Advertisement

Discoveries of Oxygen and the “Chemical Revolution” in the Context of European Scientific Networks

Chapter
  • 166 Downloads

Abstract

The so-called Chemical Revolution in the late 18th century often related chemistry to Lavoisier’s discovery of oxygen. It is argued that modern chemistry, and its rise as a scientific discipline, which began maybe from the 17th century but reached a kind of maturity with Lavoisier, or later, with Dalton, needs a more thorough analysis of its scientific and epistemic networks. Though a lot of detailed work devoted to the discoveries of “oxygen” has done, a more thorough understanding of the Chemical Revolution needs a deeper understanding of the following crucial issues: I) The interrelatedness of seemingly unconnected disciplines such as historiography of chemistry, philosophy of chemistry and sociology of science; II) The merits of different concepts of phlogiston theories as well as the rise of Lavoisier’s chemical theories were transmitted and transformed in scientific networks. Analyses of how the inner circle of Lavoisierians—as a scientific community—exchanged ideas as well as adherents of phlogiston theories, such as Scheele and Priestley, lead us to the conclusion: Rejecting phlogiston theory as a whole is as irrational and fruitless as asserting that Lavoisier’s oxygen theory is—in plain and simple terms—correct. III) We agree that in a very specific notion we are justified to label the changing chemical paradigms from 1770s to 1790s a chemical revolution. We will argue that Lavoisier, as the head of a scientific research group, was part of a chemical revolution for several reasons: a) revolution of vocational training for chemists, b) growing and intensified importance of manifold communication, c) chemical theory with unifying and explanatory power as a “package deal”, and d) a special version of rationalism that was very much influenced by social factors and shaped a style of chemical reasoning.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allchin, Douglas. 1997. Rekindling phlogiston: From classroom case study to interdisciplinary relationship. Science & Education 6: 473–509.Google Scholar
  2. Ash, Mitchell G. 2012. Wissenschaftsgeschichte und Wissenschaftsphilosophie: Einführende Bemerkungen. Berichte der Wissenschaftsgeschichte 35: 87–98.Google Scholar
  3. Boantza, Victor D., and Ofer Gal. 2011. The ‘absolute existence’ of phlogiston; the losing party’s point of view. British Journal for the History of Science 44 (3): 317–342.Google Scholar
  4. Benfey, Theodor. 2000. Reflections on the philosophy of chemistry and a rallying call for our discipline. Foundations of Chemistry 2: 195–205.Google Scholar
  5. Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. 1983. A founder myth in the history of science? The Lavoisier case. In: Functions and use of disciplinary histories (Sociology of the Sciences. A Yearbook, vol. 7), ed. Loren Graham, Wolf Lepenies, and Peter Weingart, 53–178. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. 1990. A view of the chemical revolution through contemporary textbooks: Lavoisier, Fourcroy and Chaptal. Journal for the History of Science 23: 435–460.Google Scholar
  7. Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. 2014. Philosophy of chemistry or philosophy with chemistry? Hyle 20: 59–76.Google Scholar
  8. Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette, and Isabelle Stengers. 1996. A history of chemistry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Beretta, Marco. 1993. The enlightenment of matter. The definition of chemistry from Agricola to Lavoisier. Canton, MA: Science History Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Best, Nicholas W. 2015. Lavoisier’s “Reflections on phlogiston” I: Against phlogiston theory. Foundations of Chemistry 17: 137–151.Google Scholar
  11. Best, Nicholas W. 2016. Lavoisier’s “Reflections on phlogiston” II: On the nature of heat. Foundations of Chemistry 18: 3–13.Google Scholar
  12. van Brakel, Jaap. 1997. Chemistry as the science of the transformation of substances. Synthese 111: 253–282.Google Scholar
  13. van Brakel, Jaap. 2014. Philosophy of science and philosophy of chemistry. Hyle 20: 11–57.Google Scholar
  14. Bret, Patrice. 2016. The letter, the dictionary and the laboratory: Translating chemistry and mineralogy in eighteenth-century France. Annals of Science 73 (2): 122–142.Google Scholar
  15. Cahn, Ralph M. 2002. Historische und Philosophische Aspekte des Periodensystems der Elemente. Karlsruhe: HYLE Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Carneiro, Ana, Maria Paula Diogo, and Ana Simões. 2006. Communicating the new chemistry in 18th-century Portugal: Seabra’s Elementos de Chimica. Science & Education 15: 671–692.Google Scholar
  17. Carrier, Martin. 2009. Antoine L. Lavoisier und die Chemische Revolution. In Das bunte Gewand der Theorie: Vierzehn Begegnungen mit philosophierenden Forschern, ed. Astrid Schwarz and Alfred Nordmann, 12–42. Freiburg: Alber.Google Scholar
  18. Chang, Hasok. 2009. We have never been Whiggish (about Phlogiston). Centaurus 51: 239–264.Google Scholar
  19. Chang, Hasok. 2010. The hidden history of phlogiston: How philosophical failure can generate historiographical refinement. Hyle 16 (2): 47–79.Google Scholar
  20. Chang, Hasok. 2012. Is water H 2 O? Evidence, realism and pluralism. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Chang, Hasok. 2015. The chemical revolution revisited. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 49: 91–98.Google Scholar
  22. Crosland, Maurice. 1980. Chemistry and the chemical revolution. In The ferment of knowledge, ed. George Sebastian Rousseau and Roy Porter, 389–416. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Crosland, Maurice. 1995. Lavoisier, the two French revolutions and “the imperial despotism of oxygen”. Ambix 42 (2): 101–108.  https://doi.org/10.1179/amb.1995.42.2.101.
  24. Crosland, Maurice. 2003. Research schools of chemistry from Lavoisier to Wurtz. British Journal for the History of Science 36 (3): 333–361.Google Scholar
  25. Crosland, Maurice. 2005. Relationships between the Royal Society and the Académie des Sciences in the late eighteenth century. Notes & Records of the Royal Society 59 (1): 25–34.Google Scholar
  26. Crosland, Maurice. 2009. Lavoisier’s achievement; more than a chemical revolution. Ambix 56 (2): 93–114.  https://doi.org/10.1179/174582309X441417.
  27. Donovan, Arthur. 1988a. Introduction, in The chemical revolution: Essays in reinterpretation, ed. Arthur Donovan, special issue, Osiris 4 (2): 5–12.Google Scholar
  28. Donovan, Arthur. 1988b. Lavoisier and the origins of modern chemistry, in The chemical revolution: Essays in reinterpretation, ed. Arthur Donovan, special issue, Osiris 4 (2): 214–231.Google Scholar
  29. Fors, Hjalmar. 2003. Mutual favours: The social and scientific practice of eighteenth-century Swedish chemistry. Skrifter 30. Uppsala: Institutionen för idé- och lärdomshistoria, Uppsala universitet.Google Scholar
  30. Frercks, Jan. 2008. Kommentar. In System der antiphlogistischen Chemie, by Antoine L. Lavoisier, trans. Friedrich Hermbstaedt and Jan Frercks, 181–412. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  31. Gale, George. 2003. Scientific explanation. In The Cambridge history of philosophy 1870–1945, ed. Thomas Baldwin, 608–620. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Gavroglu, Kostas. 1997. Philosophical issues in the history of science. Synthese 111: 283–304.Google Scholar
  33. Giere, Ronald M. 1973. History and philosophy of science: Intimate relationship or marriage of convenience? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 24: 282–297.Google Scholar
  34. Gooday, Graeme. 2008. Placing or replacing the laboratory in the history of science? Isis 99: 783–795.Google Scholar
  35. Gough, Jerry B. 1988. Lavoisier and the fulfillment of the Stahlian revolution, in The chemical revolution: Essays in reinterpretation, ed. Arthur Donovan, special issue, Osiris 4 (2): 15–33.Google Scholar
  36. Greenberg, Arthur. 2007. From alchemy to chemistry in picture and story. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  37. Gross, Alan G., Joseph E. Harmon, and Michael S. Reidy. 2002. Communicating science: The scientific article from the 17th century to the present. West Lafayette: Parlor Press.Google Scholar
  38. Holleman, Arnold F., Nils Wiberg, and Egon Wiberg. 2007. Lehrbuch der Anorganischen Chemie. 102nd ed. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Holmes, Frederic L. 1988. Lavoisier’s conceptual passage, in The chemical revolution: Essays in reinterpretation, ed. Arthur Donovan, special issue, Osiris 4 (2): 82-92.Google Scholar
  40. Holmes, Frederic L. 1997. What was the chemical revolution about? Bulletin of the History of Chemistry 20: 1–9.Google Scholar
  41. Hoyningen-Huene, Paul. 2008. Thomas Kuhn and the chemical revolution. Foundations of Chemistry 10: 101–115.Google Scholar
  42. Jansen, Walter. 1994. Antoine Laurent Lavoisier. Chemie Konkret 1 (3): 162.Google Scholar
  43. Kitcher, Philip. 2011. Epistemology without history is blind. Erkenntnis 75: 505–524.Google Scholar
  44. Kim, Mi Gyung 2005. Lavoisier, the father of modern chemistry? In Lavoisier in perspective: Proceedings of an international symposium, ed. Marco Beretta, 167–191. München: Deutsches Museum.Google Scholar
  45. Kim, Mi Gyung 2008. The “instrumental” reality of phlogiston. Hyle 14: 27–51.Google Scholar
  46. Kusch, Martin. 2015. Scientific pluralism and the chemical revolution. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 49: 69–79.Google Scholar
  47. Labinger, Jay A. and Stephen J. Weininger. 2005. Kontroversen in der Chemie: Wie beweist man ein Negativum? – Die Fälle Phlogiston und Kalte Fusion. Angewandte Chemie 117: 1950–1956.Google Scholar
  48. Ladyman, James. 2011. Structural realism versus standard scientific realism: the case of phlogiston and dephlogisticated air. Synthese 180: 87–101.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9607-8.
  49. Lavoisier, Antoine L. (1789) 2008. System der antiphlogistischen Chemie. Translated by Friedrich Hermbstaedt and Jan Frercks. Commentary by Jan Frercks. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  50. Lamża, Łukasz. 2010. How much history can chemistry take? Hyle 16 (2): 104–120.Google Scholar
  51. McEvoy, John G. 1988. Continuity and discontinuity in the chemical revolution, in The chemical revolution: Essays in reinterpretation, ed. Arthur Donovan, special issue, Osiris 4 (2): 195–213.Google Scholar
  52. McEvoy, John G. 2000. In search of the chemical revolution: Interpretative strategies in the history of chemistry. Foundations of Chemistry 2: 47–73.Google Scholar
  53. McEvoy, John G. 2007. Priestley and Lavoisier. Essay review. Annals of Science 64 (4): 595–605.Google Scholar
  54. McEvoy, John G. 2010. The historiography of the chemical revolution: pattern of interpretation in the history of science. London: Pickering & Chatto.Google Scholar
  55. Meinel, Christoph. 2000. Chemische Laboratorien: Funktion und Disposition. Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 23: 287–302.Google Scholar
  56. Melhado, Evan M. 1985. Chemistry, physics, and the chemical revolution. Isis 76: 195–211.Google Scholar
  57. Müürsepp, Peeter. 2016. Chemistry as a practical science (Edward Caldin revisited). Foundations of Chemistry 18: 213–223.Google Scholar
  58. Nordmann, Alfred. 2002. Die im Lichte sieht man nicht? (Nackte Tatsachen in der Wissenschaftskritik). In Wissen und soziale Konstruktion in Geschichte, Wissenschaft und Kultur, ed. Claus Zittel, 47–65. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
  59. Perrin, Carleton E. 1987. Revolution or reform: The chemical revolution and eighteenth century concepts of scientific change. History of Science 25 (4): 395–423.Google Scholar
  60. Perrin, Carleton E. 1988a. Research traditions, Lavoisier, and the chemical revolution, in The chemical revolution: Essays in reinterpretation, ed. Arthur Donovan, special issue, Osiris 4 (2): 53–81.Google Scholar
  61. Perrin, Carleton E. 1988b. The chemical revolution: Shifts in guiding assumptions. In Scrutinizing science: Empirical studies of scientific change, ed. Arthur Donovan, Larry Laudan and Rachel Laudan, 105–124. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  62. Perrin, Carleton E. 1990. Chemistry as peer of physics: A response to Donovan and Melhado on Lavoisier. Isis 81 (2): 259–270.Google Scholar
  63. Priestley, Joseph. 1774ff. Experiments and observations on different kinds of airs. Philosophical transactions (6 Vol.). London (vol. 1-4) 1774, 1775, 1777, 1779; Birmingham (vol. 5-6) 1781, 1786 (1790: Complete edition, 3 vol. Birmingham). London: Royal Society of London.Google Scholar
  64. Richardson, Alan. 2008. Scientific philosophy as a topic for history of science. Isis 99 (1): 88–96.Google Scholar
  65. Scheele, Carl W. 1777. Chemische Abhandlung von der Luft und dem Feuer: Nebst einem Vorbericht von Torbern Bergman. Uppsala: Swederus. http://runeberg.org/scheelch/
  66. Scheele, Carl W. 1780. Chemical observations and experiments on air and fire. Trans. Johann Reinhold Forster. Ed. Torbern Bergman, Richard Kirwan and Joseph Priestley. London: Johnson.Google Scholar
  67. Siegfried, Robert. 1988. The chemical revolution in the history of chemistry, in The chemical revolution: Essays in reinterpretation, ed. Arthur Donovan, special issue, Osiris 4 (2): 34–50.Google Scholar
  68. Stadler, Friedrich. 2012. History and Philosophy of Science: Zwischen Deskription und Konstruktion. Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 35: 217–238.Google Scholar
  69. Stewart, John. 2012. The reality of phlogiston in Great Britain. Hyle 18 (2): 175–194.Google Scholar
  70. Stolz, Rüdiger 1991. Die Chemische Revolution des 18. Jahrhunderts und ihre Wirkung auf das 19. Jahrhundert. Rostocker Wissenschaftshistorische Manuskripte 20: 46–50.Google Scholar
  71. Ströker, Elisabeth. 1982. Theorienwandel in der Wissenschaftsgeschichte: Chemie im 18. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.Google Scholar
  72. Sukopp, Thomas. 2015. Naturalism in philosophy of chemistry; or: Why metaphysics of nature matters. In A companion to naturalism, ed. Juliano do Carmo, 238–255. Pelotas, Brazil: Dissertatio Filosofia.Google Scholar
  73. Thagard, Paul. 1994. Mind, society, and the growth of knowledge. Philosophy of Science 61: 629–645.  https://doi.org/10.1086/289826.
  74. Willeford, Bennett R. 1979. Das Portrait: Joseph Priestley (1733-1804). Chemie in unserer Zeit 13 (4): 111–117.Google Scholar
  75. Woodcock, Leslie V. 2005. Phlogiston theory and chemical revolutions. Bulletin of the History of Chemistry 30 (2): 63–69.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophisches SeminarUniversität SiegenSiegenGermany

Personalised recommendations