by Any student that has taken chemistry has been asked to find patterns within the Periodic table. I remember frantically searching my textbook in hope of finding concrete rules that would supply me with an answer. Instead, I got a multitude of exceptions.
These exceptions including atomic mass, like compounds, hydrogen’s placement, all can be linked back to the organization and structure of the table itself. With these flaws in mind, the question of whether or not Dimitri Mendeleev’s periodic table is best suited for the job emerges.
Dimitri Mendeleev’s original periodic table of 1869 was composed of 17 columns of nearly two complete periods. Compared to today’s Periodic Table, which has 117 elements listed, his first proposal excluded many of the new discovered elements. Granted, Mendeleev knew that his table was missing elements, he intentionally left spaces blank for future scientists to elaborate upon his work, yet he could not fully predict and account for the differences in molecular composition of elements that were to be discovered.
Mendeleev’s hope for continued research into the collection of data on elements, shows the progressive nature of Science. Progress in science, according to Thomas Khun, an American philosopher of science, was driven by the phenomenon known as the “Paradigm Shift.” This idea has shaped the way scientists, philosophers, writers and students look at scientific discoveries throughout our scientific history. Khun defines the Paradigm Shift as a process of progress in a periodic revolution, rather than progress which accumulates in a linear fashion. His ideas revolve around the idea that paradigm is a practice, specific to a certain point or period in time; changing as discoveries emerge and priorities shift.
The publication of Mendeleev’s periodic table was a transformative addition to the scientific community’s understanding of the elemental and molecular world, fitting the Khunian definition as a paradigm shift. However, an argument can be made which presents the Periodic Table as counterintuitive to the classification processes as Mendeleev’s periodic table could limit the research for new elements by creating a rigid standard of expectations.
Applying Khun’s ideas about the influence of the Paradigm Shift to Mendeleev’s periodic table demonstrates how by creating an outline for what one is to expect of a new discovery can lead scientists down a falsified path. Blank spots on the Periodic Table create pressure to fill the holes, but the element that may fit there could fit better elsewhere. Procedures and processes may work across many sciences, but certainly not all and not forever.
The Khunian perception of science behaving in tandem with the time period of discovery exemplifies science’s timely progression. As discoveries are made, societies transform and new technologies, expectations and ideas are produced. The pursuit of discovery and adaptation fulfills the human desire for more and has enabled us to shift into new paradigms. However, in order to continue shifting paradigms, which Khunian believed to be essential for progress, we must not get stuck in the one that we are working to break free from. All of our desires to move forward reflect the end goal of novelty which is impossible to leave if one is too set in their ways.
Mendeleev’s periodic table was a paradigm shift in the 1800’s but may have also been a structural detriment as it established a strict framework for future discoveries. Perhaps a greater understanding of elements would have emerged if another periodic table was produced at this time. Or maybe no further discoveries would have been made without the contributions of Mendeleev. Khun’s Paradigm Shift unveils how dependent science is on the time in which discoveries are made. Without societal acceptance or necessity, contemporary thoughts and technologies would have never existed. The Paradigm Shift has altered the way we perceive scientific discovery and implementation, reaffirming the transformative nature of science throughout society, and acting as a paradigm shift in itself.
Sources:
Lagowski, J.J., and Linus C. Pauling. “Periodic Table.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., June 2, 2020. https://www.britannica.com/science/periodic-table.
Scerri, Eric R. “The Past and Future of the Periodic Table: This Stalwart Symbol of the Field of Chemistry Always Faces Scrutiny and Debate.” American Scientist 96, no. 1 (2008): 52-58. Accessed September 5, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27859088.
Liang Jiang Lecture Part 2. Khun’s Paradigm.