Chat
Arts and Humanities · MapleScholar Plus

Laws of the Flask: Reconciling Philosophers and Chemists on the Laws of Nature

Philosophers of science long characterized laws of nature as exceptionless, universal mathematical truths; practicing chemists operate with mechanistically grounded, ceteris paribus regularities that describe real molecular transformations.

Author
Eric R. Scerri
Published
2024
Journal
Foundations of Chemistry
Last updated
September 2026
Laws of the Flask: Reconciling Philosophers and Chemists on the Laws of Nature

For centuries, the philosophy of science treated theoretical physics as the gold standard of nature: laws were viewed as timeless, universal, exceptionless mathematical axioms like Newton's laws or Maxwell's equations.

However, chemistry—the science of physical matter and molecular change—rarely obeys universal exceptionless formulas: the periodic law, acid-base equilibria, and organic reaction mechanisms all admit chemical exceptions under extreme conditions.

This foundational philosophical inquiry contrasts the Humean and necessitarian frameworks of philosophers with the experimental realities of practicing chemists. The author demonstrates that chemical laws are pragmatic, mechanistic regularities bound by physical boundary conditions and molecular structures.

Reconciling philosophical ontology with experimental chemistry elevates chemical science as an autonomous discipline, liberating scientific education from rigid reductionism and celebrating the domain-specific logic of molecular discovery.

Reference

Scerri, E. (2024). Laws of nature according to some philosophers of science and according to chemists. Foundations of Chemistry, 26(3), 327–341.

Title

Laws of nature according to some philosophers of science and according to chemists

Abstract

The article contrasts the way that laws are regarded by some philosophers of science with the way that they are regarded by scientists and science educators. After a brief review of the Humean and necessitarian views of scienfic laws, I highlight difference between scientists who regard laws as being merely descriptive and philosophers who generally regard them as being explanatory and, in some cases, as being necessary. I also discuss the views of two prominent philosophers of science who deny any role for scienfic laws. I conclude that science educators should be wary of adopng the necessitarian view of scienfic laws.

Cited 3 times · View on doi.org

Continue

Continue Exploring

Ask this paper your own questions, or keep browsing the verified research catalogue.