定数量的A和B反应得到理论上与反应的化学计量相对应的C的质量。相反,产生的是一个分数α <这个理论量的1,而相应的百分比通常称为产率,它表示其反应的相对优势。然后在实验室中根据观察到的不同反应的实际产率进行常规测试。因此,在我们看来,反应性含糊地同时指三个量。他们首先指的是在“化学化学”(Schummer in Hyle 4:29 - 162, 1998)中有效作用于反应机制的潜在倾向,通常用路易斯结构来表示。此外,反应性代表了这些倾向所产生的可能性,对于任何数量的反应物按规定结合。因此,最后一个概念最好理解为单一情况的机会,并对应于理论的化学计量产率。最后,反应性代表了在实验运行中观察到的实际产率,它解释并提供了支持/反对机制和单一情况的必要证据。
We argue for an account of chemical reactivities as chancy propensities, in accordance with the ‘complex nexus of chance’ defended by one of us in the past. Reactivities are typically quantified as proportions, and an expression such as “A + B → C” does not entail that under the right conditions some given amounts of A and B react to give the mass of C that theoretically corresponds to the stoichiometry of the reaction. Instead, what is produced is a fraction α < 1 of this theoretical amount, and the corresponding percentage is usually known as the yield, which expresses the relative preponderance of its reaction. This is then routinely tested in a laboratory against the observed actual yields for the different reactions. Thus, on our account, reactivities ambiguously refer to three quantities at once. They first refer to the underlying propensities effectively acting in the reaction mechanisms, which in ‘chemical chemistry’ (Schummer in Hyle 4:129–162, 1998) are commonly represented by means of Lewis structures. Besides, reactivities represent the probabilities that these propensities give rise to, for any amount of the reactants to combine as prescribed. This last notion is hence best understood as a single case chance and corresponds to a theoretical stoichiometric yield. Finally, reactivities represent the actual yields observed in experimental runs, which account for and provide the requisite evidence for/against both the mechanisms and single case chances ascribed.
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.