کد مقاله کد نشریه سال انتشار مقاله انگلیسی نسخه تمام متن
1160234 1490333 2015 8 صفحه PDF دانلود رایگان
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله ISI
The Chemical Revolution revisited
ترجمه فارسی عنوان
انقلاب شیمیایی بازبینی شده
کلمات کلیدی
انقلاب شیمیایی؛ فلوژیستون؛ قیاس ناپذیری؛ Compositionism؛ جمع گرایی
موضوعات مرتبط
علوم انسانی و اجتماعی علوم انسانی و هنر تاریخ
چکیده انگلیسی

I respond to the critical comments by Martin Kusch and Ursula Klein on my account of the Chemical Revolution. I comment along three different lines: descriptive, explanatory, and normative. (1) I agree with Klein that Lavoisier did not introduce drastic changes in chemical ontology, but maintain that there was methodological incommensurability in the Chemical Revolution; in response to Kusch's view, I maintain that Lavoisier's victory was slow and incomplete. (2) Admitting that there were many causes shaping the outcome of the Chemical Revolution, including the convenience of Lavoisier's theoretical scheme and various complicated social factors, I still think that the general rise of compositionism was an important factor. (3) I defend my normative pluralist view on the Chemical Revolution, denying Kusch's argument that chemists had overwhelmingly good reasons to trust Lavoisier and his allies over the phlogistonists. Overall, I agree with Kusch that it would be desirable to have a good descriptive–normative sociological account of the Chemical Revolution, but I also think that it should be an account that allows for divergence in individuals' and sub-communities' self-determination.

ناشر
Database: Elsevier - ScienceDirect (ساینس دایرکت)
Journal: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A - Volume 49, February 2015, Pages 91–98
نویسندگان
,