Is chemistry a pseudoscience?

Do not deceive the Lord, see the first feeling of this problem is should not report it; Think about the subject is not necessarily a fuss, with the discussion of the attitude, may wish to analyze the chemical is not pseudoscience;

With the development of chemistry, the industry thinks that it has undergone several stages, such as the Classical Age of alchemy and alchemy, the stage of development of Boyle, Lavoisier and Dalton (experimental Science), the upgrade stage after the emergence of quantum science (theoretical stage), and modern chemistry science (large instrument plus application).

If this question in 200 years ago or more valuable, now ask some outdated, suggest a look at the chemical history of the book, naturally understand, the answer can only as no time to read to play pop.

Just one example, the development of atomic theory.

The atom theory is known to mention Democritus, because he was the first to say the atom, and "define" atoms are the smallest units of the nature, all things are different from the arrangement of atoms--note that more than 2000 years ago, Democritus had no perceptual knowledge of this, and at that time experiments proved that atoms such things are impossible , so it's only a hypothesis at that time. All the science that can be called science starts with the hypothesis.

The atom theory enters the demonstration stage in 18th century, such as the gas partial pressure law has promoted the understanding to the atom, after the different gas mixes is a near linear superposition, the premise is to be able to distinguish the different gas, but also must be able to measure some parameters, so the simple experiment actually has many backgrounds, The phenomenon of gas partial pressure gives the atom a lot of evidence, at least it looks as if Democritus makes sense, so Dalton has developed this concept.

Then there is the quantum drama at the turn of the 19-20 century, and the story of Rutherford and oneself is no longer a matter of talking about the existence of atoms, but rather of analyzing structures, using various phenomena and empirical data--but it has to be said that At this point, there is a certain risk of atomic theory, at least no one saw, what is actually, we have established such a model.

Finally, of course, to the modern technology stage, scanning tunneling electron microscope and other high-end technology can make people "see" the electronic cloud, but more crucially, atomic theory has many applications, many instruments such as NMR are used by modern atomic theory, a theory can be used to guide us to do things correctly is already very scientific.

=========

After saying these, add two point statement: 1, if said Atom theory all is the contribution of physics, with the chemistry does not matter please help oneself, this kind of argument listens to ears all to be tired of, thinks the chemistry is the pseudoscience most all to the theory development stage simply boils down to the physics category, The scientific community gave Rutherford the honor of the Nobel Prize for Chemistry (if it were to be found in pure chemical examples such as organic and polymer); 2, any model has defects, pseudoscience and science is the biggest difference is pseudoscience only to mention the model, not to look for empirical, or not yet found evidence, forward 300 years, The element theory of Fire and Fire and the atomic theory are both hypotheses, which can be called pseudoscience, because there is no evidence and theory, but now can be sure that the former is not correct and the latter is in constant revision, so this time the former can only be regarded as unscientific, the latter is called science, not to say that

==========

To sum up, said that chemistry is pseudoscience, completely unreasonable ...

============

Update several points for discussion:

1, do not try to compare chemistry and mathematics, including physics and all natural disciplines and mathematics is not a level of discipline, mathematical development depends on the logic, accurate is inevitable, physics such a name is debatable, even if the college entrance exam in mathematics than the physical and chemical status of high is not it?

2, the division of disciplines are man-made, many people say that natural science is all physics, other subjects are subdivided from physics, this does not apply to chemistry, in most of the 19th century, the chemical category of things and things in the physical category has been a diversion, and 19th century after a number of common problems to be solved, So it is not in accordance with the historical fact that chemistry originates from physics;

3, the germination of chemical experiments is alchemy and alchemy, accumulated the classical period of a large number of experimental basis, do not have to put this history as a black history, as long as the real look at some of the information on the understanding that people just suffer from the lack of theory to explain the phenomenon, many experiments are very stunning. Besides, what's the matter, otherwise, how to understand the astrology of early astrophysics?

4, the physical development of a lot of new disciplines, chemical also separated some, which is more important in materials science, we do not pretend that medicine and biology are derived from chemistry, but there are many overlapping, but the material is really born from the chemical Materials science is now a level 1.5 discipline, even if it is said that she is pseudoscience, the material can be made is true.

=============

Forgive me for obstinately continuing more:

See one of the main reply introduced an article: Tsinghua University chemistry students from the black chemical ╮(╯▽╰)╭, can probably be regarded as the source of this problem, to this article to make some points for reference.

If you want to give this article qualitative personally think is grandstanding, because it conforms to the various characteristics of grandstanding, argument shape not logical chain, the sentence pattern is intermittent, the sentiment is rich, the most conforms to place is, the knowledge, but the scanty knowledge is the most easy to harvest and echo.

1. The first sentence of the article is self-contradictory: the status of pseudoscience chemistry: at best, it is only a level two discipline, but advocates that they are the natural Science Foundation with the Mathematical Physics biology.

Pseudoscience and the position of the level two discipline, so chemistry is not only pseudoscience, then which science will be a pseudoscience received in the bag as a level two discipline?

2, and then enumerate the scope of research and life applications: pseudoscience chemistry? No matter how the fans tout it, the research scope of pseudoscience chemistry is fixed: the scale does not exceed the molecular atoms, the force only has electromagnetic interaction; This range is not even as healthy as the development of biology, and biology is at least studying the vast fields from macromolecules to the biosphere, not to mention mathematics and physics.

Oh, well, chemistry involves tens of millions of of substances, isn't it broad? Where does the chemical industry come from?

3, the story of the make-believe and plagiarism there is no content: Pseudoscience chemistry all the researchers ' theoretical results, compared to Newton + Einstein's several papers. But pseudoscience chemistry unwilling to receive the cold, began the history of human science, the largest plagiarism and the figment.

No comment.

4, posturing saying: the ordinary but the solution of a system of equations, into the chemistry of Independent Computing theory, "cross-intersection method."

I am stupid, I do not remember what the cross method, but also can be called Independent Computing theory, a search of the original is a secondary school teaching methods, convenient for everyone to do the problem, as if never used, I do not know how the author is so impressed.

5, also said plagiarism: Plagiarism physics: From thermodynamics to quantum mechanics, no one does not plagiarize.

Oh。 Many people like to put the theory of chemistry into the head of physics, the author is not the first. Hey, look at the 18-19-century thermodynamic experiment and spray it.

6, about periodic: Subjective coined: Two cycles law, pro-gold effect, see a phenomenon of a new set of theories. In the face of more than 100 elements, that is, more than 100 Schrodinger equations, pseudoscience chemistry began to play its thicker skin than the wall turning to invent theory

Periodic is a problem that everyone who has learned chemistry knows, and the scientists in this field are building more models, and the nouns in the article are designed to allow the half of the experts to understand it, and the real researchers have a set of languages. Oh, by the way, the author is so highly regarded as physics, explaining the theory of the field.

7, Rub, who has seen the criticism of such a bad article can also be written to the seventh article, interested in looking down the point above the link, anyway, the old man is not going to see.