Scientific pluralism and the Chemical Revolution |
| |
Authors: | Martin Kusch |
| |
Institution: | 1. Departamento de Biotecnología y Bioingeniería, Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Col. San Pedro Zacatenco, Mexico, DF 07360, Mexico;2. Laboratorio de Investigación Bioquímica, ENMyH-IPN, Guillermo Massieu Helguera No. 239, La Escalera Ticoman, Mexico,DF 07320, Mexico;3. Departamento de Infectómica y Patogénesis Molecular, Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Col. San Pedro Zacatenco, Mexico, DF 07360, Mexico |
| |
Abstract: | In a number of papers and in his recent book, Is Water H2O? Evidence, Realism, Pluralism (2012), Hasok Chang has argued that the correct interpretation of the Chemical Revolution provides a strong case for the view that progress in science is served by maintaining several incommensurable “systems of practice” in the same discipline, and concerning the same region of nature. This paper is a critical discussion of Chang's reading of the Chemical Revolution. It seeks to establish, first, that Chang's assessment of Lavoisier's and Priestley's work and character follows the phlogistonists' “actors' sociology”; second, that Chang simplifies late-eighteenth-century chemical debates by reducing them to an alleged conflict between two systems of practice; third, that Chang's evidence for a slow transition from phlogistonist theory to oxygen theory is not strong; and fourth, that he is wrong to assume that chemists at the time did not have overwhelming good reasons to favour Lavoisier's over the phlogistonists' views. |
| |
Keywords: | Chemical Revolution Scientific pluralism Sociology of scientific knowledge Integrated history and philosophy of science Hasok Chang |
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录! |
|