Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-l4ctd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-18T04:29:11.569Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Challenges to the Structural Conception of Chemical Bonding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Michael Weisberg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The covalent bond, a difficult concept to define precisely, plays a central role in chemical predictions, interventions, and explanations. I investigate the structural conception of the covalent bond, which says that bonding is a directional, submolecular region of electron density, located between individual atomic centers and responsible for holding the atoms together. Several approaches to constructing molecular models are considered in order to determine which features of the structural conception of bonding, if any, are robust across these models. Key components of the structural conception are absent in all but the simplest quantum mechanical models of molecular structure, seriously challenging the conception's viability.

Type
Chemical Bonds
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 75 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2006 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers. Edited by Cristina Bicchieri and Jason Alexander , December 2008 , pp. 932 - 946
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

Earlier versions of this article were presented at the Australia National University, the Philosophy of Science Association, and the Center for Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh. I am grateful to these audiences for their enthusiasm and very helpful comments. Special thanks to Jerry Berson, Barry Carpenter, Dave Chalmers, Peter Godfrey-Smith, Clark Glymour, Robin Hendry, Roald Hoffmann, Paul Needham, John Norton, Janet Stemwedel, and Deena Skolnick Weisberg for extremely helpful feedback.

References

Anslyn, E. V., and Dougherty, D. A. (2005), Modern Physical Organic Chemistry. Sausalito, CA: University Science.Google Scholar
Berson, J. A. (2008), “Molecules with Very Weak Bonds: The Edge of Covalency”, Molecules with Very Weak Bonds: The Edge of Covalency 75, in this issue.Google Scholar
Born, M., and Oppenheimer, R. (1927), “Zur Quantentheorie der Molekeln”, Zur Quantentheorie der Molekeln 74:457–485.Google Scholar
Carroll, F. A. (1998), Perspectives on Structure and Mechanism in Organic Chemistry. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Coulson, Charles A. (1952), “What Is a Chemical Bond?”, What Is a Chemical Bond? 21:11–29.Google Scholar
Coulson, Charles A. (1960), “Present State of Molecular Structure Calculations”, Present State of Molecular Structure Calculations 32:170–177.Google Scholar
Heitler, W., and London, F. (1927), “Wechselwirkung neutraler Atome und homopolare Bindung nach der Quantenmechanik”, Wechselwirkung neutraler Atome und homopolare Bindung nach der Quantenmechanik 44:455–472.Google Scholar
Hendry, R. (2008), “Two Concepts of Chemical Bond”, Two Concepts of Chemical Bond 75, in this issue.Google Scholar
Kolos, W., and Wolniewicz, L. (1968), “Improved Theoretical Ground-State Energy of the Hydrogen Molecule”, Improved Theoretical Ground-State Energy of the Hydrogen Molecule 49:404–410.Google Scholar
Levine, I. N. (1991), Quantum Chemistry. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Levins, R. (1966), “The Strategy of Model Building in Population Biology”, in Sober, E. (ed.), Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology. 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 18–27.Google Scholar
Needham, P. (2008), “Resisting Chemical Atomism: Duhem's Argument”, Resisting Chemical Atomism: Duhem's Argument 75, in this issue.Google Scholar
Stemwedel, J. (2008), “Chemical Bonds in Chemical Explanations”, Chemical Bonds in Chemical Explanations 75, in this issue.Google Scholar
Weisberg, M. (2006), “Robustness Analysis”, Robustness Analysis 73:730–742.Google Scholar
Weisberg, M., and Reisman, K. (2008), “The Robust Volterra Principle”, The Robust Volterra Principle 75 (1): 106–131..Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (1981), “Robustness, Reliability, and Overdetermination”, in Brewer, M. and Collins, B. (eds.), Scientific Inquiry and the Social Sciences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 124–163.Google Scholar
Woody, A. (1998), Early Twentieth-Century Theories of Chemical Bonding: Explanation, Representation, and Theory Development. Doctoral dissertation. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar