Scientific pluralism and the Chemical Revolution. (February 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kusch, Martin
• Is Part Of: Studies in history and philosophy of science. Volume 49(2015)
• Page Start: 69
• Page End: 79
• Publication Date: 2015-02
• Subjects: Chemical Revolution -- Scientific pluralism -- Sociology of scientific knowledge -- Integrated history and philosophy of science -- Hasok Chang; Science -- History -- Periodicals; Science -- Philosophy -- Periodicals; 509
• DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2014.10.001
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0039-3681

Abstract

Abstract: In a number of papers and in his recent book, Is Water H2 O? 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.