What chemists take as molecular structure is a theoretical construct based on the concepts of chemical bond, atoms in molecules, etc. and hence it should be distinguished from tangible structures around us. The practical adequacy of it has been demonstrated by the established method of retro-synthetic analysis, for instance. But it is not derived a priori from quantum mechanical treatments of the molecule and criticized for being irrelevant to the reality of the molecule. There is persistent skepticism about it. The (...) present study aims to overcome this skepticism by having recourse to the concepts of affordance and phenomenal field. The basic idea of our approach is suggested by the following statement of Niels Bohr: ‘evidence obtained under different experimental conditions cannot be comprehended within a single picture but must be regarded as complementary in the sense that only the totality of the phenomena exhausts the possible information about the objects’. This implies that we should take account of a context in which the cognition of a fact arises when we think about human activities including science. This can be realized by invoking affordances of a complex such as {agent, devices, methods, substances, surroundings}. That is to say, affordances are context-relative dispositional attributes of {agent-material world} complexes as is asserted by Harré and Llored. The phenomenal field is a conceptual device which schematizes the contextual aspect of affordance and, more importantly, serves as a link between the concept of affordance and Kant’s theory of knowledge, by which alone affordances are realized as the dispositional properties of {agent-material world} complexes. Because affordances become actualized in various phenomenal fields, affordances of one and the same object may well be distinct from one another. In conclusion we can take that molecular structure is the affordance of a complex that includes a chemist who is engaged in organic synthesis, whereas a quantum mechanical picture of the molecule may be one of the possible affordances of a complex that includes a quantum chemist who cares about electronic states of the molecule. (shrink)

What chemists take as molecular structure is a theoretical construct based on the concepts of chemical bond, atoms in molecules, etc. and hence it should be distinguished from tangible structures around us. The practical adequacy of it has been demonstrated by the established method of retro-synthetic analysis, for instance. But it is not derived a priori from quantum mechanical treatments of the molecule and criticized for being irrelevant to the reality of the molecule. There is persistent skepticism about it. The (...) present study aims to overcome this skepticism by having recourse to the concepts of affordance and phenomenal field. The basic idea of our approach is suggested by the following statement of Niels Bohr: ‘evidence obtained under different experimental conditions cannot be comprehended within a single picture but must be regarded as complementary in the sense that only the totality of the phenomena exhausts the possible information about the objects’. This implies that we should take account of a context in which the cognition of a fact arises when we think about human activities including science. This can be realized by invoking affordances of a complex such as {agent, devices, methods, substances, surroundings}. That is to say, affordances are context-relative dispositional attributes of {agent-material world} complexes as is asserted by Harré and Llored. The phenomenal field is a conceptual device which schematizes the contextual aspect of affordance and, more importantly, serves as a link between the concept of affordance and Kant’s theory of knowledge, by which alone affordances are realized as the dispositional properties of {agent-material world} complexes. Because affordances become actualized in various phenomenal fields, affordances of one and the same object may well be distinct from one another. In conclusion we can take that molecular structure is the affordance of a complex that includes a chemist who is engaged in organic synthesis, whereas a quantum mechanical picture of the molecule may be one of the possible affordances of a complex that includes a quantum chemist who cares about electronic states of the molecule. (shrink)

What chemists take as molecular structure is a theoretical construct based on the concepts of chemical bond, atoms in molecules, etc. and hence it should be distinguished from tangible structures around us. The practical adequacy of it has been demonstrated by the established method of retro-synthetic analysis, for instance. But it is not derived a priori from quantum mechanical treatments of the molecule and criticized for being irrelevant to the reality of the molecule. There is persistent skepticism about it. The (...) present study aims to overcome this skepticism by having recourse to the concepts of affordance and phenomenal field. The basic idea of our approach is suggested by the following statement of Niels Bohr: ‘evidence obtained under different experimental conditions cannot be comprehended within a single picture but must be regarded as complementary in the sense that only the totality of the phenomena exhausts the possible information about the objects’. This implies that we should take account of a context in which the cognition of a fact arises when we think about human activities including science. This can be realized by invoking affordances of a complex such as {agent, devices, methods, substances, surroundings}. That is to say, affordances are context-relative dispositional attributes of {agent-material world} complexes as is asserted by Harré and Llored. The phenomenal field is a conceptual device which schematizes the contextual aspect of affordance and, more importantly, serves as a link between the concept of affordance and Kant’s theory of knowledge, by which alone affordances are realized as the dispositional properties of {agent-material world} complexes. Because affordances become actualized in various phenomenal fields, affordances of one and the same object may well be distinct from one another. In conclusion we can take that molecular structure is the affordance of a complex that includes a chemist who is engaged in organic synthesis, whereas a quantum mechanical picture of the molecule may be one of the possible affordances of a complex that includes a quantum chemist who cares about electronic states of the molecule. (shrink)

What chemists take as molecular structure is a theoretical construct based on the concepts of chemical bond, atoms in molecules, etc. and hence it should be distinguished from tangible structures around us. The practical adequacy of it has been demonstrated by the established method of retro-synthetic analysis, for instance. But it is not derived a priori from quantum mechanical treatments of the molecule and criticized for being irrelevant to the reality of the molecule. There is persistent skepticism about it. The (...) present study aims to overcome this skepticism by having recourse to the concepts of affordance and phenomenal field. The basic idea of our approach is suggested by the following statement of Niels Bohr: ‘evidence obtained under different experimental conditions cannot be comprehended within a single picture but must be regarded as complementary in the sense that only the totality of the phenomena exhausts the possible information about the objects’. This implies that we should take account of a context in which the cognition of a fact arises when we think about human activities including science. This can be realized by invoking affordances of a complex such as {agent, devices, methods, substances, surroundings}. That is to say, affordances are context-relative dispositional attributes of {agent-material world} complexes as is asserted by Harré and Llored. The phenomenal field is a conceptual device which schematizes the contextual aspect of affordance and, more importantly, serves as a link between the concept of affordance and Kant’s theory of knowledge, by which alone affordances are realized as the dispositional properties of {agent-material world} complexes. Because affordances become actualized in various phenomenal fields, affordances of one and the same object may well be distinct from one another. In conclusion we can take that molecular structure is the affordance of a complex that includes a chemist who is engaged in organic synthesis, whereas a quantum mechanical picture of the molecule may be one of the possible affordances of a complex that includes a quantum chemist who cares about electronic states of the molecule. (shrink)

The classical model of the molecule assumes that it has a definite shape and structure like a mechanical object in the world of possible experience. This study deals with this assumption so as to shed some light on the foundations of the model. Arguments based on Kant’s theory of transcendental idealism suggest that neither shape nor structure are attributes of the molecule, but are rather contributions of the subject. This claim has great relevance to the questions of whether or not (...) a quantum treatment of the molecule can derive structure without recourse to any approximation, and the possible existence of emergence and downward causation. The answer to the first question is in the negative, and to the second is that agnosticism is the only possible attitude to have toward this problem. We are creatures who can only imagine what is going on by observing phenomena. All that is accessible to us is the modal structure of the model. The causal structure of the real system is not. From the same point of view and taking the concept of the affordance into account, the adequacy of the concept of molecular structure will be argued. The point is to specify what objects the concept can legitimately be applied to. Also briefly discussed in relation to shape and structure is the idea that molecular chirality might be a probe to reveal the nature of space. (shrink)

Since molecules are inaccessible to immediate observation, our conception of the molecule is brought about by transdiction which entails invention of various transcendental ideas. In organic chemistry we think that molecules consist of atoms, bonds, functional groups, etc. This is, however, not the unique description of the molecule as is shown by quantum mechanical calculations, for example. Then, what description represents the real molecule? Before asking this question, we have to consider what the real molecule is in the first place. (...) Constructive realism distinguishes our cognitive world and the world just given, and claims that we should accept the former as reality. Understanding our cognitive world is possible only through construction of micro-worlds. Atoms, bonds, functional groups, etc., are micro-worlds which make sense in a theoretical framework of organic chemistry. In this study we translate a micro-world to an affordance and paraphrase it as a context-relative dispositional attribute of an {agent-world} complex. Then, we can understand that it is what we take as molecular structure, not what might be out there to be found, that we should accept as reality. Excluding metaphysical fictions from scientific arguments, constructive realism makes science a meaningful activity. Constructive realism claims that, for getting knowledge of the world, we have to integrate information into our own linguistic frame, i.e., to translate it. Strangification is a technique of intentionally taking an accepted proposition out of one scientific system and putting it into a completely different context. As is the case with translation, strangification brings about deeper understanding of philosophical as well as scientific grounds on which the proposition system holds. We apply this method to molecular structure and reveal that it is an ingenious model to describe molecular behavior in multi-molecular systems with strong interactions between molecules. Information provided by strangification is essential to claim the legitimacy of a proposition system. As far as strangification is properly applied, relativism is irrelevant to constructive realism. (shrink)

In modern German ‘Anschauung’ is translated as intuition. But in Kant’s technical philosophical context, it means an intuition derived from previous visualizations of physical processes in the world of perceptions. The nineteenth century chemists’ predilection for Kantian Anschauung led them to develop an intuitive representation of what exists beyond the bounds of the senses. Molecular structure is one of the illuminating outcomes. (Ochiai 2021, pp. 1–51) This mental habit seems to be dominant among chemists even in the twentieth century, as (...) is illustrated by the electronic theory of organic chemistry and the frontier orbital theory as well. The former assumes that (1) bonds are paired electrons shared by bonded atoms—in fact, electrons in molecules are not localized in bonds; (2) the difference of electronegativities between bonded atoms causes electron drifts—expressed by the curly arrow—that result in bond formation or bond cleavage. The latter focuses on the orbitals that make the greatest contribution to the energy of a system undergoing electron delocalization, while the LCAO method says, as is suggested by the word Linear Combination of Atomic Orbitals, molecular orbitals should be constructed from all of the atomic orbitals that have the appropriate symmetry. In other words, every molecular orbital contributes to some extent to the electronic state of a molecule. The curly arrow in the electronic theory and the orbital lobe in the frontier orbital theory illustrate an intuitive character of these theories. Although both theories rely on such simple and qualitative models rather than mathematically rigid quantum mechanical calculations, they are successful in explaining, predicting, and designing chemical reactions. What makes these prima facie intuitive theories so successful? In this study we address this problem from a historical and philosophical as well as scientific point of view. The key to solve this problem is that they are concerned with only bond formation or bond cleavage, in which the localized-bond principle holds. (shrink)

Abstract‘Structure’ is the term whose proper use is exemplified by an expression like ‘the structure of a diesel-engine,’ in which what is referred to is accessible to immediate observation. It is also used figuratively like ‘social structure.’ While unobservable, what is referred to is empirically accessible. By contrast, molecules are neither observable nor empirically accessible. What philosophical grounds enable us to design invisible structure of molecules? Our cognition of objects becomes realized as phenomena when objects are given to our phenomenal (...) fields. (Ochiai, Found Chem 22:77–86, 2020a, Found Chem 22:457–465, 2020b, A philosophical essay on molecular structure, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, pp 147–174, 2021) A phenomenal field is a pictorial representation of the mind’s self-transcending character and shows the relation between ‘self’ and ‘world.’ Molecular structure becomes realized as an affordance of molecules in a phenomenal field proper to organic chemists. It is a context-sensitive dispositional attribute of an {organic chemist-world} complex. Although designing molecules presupposes molecular structure, the latter is not sufficient for the former to make sense. Molecules must be designable as well. Designing molecules aims to create or modify molecular structure in order to provide compounds with certain chemical and/or physical properties. That is, designable molecules make sense in contexts in which they serve as a means to achieve this purpose and become realized as an affordance. Given that molecular structure and designable molecules are affordances of molecules, the fact that there are contexts in which they make sense provides grounds for conceiving and designing invisible structure of molecules. Heidegger’s arguments in Being and Time about characteristics of the being of beings corroborate our argument that what becomes realized as an affordance exists as what he calls a useful thing for us. (shrink)