Conceptual Analysis for Nanoscience
Julia R. S. Bursten, Michael J. Hartmann, Jill E. Millstone · The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters · 2016
Conceptual Analysis for NanoscienceT he synthesis, characterization, and interpretation of nanoscale materials necessarily draw from both bulk and molecular descriptions of matter.Researchers choose which descriptions to use in order to understand and explain a given phenomenon.These choices are often intuitive and subconscious, dictated by the dominant behaviors of the system, as well as by the research questions being answered, the availability of instrumentation, and the researcher's training.But the choice of certain descriptions over others can dramatically influence how a researcher conceives of their system, as well as how they make, study, and use the resulting research products.The philosophy of science is the study of these choices and of scientific reasoning itself.As a branch of epistemology (i.e., the theory of knowledge), philosophy of science investigates the nature of scientific reasoning and the implications of scientific theories for both understanding the natural world and acting in it.Philosophers of science examine scientific methodology as a whole, investigating the conditions for successful scientific explanation, the relationships between causation and the laws of nature, and whether and in what sense the various branches of science can be unified with one another.Philosophers of science also examine individual sciences, answering questions such as, "Can we reduce the human experience of consciousness to patterns of electrical signals in the brain?","Should we trace the origins of life to metabolism or replication?", or "If the physical world is really governed by quantum mechanics and relativity, why does classical mechanics work so well for so much of science?" Answering these questions is not a matter of collecting data nor of interpreting the results of individual experiments.Rather, it is a matter of conceptual analysis: evaluating the implications of understanding a scientific concept in one way rather than another.In nanoscience, for example, one can conceive of colloidal nanoparticle synthesis as either building a molecule or growing a crystal.Conceiving of a synthesis as molecular will suggest certain models, synthetic protocols, and characterization strategies.Conceiving of a synthesis as crystallization will suggest others.Collaboration between scientists and philosophers of science reveals new domains for conceptual analysis and new research opportunities for both philosophers and scientists.Philosophers trained in conceptual analysis can provide expertise in evaluating what is gained, and what is lost, by using one conception over another.Which conception(s) we use can influence every aspect of scientific work, including the ways we think about material systems and what experiments we design.These concepts also influence the ways we communicate, who we communicate with, and perhaps most importantly, the very research questions we ask.In this Viewpoint, we give examples of collaborative conceptual analysis by introducing the benefits and limitations of importing bulk-scale concepts of matter into nanoscale research using two canonical examples: the concepts of surface and alloy.