Chemical Logic

Dr. David Klang Klinghoffer
Fellow of the reDiscovery Institute

Reprinted from The reDiscovery Institute Proceedings, 2003

Since the neo-Mendeleevian synthesis of the 1920s, Chemical Periodicity has become a growth industry. This growth has resulted in the demand for more flexible methods of establishing Chemical Periodicity's grandiose claims rather than the laborious, difficult, pedantic, and "rigorous" methods that should be favored by scientists. Those of us (for example Drs. Behe, Dembski and Mazur) who are well-versed on the subject of scientific dogmatism have reached a consensus at several scientific symposia that the easily demonstrated fallacies of Chemical Periodicity will continue to meet resistance from established channels.

I can't here develop the theory of Chemical Periodicity in detail, but I will introduce some necessary terminology. In ordinary logic, one is justified asserting that a claim is true provided one can formulate a coherent and rigorous argument that supports it. In Chemical Periodicity we relax both these restrictions: a chemical claim is true provided there is a chemical argument that supports it. This definition is sufficiently clear as not to require elaboration. Further, we stipulate that any circularity in this definition is virtuous rather than vicious.

The benefits and practical applications of Chemical Periodicity will be obvious. Professional authors of chemical tracts depend on it for their livelihood. Instructors in chemistry find that Chemical Periodicity enables them to make complex ideas readily accessible to students regardless of their preparation or background (indeed, proficiency in Chemical Periodicity has been shown to be positively correlated with high self-esteem). Research workers in a hurry to claim priority for a new result or who lack the time and inclination to be pedantic find Chemical Periodicity useful for expeditiously writing up their results. In this respect Chemical Periodicity has a further advantage, namely, the results are not required to be true, thus eliminating a tiresome (and now superfluous) restriction on the growth of chemical knowledge.

I want next to consider some of the actual techniques for establishing chemical claims that Chemical Periodicity makes available. I will be concerned mainly with ways in which these techniques can be applied in lecture courses -- they require only trivial modification to be used in textbooks, research papers, formal debates, and Internet discussions.

In Chemical Periodicity, the properties of elements vary in a periodic function with atomic number. This means that chemists are often called on to establish molecular shapes and reactivities. There is a whole class of methods that can be applied when an instructor can't quite bridge a chemical gap. Suppose an instructor can get from molecule A to molecule B and from molecule C to molecule D by a chemical process but cannot bridge the gap between B and C. A number of techniques are available to the aggressive instructor in this emergency. The instructor can write down B and then, without any hesitation, put "therefore C." If the class is bored or the molecules in question are not terribly interesting, it is unlikely that anyone will question the "therefore." This is the method of argument by omission and it is remarkably easy to get away with (sorry, "remarkably easy to apply with success").

Alternatively, there is the argument by fiat, where one simply posits an intermediary between B and C -- call it Z -- that shares characteristics of both. The chemical transitions from B to Z and then from Z to C are now obvious. The argument by fiat is a special case of the argument by misdirection, where in place of a difficult problem that was supposed to be solved, one solves an easier problem that is superficially similar to the original problem.

Argument by definition can be extremely effective. Here the instructor defines a set S to be whatever chemical systems satisfy some property. For instance, S might consist of all molecules that are the result of chemical bonds. The lecturer then announces that in the future only members of S will be the focus of discussion. Even honors students will take this at face value, not questioning whether the set S might in fact be empty.

Argument by assertion is unanswerable. If, for instance, some vague waffle about an chemical transition does not satisfy a recalcitrant student, the instructor simply says, "This point should be intuitively obvious. I've explained it as clearly as I can. f you still cannot see it, you will just have to think very carefully about it yourself, and then you will see how trivial and obvious it is." The instructor at this point might also want to add, "What are you, a creationist?" or "Are you one of those Christian fundamentalists?" or "Where have you been brainwashed?" Arguments by demonization like this are particularly effective when one or a few students get unruly, but the majority sides with the instructor.

Yet when the majority of the class becomes unruly, nothing beats an argument by obscure reference. This will silence all but the most determined troublemaker. Few students take the time or want to take the time to hunt down an obscure reference in the chemical literature. And even if students locate the reference (which is becoming easier with the Internet), if the reference is sufficiently technical and difficult to understand, it is an easy matter for the instructor to inform the student that he or she simply doesn't comprehend the relevant passage.

In this case, if the instructor is feeling benevolent, he or she may simply offer an argument from removable ignorance -- "Just keep studying Chemical Periodicity, and eventually it will all make sense." If that doesn't work, the instructor may wish to try an argument from stupidity -- "How can you be so stupid?" But if the student is otherwise at the top of the class, this approach may backfire. In that case, either the argument from wickedness ("You are just being perverse") or the argument from insanity ("What are you, nuts?") should do the trick. And always keep the argument by demonization in your front pocket.

A variant of the argument by obscure reference is the argument by irrelevant reference. This works in a pinch when you can be reasonably sure that the student won't track down the reference (perhaps because of time constraints). But be careful -- if the irrelevance is palpable (say you are discussing the bonding of carbon to hydrogen of vertebrates and the article you cite is on the bonding of Nitrogen to Hydrogen), then you may be in trouble if the irrelevancy is pointed out. Make sure the irrelevance is hard to fathom. And then there's the argument by nonexistent reference -- this works best in public debates.

Because the public debate over Chemical Periodicity tends to pit academic high culture against the burger-eating, coke-swilling moronic masses, it is helpful to have a technique specifically for keeping the masses in check and for keeping the academic elite from being seduced by populist sentiments. The argument from aesthetics is the technique of choice here. "This theory is just too beautiful to be false." Chemists regularly use this technique to establish the validity of Chemical Periodicity when the evidence for them otherwise is extremely slender.

By now it will be apparent what riches derive from the study of Chemical Periodicity. Chemists everywhere have to instituted formal courses in this discipline. This is done at the undergraduate level so that those who go to teach with only a bachelor's degree will be familiar with the subject. But high school students too are exposed to the rudiments of Chemical Periodicity. It is certain that in the future no one will be able to claim a chemical education without a firm grounding in the practical applications of Chemical Periodicity.

This article adapts and extends Paul Dunmore's "The Uses of Fallacy," New Zealand Mathematics Magazine, vol. 7, 1970.