S. M. Jørgensen and his controversy with A. Werner: A reconsideration

British Journal for the History of Science

Volumn 30, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 203-219

  Kragh, Helge ^a  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 18844442648     PISSN: 00070874     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0007087497003014     Document Type: Article

References (112)

1. The relevant works are G. B. Kauffman, 'Sophus Mads Jørgensen (1837-1914): a chapter in coordination chemistry history', Journal of Chemical Education (1959), 36, 521-7, reprinted in Selected Readings in the History of Chemistry (ed. A. J. Ihde and W. F. Kieffer), Easton, PA, 1965, 185-91; 'Sophus Mads Jørgensen and the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', Chymia (1960), 6, 180-204; 'Jørgensen, Sophus Mads', DSB, New York, 1973, vii, 179-80; Classics in Coordination Chemistry, Part 2: Selected Papers 1798-1899, New York, 1976; Inorganic Coordination Compounds, London, 1981; 'Theories of coordination compounds: Alfred-Werner's triumph', in Coordination Chemistry: A Century of Progress, ACS Symposium Series 565, Washington, DC, 1994, 3-34. Another valuable source is P. S. Cohen, 'Effect of the fixity of ideas on the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', Werner Centennial Issue, Advances in Chemistry Series (1967), 62, 8-40. A concise account of the episode is given in A. J. Berry, From Classical to Modern Chemistry: Some Historical Sketches, New York, 1968, 177-85.
2. The relevant works are G. B. Kauffman, 'Sophus Mads Jørgensen (1837-1914): a chapter in coordination chemistry history', Journal of Chemical Education (1959), 36, 521-7, reprinted in Selected Readings in the History of Chemistry (ed. A. J. Ihde and W. F. Kieffer), Easton, PA, 1965, 185-91; 'Sophus Mads Jørgensen and the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', Chymia (1960), 6, 180-204; 'Jørgensen, Sophus Mads', DSB, New York, 1973, vii, 179-80; Classics in Coordination Chemistry, Part 2: Selected Papers 1798-1899, New York, 1976; Inorganic Coordination Compounds, London, 1981; 'Theories of coordination compounds: Alfred-Werner's triumph', in Coordination Chemistry: A Century of Progress, ACS Symposium Series 565, Washington, DC, 1994, 3-34. Another valuable source is P. S. Cohen, 'Effect of the fixity of ideas on the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', Werner Centennial Issue, Advances in Chemistry Series (1967), 62, 8-40. A concise account of the episode is given in A. J. Berry, From Classical to Modern Chemistry: Some Historical Sketches, New York, 1968, 177-85.
3. The relevant works are G. B. Kauffman, 'Sophus Mads Jørgensen (1837-1914): a chapter in coordination chemistry history', Journal of Chemical Education (1959), 36, 521-7, reprinted in Selected Readings in the History of Chemistry (ed. A. J. Ihde and W. F. Kieffer), Easton, PA, 1965, 185-91; 'Sophus Mads Jørgensen and the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', Chymia (1960), 6, 180-204; 'Jørgensen, Sophus Mads', DSB, New York, 1973, vii, 179-80; Classics in Coordination Chemistry, Part 2: Selected Papers 1798-1899, New York, 1976; Inorganic Coordination Compounds, London, 1981; 'Theories of coordination compounds: Alfred-Werner's triumph', in Coordination Chemistry: A Century of Progress, ACS Symposium Series 565, Washington, DC, 1994, 3-34. Another valuable source is P. S. Cohen, 'Effect of the fixity of ideas on the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', Werner Centennial Issue, Advances in Chemistry Series (1967), 62, 8-40. A concise account of the episode is given in A. J. Berry, From Classical to Modern Chemistry: Some Historical Sketches, New York, 1968, 177-85.
4. The relevant works are G. B. Kauffman, 'Sophus Mads Jørgensen (1837-1914): a chapter in coordination chemistry history', Journal of Chemical Education (1959), 36, 521-7, reprinted in Selected Readings in the History of Chemistry (ed. A. J. Ihde and W. F. Kieffer), Easton, PA, 1965, 185-91; 'Sophus Mads Jørgensen and the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', Chymia (1960), 6, 180-204; 'Jørgensen, Sophus Mads', DSB, New York, 1973, vii, 179-80; Classics in Coordination Chemistry, Part 2: Selected Papers 1798-1899, New York, 1976; Inorganic Coordination Compounds, London, 1981; 'Theories of coordination compounds: Alfred-Werner's triumph', in Coordination Chemistry: A Century of Progress, ACS Symposium Series 565, Washington, DC, 1994, 3-34. Another valuable source is P. S. Cohen, 'Effect of the fixity of ideas on the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', Werner Centennial Issue, Advances in Chemistry Series (1967), 62, 8-40. A concise account of the episode is given in A. J. Berry, From Classical to Modern Chemistry: Some Historical Sketches, New York, 1968, 177-85.
5. The relevant works are G. B. Kauffman, 'Sophus Mads Jørgensen (1837-1914): a chapter in coordination chemistry history', Journal of Chemical Education (1959), 36, 521-7, reprinted in Selected Readings in the History of Chemistry (ed. A. J. Ihde and W. F. Kieffer), Easton, PA, 1965, 185-91; 'Sophus Mads Jørgensen and the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', Chymia (1960), 6, 180-204; 'Jørgensen, Sophus Mads', DSB, New York, 1973, vii, 179-80; Classics in Coordination Chemistry, Part 2: Selected Papers 1798-1899, New York, 1976; Inorganic Coordination Compounds, London, 1981; 'Theories of coordination compounds: Alfred-Werner's triumph', in Coordination Chemistry: A Century of Progress, ACS Symposium Series 565, Washington, DC, 1994, 3-34. Another valuable source is P. S. Cohen, 'Effect of the fixity of ideas on the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', Werner Centennial Issue, Advances in Chemistry Series (1967), 62, 8-40. A concise account of the episode is given in A. J. Berry, From Classical to Modern Chemistry: Some Historical Sketches, New York, 1968, 177-85.
6. The relevant works are G. B. Kauffman, 'Sophus Mads Jørgensen (1837-1914): a chapter in coordination chemistry history', Journal of Chemical Education (1959), 36, 521-7, reprinted in Selected Readings in the History of Chemistry (ed. A. J. Ihde and W. F. Kieffer), Easton, PA, 1965, 185-91; 'Sophus Mads Jørgensen and the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', Chymia (1960), 6, 180-204; 'Jørgensen, Sophus Mads', DSB, New York, 1973, vii, 179-80; Classics in Coordination Chemistry, Part 2: Selected Papers 1798-1899, New York, 1976; Inorganic Coordination Compounds, London, 1981; 'Theories of coordination compounds: Alfred-Werner's triumph', in Coordination Chemistry: A Century of Progress, ACS Symposium Series 565, Washington, DC, 1994, 3-34. Another valuable source is P. S. Cohen, 'Effect of the fixity of ideas on the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', Werner Centennial Issue, Advances in Chemistry Series (1967), 62, 8-40. A concise account of the episode is given in A. J. Berry, From Classical to Modern Chemistry: Some Historical Sketches, New York, 1968, 177-85.
7. The relevant works are G. B. Kauffman, 'Sophus Mads Jørgensen (1837-1914): a chapter in coordination chemistry history', Journal of Chemical Education (1959), 36, 521-7, reprinted in Selected Readings in the History of Chemistry (ed. A. J. Ihde and W. F. Kieffer), Easton, PA, 1965, 185-91; 'Sophus Mads Jørgensen and the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', Chymia (1960), 6, 180-204; 'Jørgensen, Sophus Mads', DSB, New York, 1973, vii, 179-80; Classics in Coordination Chemistry, Part 2: Selected Papers 1798-1899, New York, 1976; Inorganic Coordination Compounds, London, 1981; 'Theories of coordination compounds: Alfred-Werner's triumph', in Coordination Chemistry: A Century of Progress, ACS Symposium Series 565, Washington, DC, 1994, 3-34. Another valuable source is P. S. Cohen, 'Effect of the fixity of ideas on the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', Werner Centennial Issue, Advances in Chemistry Series (1967), 62, 8-40. A concise account of the episode is given in A. J. Berry, From Classical to Modern Chemistry: Some Historical Sketches, New York, 1968, 177-85.
8. The relevant works are G. B. Kauffman, 'Sophus Mads Jørgensen (1837-1914): a chapter in coordination chemistry history', Journal of Chemical Education (1959), 36, 521-7, reprinted in Selected Readings in the History of Chemistry (ed. A. J. Ihde and W. F. Kieffer), Easton, PA, 1965, 185-91; 'Sophus Mads Jørgensen and the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', Chymia (1960), 6, 180-204; 'Jørgensen, Sophus Mads', DSB, New York, 1973, vii, 179-80; Classics in Coordination Chemistry, Part 2: Selected Papers 1798-1899, New York, 1976; Inorganic Coordination Compounds, London, 1981; 'Theories of coordination compounds: Alfred-Werner's triumph', in Coordination Chemistry: A Century of Progress, ACS Symposium Series 565, Washington, DC, 1994, 3-34. Another valuable source is P. S. Cohen, 'Effect of the fixity of ideas on the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', Werner Centennial Issue, Advances in Chemistry Series (1967), 62, 8-40. A concise account of the episode is given in A. J. Berry, From Classical to Modern Chemistry: Some Historical Sketches, New York, 1968, 177-85.
9. The relevant works are G. B. Kauffman, 'Sophus Mads Jørgensen (1837-1914): a chapter in coordination chemistry history', Journal of Chemical Education (1959), 36, 521-7, reprinted in Selected Readings in the History of Chemistry (ed. A. J. Ihde and W. F. Kieffer), Easton, PA, 1965, 185-91; 'Sophus Mads Jørgensen and the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', Chymia (1960), 6, 180-204; 'Jørgensen, Sophus Mads', DSB, New York, 1973, vii, 179-80; Classics in Coordination Chemistry, Part 2: Selected Papers 1798-1899, New York, 1976; Inorganic Coordination Compounds, London, 1981; 'Theories of coordination compounds: Alfred-Werner's triumph', in Coordination Chemistry: A Century of Progress, ACS Symposium Series 565, Washington, DC, 1994, 3-34. Another valuable source is P. S. Cohen, 'Effect of the fixity of ideas on the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', Werner Centennial Issue, Advances in Chemistry Series (1967), 62, 8-40. A concise account of the episode is given in A. J. Berry, From Classical to Modern Chemistry: Some Historical Sketches, New York, 1968, 177-85.
10. Professor Kauffman has seen this article. He considers his own interpretation better supported by the published documents and the main thesis of the present paper to be purely conjectural.
11. H. Kragh, 'Anatomy of a priority conflict: the case of element 72', Centaurus (1980), 23, 275-301, especially 276-8. For analyses of scientific controversies in general, see R. G. A. Dolby, 'Controversy and consensus in the growth of scientific knowledge', Nature and System (1980), 2, 199-218; H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr and A. L. Caplan (eds.), Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology, Cambridge, 1987; and T. Brante and A. Elzinga, 'Towards a theory of scientific controversies', Science Studies (1990), 3, 33-46. Much of the interest in controversies relates to scientific and technological disagreements involving different social and political consequences. Such 'mixed controversies' involve substantial elements of external influence. See for example H. M. Collins (ed.), 'Knowledge and controversy', special issue, Social Studies of Science (1981), 11. Considerably less interest has been devoted to purely scientific controversies.
12. H. Kragh, 'Anatomy of a priority conflict: the case of element 72', Centaurus (1980), 23, 275-301, especially 276-8. For analyses of scientific controversies in general, see R. G. A. Dolby, 'Controversy and consensus in the growth of scientific knowledge', Nature and System (1980), 2, 199-218; H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr and A. L. Caplan (eds.), Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology, Cambridge, 1987; and T. Brante and A. Elzinga, 'Towards a theory of scientific controversies', Science Studies (1990), 3, 33-46. Much of the interest in controversies relates to scientific and technological disagreements involving different social and political consequences. Such 'mixed controversies' involve substantial elements of external influence. See for example H. M. Collins (ed.), 'Knowledge and controversy', special issue, Social Studies of Science (1981), 11. Considerably less interest has been devoted to purely scientific controversies.
13. H. Kragh, 'Anatomy of a priority conflict: the case of element 72', Centaurus (1980), 23, 275-301, especially 276-8. For analyses of scientific controversies in general, see R. G. A. Dolby, 'Controversy and consensus in the growth of scientific knowledge', Nature and System (1980), 2, 199-218; H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr and A. L. Caplan (eds.), Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology, Cambridge, 1987; and T. Brante and A. Elzinga, 'Towards a theory of scientific controversies', Science Studies (1990), 3, 33-46. Much of the interest in controversies relates to scientific and technological disagreements involving different social and political consequences. Such 'mixed controversies' involve substantial elements of external influence. See for example H. M. Collins (ed.), 'Knowledge and controversy', special issue, Social Studies of Science (1981), 11. Considerably less interest has been devoted to purely scientific controversies.
14. H. Kragh, 'Anatomy of a priority conflict: the case of element 72', Centaurus (1980), 23, 275-301, especially 276-8. For analyses of scientific controversies in general, see R. G. A. Dolby, 'Controversy and consensus in the growth of scientific knowledge', Nature and System (1980), 2, 199-218; H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr and A. L. Caplan (eds.), Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology, Cambridge, 1987; and T. Brante and A. Elzinga, 'Towards a theory of scientific controversies', Science Studies (1990), 3, 33-46. Much of the interest in controversies relates to scientific and technological disagreements involving different social and political consequences. Such 'mixed controversies' involve substantial elements of external influence. See for example H. M. Collins (ed.), 'Knowledge and controversy', special issue, Social Studies of Science (1981), 11. Considerably less interest has been devoted to purely scientific controversies.
15. H. Kragh, 'Anatomy of a priority conflict: the case of element 72', Centaurus (1980), 23, 275-301, especially 276-8. For analyses of scientific controversies in general, see R. G. A. Dolby, 'Controversy and consensus in the growth of scientific knowledge', Nature and System (1980), 2, 199-218; H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr and A. L. Caplan (eds.), Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology, Cambridge, 1987; and T. Brante and A. Elzinga, 'Towards a theory of scientific controversies', Science Studies (1990), 3, 33-46. Much of the interest in controversies relates to scientific and technological disagreements involving different social and political consequences. Such 'mixed controversies' involve substantial elements of external influence. See for example H. M. Collins (ed.), 'Knowledge and controversy', special issue, Social Studies of Science (1981), 11. Considerably less interest has been devoted to purely scientific controversies.
16. See E. McMullin, 'Scientific controversy and its termination', in Engelhardt and Caplan, op. cit. (3), 49-92.
17. Case studies of controversies in the history of nineteenth- and twentieth-century chemistry include W. H. Brock (ed.), The Atomic Debates: Brodie and the Reception of the Atomic Theory, Leicester, 1967; R. G. A. Dolby, 'Debates over the theory of solutions: a study of dissent in physical chemistry in the English-speaking world in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences (1976), 7, 297-404, and 'Thermochemistry versus thermodynamics: the nineteenth-century controversy', History of Science (1984), 22, 375-400; K. Fujii, 'The Berthollet-Proust controversy and Dalton's chemical atomic theory 1800-1820', BJHS (1986), 19, 177-200; L. R. Graham, 'A Soviet Marxist view of structural chemistry: the theory of resonance controversy', Isis (1964), 55, 220-31; R. F. Hirsh, 'A conflict of principles: the discovery of argon and the debate over its existence', Ambix (1981), 28, 121-30; H. Kragh, 'Elements nos. 70, 71 and 72: discoveries and controversies', in Episodes from the History of the Rare Earth Elements (ed. C. H. Evans), Dordrecht, 1996, 68-90; M. D. Saltzman, 'The Robinson-Ingold controversy: precedence in the electronic theory of organic reactions', Journal of Chemical Education (1980), 57, 484-8; H. P. W. Vermeeren, 'Controversies and existence claims in chemistry: the theory of resonance', Synthese (1986), 69, 273-90. See also Kragh, op. cit. (3) and Kauffman, 'S. M. Jørgensen and the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', op. cit. (1).
18. Case studies of controversies in the history of nineteenth- and twentieth-century chemistry include W. H. Brock (ed.), The Atomic Debates: Brodie and the Reception of the Atomic Theory, Leicester, 1967; R. G. A. Dolby, 'Debates over the theory of solutions: a study of dissent in physical chemistry in the English-speaking world in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences (1976), 7, 297-404, and 'Thermochemistry versus thermodynamics: the nineteenth-century controversy', History of Science (1984), 22, 375-400; K. Fujii, 'The Berthollet-Proust controversy and Dalton's chemical atomic theory 1800-1820', BJHS (1986), 19, 177-200; L. R. Graham, 'A Soviet Marxist view of structural chemistry: the theory of resonance controversy', Isis (1964), 55, 220-31; R. F. Hirsh, 'A conflict of principles: the discovery of argon and the debate over its existence', Ambix (1981), 28, 121-30; H. Kragh, 'Elements nos. 70, 71 and 72: discoveries and controversies', in Episodes from the History of the Rare Earth Elements (ed. C. H. Evans), Dordrecht, 1996, 68-90; M. D. Saltzman, 'The Robinson-Ingold controversy: precedence in the electronic theory of organic reactions', Journal of Chemical Education (1980), 57, 484-8; H. P. W. Vermeeren, 'Controversies and existence claims in chemistry: the theory of resonance', Synthese (1986), 69, 273-90. See also Kragh, op. cit. (3) and Kauffman, 'S. M. Jørgensen and the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', op. cit. (1).
19. Case studies of controversies in the history of nineteenth- and twentieth-century chemistry include W. H. Brock (ed.), The Atomic Debates: Brodie and the Reception of the Atomic Theory, Leicester, 1967; R. G. A. Dolby, 'Debates over the theory of solutions: a study of dissent in physical chemistry in the English-speaking world in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences (1976), 7, 297-404, and 'Thermochemistry versus thermodynamics: the nineteenth-century controversy', History of Science (1984), 22, 375-400; K. Fujii, 'The Berthollet-Proust controversy and Dalton's chemical atomic theory 1800-1820', BJHS (1986), 19, 177-200; L. R. Graham, 'A Soviet Marxist view of structural chemistry: the theory of resonance controversy', Isis (1964), 55, 220-31; R. F. Hirsh, 'A conflict of principles: the discovery of argon and the debate over its existence', Ambix (1981), 28, 121-30; H. Kragh, 'Elements nos. 70, 71 and 72: discoveries and controversies', in Episodes from the History of the Rare Earth Elements (ed. C. H. Evans), Dordrecht, 1996, 68-90; M. D. Saltzman, 'The Robinson-Ingold controversy: precedence in the electronic theory of organic reactions', Journal of Chemical Education (1980), 57, 484-8; H. P. W. Vermeeren, 'Controversies and existence claims in chemistry: the theory of resonance', Synthese (1986), 69, 273-90. See also Kragh, op. cit. (3) and Kauffman, 'S. M. Jørgensen and the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', op. cit. (1).
20. Case studies of controversies in the history of nineteenth- and twentieth-century chemistry include W. H. Brock (ed.), The Atomic Debates: Brodie and the Reception of the Atomic Theory, Leicester, 1967; R. G. A. Dolby, 'Debates over the theory of solutions: a study of dissent in physical chemistry in the English-speaking world in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences (1976), 7, 297-404, and 'Thermochemistry versus thermodynamics: the nineteenth-century controversy', History of Science (1984), 22, 375-400; K. Fujii, 'The Berthollet-Proust controversy and Dalton's chemical atomic theory 1800-1820', BJHS (1986), 19, 177-200; L. R. Graham, 'A Soviet Marxist view of structural chemistry: the theory of resonance controversy', Isis (1964), 55, 220-31; R. F. Hirsh, 'A conflict of principles: the discovery of argon and the debate over its existence', Ambix (1981), 28, 121-30; H. Kragh, 'Elements nos. 70, 71 and 72: discoveries and controversies', in Episodes from the History of the Rare Earth Elements (ed. C. H. Evans), Dordrecht, 1996, 68-90; M. D. Saltzman, 'The Robinson-Ingold controversy: precedence in the electronic theory of organic reactions', Journal of Chemical Education (1980), 57, 484-8; H. P. W. Vermeeren, 'Controversies and existence claims in chemistry: the theory of resonance', Synthese (1986), 69, 273-90. See also Kragh, op. cit. (3) and Kauffman, 'S. M. Jørgensen and the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', op. cit. (1).
21. Case studies of controversies in the history of nineteenth- and twentieth-century chemistry include W. H. Brock (ed.), The Atomic Debates: Brodie and the Reception of the Atomic Theory, Leicester, 1967; R. G. A. Dolby, 'Debates over the theory of solutions: a study of dissent in physical chemistry in the English-speaking world in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences (1976), 7, 297-404, and 'Thermochemistry versus thermodynamics: the nineteenth-century controversy', History of Science (1984), 22, 375-400; K. Fujii, 'The Berthollet-Proust controversy and Dalton's chemical atomic theory 1800-1820', BJHS (1986), 19, 177-200; L. R. Graham, 'A Soviet Marxist view of structural chemistry: the theory of resonance controversy', Isis (1964), 55, 220-31; R. F. Hirsh, 'A conflict of principles: the discovery of argon and the debate over its existence', Ambix (1981), 28, 121-30; H. Kragh, 'Elements nos. 70, 71 and 72: discoveries and controversies', in Episodes from the History of the Rare Earth Elements (ed. C. H. Evans), Dordrecht, 1996, 68-90; M. D. Saltzman, 'The Robinson-Ingold controversy: precedence in the electronic theory of organic reactions', Journal of Chemical Education (1980), 57, 484-8; H. P. W. Vermeeren, 'Controversies and existence claims in chemistry: the theory of resonance', Synthese (1986), 69, 273-90. See also Kragh, op. cit. (3) and Kauffman, 'S. M. Jørgensen and the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', op. cit. (1).
22. Case studies of controversies in the history of nineteenth- and twentieth-century chemistry include W. H. Brock (ed.), The Atomic Debates: Brodie and the Reception of the Atomic Theory, Leicester, 1967; R. G. A. Dolby, 'Debates over the theory of solutions: a study of dissent in physical chemistry in the English-speaking world in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences (1976), 7, 297-404, and 'Thermochemistry versus thermodynamics: the nineteenth-century controversy', History of Science (1984), 22, 375-400; K. Fujii, 'The Berthollet-Proust controversy and Dalton's chemical atomic theory 1800-1820', BJHS (1986), 19, 177-200; L. R. Graham, 'A Soviet Marxist view of structural chemistry: the theory of resonance controversy', Isis (1964), 55, 220-31; R. F. Hirsh, 'A conflict of principles: the discovery of argon and the debate over its existence', Ambix (1981), 28, 121-30; H. Kragh, 'Elements nos. 70, 71 and 72: discoveries and controversies', in Episodes from the History of the Rare Earth Elements (ed. C. H. Evans), Dordrecht, 1996, 68-90; M. D. Saltzman, 'The Robinson-Ingold controversy: precedence in the electronic theory of organic reactions', Journal of Chemical Education (1980), 57, 484-8; H. P. W. Vermeeren, 'Controversies and existence claims in chemistry: the theory of resonance', Synthese (1986), 69, 273-90. See also Kragh, op. cit. (3) and Kauffman, 'S. M. Jørgensen and the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', op. cit. (1).
23. Case studies of controversies in the history of nineteenth- and twentieth-century chemistry include W. H. Brock (ed.), The Atomic Debates: Brodie and the Reception of the Atomic Theory, Leicester, 1967; R. G. A. Dolby, 'Debates over the theory of solutions: a study of dissent in physical chemistry in the English-speaking world in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences (1976), 7, 297-404, and 'Thermochemistry versus thermodynamics: the nineteenth-century controversy', History of Science (1984), 22, 375-400; K. Fujii, 'The Berthollet-Proust controversy and Dalton's chemical atomic theory 1800-1820', BJHS (1986), 19, 177-200; L. R. Graham, 'A Soviet Marxist view of structural chemistry: the theory of resonance controversy', Isis (1964), 55, 220-31; R. F. Hirsh, 'A conflict of principles: the discovery of argon and the debate over its existence', Ambix (1981), 28, 121-30; H. Kragh, 'Elements nos. 70, 71 and 72: discoveries and controversies', in Episodes from the History of the Rare Earth Elements (ed. C. H. Evans), Dordrecht, 1996, 68-90; M. D. Saltzman, 'The Robinson-Ingold controversy: precedence in the electronic theory of organic reactions', Journal of Chemical Education (1980), 57, 484-8; H. P. W. Vermeeren, 'Controversies and existence claims in chemistry: the theory of resonance', Synthese (1986), 69, 273-90. See also Kragh, op. cit. (3) and Kauffman, 'S. M. Jørgensen and the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', op. cit. (1).
24. Case studies of controversies in the history of nineteenth- and twentieth-century chemistry include W. H. Brock (ed.), The Atomic Debates: Brodie and the Reception of the Atomic Theory, Leicester, 1967; R. G. A. Dolby, 'Debates over the theory of solutions: a study of dissent in physical chemistry in the English-speaking world in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences (1976), 7, 297-404, and 'Thermochemistry versus thermodynamics: the nineteenth-century controversy', History of Science (1984), 22, 375-400; K. Fujii, 'The Berthollet-Proust controversy and Dalton's chemical atomic theory 1800-1820', BJHS (1986), 19, 177-200; L. R. Graham, 'A Soviet Marxist view of structural chemistry: the theory of resonance controversy', Isis (1964), 55, 220-31; R. F. Hirsh, 'A conflict of principles: the discovery of argon and the debate over its existence', Ambix (1981), 28, 121-30; H. Kragh, 'Elements nos. 70, 71 and 72: discoveries and controversies', in Episodes from the History of the Rare Earth Elements (ed. C. H. Evans), Dordrecht, 1996, 68-90; M. D. Saltzman, 'The Robinson-Ingold controversy: precedence in the electronic theory of organic reactions', Journal of Chemical Education (1980), 57, 484-8; H. P. W. Vermeeren, 'Controversies and existence claims in chemistry: the theory of resonance', Synthese (1986), 69, 273-90. See also Kragh, op. cit. (3) and Kauffman, 'S. M. Jørgensen and the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', op. cit. (1).
25. Case studies of controversies in the history of nineteenth- and twentieth-century chemistry include W. H. Brock (ed.), The Atomic Debates: Brodie and the Reception of the Atomic Theory, Leicester, 1967; R. G. A. Dolby, 'Debates over the theory of solutions: a study of dissent in physical chemistry in the English-speaking world in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences (1976), 7, 297-404, and 'Thermochemistry versus thermodynamics: the nineteenth-century controversy', History of Science (1984), 22, 375-400; K. Fujii, 'The Berthollet-Proust controversy and Dalton's chemical atomic theory 1800-1820', BJHS (1986), 19, 177-200; L. R. Graham, 'A Soviet Marxist view of structural chemistry: the theory of resonance controversy', Isis (1964), 55, 220-31; R. F. Hirsh, 'A conflict of principles: the discovery of argon and the debate over its existence', Ambix (1981), 28, 121-30; H. Kragh, 'Elements nos. 70, 71 and 72: discoveries and controversies', in Episodes from the History of the Rare Earth Elements (ed. C. H. Evans), Dordrecht, 1996, 68-90; M. D. Saltzman, 'The Robinson-Ingold controversy: precedence in the electronic theory of organic reactions', Journal of Chemical Education (1980), 57, 484-8; H. P. W. Vermeeren, 'Controversies and existence claims in chemistry: the theory of resonance', Synthese (1986), 69, 273-90. See also Kragh, op. cit. (3) and Kauffman, 'S. M. Jørgensen and the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', op. cit. (1).
26. Case studies of controversies in the history of nineteenth- and twentieth-century chemistry include W. H. Brock (ed.), The Atomic Debates: Brodie and the Reception of the Atomic Theory, Leicester, 1967; R. G. A. Dolby, 'Debates over the theory of solutions: a study of dissent in physical chemistry in the English-speaking world in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences (1976), 7, 297-404, and 'Thermochemistry versus thermodynamics: the nineteenth-century controversy', History of Science (1984), 22, 375-400; K. Fujii, 'The Berthollet-Proust controversy and Dalton's chemical atomic theory 1800-1820', BJHS (1986), 19, 177-200; L. R. Graham, 'A Soviet Marxist view of structural chemistry: the theory of resonance controversy', Isis (1964), 55, 220-31; R. F. Hirsh, 'A conflict of principles: the discovery of argon and the debate over its existence', Ambix (1981), 28, 121-30; H. Kragh, 'Elements nos. 70, 71 and 72: discoveries and controversies', in Episodes from the History of the Rare Earth Elements (ed. C. H. Evans), Dordrecht, 1996, 68-90; M. D. Saltzman, 'The Robinson-Ingold controversy: precedence in the electronic theory of organic reactions', Journal of Chemical Education (1980), 57, 484-8; H. P. W. Vermeeren, 'Controversies and existence claims in chemistry: the theory of resonance', Synthese (1986), 69, 273-90. See also Kragh, op. cit. (3) and Kauffman, 'S. M. Jørgensen and the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', op. cit. (1).
27. On the concept of 'depth' in scientific revolutions, see for example E. McMullin, 'Rationality and paradigm change in science', in World Changes: Thomas Kuhn and the Nature of Science (ed. P. Horwich), Cambridge, MA, 1993, 55-78.
28. This kind of theory-independent incommensurability in experiments has been investigated in X. Chen, 'How do scientists have disagreement about experiments? Incommensurability in the use of goal-derived categories', Perspectives on Science (1994), 2, 275-301.
29. For example, it is not included in I. Bernard Cohen's massive work on revolutions in the history of science. I. B. Cohen, Revolutions in Science, Cambridge, MA, 1985.
30. The most systematic attempt to test theories of scientific change by comparison with historical case studies is the Virginia Polytechnic Institute project, the main results of which are published in L. Laudan et al., 'Scientific change: philosophical models and historical research', Synthese (1986), 69, 141-223, and A. Donovan, L. Laudan and R. Laudan (eds.), Scrutinizing Science: Empirical Studies of Scientific Change, Dordrecht, 1988. For criticism, see T. Nickles, 'Remarks on the use of history as evidence', Synthese (1986), 69, 253-66. The Virginia Polytechnic Institute project includes several chemical cases, from Lavoisier to the polywater episode, but not Werner's revolution in inorganic chemistry. For a related attempt to account for differences in the acceptance of theories, of possible relevance to the Werner-Jørgensen case, see R. Laudan and L. Laudan, 'Dominance and disunity of method: solving the problems of innovation and consensus', Philosophy of Science (1989), 56, 221-37. The social constructivist view of controversy and consensus is another perspective within which the Werner-Jørgensen controversy might be analysed. Did Werner emerge as the winner because he was able to enlist by rhetorical means more allies for his cause, or because his model fitted better with experimental data than Jørgensen's? For reasons of brevity I do not confront the case with the claims of social constructivists. For some hints of what a social constructivist version might look like, see H. M. Collins, 'The place of the core-set in modern science: social contingency with methodological propriety in science', History of Science (1981), 19, 6-19.
31. The most systematic attempt to test theories of scientific change by comparison with historical case studies is the Virginia Polytechnic Institute project, the main results of which are published in L. Laudan et al., 'Scientific change: philosophical models and historical research', Synthese (1986), 69, 141-223, and A. Donovan, L. Laudan and R. Laudan (eds.), Scrutinizing Science: Empirical Studies of Scientific Change, Dordrecht, 1988. For criticism, see T. Nickles, 'Remarks on the use of history as evidence', Synthese (1986), 69, 253-66. The Virginia Polytechnic Institute project includes several chemical cases, from Lavoisier to the polywater episode, but not Werner's revolution in inorganic chemistry. For a related attempt to account for differences in the acceptance of theories, of possible relevance to the Werner-Jørgensen case, see R. Laudan and L. Laudan, 'Dominance and disunity of method: solving the problems of innovation and consensus', Philosophy of Science (1989), 56, 221-37. The social constructivist view of controversy and consensus is another perspective within which the Werner-Jørgensen controversy might be analysed. Did Werner emerge as the winner because he was able to enlist by rhetorical means more allies for his cause, or because his model fitted better with experimental data than Jørgensen's? For reasons of brevity I do not confront the case with the claims of social constructivists. For some hints of what a social constructivist version might look like, see H. M. Collins, 'The place of the core-set in modern science: social contingency with methodological propriety in science', History of Science (1981), 19, 6-19.
32. The most systematic attempt to test theories of scientific change by comparison with historical case studies is the Virginia Polytechnic Institute project, the main results of which are published in L. Laudan et al., 'Scientific change: philosophical models and historical research', Synthese (1986), 69, 141-223, and A. Donovan, L. Laudan and R. Laudan (eds.), Scrutinizing Science: Empirical Studies of Scientific Change, Dordrecht, 1988. For criticism, see T. Nickles, 'Remarks on the use of history as evidence', Synthese (1986), 69, 253-66. The Virginia Polytechnic Institute project includes several chemical cases, from Lavoisier to the polywater episode, but not Werner's revolution in inorganic chemistry. For a related attempt to account for differences in the acceptance of theories, of possible relevance to the Werner-Jørgensen case, see R. Laudan and L. Laudan, 'Dominance and disunity of method: solving the problems of innovation and consensus', Philosophy of Science (1989), 56, 221-37. The social constructivist view of controversy and consensus is another perspective within which the Werner-Jørgensen controversy might be analysed. Did Werner emerge as the winner because he was able to enlist by rhetorical means more allies for his cause, or because his model fitted better with experimental data than Jørgensen's? For reasons of brevity I do not confront the case with the claims of social constructivists. For some hints of what a social constructivist version might look like, see H. M. Collins, 'The place of the core-set in modern science: social contingency with methodological propriety in science', History of Science (1981), 19, 6-19.
33. The most systematic attempt to test theories of scientific change by comparison with historical case studies is the Virginia Polytechnic Institute project, the main results of which are published in L. Laudan et al., 'Scientific change: philosophical models and historical research', Synthese (1986), 69, 141-223, and A. Donovan, L. Laudan and R. Laudan (eds.), Scrutinizing Science: Empirical Studies of Scientific Change, Dordrecht, 1988. For criticism, see T. Nickles, 'Remarks on the use of history as evidence', Synthese (1986), 69, 253-66. The Virginia Polytechnic Institute project includes several chemical cases, from Lavoisier to the polywater episode, but not Werner's revolution in inorganic chemistry. For a related attempt to account for differences in the acceptance of theories, of possible relevance to the Werner-Jørgensen case, see R. Laudan and L. Laudan, 'Dominance and disunity of method: solving the problems of innovation and consensus', Philosophy of Science (1989), 56, 221-37. The social constructivist view of controversy and consensus is another perspective within which the Werner-Jørgensen controversy might be analysed. Did Werner emerge as the winner because he was able to enlist by rhetorical means more allies for his cause, or because his model fitted better with experimental data than Jørgensen's? For reasons of brevity I do not confront the case with the claims of social constructivists. For some hints of what a social constructivist version might look like, see H. M. Collins, 'The place of the core-set in modern science: social contingency with methodological propriety in science', History of Science (1981), 19, 6-19.
34. The most systematic attempt to test theories of scientific change by comparison with historical case studies is the Virginia Polytechnic Institute project, the main results of which are published in L. Laudan et al., 'Scientific change: philosophical models and historical research', Synthese (1986), 69, 141-223, and A. Donovan, L. Laudan and R. Laudan (eds.), Scrutinizing Science: Empirical Studies of Scientific Change, Dordrecht, 1988. For criticism, see T. Nickles, 'Remarks on the use of history as evidence', Synthese (1986), 69, 253-66. The Virginia Polytechnic Institute project includes several chemical cases, from Lavoisier to the polywater episode, but not Werner's revolution in inorganic chemistry. For a related attempt to account for differences in the acceptance of theories, of possible relevance to the Werner-Jørgensen case, see R. Laudan and L. Laudan, 'Dominance and disunity of method: solving the problems of innovation and consensus', Philosophy of Science (1989), 56, 221-37. The social constructivist view of controversy and consensus is another perspective within which the Werner-Jørgensen controversy might be analysed. Did Werner emerge as the winner because he was able to enlist by rhetorical means more allies for his cause, or because his model fitted better with experimental data than Jørgensen's? For reasons of brevity I do not confront the case with the claims of social constructivists. For some hints of what a social constructivist version might look like, see H. M. Collins, 'The place of the core-set in modern science: social contingency with methodological propriety in science', History of Science (1981), 19, 6-19.
35. G. B. Kauffman, 'Christian Wilhelm Blomstrand (1826-1897): Swedish chemist and mineralogist', Annals of Science (1975), 32, 13-37. See also A. Broström, Wilhelm Blomstrand och Atomernas Vetenskap, Stella Report, 3, Uppsala University, 1995.
36. G. B. Kauffman, 'Christian Wilhelm Blomstrand (1826-1897): Swedish chemist and mineralogist', Annals of Science (1975), 32, 13-37. See also A. Broström, Wilhelm Blomstrand och Atomernas Vetenskap, Stella Report, 3, Uppsala University, 1995.
37. A. Werner, 'Beitrag zur Konstitution anorganischer Verbindungen', Zeitschrift für anorganische Chemie (1893), 3, 266-330. For context, see G. B. Kauffman, Alfred Werner: Founder of Coordination Chemistry, Berlin, 1966, and Classics in Coordination Theory, Part I: The Selected Papers of Alfred Werner, New York, 1968.
38. A. Werner, 'Beitrag zur Konstitution anorganischer Verbindungen', Zeitschrift für anorganische Chemie (1893), 3, 266-330. For context, see G. B. Kauffman, Alfred Werner: Founder of Coordination Chemistry, Berlin, 1966, and Classics in Coordination Theory, Part I: The Selected Papers of Alfred Werner, New York, 1968.
39. A. Werner, 'Beitrag zur Konstitution anorganischer Verbindungen', Zeitschrift für anorganische Chemie (1893), 3, 266-330. For context, see G. B. Kauffman, Alfred Werner: Founder of Coordination Chemistry, Berlin, 1966, and Classics in Coordination Theory, Part I: The Selected Papers of Alfred Werner, New York, 1968.
40. N. Bjerrum, 'Introductory lecture', in Proceedings of the Symposium on Coordination Chemistry, Copenhagen, 1954, 12-16.
41. S. M. Jørgensen, Mindre Lærebog i Uorganisk Chemi, Copenhagen, 1888; 2nd edn 1896. In this respect, Jørgensen differed from his colleague Julius Thomsen, who was an advocate of atomic theory and speculated about atomic explanations of the periodic system. See H. Kragh, 'Julius Thomsen and nineteenth-century speculations on the complexity of atoms', Annals of Science (1982), 39, 37-60.
42. S. M. Jørgensen, Mindre Lærebog i Uorganisk Chemi, Copenhagen, 1888; 2nd edn 1896. In this respect, Jørgensen differed from his colleague Julius Thomsen, who was an advocate of atomic theory and speculated about atomic explanations of the periodic system. See H. Kragh, 'Julius Thomsen and nineteenth-century speculations on the complexity of atoms', Annals of Science (1982), 39, 37-60.
43. Jørgensen to Blomstrand, 24 May 1893, University Library of Lund, UB1. Original in Danish. Part of the letter is (somewhat inaccurately) translated in G. B. Kauffman, 'Christian Wilhelm Blomstrand (1826-1897) and Sophus Mads Jørgensen (1837-1914). Their correspondence from 1870 to 1897', Centaurus (1977), 21, 44-63, on 57.
44. The word subreption (from the latin subreptus) means a fallacious representation or an inference drawn from it, sometimes with the connotation that the fallacy is deliberate. Jørgensen defended his use of the term by arguing that 'subreption...is in logic a certain kind of false inference and has here no offensive meaning whatsoever'. S. M. Jørgensen, 'Zur Konstitution der Kobalt-, Chrom- und Rhodiumbasen, XI', Zeitschrift für anorganische Chemie (1899), 19, 109-57, on 116. This paper is translated and annotated in Kauffman, Classics in Coordination Chemistry, op. cit. (1), 103-65.
45. The word subreption (from the latin subreptus) means a fallacious representation or an inference drawn from it, sometimes with the connotation that the fallacy is deliberate. Jørgensen defended his use of the term by arguing that 'subreption...is in logic a certain kind of false inference and has here no offensive meaning whatsoever'. S. M. Jørgensen, 'Zur Konstitution der Kobalt-, Chrom- und Rhodiumbasen, XI', Zeitschrift für anorganische Chemie (1899), 19, 109-57, on 116. This paper is translated and annotated in Kauffman, Classics in Coordination Chemistry, op. cit. (1), 103-65.
46. S. M. Jørgensen, 'Zur Konstitution der Kobalt-, Chrom- und Rhodiumbasen, VI', Zeitschrift für anorganische Chemie (1894), 7, 289-330, on 317.
47. S. M. Jørgensen, 'Zur Konstitution der Kobalt-, Chrom- und Rhodiumbasen, VIII', Zeitschrift für anorganische Chemie (1896), 13, 172-90, on 172.
48. A. Werner, 'Beiträge zur Konstitution anorganische Verbindungen, II', Zeitschrift für anorganische Chemie (1895), 8, 153-88.
49. F. Reitzenstein, Ammoniak-, Pyridin-Salze und Hydrate Bivalenter Metalle, Habilitationsschrift, University of Würzburg, 1898, 45. Reitzenstein wrote in 1898 an extensive and pro-Wernerian survey of metal ammonia salts in which he described Jørgensen's opposition as reactionary. F. Reitzenstein, 'Über die verschiedenen Theorien zur Erklärung der Konstitution der Metallammoniaksalze', Zeitschrift für anorganische Chemie (1898), 18, 152-210.
50. F. Reitzenstein, Ammoniak-, Pyridin-Salze und Hydrate Bivalenter Metalle, Habilitationsschrift, University of Würzburg, 1898, 45. Reitzenstein wrote in 1898 an extensive and pro-Wernerian survey of metal ammonia salts in which he described Jørgensen's opposition as reactionary. F. Reitzenstein, 'Über die verschiedenen Theorien zur Erklärung der Konstitution der Metallammoniaksalze', Zeitschrift für anorganische Chemie (1898), 18, 152-210.
51. Jørgensen, op. cit. (15), 116-17.
52. Jørgensen, op. cit. (16), 319.
53. E. Petersen, 'Über die Anzahl der Ionen in einigen Kobalt-Ammoniakverbindungen', Zeitschrift für physikalische Chemie (1897), 22, 410-23.
54. A. Werner and C. Herty, 'Constitution anorganischer Verbindungen', Zeitschrift für physikalische Chemie (1901), 38, 331-53, on 331.
55. E. Petersen, 'Über die Anzahl der Ionen in Metalammoniakverbindungen', Zeitschrift für physikalische Chemie (1902), 39, 249-52.
56. Robert Merton found that priority controversies are often fought by followers not directly involved in the research in question, not by the discoverers themselves. R. K. Merton, 'Priorities in scientific discovery: a chapter in the sociology of science', American Sociological Review (1957), 22, 635-59, on 638 (reprinted in Merton, The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Chicago, 1973, 286-324). However, this seems not to be the case with other kinds of controversy, where the key scientists cannot stay behind the scenes in the same way. Yet scientists of eminence will often try to avoid direct confrontation by criticizing their opponent's supporters or leaving strong attacks to their own supporters.
57. Robert Merton found that priority controversies are often fought by followers not directly involved in the research in question, not by the discoverers themselves. R. K. Merton, 'Priorities in scientific discovery: a chapter in the sociology of science', American Sociological Review (1957), 22, 635-59, on 638 (reprinted in Merton, The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Chicago, 1973, 286-324). However, this seems not to be the case with other kinds of controversy, where the key scientists cannot stay behind the scenes in the same way. Yet scientists of eminence will often try to avoid direct confrontation by criticizing their opponent's supporters or leaving strong attacks to their own supporters.
58. S. M. Jørgensen, 'Zur Konstitution der Kobalt-, Chrom- und Rhodiumbasen, VII' Zeitschrift für anorganische Chemie (1896), 11, 416-53, on 449.
59. S. M. Jørgensen, 'Recherches sur la constitution des sels cobaltammoniés', Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Oversigter, 1895, 1-31, on 30-1.
60. Jørgensen to Blomstrand, 1 September 1897, University of Library of Lund, UB1. Original in Danish.
61. Jørgensen, op. cit. (15), 151.
62. Jørgensen, op. cit. (15), 151.
63. See for example Jørgensen's criticism of the Wernerian G. Richter in Jørgensen, op. cit. (15), 150 . This kind of criticism followed Werner's system long after the controversy had ceased. For an example, see Alfred W. Stewart's methodological criticism of 1919, as quoted in C. A. Russell, The History of Valency, Leicester, 1971, 223.
64. See for example Jørgensen's criticism of the Wernerian G. Richter in Jørgensen, op. cit. (15), 150 . This kind of criticism followed Werner's system long after the controversy had ceased. For an example, see Alfred W. Stewart's methodological criticism of 1919, as quoted in C. A. Russell, The History of Valency, Leicester, 1971, 223.
65. Jørgensen, op. cit. (15), 154.
66. Jørgensen, op. cit. (15), 151.
67. Kauffman, 'S. M. Jørgensen and the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', op. cit. (1), 202-3, and the same in Kauffman, 'S. M. Jørgensen: a chapter', op. cit. (1), which is a shorter version of the former paper.
68. Kauffman, 'S. M. Jørgensen and the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', op. cit. (1), 202-3, and the same in Kauffman, 'S. M. Jørgensen: a chapter', op. cit. (1), which is a shorter version of the former paper.
69. S. Veibel, Kemien i Danmark I: Kemiens Historie i Danmark, Copenhagen, 1939, 213 and 'Science in one city: Copenhagen', May and Baker Laboratory Bulletin (1970), 9, 5-12 ; K. A. Jensen, 'Kemi', in Københavns Universitet 1479-1979 (ed. M. Pihl), 14 vols., Copenhagen, 1983, xii, 427-580, on 501; H. Lund, Hovedtræk of Kemiens Historie indtil År 1900, Copenhagen, 1973, 120. Veibel, Jensen and Lund were all professors of chemistry in Denmark.
70. S. Veibel, Kemien i Danmark I: Kemiens Historie i Danmark, Copenhagen, 1939, 213 and 'Science in one city: Copenhagen', May and Baker Laboratory Bulletin (1970), 9, 5-12 ; K. A. Jensen, 'Kemi', in Københavns Universitet 1479-1979 (ed. M. Pihl), 14 vols., Copenhagen, 1983, xii, 427-580, on 501; H. Lund, Hovedtræk of Kemiens Historie indtil År 1900, Copenhagen, 1973, 120. Veibel, Jensen and Lund were all professors of chemistry in Denmark.
71. S. Veibel, Kemien i Danmark I: Kemiens Historie i Danmark, Copenhagen, 1939, 213 and 'Science in one city: Copenhagen', May and Baker Laboratory Bulletin (1970), 9, 5-12 ; K. A. Jensen, 'Kemi', in Københavns Universitet 1479-1979 (ed. M. Pihl), 14 vols., Copenhagen, 1983, xii, 427-580, on 501; H. Lund, Hovedtræk of Kemiens Historie indtil År 1900, Copenhagen, 1973, 120. Veibel, Jensen and Lund were all professors of chemistry in Denmark.
72. S. Veibel, Kemien i Danmark I: Kemiens Historie i Danmark, Copenhagen, 1939, 213 and 'Science in one city: Copenhagen', May and Baker Laboratory Bulletin (1970), 9, 5-12 ; K. A. Jensen, 'Kemi', in Københavns Universitet 1479-1979 (ed. M. Pihl), 14 vols., Copenhagen, 1983, xii, 427-580, on 501; H. Lund, Hovedtræk of Kemiens Historie indtil År 1900, Copenhagen, 1973, 120. Veibel, Jensen and Lund were all professors of chemistry in Denmark.
73. Kauffman, Classics in Coordination Chemistry, op. cit. (1), 102, and 'S. M. Jøorgensen and the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', op. cit. (1), 180. See also the DSB entry for Jørgensen, also by Kauffman.
74. Kauffman, Classics in Coordination Chemistry, op. cit. (1), 102, and 'S. M. Jøorgensen and the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', op. cit. (1), 180. See also the DSB entry for Jørgensen, also by Kauffman.
75. S. P. L. Sørensen, 'S. M. Jørgensen', Fysisk Tidsskrift (1913-14), 12, 217-41. A less heroic account of the controversy was given by Thorstein Hiorthdahl, professor of chemistry at the University of Oslo. T. Hiortdahl, 'Mindetale over S. M. Jørgensen', Tidsskrift for Kemi (1914), 11, 160-5.
76. S. P. L. Sørensen, 'S. M. Jørgensen', Fysisk Tidsskrift (1913-14), 12, 217-41. A less heroic account of the controversy was given by Thorstein Hiorthdahl, professor of chemistry at the University of Oslo. T. Hiortdahl, 'Mindetale over S. M. Jørgensen', Tidsskrift for Kemi (1914), 11, 160-5.
77. Bjerrum, op. cit. (12), 15.
78. S. P. L. Sørensen, 'Studier over Koboltidoxalater', dissertation, University of Copenhagen, 1899.
79. S. M. Jørgensen and S. P. L. Sørensen, 'Ueber eine neue mit Magnus grüner Salze isomere, rote Verbindung', Zeitschrift für anorganische Chemie (1906), 48, 441-5.
80. Kauffman 'S. M. Jørgensen and the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', op. cit. (1), 202. Similarly in the DSB entry where Jørgensen is said to have 'graciously capitulated' when confronted with Werner's salt. According to Kauffman, Classics in Coordination Chemistry, op. cit. (1), 100, and also 'Theories of coordination compounds', op. cit. (1), 21 and Werner, op. cit. (11), 36, Jørgensen 'immediately conceded defeat'. Naturally, the claim has dispersed into other works of history of chemistry. See for example A. J. Ihde, The Development of Chemistry, New York, 1964, 389, and L. Tansjö, 'While waiting for Werner: chemistry in chains', in Coordination Chemistry: A Century of Progress (ed. G. B. Kauffman), Washington, DC, 1994, 35-40.
81. Kauffman 'S. M. Jørgensen and the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', op. cit. (1), 202. Similarly in the DSB entry where Jørgensen is said to have 'graciously capitulated' when confronted with Werner's salt. According to Kauffman, Classics in Coordination Chemistry, op. cit. (1), 100, and also 'Theories of coordination compounds', op. cit. (1), 21 and Werner, op. cit. (11), 36, Jørgensen 'immediately conceded defeat'. Naturally, the claim has dispersed into other works of history of chemistry. See for example A. J. Ihde, The Development of Chemistry, New York, 1964, 389, and L. Tansjö, 'While waiting for Werner: chemistry in chains', in Coordination Chemistry: A Century of Progress (ed. G. B. Kauffman), Washington, DC, 1994, 35-40.
82. Kauffman 'S. M. Jørgensen and the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', op. cit. (1), 202. Similarly in the DSB entry where Jørgensen is said to have 'graciously capitulated' when confronted with Werner's salt. According to Kauffman, Classics in Coordination Chemistry, op. cit. (1), 100, and also 'Theories of coordination compounds', op. cit. (1), 21 and Werner, op. cit. (11), 36, Jørgensen 'immediately conceded defeat'. Naturally, the claim has dispersed into other works of history of chemistry. See for example A. J. Ihde, The Development of Chemistry, New York, 1964, 389, and L. Tansjö, 'While waiting for Werner: chemistry in chains', in Coordination Chemistry: A Century of Progress (ed. G. B. Kauffman), Washington, DC, 1994, 35-40.
83. Kauffman 'S. M. Jørgensen and the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', op. cit. (1), 202. Similarly in the DSB entry where Jørgensen is said to have 'graciously capitulated' when confronted with Werner's salt. According to Kauffman, Classics in Coordination Chemistry, op. cit. (1), 100, and also 'Theories of coordination compounds', op. cit. (1), 21 and Werner, op. cit. (11), 36, Jørgensen 'immediately conceded defeat'. Naturally, the claim has dispersed into other works of history of chemistry. See for example A. J. Ihde, The Development of Chemistry, New York, 1964, 389, and L. Tansjö, 'While waiting for Werner: chemistry in chains', in Coordination Chemistry: A Century of Progress (ed. G. B. Kauffman), Washington, DC, 1994, 35-40.
84. Kauffman 'S. M. Jørgensen and the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', op. cit. (1), 202. Similarly in the DSB entry where Jørgensen is said to have 'graciously capitulated' when confronted with Werner's salt. According to Kauffman, Classics in Coordination Chemistry, op. cit. (1), 100, and also 'Theories of coordination compounds', op. cit. (1), 21 and Werner, op. cit. (11), 36, Jørgensen 'immediately conceded defeat'. Naturally, the claim has dispersed into other works of history of chemistry. See for example A. J. Ihde, The Development of Chemistry, New York, 1964, 389, and L. Tansjö, 'While waiting for Werner: chemistry in chains', in Coordination Chemistry: A Century of Progress (ed. G. B. Kauffman), Washington, DC, 1994, 35-40.
85. Kauffman 'S. M. Jørgensen and the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', op. cit. (1), 202. Similarly in the DSB entry where Jørgensen is said to have 'graciously capitulated' when confronted with Werner's salt. According to Kauffman, Classics in Coordination Chemistry, op. cit. (1), 100, and also 'Theories of coordination compounds', op. cit. (1), 21 and Werner, op. cit. (11), 36, Jørgensen 'immediately conceded defeat'. Naturally, the claim has dispersed into other works of history of chemistry. See
86. S. M. Jørgensen, 'Zur Konstitution der Platinbasen, IV', Zeitschrift für anorganische Chemie (1906), 48, 374-88.
87. For details, see Kauffman, Inorganic Coordination Compounds, op. cit. (1), 121-36; and 'The discovery of optically active coordination compounds: a milestone in stereochemistry', Isis (1975), 66, 38-62.
88. For details, see Kauffman, Inorganic Coordination Compounds, op. cit. (1), 121-36; and 'The discovery of optically active coordination compounds: a milestone in stereochemistry', Isis (1975), 66, 38-62.
89. Sørensen, op. cit. (37), 238; Kauffman, 'S. M. Jørgensen and the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', op. cit. (1), 202.
90. Sørensen, op. cit. (37), 238; Kauffman, 'S. M. Jørgensen and the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', op. cit. (1), 202.
91. According to Friend, and also to Blomstrand and Jørgensen, nitrogen was pentavalent. J. Newton Friend, The Theory of Valency, London, 1909, 120. On Werner's model of ammonium chloride, see A. Werner, New Ideas on Inorganic Chemistry, London, 1911, 67-70 (a translation by E. P. Hedley of Werner, Neuere Anschauungen auf den Gebiete der Anorganischen Chemie, Braunschweig, 1905).
92. According to Friend, and also to Blomstrand and Jørgensen, nitrogen was pentavalent. J. Newton Friend, The Theory of Valency, London, 1909, 120. On Werner's model of ammonium chloride, see A. Werner, New Ideas on Inorganic Chemistry, London, 1911, 67-70 (a translation by E. P. Hedley of Werner, Neuere Anschauungen auf den Gebiete der Anorganischen Chemie, Braunschweig, 1905).
93. According to Friend, and also to Blomstrand and Jørgensen, nitrogen was pentavalent. J. Newton Friend, The Theory of Valency, London, 1909, 120. On Werner's model of ammonium chloride, see A. Werner, New Ideas on Inorganic Chemistry, London, 1911, 67-70 (a translation by E. P. Hedley of Werner, Neuere Anschauungen auf den Gebiete der Anorganischen Chemie, Braunschweig, 1905).
94. Jørgensen was ill, but it is possible that Werner paid him a visit during his three-day stay in Copenhagen. See Kauffman, Werner, op. cit. (11), 93.
95. D. L. Hull, P. D. Tessner and A. M. Diamond, 'Planck's principle', Science (1978), 202, 717-23; T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn, Chicago, 1970, 151.
96. D. L. Hull, P. D. Tessner and A. M. Diamond, 'Planck's principle', Science (1978), 202, 717-23; T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn, Chicago, 1970, 151.
97. About seventy letters to and from Jørgensen are deposited at the Royal Library in Copenhagen. However, the correspondence throws no light on the history of coordination chemistry.
98. Sørensen, op. cit. (37), 239.
99. Kauffman, 'S. M. Jørgensen and the Werner-Jørgensen controversy', op. cit. (1), 183, without quoting the source.
100. Nobel Archive, Royal Academy of Science, Stockholm. See also E. Crawford, J. L. Heilbron and R. Ullrich, The Nobel Population 1901-1937: A Census of the Nominators and Nominees for the Prizes in Physics and Chemistry, Berkeley and Stockholm, 1987, 172-3 , and E. Crawford, The Beginnings of the Nobel Institution: The Science Prizes, 1901-15, Cambridge, 1984. Moissan was a Nobel laureate of 1906 and Sabatier received the prize in 1912. I am grateful to the Swedish Royal Academy of Science for permission to use the Nobel material.
101. Nobel Archive, Royal Academy of Science, Stockholm. See also E. Crawford, J. L. Heilbron and R. Ullrich, The Nobel Population 1901-1937: A Census of the Nominators and Nominees for the Prizes in Physics and Chemistry, Berkeley and Stockholm, 1987, 172-3 , and E. Crawford, The Beginnings of the Nobel Institution: The Science Prizes, 1901-15, Cambridge, 1984. Moissan was a Nobel laureate of 1906 and Sabatier received the prize in 1912. I am grateful to the Swedish Royal Academy of Science for permission to use the Nobel material.
102. Moissan to Nobel Committee, 26 January 1907, Nobel Archive, Royal Academy of Science, Stockholm. Original in French.
103. Memorandum of Nobel Committee, 30 September 1907, Nobel Archive, Royal Academy of Science, Stockholm. Original in Swedish. The Nobel Committee for Chemistry consisted of O. Hamarsten, P. Klason, O. Petterson, H. G. Söderbaum and O. Widman.
104. Memorandum of Nobel Committee, Nobel Archive, Royal Academy of Science, Stockholm.
105. H. E. Koefod, 'Om Nogle Nitroso-Platinammoniakforbindelser', dissertation, University of Copenhagen, 1894.
106. N. Bjerrum, 'Einige Bemerkungen über Chromchloridsulfate', Berichte der deutschen Chemischen Gesellschaft (1906), 39, 1597-602; English translation in Niels Bjerrum: Selected Papers, Copenhagen, 1949, 249-54. See also G. B. Kauffman, 'Niels Bjerrum (1879-1958): a centennial evaluation', Journal of Chemical Education (1980), 57, 779-82, 863-7.
107. N. Bjerrum, 'Einige Bemerkungen über Chromchloridsulfate', Berichte der deutschen Chemischen Gesellschaft (1906), 39, 1597-602; English translation in Niels Bjerrum: Selected Papers, Copenhagen, 1949, 249-54. See also G. B. Kauffman, 'Niels Bjerrum (1879-1958): a centennial evaluation', Journal of Chemical Education (1980), 57, 779-82, 863-7.
108. N. Bjerrum, 'Einige Bemerkungen über Chromchloridsulfate', Berichte der deutschen Chemischen Gesellschaft (1906), 39, 1597-602; English translation in Niels Bjerrum: Selected Papers, Copenhagen, 1949, 249-54. See also G. B. Kauffman, 'Niels Bjerrum (1879-1958): a centennial evaluation', Journal of Chemical Education (1980), 57, 779-82, 863-7.
109. A. Werner, 'S. M. Jørgensen', Chemiker-Zeitung (1914), 38, 557-9. In this obituary, Werner praised Jørgensen's experimental work and characterized his opposition to the coordination theory as objective and factual (to have been 'in sachlicher Form'). Remarkably, but not surprisingly, this characterization differed markedly from the way in which Werner characterized Jørgensen's stand while the controversy was still raging. Werner further speculated that Jørgensen 'undoubtedly realized' the advantages of the coordination theory in 1895, but this is a speculation that does not agree with Jørgensen's publications.
110. There is no standard definition of (scientific) controversy, but, as mentioned earlier in this paper, it is useful to distinguish it from other forms of communication, such as debate, discussion, polemics and dispute. If not, the term will lose its significance and any kind of disagreement between scientists qualify as a controversy. Webster's Dictionary defines a controversy as '1. dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion. 2. contention, strife, or argument', which is not very helpful. Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, New York, 1996.
111. Vermeeren, op. cit. (5). Many controversies, for example relating to discovery claims of chemical elements, do not involve theory at all or only insignificantly.
112. G. L. Geison, The Private Science of Louis Pasteur, Princeton, 1995.