Recent attempts to change the periodic table.

The article concerns various proposals that have been made with the aim of improving the currently standard 18-column periodic table. We begin with a review of 8-, 18- and 32-column formats of the periodic table. This is followed by an examination of a possible, although rather impractical, 50-column table and how it could be used to consider the changes to the periodic table that have been predicted by Pyykkö in the domain of superheavy elements. Other topics reviewed include attempts to derive the Madelung rule as well as an analysis of what this rule actually provides. Finally, the notion of an 'optimal' periodic table is discussed in the context of recent work by philosophers of science who have examined the nature of classifications in general, as well as the notion of natural kinds. The article takes an unapologetically philosophical approach rather than focusing on specific data concerning the elements. Nevertheless, some pragmatic issues and educational aspects of the periodic table are also examined. This article is part of the theme issue 'Mendeleev and the periodic table'.

The periodic table and the turn to practice.

The philosopher of chemistry Andrea Woody has recently published a wide-ranging article concerning the turn to practice in the philosophy of science. Her primary example consists of the use of different forms of representations by Lothar Meyer and Mendeleev when they presented their views on chemical periodicity. Woody believes that this distinction can cast light on various issues including why Mendeleev was able to make predictions while Meyer was not. Secondly, she claims that it can clarify the much-debated question concerning the relative values of prediction and accommodation of data in the way that the periodic system was accepted. Thirdly, Woody believes that such differences in the representation of periodicity can be used to argue for the explanatory nature of the periodic table in contrast with the more traditional view that the periodic table is not explanatory. This discussion examines each of these claims and argues that they need to be qualified and in some cases rejected.

Happy 150th Birthday to the Periodic Table.

How many candles?! The year 2019 has been named as the International Year of the Periodic Table in accordance with Mendeleev's work from 1869. In line with other celebratory events and articles to be found this year in Chemistry-A European Journal, here, Eric R. Scerri provides an historical account of the development of the periodic table and some of the debates and considerations surrounding this fundamental elementary ensemble.

The discovery of the periodic table as a case of simultaneous discovery.

The article examines the question of priority and simultaneous discovery in the context of the discovery of the periodic system. It is argued that rather than being anomalous, simultaneous discovery is the rule. Moreover, I argue that the discovery of the periodic system by at least six authors in over a period of 7 years represents one of the best examples of a multiple discovery. This notion is supported by a new view of the evolutionary development of science through a mechanism that is dubbed Sci-Gaia by analogy with Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis.

Top-down causation regarding the chemistry-physics interface: a sceptical view.

This article examines two influential authors who have addressed the interface between the fields of chemistry and physics and have reached opposite conclusions about whether or not emergence and downward causation represent genuine phenomena. While McLaughlin concludes that emergence is impossible in the light of quantum mechanics, Hendry regards issues connected with the status of molecular structure as supporting emergence. The present author suggests that one should not be persuaded by either of these arguments and pleads for a form of agnosticism over the reality of emergence and downward causation until further studies might be carried out.

Chemistry goes abstract.

Can philosophy make worthwhile contributions to science? Eric Scerri thinks it can, and looks at what it has brought to the table for chemistry.

Constructivism, relativism, and chemical education.

Whereas most scientists are highly critical of constructivism and relativism in the context of scientific knowledge acquisition, the dominant school of chemical education researchers appears to support a variety of such positions. By reference to the views of Herron, Spencer, and Bodner, I claim that these authors are philosophically confused, and that they are presenting a damaging and anti-scientific message to other unsuspecting educators. Part of the problem, as I argue, is a failure to distinguish between pedagogical constructivism regarding students' understanding of science, and constructivism about the way that scientific knowledge is acquired by expert scientists.