Foundations of Chemistry (2023) 25:269–283

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10698-023-09468-9

The poetry of the universe, the periodic table,

and the scientific progress: a review of new studies
on the periodic table of the elements

Klaus Ferdinand Gärditz1

Accepted: 14 February 2023 / Published online: 4 March 2023

© The Author(s) 2023

Abstract
In 1869, two distinguished scientists, Dimitri Mendeleev and Lothar Meyer, discovered a
certain periodicity among the chemical characteristics of the then known elements. Both
developed first versions of the periodic table, independently. In the wake of the 150th
anniversary, UNESCO proclaimed 2019 the “International Year of the Periodic Table of
Chemical Elements”. Two lucid and detailed studies on the periodic table—accompanied
by smaller studies on the occasion of the anniversary—have been published, recently, one
of them analysing the scientific history, contributing to the (philosophical) theory of sci-
ence (Eric Scerri), the other analysing the structures, patterns, and irregularities of the
table (Geoff Rayner-Canham). Both studies are profound and vivid examples how scien-
tific progress works. They illustrate that even in hard sciences—mirroring Merton’s con-
cept of middle range theory—the required degree of exactness can remain on an intermedi-
ate level, as imperfection allows interpretations which could not (yet) be reached by pure
mathematics and logic. Both of these brilliant studies provide valuable material, especially
for a social science, to better understand how scientific ideas develop, how the power of
visualization helps shape ideas, and how contingency is absorbed by the scientific process.

Keywords Periodic table · Theory of science · Freedom of science · History of science

Historic background

In 1869, two scientists, independently of each other, designed the first versions of the peri-
odic table of the elements (Bensaude-Vincent 1986; Blokhina 2021; Danzer 1971; Gor-
din 2018). One was the Russian chemist Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleev (*1834 †1907),
who taught chemistry in the then thriving scientific metropolis of St. Petersburg (Rus-
sia), worked temporarily as a fellow with Robert Bunsen and Gustav Robert Kirchhoff
in Heidelberg in 1860/61, and attended the groundbreaking international chemists’ con-
gress in Karlsruhe in 1860, which had great impact on his work (Kaji 2018, 222). The first

* Klaus Ferdinand Gärditz

gaerditz@jura.uni-bonn.de
1
Universität Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Institute of Public Law,
Adenauerallee 24‑42, 53177 Bonn, Germany

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
270 K.F. Gärditz

publications that gave Mendeleev his breakthrough in the gradually globalizing scientific
community were published in German, which was still one of the leading scientific lan-
guages at the time, mainly because of the university landscape in chemistry and physics.
Later he switched to French, Russian, and especially English as languages of science.1 The
parallel discoverer was his contemporary Lothar Meyer (*1830 †1895),2 a professor of
chemistry in Karlsruhe and Tübingen (both Germany). For his part, he designed the first
periodic tables in order to arrange the elements known at that time according to a pattern
(Boek 2021).
The scientific breakthrough for modern chemistry, which was still comparatively young
at that time, was that the periodic table linked certain chemical properties with a periodic-
ity and, thus, established a scientific order within the rapidly growing number of known
elements, which made it possible to make initial predictions as to how an element would
behave approximately. In particular, Mendeleev’s pioneering work was largely based on
an arrangement comparing atomic masses. The electron configurations actually relevant
for the chemical “behavior” were not yet known to him. The electron was not discovered
and described until 1897 (see for the progress Scerri 2020, 203; also Marks/Marks 2021).
Systematic integration into chemical models did not begin until the early twentieth century
(Scerri 2020, 227).
Nevertheless, the periodic table has survived as a scientific concept of order to this
day and is essentially unchallenged. Compared to the upheavals and fundamental shifts
in the natural sciences during the long twentieth century, this stability of a scientific idea
is remarkable. While Newtonian mechanics has been overtaken by modern physics since
the beginning of the twentieth century, the periodic table has not yet experienced any seri-
ous shock in chemistry that would have called its validity into question (Scerri 2020, 26).
On the contrary, quantum chemistry, which emerged from physical quantum mechanics as
a hybrid discipline (Gavroglu/Simões 2012), moves with its explanations within the grid
of the periodic table. The fundamental upheavals caused by the theory of relativity have
rather increased the explanatory potential of the periodic table, because relativistic effects
can also be integrated (Scerri 2020, 364).

Periodic table as an object of the philosophy of science

with historiographic means

Eric Scerri, a distinguished theorist of the periodic table, presents—now in the second
edition—a material-rich and comprehensive (XXVII & 472 pages) study that uses the
history of the periodic table as a source of fundamental questions in the philosophy of

1
D. Mendelejeff, Ueber die Beziehungen der Eigenschaften zu den Atomgewichten der Elemente,
Zeitschrift für Chemie 12 (1869), 405; Dmitri Iwanowitsch Mendelejew, Die periodische Gesetzmäßigkeit
der chemischen Elemente, Annalen der Chemie und Pharmazie, VIII. Supplementband (1871), 133. The
paper reviews the periodic table presented in 1869 before the newly founded Russian Society of Chemistry.
It was published in parallel in Russian. A French and an English version followed 10 years later: Dmitri
Iwanowitsch Mendeleïev, La loi périodique des éléments chimiques, Le Moniteur scientifique 21 (1879),
691; Dimitri Mendeleev, The periodic law of the chemical elements, Chemical News 40 (1879), 243. Ten
years later, in 1889, the author delivered his eponymous Faraday Lecture. This has been published: Journal
of the Chemical Society 55 (1889), 634.
2
Lothar Meyer, Die Natur der chemischen Elemente als Function ihrer Atomgewichte, Annalen der Che-
mie und Pharmazie, VII. Supplementband (1870), S. 354 ff.

13
The poetry of the universe, the periodic table, and the... 271

science. Scerri is a chemist and philosopher of science who has been seminal in initiat-
ing the emerging philosophy of chemistry as a branch within the multifarious philosophy
of science (compare for the subject Schummer 2006; Vančik 2021). Until now, philoso-
phy of chemistry remains a rather peripheral scientific discipline, especially in comparison
with the traditionally leading discipline of philosophy of physics. Nonetheless, philosophy
of chemistry, as an independent scientific subject, has been growing since the 1990s, and
Scerri is co-editor of the archival journal Foundations of Chemistry (in existence since
1999). If you haven’t noticed yet, you’re reading it right now!

The chemical thought

Scerri traces the problem of whether the history of the periodic table can be used to iden-
tify a proprium of chemical thought. Or as the British science theorist (and chemist) David
William Theobald formulated the question in disciplinary-comparatist terms as early as the
mid-1970s (Theobald 1976): Are there certain styles of thinking and procedures that dis-
tinguish chemistry as a science from its sister disciplines physics and biology? While the
closeness of theoretical physics and philosophy is obvious and can refer to a long tradition
of connecting debates, chemistry is focused on less fundamental questions and is there-
fore often (and—as Scerri impressively shows—wrongly) considered intellectually not
sufficiently attractive and neglected in philosophical discourse. It is also remarkable that
chemistry—which is not addressed by Scerri with his clear focus on inorganics—regains
its attractiveness for philosophical fundamental debates where it becomes much more
concrete and is supposed to answer questions of molecular macro-organization in the life
sciences. A fictitious philosophy of biochemistry, however, is ultimately, according to its
questions, one of biology and no longer of chemistry. In accordance with this approach,
Scerri’s investigation focuses on fundamental questions concerning the epistemology and
identity of chemistry as a scientific subject, in the center of which the periodic table of ele-
ments still stands today—both in terms of subject function and iconic symbolism.

Is the fundamental really indivisible?

Scerri uses the periodic table of the elements as a visual object to demonstrate the funda-
mental relationship and the potentials of differential reducibility with regard to a chemi-
cal problem (Scerri 2020, XIX). He shows in rich detail and material how the periodic
table has always served as a focus for fundamental questions—not least in atomic phys-
ics. Experimental atomic physics has always relied on powerful chemistry, which must
ultimately isolate and identify relevant atoms (Herrmann 1995). Apparently, theoretical
chemistry, in turn, is inconceivable without physics, both theoretical and experimental. For
example, without quantum mechanics there would be no molecular orbital theory. Beyond
this practical linkage, however, there is a gray area that offers a variety of connections to
both scientific and philosophical questions (Scerri 2016): Can chemistry ultimately be
reduced to a special field of physics? Or does a unique proposition of chemistry remain,
whose reductionist dissolution into mere “shell physics” would lead to a loss of scientific
knowledge? Scerri is probably inclined to the latter. Not to be separated from this is the
scientific-theoretical question of what degree of exactness and fundamentality a discipline
requires in order to do justice to its scientific task.
Repeatedly, the philosophical question is raised whether elements are really indivisible
basic building blocks of the physical world or only simple substances which cannot be

13
272 K.F. Gärditz

chemically decomposed any further for the time being. With the synthetic creation of new
elements—by bombardment of heavy elements with atomic nuclei, e.g. α-particles (for the
methods Moody 2013)—also completely new philosophical questions arise (Scerri 2020,
347). The elementary suddenly becomes a malleable mass, which breaks with all philo-
sophical ideas of the atomic since antiquity (Scerri 2020, 3). Scerri carefully traces this
in the context of the history of science for all synthetic elements—most recently 118Og.
He does not refrain from making the half-ironic remark that, with synthetic elements, the
refuted and obscure transmutation teachings of medieval alchemists (Scerri 2020, XVIII)
suddenly make sense again under completely different circumstances (Scerri 2020, 350).

Not just physics of the electron shell

The fact that chemistry is not yet reducible to a special physics of the electron shell is
repeatedly demonstrated by the limited predictability of chemical properties of not yet
studied elements on the basis of their periodicity. Since Mendeleev, the prediction of cer-
tain (undiscovered) elements and their properties was the acid test on which the periodic
table could prove itself and allowed to negotiate fundamental questions about the nature of
the elements (Scerri 2020, 124, 137).
In addition, the periodic table was repeatedly adjusted when predictions were falsified
or new findings permitted more precise observations. Behind this are also necessary shifts
in perspective in the context of time. At the beginning of modern chemistry, problems
arose in extracting the individual elements from compounds, separating them and iden-
tifying them. Since the middle of the nineteenth century, elements had already been sci-
entifically classified on the basis of their chemical behavior or atomic masses. With the
discovery of the electron and the development of the first atomic models in the first quarter
of the twentieth century (Scerri 2020, 208), it became possible to detach chemical proper-
ties from atomic mass. Already Mendeleev had to find out that mass does not always allow
reliable statements. First of all, this was noticed by the anomaly that 52Te has a (slightly)
higher mass than 53I in spite of the lower atomic number (Rayner-Canham 2020, 12). To
explain this puzzling observation, of course, the discovery of the neutron was required,
which could not have been known to Mendeleev. First (and rather imperfect) descriptions
of the neutron emerged only in the 1930s (Chadwick 1932). Apparently, there remained
gaps in explanation. Finally, the electron configuration came into view as the anchor of
chemical properties.

Not always exciting: “Bohrium is boring”

Ideally, properties of new atoms turn out to be predictable. For example, about the arti-
ficial element 106Sg3 it was reported almost disappointedly that it behaved chemically as
expected like the other two group 6 (VI B) elements 74W and 42Mo (Lougheed 1997).
Laconically, the unspectacular, quite precisely predicted chemical behavior of 107Bh was
commented on by the statement: „Bohrium is boring “ (Service 2020). Of course, this is
not always the case. Often there are significant deviations, which can often be explained by
relativistic influences, especially for elements with high mass numbers, which in turn make

3
Seaborgium was the first element bearing the name of a scientist who was still alive when it was named.
The second one is 118Og, as Yuri Z. Oganessian is still alive and almost 90 years old.

13
The poetry of the universe, the periodic table, and the... 273

predictions of the rather volatile chemical properties from the lanthanides (57La upwards)
difficult (Lougheed 1997, 21). In addition, sometimes calculated relativistic effects turn out
experimentally different than expected.

Naming at the vanity fair

Woven into the lively presentation by Scerri are numerous vignettes of the history of sci-
ence, such as the cheerful naming of new elements, which in the politicized competition
spirit of the Cold War always had a touch of the political. The International Union of Pure
and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), organized as a private professional society, tradition-
ally grants the right to propose names to the discovering institution. This is not a legally
vested right, but it is a powerful line of tradition. For decades, this was a race between
Russian and US scientists, later joined by other countries like Germany and Japan (Scerri
2020, 355). Most recently, the names of 113Nh, 115Mc, 117Ts, and 118Og were adopted in
November 2016.4 The fact that elements 107–112 were named according to German pro-
posals (which was then reflected in the personalized honors given by 109Mt, 111Rg, and
112Cn) is due to discoveries made by the Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung (Society
for Heavy Ion Research, now GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung) in Darm-
stadt (Hesse, Germany),5 which in turn explains the geographical names of 108Hs and 110Ds
(Scerri 2020, 359). Naming elements forces chemical research into social interactions that
cannot be broken down to scientifically resolvable technical issues. Scerri perceptively
notes that the substitution of technical arguments for consensus (in the relevant committee
of IUPAC) is an anomaly, but one that can have repercussions for the organization of the
scientific process (Scerri 2020, 349). The sociology of science, as the secret antagonist of
the philosophy of science, could certainly gain insightful examples here that demonstrate
the social patterns according to which scientific competition works.

Scientific Self‑image and epistemic iconography

One central aspect of Mendeleev’s periodic table was that “it is represented graphically”
(Robinson 2021, 25). Every science needs its inner iconography, a visualization that does
not exclusively follow strict scientific derivations, but contains symbols and illustrations
of disciplinary identity or a matrix for the specific structure of thought. The influence of
the visual on the formation of scientific thought structures has recently received increased
attention (Hentschel 2019, 362; Matlin 2022, 279; Ramharter 2019). Many groundbreaking
discoveries began with attempts to visualize the invisible in order to create projections for
one’s imagination to work with. “Intuition and imagination play an important part in the
scientific method” (Pauling 1988, 15). The discovery of the structural formula of the ben-
zene ring would be a striking example from organic chemistry (Rocke 2010). The social
can never be excluded—despite all epistemological rationalization. Thus, the systemati-
zation of the elements in a periodic table—as Scerri demonstrates again and again very
vividly—is based on a gradually contingent developmental path of representing scientific
knowledge in a certain way, i. e. in a specific graphical order. The underlying physical
parameters (such as significantly the nuclear charge number) are empirically measurable

4
https://​iupac.​org/​iupac-​annou​nces-​the-​names-​of-​the-​eleme​nts-​113-​115-​117-​and-​118/.
5
Google Maps allows readers to unerringly locate even such remote and dreary locations.

13
274 K.F. Gärditz

and representable within the framework of a theory. In contrast, the (visual) “mapping”
in a system is an artificial representation (Mazurs 1975) to make correlations visible and
to predict properties. In this respect, the periodic table is a visual instrument. It can be
replaced by other representations, without revealing the physical-theoretical fundamentals,
in order to make better predictions or to show other interrelationships.
For any science, but also for the way legal institutions deal with science, it is crucial to
distinguish between the contingent and cultural as well as socially influenced context of
discovery on the one hand, and the context of justification serving rationalized evidence
on the other (Feigl 1964, 472; Popper 2002, 7; Reichenbach 1938, 6; Siegel 1980). Of
course, visualization and aesthetics cannot replace the rational-scientific approach to the
world, the scientific justification of a hypothesis. Nor should they. But they have always
catalyzed the progress of knowledge, because the human mind needs bridges to make the
invisible tangible. It was rightly emphasized that the periodic law had not yet been estab-
lished and corroborated by experiments when Mendeleev first wrote about it in 1869, but
he had the right hunch “that the periodic system could assist in future research” (Robinson
2021, 21). As an alternative to the established periodic table of elements, there would be
other tangible visualization—without abandoning the rational context of justification—
which are discussed in detail (with graphical illustrations) in the study by Scerri (2020,
373). Recently, for example, another attempt has been made to draw a map of the elements,
which should allow predictions about material properties and is based on multiple param-
eters such as atomic radius, Pauling electronegativity, polarizability, and valence (Allahyari
et al. 2020). Which representation prevails then mostly follows simple pragmatics, which,
however, always remains a mirror of background styles of thinking. It is therefore no coin-
cidence that the periodic table is a symbol of chemical science and its disciplinary self-
image. These socio-cultural projections can provide valuable insights into how scientific
thinking works in a discipline and how this affects the styles and methods through which
observations are handled.

Periodic table as a puzzle

Geoff Rayner-Canham, a Canadian-based professor (now: emeritus), inorganic chemist and

historian of science,6 presents an extremely condensed (XIV & 296 pages7) study. A long-
standing and fascinating research interest has been the patterns in the behavior of atoms
behind the periodic table. Consequently, his new study focuses on the patterns and anoma-
lies of the periodic table.

The patterns of the seemingly random

Rayner-Canham traces common and separating features within the elements under quite
different aspects: Electronegativity, isotope distribution, ratio between protons and neu-
trons in the nucleus, “magic” numbers of the stability of atomic nuclei etc. The analysis
is furthermore fanned out for individual groups, especially in detail for the main group
elements (Rayner-Canham 2020, 121) and transition metals (Rayner-Canham 2020, 151;

6
One of his main research interests is women in science.
7
The types are very generous. The fluently written study is therefore and quick to read.

13
The poetry of the universe, the periodic table, and the... 275

previously Rayner-Canham 2018). All this is not analyzed in depth or even mathema-
tized. Numerous tables, graphs and comparisons of individual chemical properties enrich
a rather spartan, yet easily readable and immediately catchy text. The book remains as a
condensed set of presentations, which confront the reader in staccato rhythm with very
different phenomena of the periodic table, in order to demonstrate, above all, one thing
again and again: The professional focus of chemists on the electron structure of the ele-
ments neglects the core structure, which holds many surprises, but also allows meaningful
predictions. Almost sadly he must state: “Chemists so often overlook the fascinating world
of nuclear structure” (Rayner-Canham 2020, 21). Rayner-Canham wants to raise awareness
that the nuclear structure should also be a ponderous chemists’ interest because numerous
properties of chemical elements (indirectly) depend on the structure of the atomic nucleus
(Rayner-Canham 26–49) Thus, holistic view of the elements (beyond the electron shell)
serves epistemic interests not only of physics but also of chemistry.

Let’s play chess: the knight’s move phenomenon

Rayner-Canham is particularly fascinated by the Knight’s Move phenomenon, which was

only discovered in the 1990s (Rayner-Canham 2020, 210)8 and has so far been difficult
to explain (Rayner-Canham 2020, 195; Rayner-Canham/Oldford 2007; also Scerri 2020,
414). Atoms of some heavy elements behave in a strikingly similar way to other elements
that are not in the same group but in the next higher period two groups to the right—like
a chess move with the knight piece. At first glance, the analogy seems rather like read-
ing anthropomorphic figures in constellations of the stars, but it is a serious finding that
requires a rational explanation. The figurative representation provides attention to the prob-
lem at least.

The shine of gold: relativistic effects of heavy nuclei

With ascending atomic mass numbers, relativistic effects appear repeatedly, which are
paradigmatic for the interaction between the atomic nucleus and the electron shell under-
lined by Rayner-Canham, which (indirectly) determines the chemical reactivity, as a result
of changes in energy levels of atomic orbitals (Rayner-Canham 2020, 46–47; see also
Giuliani, Matheson, Nazarewicz, Olsen, Reinhard, Sadhukhan, Schuetrumpf, Schunck,
and Schwerdtfeger 2019, 10). The best-known relativistic effects are the atypical color of
gold 79Au (Scerri 2020, 366) and the liquid state of mercury 80Hg (Jansen 2005; McKel-
vey 1983; Norrby 1991; Pyykkö 1988; Schwerdtfeger 2002; Thayer 2005). The relativistic
explanation for such anomalies is that as the nuclear charge increases, the velocity of the
inner shell electrons increases and approaches the speed of light (Bardají and Laguna 1999,
202; McKelvey 1983, 115; Kratz and Lieser 2013, 12). The accompanying mass effects and
contraction of the inner s orbitals lead to better shielding of the atomic nucleus and desta-
bilization of diffuse orbitals of outer shells, associated with a shift in energy levels. This
has consequences: Without this effect, 79Au would probably look similar to 47Ag (Pyykkö
1988, 583), which is one period above it in the ­11th group, i.e.: silvery-white. Alternatively,
p-electron pairs can become “inert”. Thus, noble gas properties of 112Cn are discussed. In

8
In his notes, he refers to a source from 1999, but in fact the same author first published his discovery in a
completely unremarkable publication venue in 1991 in a three-page short article (Laing 1991).

13
276 K.F. Gärditz

contrast, it is still difficult to quantify the concrete fraction of relativistic effects in relation
to “normal” orbital characteristics. For example, for the well known and experimentally
proven lanthanide contraction there are so far only mathematized estimates. The question
of a share of relativistic effects was raised almost 35 years ago by Pekka Pyykkö, prob-
ably the most important pioneer in this field of research, but was left in abeyance (Pyykkö
1988). Quantum chemical calculation models suggesting exactness have always been met
with reservation (Jansen 2005, 1473): „Of course, quantum chemical calculations intended
to be close to physical reality have to consider the relativistic variation of the electron mass
with its velocity. However, neither theoretical nor experimental measures seems to exist,
that would allow to impartially differentiate between the contributions of conventional
orbital effects and of relativistic effects to the 6 s orbital contraction.“
With the gradual exploration of the chemistry of superheavy elements, there is also an
increasing interest in such relativistic influences, which are usually not relevant for the
lighter elements that are usually in focus (Thayer 2005, 1725). The big problem for chem-
istry, of course, is that superheavy atomic nuclei are so unstable that the half-lives of radio-
active decay are usually in the range of milliseconds. For example, 293Lv as the most stable
Lv isotope has a half-life of 53 ms, 294Ts of 78 ms, 294Og of less than 1 ms. Already the
artificial generation is difficult and usually only a few atoms can be generated (Le Naour
et al. 2013). However, a chemistry of single atoms (instead of manageable amounts of sub-
stances) under conditions of extremely fast decay is still in its infancy. Measurement results
allow only indirect constructions of chemical properties, which can never be observed in a
really experiential way.
This is not only a practical but also an epistemological problem (Scerri 2020, 347).
What does it actually mean to speak of the existence of an element (or of a certain nuclide
of the element) in terms of scientific theory? Chemistry is confronted here with similar
epistemic problems as astrophysics, which seeks to explore spaces that can never be prac-
tically experienced. The problem of the unobservable is not new for chemistry (Chang
2016; Gavroglu and Simões 2012, 181), but the limits of the experimental and empirical
become clearer with the increase of knowledge here. This has the consequence that theo-
retical approaches are needed, which often touch fundamental philosophical problems of
epistemology.

The romance of the unpredictable

In his overarching, multifaceted, and sometimes surprising account of galloping through

the periodic table, Rayner-Canham repeatedly puts the importance of abstract patterns into
perspective. He emphasizes the volatile peculiarities of the individual elements and the
limited predictability of chemical behavior on the basis of the periodic table. A constant of
inorganic chemistry is the “individuality” of the elements, specific properties that are asso-
ciated with an element that can sometimes only be put into an abstract order to a limited
extent. This feature allows a search for possible patterns, but does not support the expecta-
tion of systemic coherence (Rayner-Canham 2020, 200). Chemistry is too complex to allow
linear predictions. Therefore, the scientific goal is usually only to estimate chemical behav-
ior, but this does not obviate the need for experimental confirmation and specification.
In a sober tone, Rayner-Canham ultimately engages in a “puzzling” of chemistry—in
some way: a re-enchantment bringing a certain kind of modern magic of the imperfect
back into a disenchanted world. The book plays with the subjectivity of the observer, testi-
fies to passion, fascination, and a magical attraction of the unfathomable, the enigma. It

13
The poetry of the universe, the periodic table, and the... 277

is a declaration of love for the dazzling diversity of inorganic chemistry, which is usually
overshadowed by the molecular multiplicity of organic chemistry. Thus, the fact-oriented
style conceals a small cabinet piece of neo-romanticism inherent in dedicated research. It
is linked to another side of scientific knowledge, a driving force behind science, which is
deliberately underestimated. It is a passionate search for ravishing beauty of the unknown,
for a silken poetry hidden under the fabric of the universe, the unraveling of conundrums.
The theorist of science Ernst Peter Fischer has painted a colorful picture of how much
impetus scientific progress owes to these rather opaque forces of passion and curiosity (Fis-
cher 2003; 2014; 2021). These are experiences that a social science (like jurisprudence)
will never have.

Some remarks from a lawyer’s perspective: the beauty of imperfection

and the vulnerability of the scientific process

Both authors have presented very different studies in terms of style, concept, and level of
detail, but they are both immensely worth reading. They illustrate how scientific knowl-
edge processes evolve across language and system boundaries from a long-term perspec-
tive on the basis of an ordering model that is equally central to the natural sciences, in both
practical and theoretical terms. What can be learned from this? Perhaps one or the other
reader may have wondered: Why should a trained lawyer like me worry about?

Law and science: the periodic table as a model for scientific progress

Why is it also worthwhile for lawyers to be interested in the history and theory of the peri-
odic table? Scientific knowledge plays a central role in many areas of law. For example, in
environmental law, health law, or pharmaceutical law, dealing with scientific issues (like
chemistry, physics, and biology) is daily routine. In constitutional law, for example, we
need to assess whether statutory legislation enacted to protect against chemical risks can be
based on sufficiently plausible assumptions. Science in its social context, in turn, is fragile
and rests in the hands of a political order. Law influences the scientific process. Legal rules
may, for example, require verification that standards of good scientific practice are being
met. If the (legally secured) freedom of science is to protect the scientific process, we need
a picture of how science works. Lawyers, of course, do not have to understand knowledge
at a scientific level. That is neither possible nor necessary. Such knowledge is provided
by external expertise. What is necessary, however, is a fundamental understanding of how
knowledge arises in the sciences, how epistemic processes take place, and how knowledge
is epistemically structured, how it changes, and how it is theorized.
Different scientific disciplines can best communicate with each other by looking at
their foundations. Lawyers are typically laymen for everything. Therefore, they cannot
delve deeply into disciplinary discourse beyond the law. What is needed, however, is visual
material on how other sciences work and are structured. Differences in the epistemologi-
cal approach have to be addressed and understood. For example, scientific hypotheses are
recognized as theories according to different rules than evidence is presented in legal pro-
ceedings. Interdisciplinary approaches through which legal scholarship can address another
scientific subject include epistemology, which looks at a subject’s methods; sociology of
science, which can contextualize and culturally situate discourse; and history of science,
which can show where ideas and explanations come from and how they have changed over

13
278 K.F. Gärditz

time. History positions scientific ideas in the context of the social, of which the law is also
a part. History and theory of natural sciences can illustrate contingency and dependence
of representations, but also show how complex and how fragile science is, and which epis-
temic degrees of hardness different disciplines and methods can acquire. Scientific think-
ing is still poorly understood in the legal sciences. Its value is consistently underestimated
(Gärditz 2022).
The periodic table of the elements provides suitable illustrative material for several rea-
sons: The periodic table has a central key position in chemistry. Its development and updat-
ing are closely connected with the history of modern chemistry as an independent part of
sciences. The periodic table is a representation that systematizes empirically based knowl-
edge and makes correlations tangible for rational discussion. I would like to illustrate this
in a little more detail below.

Sciences as process in the wake of image and imagination

Scientific progress lives from its claim to unfinished knowledge, as the German Federal
Constitutional Court has put it rather poetically: “In order that research and teaching can
be oriented unhindered to the endeavor for truth as ‘something not yet completely found
and never completely to be found’ (Wilhelm von Humboldt), science has been declared to
be an area of personal and autonomous responsibility of the individual scientist, free from
external state regulation. This also means that a constitutional right to freedom of science
[…]9 does not seek to protect a particular conception of science or a particular theory of
science. Rather, its guarantee of freedom extends to every scientific activity, i.e. to every-
thing which, according to content and form, is to be regarded as a serious, planned attempt
to determine the truth. This follows directly from the principle of the incompleteness of all
scientific knowledge.”10
Scientific progress is not damaged by instructive dead ends, but by overestimating one-
self or by a lack of error culture. The history of the periodic table, which has accompa-
nied the modern natural sciences for over 150 years and is still of decisive importance
for understanding the world today, provides rich illustrative material for this. Of course,
misinterpretations also occurred again and again in the development and updating of the
periodic table—for example, in the supposed identification of the first transuranic elements
(Scerri 2020, 350) or in the assumption, refuted as recently as 2003, that bismuth is stable
(Rayner-Canham 2020, 18). In fact, radioactive decay of bismuth only has an extremely
long half-life (Hollemann, Wilberg, and Wilberg 2017, 942: the naturally occurring 209Bi
has a half-life of 19 × ­1018 years), for the detection of which there was simply no suffi-
ciently sensitive technology available before. Above all Scerri shows again and again, very
vividly, that dead ends and erroneous paths are not operational accidents of science, but
necessary components of an always incomplete process of cognition that learns from mis-
takes. If you really want to understand the successes of science, you have to deal with its
well-founded aberrations. Or as the physicist, philosopher and science theorist Ernst Mach
put it: “As a corrective, the clearly recognized error is just as conducive to knowledge as
positive knowledge” (Mach 1917, 110).

9
As enshrined Article 5 (3) of the German Basic Law.
10
Bundesverfassungsgericht [Federal Constitutional Court of Germany], 29.5.1973—1 BvR 424/71,
325/72, in: BVerfGE 35, 79, 113.

13
The poetry of the universe, the periodic table, and the... 279

In this respect, the periodic table offers overwhelming illustrative material of how an
evolutionary and responsive scientific discourse handles errors, integrates new findings and
rationally processes them further within a visualized system of interpretation. Law, which I
represent as a subject, can also learn from this. Science in a constitutional sense comprises
“what is to be regarded as a serious and planned attempt to ascertain truth according to
content and form”.11 This includes the process of scientific cognition12 and also—without
compromising the claim of scientific search for truth—the methodically disciplined errors,
which unavoidably occur. The history of science shows that a free society and its law must
protect not only the successes of scientific research, but its crooked paths, its sometimes
more or less eccentric inspirations, and its dead ends. Scientific statements are not based
on certainties, but always on probabilistic judgments (Lepsius 2020), which then change
continuously. This can be demonstrated, in particular, by hard science, which is often made
of very soft wood and follows crooked ways.

Cliché of exactness and the gnarled charm of muddling through

Science has very different degrees of exactness and is sometimes—contrary to the typi-
cal urge for specification and differentiation—dependent on precisely reducing complexity.
Relations of the elements of the periodic table to each other are—as both studies show—
much more complex than the initially groundbreaking and roughly sustainable periodicity
suggests (Scerri 2020, 44). Whether complexity and the resulting need for differentiated
disciplines can, at some point, be resolved reductionistically and mathematized is one of
the major future questions of a philosophy of science of chemistry. Potentially system-rel-
evant “borderline questions” are already being raised today, for example, about an abso-
lutely limiting horizon of the periodic table by nuclear stability, about the possible resolu-
tion of the orbital structure of electrons (Jerabek et al. 2018; Scerri 2020, 367), which is
constitutive for chemistry, or about possible islands of stability among still undiscovered
superheavy nuclides (Scerri 2020, 367).
Significantly, the predictions with which atomic number reaches the limits of nucleus
stability have changed continuously throughout the history of the periodic table (Karol
2018, 10, 14–16). Up to now, chemical research has mainly reacted pragmatically to these
inherent trouble spots of uncertainty. This is unlikely to change. Even fundamental new
findings in atomic physics would not eliminate the practical significance of the approxi-
mate assumptions of modern chemistry. Just as Newtonian mechanics has been superseded
by the theory of relativity but is still suitable for everyday use, the boundary issues of theo-
retical chemistry are unlikely to affect the vast majority of research fields. What is striking
about chemistry—in comparison to physics—is, for example, the still rather low degree of
mathematization (Theobald 1976, 213). However, this is also a difference that pervades the
social sciences and their explanatory horizons. The periodic table was neither derived from
an abstract theory nor born in a moment of genius. Rather, it arose from conclusions drawn

11
Bundesverfassungsgericht [Federal Constitutional Court of Germany], 29.5.1973—1 BvR 424/71,
325/72, in: BVerfGE 35, 79 (113); 1.3.1978—1 BvR 333/75 and 174, 178, 191/71, in: BVerfGE 47, 327,
367.
12
Bundesverfassungsgericht [Federal Constitutional Court of Germany], BVerfGE 35, 79 (112f.);
1.3.1978—1 BvR 333/75 and 174, 178, 191/71, in: BVerfGE 47, 327, 367; 11.01.1994—1 BvR 434/87,
in: BVerfGE 90, 1, 11 f.; 26.10.2004—1 BvR 911, 927, 928/00, in: BVerfGE 111, 333, 354; 17.2.2016—1
BvL 8/10, in: BVerfGE 141, 143, 164.

13
280 K.F. Gärditz

from almost 20 years of iterative observation of already known as well as new elements
that were constantly being discovered at the time, independently of scientific research
(Bensaude-Vincent 1986, 17).

Middle range theories and the basis of normativization

A medium level of abstraction and a renunciation of hyper-theoretical reduction at the

expense of practical operability can be precisely an epistemological gain. Obviously, even a
theorized discipline cannot do without interpretative horizons of the descriptive. Recently,
chemistry was even certified as a “basic subject” precisely because it is comparatively
closely connected with concrete experiments and practices, i.e. because it corresponds to
a “realistic” ideal type of scientific discovery (Müürsepp et al. 2020). Significantly, sci-
ence theory attributes an intermediate level of physical complexity to chemistry (Theobald
1976, 204). Theoretical models of chemistry—e.g. of molecular orbitals—have to cope
with extreme complexity of subatomic interaction and therefore have to operate with a lim-
ited degree of precision (Chang 2016, 240), which obviously has not harmed the progress
of knowledge. The specifically molecular perspective of chemistry (Theobald 1976, 210)
allows to leave out other—for their part highly complex—questions (for instance of the
particle physics of the atomic nucleus).
Models of chemistry, therefore, are typically less fundamental than practically use-
ful in explaining certain processes (Chang 2016, 250). This withdrawal of the claim to
abstraction, based on the division of labor between different scientific disciplines, finds
its counterpart in the Mertonian concept of middle range theory of social science prov-
enance (Merton 1986, 39), which, incidentally, has also been demanded for the legal sci-
ences (Lepsius 2014). What is then needed is a scientific ethics of second-best solutions.
With the gradual withdrawal of the claim to abstraction, the degree of differentiation of
scientific disciplines increases correspondingly. The necessity of precisely addressing the
concrete functional conditions and argumentation patterns of the specific subjects has long
since prevailed in the philosophy of science over holistically abstracted attempts to inter-
pret the world. Science law, too, must pay increased attention to this, for example, when
professional standards of good scientific practice are transposed into legally binding rules.

Epistemic aesthetics and the fragility of science

Both studies discussed here are works about the visualization of knowledge as an aesthetic
part of the cognitive process. The periodic table has shaped scientific thinking precisely in
its visualization. Scientific beauty lies in the imperfect, which has its own aesthetics that
even modern rationalism could never really banish from science. The inherent aesthetics of
science is an ideal playing field for interdisciplinary approaches. Even distant disciplines—
such as e.g. art history—can contribute to shedding light on the context in which scientific
cognition arises (Bredekamp 2005; Voss 2007). Representation is part of an epistemic cul-
ture and contributes to making knowledge tangible, but also to making it possible to criti-
cize (Krohn 2006).
The difference in scientific theory between the context of discovery and the context
of justification is also a legally indispensable functional condition for the juridico-polit-
ical institutions of a democratic constitutional state (Gärditz 2021). Good science needs
the effort to reduce the unavoidable contingency of the context, from which knowledge
originates (the social conditionality of topics, interests and methods), in the context of

13
The poetry of the universe, the periodic table, and the... 281

justification as far as possible by rationalization. In addition, however, there remains a

context of presentation which, as a third level, focuses on the social mediation of scien-
tifically founded knowledge and is thus particularly socially contextualized, i.e. unavoid-
ably contingent. This can have a powerful impact on development paths, styles of thought
(Fleck 2015, 109), and modes of problem perceptions. For this very reason, it is crucial
that freedom of science also protects science communication in its very different forms of
expression. Law and social sciences are typically prone to clichés of exactness and linearity
attributed to the natural sciences, which often distorts perceptions and obscures the view of
the real practices and challenges that a society must address when seeking an appropriate
approach to science. This is mostly due to a simple ignorance of how scientific progress
works in sophisticated disciplines such as chemistry, physics or biochemistry. However,
clichés are always a source of misperception and misunderstanding. Disciplinarily open
and context-sensitive works like the magnificent ones discussed here are therefore of cen-
tral importance to enlighten and promote mutual understanding through interdisciplinarity.

Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.

References
Allahyari, Z., R. Oganov, A.R.: Nonempirical definition of the Mendeleev numbers: organizing the chemical
space. J Phys Chem C 124:23867–23878 (2020)
Bardají, M., Laguna, A.: Gold chemistry: the aurophilic attraction. J. Chem. Educ. 76, 201–203 (1999)
Bensaude-Vincent, B.: Mendeleev’s periodic system of chemical elements. Br. J. History Sci. 19, 3–17
(1986)
Blokhina, E.: 150 Jahre des Periodensystems der Elemente. Sitzungsberichte der Leibniz-Sozietät der Wis-
senschaften zu Berlin 145, 61–78 (2021)
Boek, G.: The Periodic Table of the Elements and Lothar Meyer. In: Giunta, C.J., Mainz, V.V., Girolami,
G.S. (eds.) 150 Years of the Periodic Table: A Commemorative Symposium, pp. 195–214. Cham
(2021)
Bredekamp, H.: Darwins Korallen. 2nd ed. Berlin (2005)
Chadwick, J.: Possible existence of a neutron. Nature 129, 132 (1932)
Chang, H.: Scientific Realism and Chemistry. In: Scerri, E., Fischer G. (eds.) Essays in the Philosophy of
Chemistry, pp. 234–252. Oxford/New York (2016)
Danzer, K.: Dmitri I. Mendelejew und Lothar Meyer: Die Schöpfer des Periodensystems der chemischen
Elemente, Leipzig (1971)
Feigl, H.: Philosophy of Science. In: Chisholm, R. M.; Feigl, H., Frankena, W. K., John, P., Thompson, M.
J. (eds.) Philosophy, pp. 465–539. Spring Branch (1964)
Fischer, E. P.: Die aufschimmernde Nachtseite, Düsseldorf (2003)
Fischer, E. P.: Die Verzauberung der Welt, München (2014)
Fischer, E.P.: Zwei Ansichten einer Kultur—Das dialektische und das komplementäre Bild. Naturwiss.
Rundschau 74, 78–80 (2021)
Fleck, L.: Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. ­10th ed. Frankfurt (2015/1935)

13
282 K.F. Gärditz

Gärditz, K. F.: Wissenschaftliche Rationalität, politische Willensbildung und rechtlich-institutionelle Wis-

sensverantwortung. Büttner, S., Laux, L. (eds.), Umstrittene Expertise: Zur Wissensproblematik der
Politik, pp. 449–467. Baden-Baden (2021)
Gärditz, K. F.: Plädoyer für ein Naturwissenschaftsrecht, Berlin (2022)
Gavroglu, K., Simões, A.: Neither Physics nor Chemistry: A History of Quantum Chemistry. Cambridge/
London (2012)
Giuliani, S.A., Matheson, Z., Nazarewicz, W., Olsen, E., Reinhard, P.-G., Sadhukhan, J., Schuetrumpf, B.,
Schunck, N., Schwerdtfeger, P.: Colloquium: superheavy elements: oganesson and beyond. Rev. Mod.
Phys. 91(011001), 1–25 (2019)
Gordin, M.: A Well-Ordered Thing: Dmitrii Mendeleev and the Shadow of the Periodic Table, 2nd ed.
Princeton/Oxford (2018)
Hentschel, K.: Visual Cultures in Science and Technology. Oxford (2019)
Herrmann, G.: The discovery of nuclear fission—good solid chemistry got things on the right track. Radi-
ochim. Acta 70(71), 51–67 (1995)
Hollemann, A. F., Wilberg, E., Wilberg, N.: Anorganische Chemie, Bd. 1, 103th edn. Berlin/Boston (2017)
Jansen, M.: Effects of relativistic motion of electrons on the chemistry of gold and platinum. Solid State Sci.
7, 1464–1474 (2005)
Jerabek, P., Schuetrumpf, B., Schwerdtfeger, P., Nazarewicz, W.: Electron and nucleon localization func-
tions of oganesson: approaching the thomas-fermi limit. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120(053001), 1–5 (2018)
Kaji, M.: The Origin of Mendeleeev’s Discovery of the periodic system. In: Scerri, E., Restrepo, G. (eds.)
Mendeleev to Oganesson: A Multidisciplinary Perspective on the Periodic Table, pp. 219–244. Oxford/
New York (2018)
Karol, P. J.: Heavy, superheavy… quo vadis? In: Scerri, E., Restrepo, G. (eds.) Mendeleev to Oganesson: A
Multidisciplinary Perspective on the Periodic Table, pp. 8–42 Oxford/New York (2018)
Kratz, J.-V., Lieser, K.H.: Nuclear and Radiochemistry, vol. 1, 3rd ed. Weinheim (2013)
Krohn, W.: Die ästhetischen Dimensionen der Wissenschaft. In: Krohn, W (ed.), Ästhetik in der Wissen-
schaft, pp. 3–38. Hamburg (2006)
Laing, M.: The knight’s move in the periodic table: a regularity amongst the ­d10 metals on the lower right-
hand side. S. Afr. J. Sci. 87, 285–287 (1991)
Le Naour, C., Hoffmann, D. C., Trubert, D.: Fundamental and experimental aspects of single atom-at-a-time
chemistry. In: Schädel M., Shaughnessy D. (eds.) The Chemistry of Superheavy Elements, pp. 241–
260. 2nd ed. Berlin/Heidelberg (2013)
Lepsius, O.: Prognose als Problem von Wissenschaft und Politik. In: Dreier, H., Willoweit, W. (eds.) Wis-
senschaft und Politik, pp. 181–196. Stuttgart (2010)
Lepsius, O.: The Quest for Middle-Range Theories in German Public Law. I•CON 12, 692–709 (2014)
Lougheed, R.: Oddly ordinary seaborgium. Nature 388, 21–22 (1997)
Mach, E.: Erkenntnis und Irrtum, 3rd ed. Leipzig (1917)
Marks, E.G., Marks, J.A.: Mendeleyev revisited. Found. Chem. 23, 215–223 (2021)
Matlin, K. S.: Crossing the Boundaries of Life. Chicago/London (2022)
Mazurs, E. G.: Graphic Representations of the Periodic System During One Hundred Years. Tuscaloosa
(1975)
McKelvey, D.R.: Relativistic effects on chemical properties. J. Chem. Educ. 60, 112–116 (1983)
Mendeleev, D.I.: [“Mendeleïev”]: La loi périodique des éléments chimiques. Le Moniteur Scientifique
21(1879), 691–735 (1879a)
Mendeleev, D. I. [„D. Mendelejeff“]: Ueber die Beziehungen der Eigenschaften zu den Atomgewichten der
Elemente. Zeitschrift für Chemie 12, 405–406 (1869)
Mendeleev, D. I. [„Mendelejew“], Die periodische Gesetzmäßigkeit der chemischen Elemente. Annalen der
Chemie und Pharmazie, VIII. Supplementband, 133–229 (1871)
Mendeleev, D.I.: The periodic law of the chemical elements. Chem. News 40, 243–244 (1879b)
Mendeleev, D.I.: The periodic law of the chemical elements. J. Chem. Soc. 55, 634–656 (1889)
Merton, R. K.: Social Theory and Social Structure. New York (1968)
Meyer, L.: Die Natur der chemischen Elemente als Function ihrer Atomgewichte. Annalen der Chemie und
Pharmazie, VII. Supplementband, 354–364 (1870)
Moody, K. J.: Synthesis of superheavy elements. In: Schädel, M., Shaughnessy, D. (eds.) The Chemistry of
Superheavy Elements, pp. 1–82. 2nd ed. Berlin/Heidelberg (2013)
Müürsepp, P., Nurysheva, G., Ramazanova, A., Amirkulova, Z.: Chemistry as the basic science. Found.
Chem. 23, 69–83 (2020)
Norrby, L.J.: Why is mercury liquid? Or, why do relativistic effects not get into chemistry textbooks? J.
Chem. Educ. 68, 110–113 (1991)
Pauling, L.: General Chemistry, New York (1988)

13
The poetry of the universe, the periodic table, and the... 283

Popper, K. R.: The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London/New York (2002/1959)

Pyykkö, P.: Relativistic effects in structural chemistry. Chem. Rev. 88, 563–594 (1988)
Ramharter, E.: Do signs make logic colored? In: Bock von Wülfingen, B. (ed.) Science in Color: Visualizing
Achromatic Knowledge, pp. 65–79. Berlin/Boston (2019)
Rayner-Canham, G., Oldford, M.: The chemical ‘Knight’s Move’ relationship: what is its significance?
Found. Chem. 9, 119–125 (2007)
Rayner-Canham, G.: Organizing the transition metals. In: Scerri, E., Restrepo, G. (eds.) Mendeleev to
Oganesson: A Multidisciplinary Perspective on the Periodic Table, pp. 195–205. Oxford/New York
(2018)
Rayner-Canham, G.: The Periodic Table: Past, Present, and Future, Singapore (2020)
Reichenbach, H.: Experience and Prediction. Chicago (1938)
Robinson, A. E.: Dmitri mendeleev and the periodic system: philosophy, periodicity, and predictions. In:
Giunta, C. J., Mainz, V. V., Girolami, G. S. (eds.) 150 Years of the Periodic Table: A Commemorative
Symposium, pp. 13–33. Cham (2021)
Rocke, Alan J.: Image and Reality: Kekulé, Kopp, and the Scientific Imagination. Chicago (2010)
Scerri, E.: The changing views of a philosopher of chemistry on the question of reduction. In: Scerri, E.,
Fischer, G. (eds.) Essays in the Philosophy of Chemistry, pp. 125–143. Oxford/New York (2016)
Scerri, E.: The Periodic Table: Its Story and Its Significance, ­2nd ed. Oxford/New York (2020)
Schummer, J.: The philosophy of chemistry: from infancy toward maturity. In: Baird, D., Scerri, E., McIn-
tyre L. (eds.) The Philosophy of Chemistry, pp. 19–42. Dordrecht (2010)
Schwerdtfeger, P.: Relativistic effects in properties of gold. Heteroat. Chem. 13, 578–584 (2002)
Service, R.F.: Element 107 Leaves the Table Unturned. Science 289, 1270 (2000)
Siegel, H.: Justification, discovery and the naturalizing of epistemology. Philos. Sci. 47, 297–321 (1980)
Thayer, J.S.: Relativistic effects and the chemistry of the heaviest main-group elements. J. Chem. Educ. 82,
1721–1727 (2005)
Theobald, D.W.: Some considerations on the philosophy of chemistry. Chem. Soc. Rev. 5, 203–213 (1976)
Vančik, H.: Philosophy of Chemistry, Cham (2021)
Voss, J.: Darwins Bilder. Frankfurt am Main (2007)

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

13