Comments on It's the Rheo Thing: Chemistry vs. Physics &. Biology

Point is we do not eat Higg's Bosons and physi...

2012-01-01T15:32:01.339-06:00

Point is we do not eat Higg's Bosons and physics is mostly pure research to advance knowledge. Biology's goal is to understand life and successes are publicized in a positive context: anti-aging, anti-cancer, amazing how we work, etc. Physics talks about pop stuff, like black holes, gravity and stuff that is both tantalizing (teleportation) and intriguing (do neutrinos travel faster than light.)
Good old chemistry suffers from not having 100 per cent yields so all those nasty things, (thalidomide and pollutants and side effects and toxic paint and melamine in baby formula, plus ignorant press, on the one hand, lead to a negative view. Then, on the other hand, many people say to me, when they find out I am a chemistry. "Oh, chemistry, my worst subject!"
But bad raps in Physics: how about the atomic bomb?, radiation, and nuclear power. Biology: all the stupid fuss over "Intelligent design", and responses to childrens' vacinations.
People still are scared of aspartame.
However when I look at major errors. That is errors of the type that have lead to a paradigm shift in knowledge, physics has the most errors.
I actually look at Nature in terms of temperature. We live on this really cold planet with liquid water and mostly frozen metals, and at energies where chemical bonds can form. Go colder, it is uninteresting for life, go hotter, and we vaporize. Physics is interested in energies which could never support life. So chemistry is the fall guy.

Thank you. It was for me a delight to read your bl...

2011-12-30T04:33:40.957-06:00

Thank you. It was for me a delight to read your blog article.

Above, in my point 2), I did a mistake. I did mean that «leading advances in chemistry are being sold to public as physics or BIOLOGY». Check the Nature article for specific examples.

Regarding the public image of chemistry. I recommend you a look to this book

http://www.amazon.com/Public-Image-Chemistry-Joachim-Schummer/dp/9812775846

Juanrga You have some good ideas, particularly th...

2011-12-29T10:27:56.885-06:00

Juanrga

You have some good ideas, particularly the last one (chemistry = chemical industry) that I had not thought of before.

Thanks

Interesting post. I believe that I have answers to...

2011-12-29T05:25:08.437-06:00

Interesting post. I believe that I have answers to your three main questions:

1) The lack of dissidents is a consequence of the repetitive claim that chemistry was finished and that all their fundamental laws are already known. This 'mantra' is, of course, wrong but is repeated by physicists and some quantum chemists.

Quantum mechanics and relativity are well-known to be incomplete and open to new research. Many crackpots, unaware of the scientific method, believe that an incomplete theory is wrong and seek for a new theory giving them glory and fame. Moreover, many of them read or misread Einstein biographies and believe that Einstein revolutionized physics without even being a scientist (which is again false).

2) This is partially explained by point 1) most people believes that "chemistry is already finished" and because leading advances in chemistry are being sold to public as physics or chemistry. See

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6836/full/411399a0.html

for examples. I know the case of certain Nobel winner for chemistry, whose work is relabeled as physics in many popular presentations. I know even a history article that says that he won a Nobel prize in physics by his work (when he won the the Chemistry Nobel for his work).

3) Chemistry has been often presented as synonym for "chemical industry" and mistakes of this latter are attributed to the science without any logic.

Actually, I would say you have an amazingly narrow...

2011-12-28T10:39:33.987-06:00

Actually, I would say you have an amazingly narrow reading of the post. I covered three diverse subjects and you chose to (mis)read one of them, and respond to just that.

Wow. This is an amazingly narrow view of chemistry...

2011-12-28T10:14:30.869-06:00

Wow. This is an amazingly narrow view of chemistry. How is quantum mechanics and its open questions not absolutely integral to the entire field? And non-equilibrium dynamics is all worked out, right?

There's more to chemistry than synthesis and polymers.