Determinism or someshit

No. Chemistry supervenes on physical laws and even then you'd need to understand nonlinear dynamics in order to parse any kind of causality.

---

>>4053194
>physical laws
If you think you can study Chemistry without studying the physical laws of this world, like thermodynamics, reaction kinetics, statistical mechanics, or quantum mechanics, then I'm not sure what kind of chemistry you've learned.

>nonlinear dynamics
Why yes, that's in the field of nonlinear chemical dynamics.

>parse any kind of causality
Chemistry is the best practice of empiricism out of all the sciences, in terms of physical experiments. Statistical mechanics, which was a field developed by physical chemists, offers the best cause-and-effect explanation in all the sciences.

To examine the other sciences then. Biology is a practice of taxonomy, once all the biochemistry is removed. Physics tends focus on the abstract, beyond any tangible, controlled experiments from the planck scale to the galactic scale. Modern day physicists argue from the basis of theories, and sit and wait until their ideas are confirmed by experiments decades later. In contrast, Chemistry offers a form of more practical causality by the way of empiricism, that has been the base of knowledge since the 18th century.

Chemistry is the bridge between the physical laws and the workings life, and that at the very least is a worthwhile undertaking to understand how the world works. In addition to that, chemistry gives rigor to experiment design and statistical analysis, which is mandatory for any discussions of causality -- enough to realize that most social research is unscientific at best.