When was principles of chemistry published

This is not a knockdown argument, for it relies on a prior stance: that historical philosophers and scientists can sometimes reason about the same world we find ourselves in, and are capable of being mistaken about it. That stance could be challenged by specific textual evidence: that Lavoisier saw oxygen as conceptually as opposed to materially constitutive of acidity, or that he saw APE as conceptually constitutive of being an element.

Such evidence is so far as I am aware entirely lacking. Rather than an a priori regulative principle, I would argue that APE should be viewed as a metaphysical principle, but one that was nonetheless able to play an important regulative and heuristic role in the development of theories of chemical composition and structure from the eighteenth century onwards.

Metaphysical principles may be hard to test or verify, and may even be impossible to test or verify on their own, but the same is true of many scientific theories. Being metaphysical does not exclude being an integral part of science. From the s onwards, philosophers based at the London School of Economics developed contrasting accounts of how this might work. One might say that the project of identifying a role for metaphysics in science was itself a research programme within broadly realist philosophy of science, supported by and itself supporting the broad view that the units of appraisal in science should be research programmes that is, series of theories rather than the individual theories developed within such programmes.

Hence in the remainder of this section I will critically examine, in roughly chronological order, proposals from Karl Popper, J. Watkins, Imre Lakatos and Elie Zahar.

To be worth the name, a realist account of the role of metaphysics in science should be committed to the following general principles. Firstly, metaphysical theories or principles are to be considered as factual claims: they or at least, some abstract part of them are to be interpreted realistically, so as to be semantically on a par with other theoretical claims in science, and their purported role in science should depend on that interpretation.

Secondly, the role of metaphysical theories or principles should not be a merely psychological one of bringing a particular testable theory into the mind of a particular scientist.

To support a realist inference the heuristic and regulative role should depend on the content of the metaphysical principle, literally construed. Thirdly, if such theories or principles are semantically on a par with testable scientific claims, and they can have a role in the development of theories which is more than merely suggestive, then it should be possible in principle to appraise the role of particular metaphysical theories or principles in particular scientific developments, in much the same way that abstract but still scientific principles in physics are given credit for the empirical success in the theoretical developments in which they play an important role.

This assumes a view of the role of metaphysics in science that is congenial to scientific realism, but it requires more than that. Not every scientific realist may wish to give a realist account of the role of metaphysics in science. One may be a realist about science, but think that metaphysics has only a harmful effect on it. Or one may admit that metaphysical principles may sometimes play a role, but never in a way that could ground an argument in favour of their truth.

I think that metaphysical principles can play a role in empirical science that does allow them to accrue positive support. It remains to describe how that is even possible. Metaphysical Programmes for Science. There was no possibility of refuting it. Failure to detect the corpuscles, or any evidence for them, could always be explained by pointing out that they were too small to be detected.

Only with a theory that led to an estimate of the size of the molecules was this line of escape more or less blocked, so that refutation became in principle possible. Popper , p. For Popper, its value to science was that it could be supplemented with further assumptions so as to become testable , p.

Firstly, he never distinguishes metaphysics from pseudo-science. Both are irrefutable, and the terms in which he characterises metaphysics great generality, explaining the known in terms of the unknown, or the invisible are somewhat vague and hardly distinctive of metaphysics.

These features are shared also by many scientific theories, as Popper admits. Secondly, there are two ways for a non-scientific theory to be of value to science. Atomism became testable when it was augmented so as to become testable. By doing so it ceased to be metaphysical, but other theories have remained untestable and yet were suggestive of empirical work. Popper does not indicate whether they did so by suggesting testable hypotheses, but even if they did, this role would allow them to be relegated to the psychological context of discovery.

This seems especially true if, as in the case of atomism, the additional claims are relatively low level, such as an estimate of molecular size. Now Popper in fact misidentifies how atomism became a part of science: testable estimates of the physical properties of atoms became available only in the twentieth century, through a process of triangulation conceived by Jean Perrin see Nye Like so many twentieth-century philosophers of science, Popper tended to ignore chemistry.

On the basic logical point that what is metaphysical because untestable can become scientific because testable merely by being conjoined with other statements , Popper is clearly right. Moreover, in the twentieth century the point needed to be made. But the consequence of recognising this important truth is that the distinction between scientific and metaphysical theories immediately becomes contextual and therefore historically contingent, rather than a timeless feature of their content or logical form, because it depends on whether a particular theory happens to have been proposed alongside other statements together with which it implies some empirically testable consequence.

In fact the distinction between metaphysics and science seems to dissolve entirely. Popper rightly rejected meaning as the aspect under which science should be distinguished from non-science. Moreover, the idea that a metaphysical theory can become testable and therefore scientific by augmentation supports our first condition: the semantic parity of metaphysics and science.

It is hard to see how adding further premises can magically transform metaphysics into science, if the two things are essentially different in the nature of their content or their logical form. However, for Popper, a metaphysical theory that remains untestable cannot be part of science. This odd and somewhat conflicted stance on the role of metaphysics in science is forced on Popper by his retention of the falsificationist demarcation criterion. Metaphysical principles cannot be fully be a part of science because they are untestable.

Consider a castle that is reputed to be haunted. Now it might be the case that every metaphysical doctrine can be expressed in this form, or entails a claim that can be put into this form. The claim that all metaphysical claims in science can be construed as having this form i. This claim, however, is a consequence of a logically stronger claim, one that chemists after Lavoisier would also have endorsed: there are elemental substances of which every chemical substance is materially composed.

Along the way a few of the simple substances conceived by Lavoisier were deleted caloric, light , and individual compositional claims revised it came to be accepted that the acid of sea salt contained no oxygen. Moreover, as Zahar points out , p. This rigid separation entails that even where a haunted-universe doctrine plays an important role in science, this can provide no simple argument in favour of its truth because i different parts of science might support different metaphysical theories; ii empirical theories supporting metaphysical theories would allow them to discourage competition , pp.

One cannot help but think that if metaphysical theories are simply taken to be a part of science, these difficulties disappear, or at least present no more difficulties than logical clashes between successful scientific theories.

Footnote 10 This is unfair in a number of ways, but for our present discussion there is one really important difference between the two. Popper arrived at an implicit division into science, metaphysics and muck. Metaphysics is the earnest speculation that can some day lead to positive science.

The logical positivists had science versus metaphysics-muck, but Popper had a better set of distinctions in mind, illustrated by the fact that the muck has now organised itself as something apart from speculative metaphysics.

Lakatos now is willing to lump the metaphysics that becomes science alongside science itself, because it is part of the larger growth of knowledge that concerns him. Thus metaphysics-science confronts the muck. Hacking , pp. It is worth making two comments here. Lakatos was a thoroughgoing fallibilist. Change is possible in any part of science, metaphysics included.

A research programme with an associated metaphysics may be replaced at any time by a more successful research programme with a quite different metaphysics. Science qua science has no metaphysical foundations. I only talk about scientific research programmes whose hard core is irrefutable not necessarily because of syntactical but possibly because of methodological reasons which have nothing to do with logical form. For Lakatos and Zahar, metaphysical assumptions are to be found at the very heart of science, in the hard core of a research programme Zahar , p.

Since a research programme is guided by its hard core, and research programmes can be evaluated empirically, the empirical success of a research programme really should reflect on its hard core. It is worthwhile emphasising that the compositional research programme is identified not only by APE, but also by the particular list of elements with which chemists worked from Lavoisier onwards.

APE may have been a necessary part of that research programme, but was not itself sufficient. I borrow the term from Cassebaum and Kauffman , who apply it to chemical thinking in the eighteenth century. Since the analytical conception was explicitly presented by Boyle, and was an element of compositional thinking during the eighteenth century Cassebaum and Kauffman , it cannot be regarded as the conceptual spark for the chemical revolution if indeed there was one. Even though it is an atomic property that vindicates APE, modern chemistry does not vindicate every aspect of chemical atomism.

It contradicts other key atomist assumptions about composition and change that are shared by Dalton and Mendeleev see Needham and Hendry The Aristotelian account of combination strikes the modern reader as merely false, but it violates APE. I conclude that APE is not an ontological principle of the kind identified by Chang. As noted above, matter is the continuant for Aristotle.

A bright idea cannot shape a scientific tradition. See Popper , p. Aston, F. Report of the international committee on chemical elements. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 45, — Article Google Scholar. Bensaude-Vincent, B. British Journal for the History of Science, 15, — British Journal for the History of Science, 19, 3— Blumenthal, G. The development of problems within the phlogiston theories, — Foundations of Chemistry, 19, — Theory comparison and choice in chemistry, — Foundations of Chemistry, 20, — Boyle, R.

The sceptical chymist. Brush, S. Isis, 87, — Bruzzaniti, G. The affirmation of the concept of isotopy and the birth of mass spectrography. Google Scholar. Cassebaum, H. The analytical concept of a chemical element in the work of Bergman and Scheele. Annals of Science, 33, — Chalmers, A. Dordrecht: Springer. Book Google Scholar. Aristotle on homoeomerous substances.

In: M. For more details on it including licensing , click here. This book is licensed under a Creative Commons by-nc-sa 3. See the license for more details, but that basically means you can share this book as long as you credit the author but see below , don't make money from it, and do make it available to everyone else under the same terms.

This book was accessible as of December 29, , and it was downloaded then by Andy Schmitz in an effort to preserve the availability of this book.

Two vols. London: Longmans, Green, and Co. You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar. Reprints and Permissions. The Principles of Chemistry. Nature 57, — Download citation. Issue Date : 16 December Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:. Buy or subscribe. Change institution. Rent or Buy article Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

Authors T. View author publications. Rights and permissions Reprints and Permissions. About this article Cite this article T.

Copy to clipboard. Search Search articles by subject, keyword or author. Show results from All journals This journal.