门捷列夫的“旷缺”与中国公使的感叹

1869年门捷列夫完成了世界上第一张化学元素周期表,除了把当时所知的全部63种元素按原子量大小分组(族)排列外,还在表中留下一些空位,预言了与硼、铝、硅类似的元素的存在及其性质。随后的20多年内,这些空位相继被新发现的元素填补。1877年中国首任驻英公使郭嵩焘听到了门捷列夫的预言与元素镓的发现这一故事,联想到发现海王星的经过,由衷感叹西方科学的精致与功效。     

Novelty,coherence, and Mendeleev’s periodic table

Predictivism is the view that successful predictions of “novel” evidence carry more confirmational weight than accommodations of already known evidence. Novelty, in this context, has traditionally been conceived of as temporal novelty. However temporal predictivism has been criticized for lacking a rationale: why should the time order of theory and evidence matter? Instead, it has been proposed, novelty should be construed in terms of use-novelty, according to which evidence is novel if it was not used in the construction of a theory. Only if evidence is use-novel can it fully support the theory entailing it. As I point out in this paper, the writings of the most influential proponent of use-novelty contain a weaker and a stronger version of use-novelty. However both versions, I argue, are problematic. With regard to the appraisal of Mendeleev’ periodic table, the most contentious historical case in the predictivism debate, I argue that temporal predictivism is indeed supported, although in ways not previously appreciated. On the basis of this case, I argue for a form of so-called symptomatic predictivism according to which temporally novel predictions carry more confirmational weight only insofar as they reveal the theory’s presumed coherence of facts as real.     

Predictivism and the periodic table

This is a comment on the paper by Barnes (2005) and the responses from Scerri (2005) and Worrall (2005), debating the thesis (‘predictivism’) that a fact successfully predicted by a theory is stronger evidence than a similar fact known before the prediction was made. Since Barnes and Scerri both use evidence presented in my paper on Mendeleev’s periodic law (Brush, 1996) to support their views, I reiterate my own position on predictivism. I do not argue for or against predictivism in the normative sense that philosophers of science employ, rather I describe how scientists themselves use facts and predictions to support their theories. I find wide variations, and no support for the assumption that scientists use a single ‘Scientific Method’ in deciding whether to accept a proposed new theory.     

On the continuity of reference of the elements: a response to Hendry

Robin Hendry has recently argued that although the term ‘element’ has traditionally been used in two different senses (basic substance and simple substance), there has nonetheless been a continuity of reference. The present article examines this author’s historical and philosophical claims and suggests that he has misdiagnosed the situation in several respects. In particular it is claimed that Hendry’s arguments for the nature of one particular element, oxygen, do not generalize to all elements as he implies. The second main objection is to Hendry’s view that the qua problem can be illuminated by appeal to the intention of scientists.     

Substantial confusion

In this paper I defend, against Eric Scerri’s objections, the following theses: (i) that Lavoisier and Mendeleev shared a ‘core conception’ of chemical element, and (ii) that this core conception underwrites referential continuity in the names of particular elements.     

无机化学实验中的化学史教育

采用＂侯氏制碱法、酸碱理论发展史、门捷列夫提出元素周期表和周期律、莫瓦桑成功制备出F2＂这4个具体实例,说明了在指导无机化学实验过程中,根据实验内容,及时补充与实验内容相关的化学史,比在理论课上进行化学史教育更有效。     

The roots of predictivism

In The Paradox of Predictivism (2008, Cambridge University Press) I tried to demonstrate that there is an intimate relationship between predictivism (the thesis that novel predictions sometimes carry more weight than accommodations) and epistemic pluralism (the thesis that one important form of evidence in science is the judgments of other scientists). Here I respond to various published criticisms of some of the key points from Paradox from David Harker, Jarret Leplin, and Clark Glymour. Foci include my account of predictive novelty (endorsement novelty), the claim that predictivism has two roots, the prediction per se and predictive success, and my account of why Mendeleev’s predictions carried special weight in confirming the Periodic Law of the Elements.     

门捷列夫发现元素周期律的启示

比较全面地分析门捷列夫发现元素周期律的历史背景和过程,讨论了元素周期律的本质和发展,以及在这个科学发现中所体现出来的科学思想和科学方法给予世人的启示。