Chirony of stereochemical metaphors
Chirony of stereochemical metaphors
复制标题
DOI：
10.1039/b507512b
复制
发表时间：
2005-01-01
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Siegel, JS
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cozzi, F;Siegel, JS
习语影响科学隐喻和模型的概念化。立体化学对分子模型的依赖使它特别容易受到惯用术语的使用。例如，基于货车't Hoff 1的四面体模型的惯用术语的创造和使用，导致化学家混淆了手性和立体异构的概念。二十年前，手性和立体异构性之间的区别重新浮出水面，化学家开始讨论这种重叠及其对立体化学术语的影响。[2]问题的核心是立体性[3]规定了分子亚单位的立体异构性质（例如具有四个不同配体的四面体配位原子），而手性[4]是整个分子的内在几何特征，表现在分子的性质中。认识到手性是植根于对称性，而立体异构性源于键的定义，使行话，如“手性中心”，“手性轴”，和“平面手性”过时。尽管如此，这些和相关的矛盾仍然存在，被辩护为口语习语，即使它们错误地表达了它们应该简化的立体化学概念。预计行话的修改会受到抵制，然而，保留不合逻辑的表达方式存在重大缺点，这些表达方式的作用是脆弱的共识，而不是概念基础。最好的情况是，“新来者”被引入歧途，有经验的从业者浪费时间进行论战。6例如，上面提到的习惯用语模糊了手性和立体性之间的区别，它们的使用是以完全合理和公认的化学术语为代价的。它们与说明手性/立体异构性区别的明确意图相矛盾，这种明确意图是为了消除关于某些立体化学现象起源的概念混乱，并减少行话的泛滥。5
Idioms affect the conceptualization of metaphors and models in science. The dependence of stereochemistry on molecular models makes it especially vulnerable to the use of idiomatic terms. For example, the creation and use of idiomatic terminology, based on the tetrahedral model of van ‘t Hoff1, caused chemists to confuse the concepts of chirality with stereoisomerism.. Twenty years ago, the distinction between chirality and stereogenicity resurfaced and chemists began to discuss this overlap and its effect on stereochemical terminology. 2 The heart of the matter is that stereogenicity3 specifies the stereoisomeric properties of a molecular sub-unit (eg a tetrahedrally coordinated atom with four different ligands), whereas chirality4 is an intrinsic geometric feature of the whole molecule, manifesting itself in the molecule’s properties. The realization that chirality is rooted in symmetry, whereas stereogenicity stems from definitions of bonding, makes jargon such as “chiral center”,“chiral axis”, and “planar chirality” obsolete. Nonetheless, these and related contradictions persist, defended as colloquial idioms, even though they misrepresent the stereochemical concepts they are supposed to simplify.Resistance to modification of jargon is anticipated, however, there are major disadvantages in retaining illogical expressions, which function by tenuous consensus rather than conceptual foundation. At best “newcomers” are led astray and experienced practitioners waste time pursuing polemics. 6 For example, the idioms mentioned above obscure the distinction between chirality and stereogenicity and their use occurs at the expense of perfectly reasonable and accepted chemical terminology. They contradict the explicit intent of stating the chirality/stereogenicity distinction, which was to dispel a conceptual confusion about the origin of certain stereochemical phenomena and to reduce the proliferation of jargon. 5