Subject: Re: CCL:Auguste Comte on Mathematical Methods in Chemistry

From: The Matt <thompsma*at*colorado.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:47:30 -0700

On Fri, 2004-01-09 at 03:24, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
> On Thursday 08 January 2004 13:39, Jens Spanget-Larsen wrote:
> 
> > I got it several years ago from an Internet page, without any
> > details. Does anybody know this text? A. Comte must be the
> > philosopher Auguste Comte, and the year 1830 may indicate his
> > work "Cours de philosophie positive" which was published in
> > this and the following years. But what can he have meant? Any
> > comments?
> 
> I have seen that quote with the explicit attribution to the "Cours de 
> philosophie positive" by Auguste Comte, but I never verified it. A large part 
> of that book deals with the philosophy of science, so it would fit in there. 
> I suppose he refers to the potential contradiction between the empirical 
> approach of science (including chemistry) and the deductive approach of 
> mathematics, but that's just a guess.

Well, I decided to walk to the library to clear my head and picked up
"The Positive Philosophy" of Auguste Comte.  And, a little reading,
there it was:

        Every attempt to refer chemical questions to mathematical
        doctrines must be considered, now and always, profoundly
        irrational, as being contrary to the nature of the phenomena. 
        In the case of physics, the mischief would be, as we have seen,
        merely from the misuse of an instrument which, properly
        directed, may be of admirable efficacy; but if the employment of
        mathematical analysis should ever become so preponderant in
        chemistry (an aberration which is happily almost impossible) it
        would occasion vast and rapid retrogradation, by substituting
        vague conceptions for positive ideas, and an easy algebraic
        verbiage for a laborious investigation of facts.

These two sentences (yes, two!) are interesting, and more philosophy
follows.  Namely, Comte believed the order of the sciences was:

Mathematics, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Physiology, Social Physics

This led to the comment:
        
        ...(I)t is only by having always before their eyes such an
        exemplification of the true spirit of natural philosophy, that
        chemists can rightly estimate the inanity of the metaphysical
        explanations which vitiate their doctrine, and can acquire an
        adequate sense of the true character, conditions, and destiny of
        chemical science.  Under this point of view, astronomy is more
        useful to chemists than even physics, in proportion to the
        superiority of its method.

I guess I need to go tell my college that astronomy should have been a
prerequisite for chemistry.  Of course, it was always full, so maybe
that should have told me something.

Now I'm going to have to read this a bit more.  Just to see what he says
about astronomy v. physics v. chemistry...when I have time.

Matt 

-- 
I am a theoretical chemist.  Fear me!
 Matt Thompson -- http://ucsub.colorado.edu/~thompsma/
 440 UCB, Boulder, CO  80309-0440
 JILA A510, 303-492-4662