Is Water H2O?: Evidence, Realism and Pluralism (Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, 293)

I'm going to expand this review shortly, but having just finished it couldn't wait to say how it broke the intellectual block I've had in deciding between realism and operationalism for about forty years now. I'm not giving you much to go on, I know, but "philosophers", philosophy majors, and history of science specialists should get a lot out of this book. I'm impressed. No wonder it's gotten a good review on Amazon and recently (my cause of buying it) in "Science".HERE'S THE EXPANSIONWhen I was a boy, we were basking in the afterglow of phenomenalism. It was still perfectly respectable to adhere to the likes of Bergmann, Russell, Mach and Freddie Ayer. In fact, I'm not far from there now. Kuhns became the flavor of the day, with a lot of staying power. That has resulted in some pretty outlandish claims about the relativity of science (by which I will always mean physics). And Karl Popper, of course, one of my favorites. But infusing the whole atmosphere of the late 20th century -in physics and philosophy - a kind of hard core realism became more and more acceptable. I don't know why, maybe the computer facilitating a materialist theory of mind. This took place as physics became less and less imaginable, as Berkeley would say. Indeed, today we are treated to twice yearly books by physicists themselves waxing philosophical and questioning the correspondence of their theories with reality. Baggott, the most widely read, is but one.Chang give reading suggestions at the beginning of this book. For a quick go thru, either just to get to the philosophy part or to make it easier, he suggests a reader may skip the latter part of the first three History of the Chemical Revolution chapters. I didn't. They were quite interesting. Idiosyncratically, for me, I deal with older terminology in some of my restoration work and I actually found it enlightening in that respect.I can only hint at the philosophy of science aspect. You really should read it. "Reality" is defined as that which is resistant to our will. Science is the exploration of that realm. There are many procedures we can use to launch investigations, at any one time they may seem contradictory, but Chang's point is they can all be "valid" within their own definitional scheme and some, even the losers may contain insights the winners do not. "Theory" is - thank God - a term that is shunned in the book. The upshot is a kind of pragmatism and multitude approach which avoids the kind of glib relativism often associated with such a view. By the end of the book, I felt some one had washed my brain. Is water H2O? I don't want to get to much into it, but it always seemed to me that's a very simplistic way of thinking, this book shows why. "Atom" and like words are often tossed out like the y belong to the group "kings and ships and sealing wax": they do not. Read this book.I keep bees. In another 65 million years when our descendants are living in damp borrows, the descendents of bees may be writing physics books. The sensory apparatus of a bee is really, really different from ours (what it's like to be a bee is an order of magnitude harder than what it is like to be a bat). Bee physics may be untranslatable into homininspeak for all I know. It may not even be "object-based" as ours is, to start with. But bee physics will be just as valid as our own, just as good as physics. Read this book.The fifth chapter may be off putting to some readers, and I feel it is the weakest part of the book. One because it's unlikely that philosophical suggestions from outside will alter the course of physics and two because some of Chang's suggestions for introducing alternative type programs into the school curriculum may easily be misunderstood.Regarding the PRICE controversy: the paperback was 60+. There are plenty philosophy and other books I wouldn't buy at this price out of principle (the Cambridge Ancient Histories are 200-300+!). This one, $65, a bargain.P.S., there's a cartoon in this weeks New Yorker ( Oct. 3, 2014) which could serve as a frontis for the second edition. Two guys in lab coats standing in the CERN and one says, "when you've got an accelerator, everything looks like a particle."

At $120 I know that I tried not to buy it, but I read his Temperature book and figured this would be pretty good. The electronic copy at the library was poor, image rather than character-based, and only available a page at a time. The sample I read on my Kindle was excellent and seemed important, so it concerns me that people will not read it because of the price.I enjoyed learning so much about the history of chemistry. Prof. Chang makes a compelling argument that it is important to learn about the details and make independent judgments rather than believe everything wrapped in a scientific wrapper. It is technical and challenging to read, but he seemed to make a consistent effort to be approachable and not write over my head. It is well-researched and documented. A nice piece of work and I hope he receives the academic credit he deserves.The questions he raises are important for society to consider and to motivate people to investigate further, especially students. Ever since we invented tools there has been a question about technology. Simplicity and a broad reach are not necessarily consistent with current knowledge. Ultimately truth and beauty may be united, but do not progress together. It may be a matter of perspective, so it is personal. This seems counter-intuitive to the nature of science and mathematics which are heralded for the universality and independence. These ideas are difficult to discuss without turning into a mush pie and Chang’s books by using specific examples raise narrow and broad questions which are important and worth your time.

I have read widely in the history and philosophy of science (HPS), but, for me, it always came down to Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, and Feyerabend... until I read this book, which I consider the most original and insightful HPS book written in the past forty years.If you're not interested in reading yet another history of chemistry, albeit a very interesting and original one, then you should fast forward to chapter 5: "Pluralism in Science: A Call to Action," wherein Hasok Chang makes his cogent and persuasive argument.

Best book in several years

Chang's book is well-written, thoroughly researched, and advocates for a very open-minded and flexible notion of the possible concepts that can be used to explain observations in chemical reactions. His writing tone is also helpful, because it is quite neutral. He doesn't have an ax to grind; he is not attacking other positions, but rather looking at the history of chemistry with an open eye and showing how multi-faceted and divergent the ideas that were trying to explain the observations of the electrolysis of water actually were. He also does not become mystical, but nevertheless opens the scientific field to a wide range of overlapping explanations which add to the richness of real life, rather than subtracting from it. I much prefer his flexible approach to the incredibly simplistic textbook models of molecules, proton transfer, and so on. He shows us that we really still don't even know what water is, and that is fine. Certainly, we can manipulate 'matter' with precise quantitative measurements that we can explain by various theories, but that does not mean that we truly understand the real existence of such phenomena. There is still much more than meets the eye, and Chang's books open the door to an exciting realm of future research. Highest recommendations