321 research outputs found
New precatalysts for olefin polymerization having LX2 pincer ligands
No full textBercaw, John E. Labinger, Jay A. Tonks, Ian Winston, Matthew S. Klet, Rachel C. Lenton, Taylor N. Despagnet-Ayoub, Emmanuelle 245th National Spring Meeting of the American-Chemical-Society (ACS) Apr 07-11, 2013 New Orleans, LA Amer Chem So
New precatalysts for olefin polymerization having LX2 pincer ligands
No full textBercaw, John E. Labinger, Jay A. Tonks, Ian Winston, Matthew S. Klet, Rachel C. Lenton, Taylor N. Despagnet-Ayoub, Emmanuelle 245th National Spring Meeting of the American-Chemical-Society (ACS) Apr 07-11, 2013 New Orleans, LA Amer Chem So
Bond-stretch isomerism: a case study of a quiet controversy
Get PDFThe phenomenon of bond-stretch isomerism in transition metal coordination chemistry – two isomers of a complex differing only in one bond length – was first suggested in the early 1970s and remained controversial until the early 1990s, when it was generally agreed to be illusory. The course of this controversy is considered from two points of view, as a straightforward narrative in chemical history, and in the context of several concepts promulgated by studies of science from the outside
The one culture? A conversation about science
No full textSo far the “science wars” have generated far more heat than light. Combatants from one or the other of what C. P. Snow famously called “the two cultures” (science versus the arts and humanities) have launched bitter attacks but have seldom engaged in constructive dialogue about the central issues. This book has gathered together some of the world's foremost scientists and sociologists of science to exchange opinions and ideas rather than insults. The contributors find surprising areas of broad agreement in a genuine conversation about science, its legitimacy and authority as a means of understanding the world, and whether science studies undermines the practice and findings of science and scientists. The book is organized into three parts. The first consists of position papers written by scientists and sociologists of science, which were distributed to all the participants. The second presents commentaries on these papers, drawing out and discussing their central themes and arguments. In the third section, participants respond to these critiques, offering defenses, clarifications, and modifications of their positions. Who can legitimately speak about science? What is the proper role of scientific knowledge? How should scientists interact with the rest of society in decision making? Because science occupies such a central position in the world today, such questions are vitally important. Although there are no simple solutions, this book shows the reader exactly what is at stake in the Science Wars, and provides a valuable framework for how to go about seeking the answers we so urgently need
‘Sloppy Thinking’: To What Extent Can Philosophy Contribute to the Public Understanding of Science?
No full textThis thesis will address two questions: Does philosophy contribute to the ‘public understanding of science’ (PUoS), and if so, how?
The popular public image of science is one of methodology. Science is a means for making true statements about the world, where we compare hypothesis with observation against the evidence. This then allows for a body of knowledge that guides further advancements and progress. Philosophy, however, seems to be antithetical to this. A popular notion is that philosophy is either what science was, or it deals with objects and ideas so intangible, that they have no real effect in the world. Either it is an outmoded way of doing science, or it is the preserve of armchair academics. In both cases the average person would be forgiven for thinking it had no relevance to them, and especially their ability to understand science. This thesis will look to challenge this relationship. Using hermeneutics, discourse-textual analysis and deconstruction, I present two interpretations of science and philosophy. These two interpretations I will call the ‘methodological’ and ‘historical’ approach. The ‘methodological’ approach is to understand science as a collection of principles or rules that, if followed, will produce true statements about the world. An example of such a principle that intersected both philosophy and science is ‘falsification’ as understood through the ‘problem of demarcation’ (PoD). The irrelevance of philosophy to science is fortified by the constant failure to produce fixed rules for what makes one thing scientific and another not. The ‘historical’ approach is to understand the actions of scientists as historical events. So rather than ask ‘what is science?’ we might ask, ‘what does it mean to act scientifically?’ I will argue philosophy can be of use in overcoming the antagonism between understanding a methodological question historically and a historical question methodologically.
Firstly, I give an uncontroversial reading of the PoD, as argued by Karl Popper, who represents the ‘methodological’ view and oppose this to the ‘historical’ approach of Paul Feyerabend. Due to the dominance of the interpretation of science as a methodology, I argue that historical critiques, like Feyerabend’s, become nonsensical when understood as methodological substitutes. This is what I call the ‘received view’of what both Popper and Feyerabend had to say on science. Here, Popper fails to solve the PoD and Feyerabend appears to deny the method, objectivity or rationality of science. Next, using ideas inspired by Heidegger, I reverse those roles by presenting a ‘methodological’ and ‘historical’ reading of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. I develop two types of language, which I call ‘about’ and ‘of’ language that map on to the methodological and historical distinctions. Using this method I construct two contradictory readings of the text, but unlike the Popper-Feyerabend antagonism, we see how the historical approach is the more fertile interpretation. One version, which I call the ‘strong’ reading, has Kuhn as a relativist, irrationalist or anti-science, which is important if this is the ‘received view’ of Kuhn. This reading carries political weight with ‘interest groups’ who may wish to undermine the epistemic authority of science. That same reading can be used to discredit Kuhn/ philosophy of science, and by extension philosophy as a worthwhile instrument for understanding science. The other version, which I call the ‘weak’ reading, has Kuhn as a supporter and defender of science, but it also resolves old philosophical disputes by framing the problem in a different way. This will not only problematize any notion of a dominant interpretation, but it gives good grounds why one cannot be relativist or irrationalist about ‘truth’. Thus it defends the epistemic authority of science, and also gives philosophy a valuable role in public thinking about science
Alkane Functionalization via Electrophilic Activation
No full textElectrophilic activation, which may be defined as the substitution of a
transition metal center for a proton to generate a new metal–carbon bond, is the
basis of a number of promising approaches to selective catalytic functionalization
of alkanes. The field was introduced by the groundbreaking chemistry exhibited by
aqueous chloroplatinum complexes, reported by Shilov in the early 1970s. Since
then the field has expanded greatly, and electrophilic alkane activation has been
demonstrated using a wide variety of species. These include ligand-supported
platinum complexes; complexes of additional late transition metals, most commonly
palladium but also iridium, gold and others; and even post-transition metals
such as mercury. That body of work is surveyed here, with particular emphasis on
mechanistic understanding, examples of actual functionalization at sp^3-hybridized
C–H bonds in alkanes and related compounds, and assessment of the further
development that will be needed for practical applications
Fred Basolo and the (Re)naissance of American Inorganic Chemistry
No full textIt was an Australian/British chemist, Sir Ronald Nyholm, who first spoke of a “renaissance” of inorganic chemistry; but its emergence as a newly dynamic subfield, beginning in the 1950s, can be seen even more clearly in the US. While John Bailar is often credited as the “Father of American Inorganic Chemistry,” it is arguable that Fred Basolo, Bailar’s student at Illinois, has had the most lasting impact on the dramatic growth of the field in American academia. Justification for that assertion includes the remarkable representation of his academic descendants among inorganic faculty members of American universities; comments and reminiscences from the students he trained; and an examination of his seminal contributions in the form of both original research and textbooks, particularly the groundbreaking 1958 work Mechanisms of Inorganic Reactions, written with his Northwestern colleague Ralph Pearson, which played a central role in raising the intellectual stature of inorganic chemistry by bringing the study of mechanism to the forefront
- …
