Understanding science through its history: a response to Newman

The paper is a response to William Newman’s rebuttal of a critique of his account of the origins of modern chemistry by Alan Chalmers. A way in which the nature of science can be illuminated by history of science is identified and an account of how this can be achieved in the context of a study of the work of Boyle defended in the face of Newman’s criticism. Texts from the writings of Boyle that are cited by Newman as posing problems for Chalmers’ thesis are interpreted as in fact supporting it.     

Viewing past science from the point of view of present science,thereby illuminating both: Philosophy versus experiment in the work of Robert Boyle

The seventeenth century witnessed the replacement of an Aristotelian worldview by a mechanical one. It also witnessed the beginnings of significant experimental enquiry. Alerted by the fact that the methods involved in the latter, but not in the former, resemble those employed in later science, I argue the historical case that the emergence of the mechanical worldview and the emergence of science were not closely related and that it was the latter that was to develop into science as we have come to know it. The details are explored in the context of the philosophical and experimental work of Robert Boyle and the relationship between them.