A commentary on Weisberg's critique of the 'structural conception' of chemical bonding

Robin Hendry has presented an account of two equally valid ways of understanding the nature of chemical bonding, consisting of what the terms the structural and the energetic views respectively. In response, Weisberg has issued a challenge to the structural view, thus implying that the energetic view is the more correct of the two conceptions. In doing so Weisberg identifies the delocalization of electrons as the one robust feature that underlies the increasingly accurate quantum mechanical calculations starting with the Heitler-London method and moving on to such approaches as the valence bond and molecular orbital theories of chemical bonding. The present article provides a critical evaluation of Weisberg's article and concludes that he fails to characterize the nature of chemical bonding in several respects. I claim that Hendry's structural and energetic views remain as equally viable ways of understanding chemical bonding. Whereas the structural view is more appropriate for chemists, the energetic view is preferable to physicists. Neither view is more correct unless one subscribes to the naively reductionist view of considering that the more physical energetic view is the more correct one.

Automated summary

The article discusses two equally valid ways of understanding the nature of chemical bonding, the structural and energetic views. While Weisberg argues that the energetic view is more correct, the author believes both views are equally valid, with differences in their applications.