Positivism, whiggism, and the chemical revolution: A study in the historiography of chemistry

History of Science

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 1-33

  McEvoy, John G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84996197059     PISSN: 00732753     EISSN: 17538564     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/007327539703500101     Document Type: Article

References (303)

1. Westman Robert S., Lindberg David C., “Introduction”, in Westman Robert S., Lindberg David C. (eds), Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution (Cambridge, 1990), pp. xvii–xxvii, see p. xxiv.
2. See McEvoy John G., “The Chemical Revolution in context”, The eighteenth century: Theory and interpretation, xxxiii (1992), 198–216.
3. See Laudan Rachel, “Histories of the sciences and their uses: A review to 1913”, History of science, xxxi (1993), 1–34;
4. Bensaude-Vincent Bernadette, “A Founder Myth in the history of science? — The Lavoisier case”, in Graham Loren, Lepenies Wolf, Weingart Peter (eds), Functions and uses of disciplinary histories, vii (Dordrecht, 1983), 53–78;
5. idem, Lavoisier: Mémoires d'une révolution (Paris, 1993), 343–418;
6. Donovan Arthur, “The Chemical Revolution revisited”, in Cutliffe Stephen H. (ed.), Science and technology in the eighteenth century: Essays of the Lawrence Henry Gipson Institute for Eighteenth Century Studies (Bethlehem, Pa., 1984), 1–15.
7. See Golinski Jan V., “Science ‘and’ the Enlightenment”, History of science, xxiv (1986), 411–24.
8. See also McEvoy, “Chemical Revolution” (ref. 2), 204–5.
9. See Jürgen Habermas, On the logic of the social sciences, transl. by Nicholson Shierry Weber, Stark Jerry A. (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), 165.
10. Two seminal texts in this critical literature were Agassi Joseph, Towards an historiography of science ('s-Gravenhage, 1963), and
11. Suppe Frederick, “The search for philosophic understanding of scientific theories”, in Suppe Frederick (ed.), The structure of scientific theories (Urbana, Ill., 1974), 1–241.
12. See, for example, Brock William H., The Fontana history of chemistry (London, 1992), pp. xxii–xxiii, 656–62;
13. Brush Stephen G., “Scientists as historians”, in Thackray Arnold (ed.), Constructing knowledge in the history of science (Osiris, 2nd ser., x; Chicago, 1965), 215–31, pp. 217–24;
14. Hall A. Rupert, “On Whiggism”, History of science, xxi (1983), 49–59;
15. Laudan Larry, “The history of science and the philosophy of science”, in Olby R. C. et al. (eds), Companion to the history of modern science (London, 1990), 47–59, pp. 56–57;
16. Nickles Thomas, “Philosophy of science and history of science”, in Thackray (ed.), Constructing knowledge (ref. 7), 139–63, pp. 151–5;
17. Oldroyd David, “Sir Archibald Geikie (1835–1924), geologist, romantic, aesthete, and historian of geology: The problem of the whig historiography of science”, Annals of science, xxxvii (1980), 441–62;
18. Pyenson Lewis, “What is the good of the history of science?”, History of science, xxvii (1989), 352–89.
19. In order to characterize the hold of the whig interpretation of history on the imagination of the historian, Herbert Butterfield referred to it as “the historians' pathetic fallacy” (The whig interpretation of history (New York, 1965 (1931)), 30).
20. Ironically, later in life, Butterfield succumbed to this fallacy when he abandoned the contextualist historiography of his “misguided” youth in order to “celebrate this whig inheritance of ours with a robust but regulated pride” (The Englishman and his history (New York, 1970), 3–4).
21. See, for example, Rouse Joseph, “Philosophy of science and the persistent narratives of modernity”, Studies in the history and philosophy of science, xxii (1991), 141–62;
22. Iliffe Rob, “Rhetorical vices: Outlines of a Feyerabendian history of science”, History of science, xxx (1992), 199–219, p. 213.
23. A just sense of the unity-in-multiplicity of the Enlightenment notion of progress can be gained from Beretta Marco, The enlightenment of matter: The definition of chemistry from Agricola to Lavoisier (Canton, Mass., 1993), chap. 1;
24. Bury J. B., The idea of progress: An inquiry into its origins and growth (London, 1924);
25. Lowth Karl, Meaning in history: The theological implications of the philosophy of history (Chicago, 1949);
26. Nisbet Robert, History of the idea of progress (New York, 1980);
27. Pollard Sidney, The idea of progress: History and society (London, 1990);
28. Spadafora David, The idea of progress in eighteenth-century Britain (London, 1990);
29. van Doren Charles, The idea of progress (New York, 1967). The bibliographical essay at the end of Spadafora's volume (pp. 425–53) provides a useful introduction to the voluminous historical literature on progress.
30. See, for example, Burrow J. W., A liberal descent: Victorian historians and the English past (Cambridge, 1981);
31. Butterfield Herbert, George III and the historians (London, 1957); idem, Englishman (ref. 7);
32. Culler A. Dwight, The Victorian mirror of history (London, 1985);
33. Forbes Duncan, The Liberal Anglican idea of history (Cambridge, 1952);
34. Jann Rosemary, The art and science of Victorian history (Columbus, Oh., 1985).
35. See Lowth, Meaning (ref. 9), 73;
36. Bury, Progress (ref. 9), 236–7;
37. Forbes Duncan, “Scientific whiggism: Adam Smith and John Miller”, Cambridge journal, vii (1954), 643–70;
38. Jann, Victorian mirror (ref. 10), pp. xiv–xv, xi, 67ff, and 227ff;
39. Laudan, “Histories” (ref. 3), 15.
40. See Burrow, Liberal descent (ref. 10), 21–35;
41. Jann, Victorian mirror (ref. 10), 78–81 and 208.
42. See Jones Gareth Stedman, “The pathology of English history”, New left review, xlvi (1967), 29–44, pp. 30–31;
43. Burrow, Liberal descent (ref. 10), 295–6;
44. Butterfield, Englishman (ref. 7), 2 and 79;
45. Jann, Victorian mirror (ref. 10), 30;
46. Plumb J. H., The death of the past (London, 1969), 35.
47. Butterfield, Whig interpretation (ref. 7), p. v.
48. See also Toynbee Arnold, A study of history (abridgement of vols i-vi by D. C. Sommervell; New York, 1947).
49. Butterfield, Whig interpretation (ref. 7), 19–20, 28, and 96.
50. See Laudan Larry, “Theories of scientific method from Plato to Mach: A bibliographical essay”, History of science, vii (1968), 1–63, p. 29;
51. Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge and human interests, transl. by Shapiro Jeremy J. (Boston, 1968), 67–72.
52. See, for example, Habermas, Knowledge (ref. 17), chaps. 4–6;
53. Kalakowski L., The alienation of reason: A history of positivist thought, transl. by Gutterman N. (New York, 1968);
54. Keat Russell, Urry John, Social theory as science (London, 1975), chap. 1;
55. Laudan, “Scientific method” (ref. 17), 28–37;
56. idem. Science and hypothesis: Historical essays on scientific methodology (Dordrecht, 1981), chaps. 9 and 13;
57. Oldroyd David, The arch of knowledge: An introductory study of the history of the philosophy and methodology of science (New York, 1986), chap. 5;
58. Pickering Mary, Auguste Comte: An intellectual biography, i (Cambridge, 1993);
59. Pyenson Lewis, “Prerogatives of European intellect: Historians of science and the promotion of Western Civilization”, History of science, xxxi (1993), 289–315;
60. Simon W. M., European positivism in the nineteenth century: An essay in intellectual history (Ithaca, N. Y., 1963);
61. Stockman Norman, Antipositivist theories of the sciences: Critical rationalism, critical theory, and scientific realism (Dordrecht, 1983).
62. For accounts of logical positivism that relate to issues in the history and philosophy of science see Hodge M. J. S., Cantor G. N., “The development of the philosophy of science since 1900”, in Olby et al. (eds), Companion (ref. 7), 838–53;
63. Toulmin Stephen, “From form to function: Philosophy and the history of science in the 1950's and now”, Daedalus, civ (1977), 143–63, pp. 145–7;
64. Wood Paul, “The philosophy of science in relation to the history of science”, in Corsi Pietro, Weindling Paul (eds). Information sources in the history of science and medicine (London, 1983), 116–133, pp. 116–18.
65. See, for example, the selections from Comte's Cours de philosophie in Gardiner Patrick (ed.), Theories of history (New York, 1959), 35–82.
66. See Pickering, Comte (ref. 18), 277–89 and 683–4.
67. See Habermas, Knowledge (ref. 17), 73–75.
68. For the definitive discussion of the methodological character of eighteenth-century thought see Cassirer Ernst, The philosophy of the Enlightenment, transl. by Koeln C. A., Pettegrove James P. (Boston, 1955), chaps. 1 and 3.
69. For a fuller discussion of Comte's tensile scientific methodology see Laudan, Science and hypothesis (ref. 18), chap. 9;
70. Pickering, Comte (ref. 18), 213–14, 294–6, 567–70, and 694–7.
71. See Suppe, “Philosophic understanding” (ref. 6), 16–118.
72. See Laudan, “History of science” (ref. 7), 47–49.
73. See also Toulmin, “Form” (ref. 19).
74. Tore Frängsmyr, “Science or history: George Sarton and the positivist tradition in the history of science”, Lychnos, lxxiv (1973), 104–44, p. 107.
75. See also Kragh Helge, An introduction to the historiography of science (Cambridge, 1987), chap. 1;
76. Thackray Arnold, Merton Robert K., “On discipline building: The paradoxes of George Sarton”, Isis, lxi (1972), 473–85.
77. See Frängsmyr, “Science” (ref. 26), 107–13.
78. See also Thackray Arnold, “The pre-history of an academic discipline: The study of the history of science in the United States, 1891–1941”, Minerva, xvii (1980), 448–73, pp. 457–61.
79. See Frängsmyr, “Science” (ref. 26), 111–13 and 120.
80. For the Enlightenment roots of the history of science see Beretta, Enlightenment (ref. 9);
81. Christie John R. R., “The development of the historiography of science”, in Olby et al., Companion (ref. 7), 4–22, pp. 5–10;
82. Schaffer Simon, “Natural philosophy”, in Rousseau G. S., Porter Roy (eds), The ferment of knowledge: Studies in the historiography of eighteenth-century science (Cambridge, 1980), 55–91, p. 72.
83. Schaffer Simon, “Scientific discovery and the end of natural philosophy”, Social studies of science, xvi (1986), 387–420, pp. 387–90.
84. Frängsmyr, “Science” (ref. 26), 124.
85. See, for example, Agassi, Historiography (ref. 6), 12:
86. Forman Paul, “Independence, not transcendence, for the historian of science”, Isis, lxxxii (1991), 71–85, pp. 77–81.
87. Schuster John, Yeo Richard, “Introduction”, in Schuster John, Yeo Richard (eds), The politics and rhetoric of scientific method (Dordrecht, 1986), pp. ix–xxvii, see pp. xv and xvi;
88. Frängsmyr, “Science” (ref. 26), 123–9;
89. Pyenson, “History of science” (ref. 7), 375.
90. See Conant James Bryant, “Introduction”, in Conant James Bryant, Nash Leonard K. (eds), Harvard case histories in experimental science (Cambridge, Mass., 1957), pp. vii–ix;
91. Schuster, Yeo, “Introduction” (ref. 32), p. xvi.
92. Frängsmyr, “Science” (ref. 26), 125 and 129.
93. For the interpretation of positivism and whiggism outlined here see, for example, Callinicos Alex, Althusser's Marxism (London, 1976), 19 and chap. 3;
94. Dews Peter, Logics of disintegration: Post-structuralist thought and the claims of Critical Theory (London, 1987), chaps. 1 and 3;
95. Dreyfus Hubert L., Rabinow Paul, Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics (Chicago, 1983), chaps. 2 and 3;
96. Feenberg Andrew, Lukacs, Marx, and the sources of Critical Theory (Totowa, N.J., 1981), 211;
97. Popper Karl R., The logic of scientific discovery, 2nd edn (London, 1968), 35–36.
98. See Agassi, Historiography (ref. 6), 1–3.
99. Sarton George, Introduction to the history of science (3 vols, Baltimore, 1947), iii, 15.
100. See also idem, The history of science and the new humanism (Cambridge, Mass., 1937), 30–34.
101. For a discussion of the idea of unity in Sarton's historiography see Frängsmyr, “Science” (ref. 26), 110–13.
102. See Comte August, “Plan of the scientific operations necessary for reorganizing society”, in Harrison Frederick (ed.), Early essays on social philosophy, translated from the French of August Comte by Henry Dix Hutton (London, 1911), 154;
103. Butterfield, Whig interpretation (ref. 7), 42.
104. For a discussion of the notion of expressive causality see Lentrichia Frank, “Foucault's legacy — A new historicism?”, in Veeser Aram (ed.), The new historicism (New York, 1989), 231–43, p. 232;
105. Callinicos, Marxism (ref. 35), 40–41;
106. idem, Against Postmodernism: A Marxist critique (New York, 1989), 131–2.
107. See, for example, Benton Ted, The rise and fall of Structuralist Marxism: Althusser and his influence (London, 1984), 59–61;
108. Callinicos, Marxism (ref. 35), 66–71;
109. Lecourt Dominique, Marxism and epistemology: Bachelard, Canguilhem, and Foucault, transl. by Brewster Ben (London, 1969), 190–3.
110. Butterfield, Whig interpretation (ref. 7), 8.
111. For a discussion of this interpretation of the Scientific Revolution see Lindberg David C., “Conceptions of the Scientific Revolution from Bacon to Butterfield: A preliminary sketch”, in Lindberg, Westman (eds), Reappraisals (ref. 1), 1–26.
112. See Gordy Michael, “Reading Althusser: Time and the social whole”, History and theory, xxii (1983), 1–21, pp. 1–4.
113. See also Anderson Perry, Arguments within English Marxism (London, 1980), 73–77;
114. Benton, Marxism (ref. 39), 3–81.
115. See Kuhn Thomas S., The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd edn (Chicago, 1972), 1–2;
116. Agassi, Historiography (ref. 6), 2, 7, and 25.
117. See Agassi, Historiography (ref. 6), 25;
118. Butterfield Herbert, The origins of modern science, 1300–1800, revised edn (New York, 1965), chap. 11: “The postponed scientific revolution in chemistry”.
119. See Laudan Larry, Science and values: The aims of science and the role of scientific debate (Berkeley, Ca., 1984), 1–13;
120. Suppe, “Philosophic understanding” (ref. 6), 55–56.
121. See Lakatos Imre, “The history of science and its rational reconstruction”, in Howson Colin (ed.), Method and appraisal in the physical sciences: The critical background to modern science, 1800–1905 (London, 1976), 1–39, pp. 2–4;
122. idem, “Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes”, in Lakatos Imre, Musgrave Alan (eds), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (Cambridge, 1970), 91–196, pp. 96–97;
123. Laudan, Science and hypothesis (ref. 18), 227–35.
124. See Lakatos, “Falsification” (ref. 45), 97–103;
125. idem, “History of science” (ref. 45), 4–6;
126. Agassi, Historiography (ref. 8), 29–30.
127. See Toulmin Stephen, “Crucial experiments: Priestley and Lavoisier”, Journal of the history of ideas, xvii (1957), 205–20, p. 206.
128. Partington James R., A short history of chemistry (London, 1937), 129;
129. Butterfield, Origins (ref. 43), 204;
130. Crosland Maurice P., “Chemistry and the Chemical Revolution”, in Rousseau, Porter (eds), Ferment (ref. 28), 389–416, p. 403.
131. Gillispie Charles Coulston, The edge of objectivity: An essay in the history of scientific ideas (Princeton, N.J., 1960), 205;
132. Butterfield, Origins (ref. 43), 208;
133. Bensaude-Vincent, “Founder Myth” (ref. 3), 53;
134. Donovan, “Chemical Revolution” (ref. 3), 8–9.
135. For a fuller discussion of the role of the historiography of inversion in positivist-whig and postpositivist historiographies of the Chemical Revolution see McEvoy John G., “Continuity and discontinuity in the Chemical Revolution”, in Donovan Arthur (ed.), The Chemical Revolution: Essays in reinterpretation (Osiris, 2nd ser., iv; Philadelphia, Pa., 1988), 195–213, pp. 195–7.
136. Multhauf Robert P., “On the use of the balance in chemistry”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, cvi (1962), 210–18, pp. 210, 213, and 218.
137. See Butterfield, Origins (ref. 43), 108–210;
138. Crosland Maurice P., “The development of chemistry in the eighteenth century”, Studies on Voltaire and the eighteenth century, xxiv (1963), 369–441, pp. 397, 440–1;
139. Gillispie, Objectivity (ref. 49), 211;
140. Hartley Harold, Studies in the history of chemistry (Oxford, 1971), 27–28.
141. Fora useful overview of the phlogiston theory see Hall A. Rupert, The Scientific Revolution 1500–1800: The formation of the modern scientific attitude, 2nd edn (London, 1962), 328–40.
142. Hartley, Studies (ref. 50), 27–28.
143. See Bloch Ernst, “Die antike Atomistik in der neueren Geschichte der Chemie”, Isis, i (1913), 377–415;
144. Davis T. L., “The first edition of the Skeptical Chymist”, Isis, viii (1926), 71–76, p. 71;
145. Duhem Pierre, Le mixte et la combinasion chimique: Essai sur l'évolution d'une idée (Paris, 1902), 17;
146. Kopp Hermann, Beitrage zur Geschichte der Chimie, drittes Stuck (Braunschweig, 1875), 70–77.
147. For a fuller account of this aspect of the the positivist-whig interpretation of the Chemical Revolution see Kuhn Thomas S., “Robert Boyle and structural chemistry in the seventeenth century”, Isis, xliii (1952), 12–36, pp. 12–15.
148. Ernst Cassirer explored and analysed this ontological inversion from the perspective of a Neokantian idealist historiography in his Substance and function and Einstein's theory of relativity, transl. by Swabey William Curtis, Swabey Marie Curtis (Chicago, 1923), 204–5.
149. See McKie Douglas, Antoine Lavoisier: The father of modern chemistry (Philadelphia, 1935), 61–64;
150. Moore Forris J., A history of chemistry, 3rd edn (New York, 1939), 33 and 36;
151. Rodwell George Farrer, “On the theory of phlogiston”, Philosophical magazine, xxxv (1868), 1–32, pp. 26–32;
152. White J. H., The history of the phlogiston theory (London, 1932), 11–14.
153. For a fuller discussion of this aspect of the positivist-whig interpretation of the Chemical Revolution see Part 1, pp. 1–4 of McEvoy John G., “Joseph Priestley, ‘Aerial Philosopher’: Metaphysics and methodology in Priestley's chemical thought, 1772–1781, Part 1”, Ambix, xxv (1978), 1–55;
154. “Part 2”, Ambix, 93–116;
155. “Part 3”, Ambix, 153–75;
156. “Part 4”, Ambix, xxvi (1979), 16–38.
157. See McEvoy, “Continuity” (ref. 49), 195–6.
158. Bensaude-Vincent, “Founder Myth” (ref. 3), 55 and 69–76;
159. Donovan, “Chemical Revolution” (ref. 3), 9.
160. Bensaude-Vincent, “Founder Myth” (ref. 3), 54–58 and 61–65;
161. Donovan, “Chemical Revolution” (ref. 3), 6–9.
162. Engels Frederick, “Preface” in Marx Karl, Capital (3 vols, New York, 1967), ii, 1–19, pp. 14–15.
163. Multhauf, “Balance” (ref. 50), 218;
164. Butterfield, Origins (ref. 43), 217;
165. Hartley, Studies (ref. 50), 19;
166. Wurtz A. D., A history of chemical thought, transl. by Watts H. (London, 1869), 1;
167. McKie, Lavoisier (ref. 53), 273;
168. Herschel John F. W., A preliminary discourse on the study of natural philosophy (facsimile of the 1830 edition, with a new introduction by Michael Partridge; New York, 1966), 301–2.
169. See also Muir Mathew, Heroes of science: Chemists (New York, 1883), 76;
170. Cochrane J. A., Lavoisier (London, 1931), 1–5;
171. French Sidney, Torch and crucible: The life and death of Antoine Lavoisier (Princeton, N.J., 1941), pp. vii–ix, 185;
172. Holmyard E. J., Chemistry to the time of Dalton (London, 1925), 103;
173. Meldrum A. N., The eighteenth-century revolution in science — The first phase (London, 1930), 60;
174. Moore, History (ref. 53), 57;
175. Partington, History (ref. 48), 129;
176. Guerlac Henry, Lavoisier — The crucial year: The background and origin of his first experiments on combustion in 1772 (New York, 1961), p. xiv.
177. While Cochrane and Holmyard had Lavoisier sharing the patriarchal honours with Boyle and Dalton, the vast majority of positivist-whig historians either conferred them on Lavoisier alone or elevated him to the pinnacle of the pantheon of patriarchy. (For the Founder Myth among twentieth-century French historians of chemistry see, for example, Delacre Maurice, Histoire de la chimie (Paris, 1920), 195–6.
178. For an example of its influence in wider intellectual circles see Whitehead Alfred N., Science and the modern world (New York, 1925), 60.).
179. Butterfield, Origins (ref. 43), 203.
180. See also Bensaude-Vincent, “Founder Myth” (ref. 3), 57–60;
181. idem, Lavoisier (ref. 3), 17–18.
182. White, History (ref. 53), 11–12;
183. Butterfield, Origins (ref. 43), chap. 11;
184. Crosland, “Chemistry” (ref. 48), 392.
185. See Donovan Arthur, “Introduction”, in idem (ed.), Chemical Revolution (ref. 49), 11;
186. idem, “Lavoisier and the origins of modern chemistry”, Chemical Revolution, 214–31, n. 1;
187. Schaffer, “Discovery” (ref. 29), 406–13 and n. 2;
188. Hall, Revolution (ref. 50), 305;
189. Bensaude-Vincent, “Founder Myth” (ref. 3), 54–60;
190. Beretta, Enlightenment (ref. 9), 197–206;
191. McEvoy John G., “The Enlightenment and the Chemical Revolution”, in Woolhouse R. S. (ed), Metaphysics and philosophy of science in the 17th and 18th centuries (Dordrecht, 1988), 307–25, pp. 314–19;
192. Willey Basil, The eighteenth century background: Studies in the idea of nature in the thought of the period (London, 1940).
193. Dampier William, A history of science and its relation with philosophy and religion (New York, 1929), 184;
194. Crosland, “Development of chemistry” (ref. 50), 393–400;
195. Partington, History (ref. 48), 124;
196. Crosland, “Chemistry” (ref. 48), 393;
197. Hall, Revolution (ref. 50), 334.
198. For Newton and the Enlightenment see, for example, Cassirer, Enlightenment (ref. 22);
199. Buchdahl Gerd, The image of Newton and Locke in the Age of Reason (London, 1961).
200. See Cochrane, Lavoisier (ref. 58), 76–77;
201. Multhauf, “Balance” (ref. 50), 212 and 216–17;
202. Partington, History (ref. 48), 67–69;
203. Read John, Through alchemy to chemistry: A procession of ideas and personalities (London, 1961), 111–20;
204. White, Phlogiston (ref. 53), 24–27;
205. Kuhn, “Boyle” (ref. 52), 14–18;
206. Duhem, Le mixte (ref. 74), 25;
207. Masson I., Three centuries of chemistry: Phases in the growth of a science (London, 1925), 70 and 77;
208. von Meyer E., A history of chemistry from the earliest times to the present day, 3rd edn, transl. by McGovern George (London, 1906), 111;
209. Davis, “Skeptical Chymist” (ref. 52), 71;
210. Agassi, Historiography (ref. 6), 44.
211. For an excellent survey and critical assessment of the positivist-whig view of Boyle's crucial role in the emergence of modern chemistry see Kuhn, “Boyle” (ref. 52), 12–15 and 36;
212. Butterfield, Origins (ref. 43), 138–51.
213. See Armitage F. P., A history of chemistry (New York, 1928), 41;
214. Butterfield, Origins (ref. 43), 202–13;
215. Harrow Benjamin, The making of chemistry (New York, 1930), 34;
216. Stillman John M., The story of early chemistry (New York, 1924), 424–9;
217. Rodwell, “Phlogiston” (ref. 53), 26–32;
218. White, Phlogiston (ref. 53), 11–14;
219. Gillispie, Objectivity (ref. 49), 204–5;
220. Partington, History (ref. 48), 88;
221. Brown James C., A history of chemistry from the earliest times 'till the present day (London, 1913), 242–50;
222. Cochrane, Lavoisier (ref. 58), 48–49;
223. Crosland, “Chemistry” (ref. 48), 396–400;
224. French, Torch (ref. 58), 93;
225. Herschel, Natural philosophy (ref. 58), 300–1;
226. Holmyard, Chemistry (ref. 58), 58–62;
227. McKie, Lavoisier (ref. 53), 62–64;
228. Moore, History (ref. 53), 31–34;
229. Read, Alchemy (ref. 63), 120–6;
230. Partington J. R., McKie Douglas, “Historical studies on the phlogiston theory, iv: Last phases of the theory”, Annals of science, iv (1939), 113–49, p. 149.
231. Gillispie, Objectivity (ref. 49), 205;
232. Hall, Revolution (ref. 50), 330–4;
233. Rodwell, “Phlogiston” (ref. 52), 29–30;
234. Armitage, History (ref. 64), 47–49;
235. Conant James Bryant, “The overthrow of the phlogiston theory: The chemical revolution of 1775–1789”, in Conant, Nash (eds), Experimental science (ref. 33), 67–115, pp. 68–70;
236. Crosland, “Development of chemistry” (ref. 50), 397;
237. Dampier, History (ref. 62), 183;
238. French, Torch (ref. 58), 100;
239. Harrow, Chemistry (ref. 64), 47–49;
240. Ihde Aaron, The development of modern chemistry (New York, 1964), 57–58;
241. McKie, Lavoisier (ref. 53), 62–64;
242. Read, Alchemy (ref. 63), 139–44.
243. Gillispie, Objectivity (ref. 49), 231 and 204–5;
244. Crosland, “Development of chemistry” (ref. 50), 397.
245. See also Agassi, Historiography (ref. 6), 41;
246. Butterfield, Origins (ref. 43), 208;
247. Multhauf, “Balance” (ref. 50), 213–15;
248. Rodwell, “Phlogiston” (ref. 53), 30.
249. For a full discussion of the range and variety of phlogistic hypotheses based on the “principle of levity” and “negative weight” see Partington J. R., McKie Douglas, “Historical studies on the phlogiston theory, i: The levity of phlogiston”, Annals of science, ii (1937), 363–404;
250. idem, “Historical studies on the phlogiston theory, ii: The negative weight of phlogiston”, Annals of science, iii (1938), 1–58.
251. Hartley, Studies (ref. 50), 27;
252. McKie, Lavoisier (ref. 53), 209–11;
253. French, Torch (ref. 58), 100;
254. Read, Alchemy (ref. 63), 140–1.
255. See Hall, Revolution (ref. 50), 334–7.
256. See, for example, Rodwell, “Phlogiston” (ref. 53), 31;
257. Freund Ida, The study of chemical composition: An account of its method and development (New York, 1968), 31;
258. Hartley, Studies (ref. 50), 7;
259. Ramsay W., The gases of the atmosphere: The history of their discovery (London, 1905), 45;
260. Read, Alchemy (ref. 63), 121;
261. Musgrave Alan, “Why did oxygen supplant phlogiston?: Research programmes in the Chemical Revolution”, in Howson (ed.), Method (ref. 45), 181–209, pp. 181–3.
262. Conant, “Overthrow” (ref. 65), 105;
263. Gregory J. C., Combustion from Heraclitus to Lavoisier (London, 1934), 211;
264. Gibbs F. W., Joseph Priestley: Adventurer in science and champion of truth (London, 1965), 83;
265. Musgrave, “Oxygen” (ref. 69), 186: Agassi, Historiography (ref. 6), 43.
266. Rodwell, “Phlogiston” (ref. 53), 29;
267. Herschel, Natural philosophy (ref. 58), 300;
268. Holmyard, Chemistry (ref. 58), 59–60;
269. Jeffrey Francis, “Review of Memoirs of Dr. Joseph Priestley, to the year 1795, written by himself”, Edinburgh review, ix (1807), 136–61, p. 151;
270. Partington, History (ref. 48), 85 and 105;
271. Partington, McKie, “Historical studies” (ref. 64), 149;
272. White, Phlogiston (ref. 53), 11.
273. See Agassi, Historiography (ref. 6), notes 31, 32 and 38;
274. Musgrave, “Oxygen” (ref. 69), 182.
275. Gillispie, Objectivity (ref. 49), 212–13.
276. Butterfield, Origins (ref. 43), 211;
277. Rodwell, “Phlogiston” (ref. 53), 31;
278. Partington, History (ref. 48), 150;
279. Gillispie, Objectivity (ref. 49), 218.
280. For a fuller discussion of the positivist-whig interpretation of Priestley's role in the Chemical Revolution see McEvoy, “Priestley, Part 1” (ref. 53), 1–4.
281. For a discussion of these contrasting evaluations of Priestley's ‘theoretical naivete’ see Schaffer Simon, “Priestley questions: An historiographic survey”, History of science, xxii (1984), 151–83, pp. 152–4;
282. McEvoy, “Priestley, Part 1” (ref. 53), 1–4.
283. Gillispie, Objectivity (ref. 49), 209–11.
284. See Hartog P., “Joseph Priestley”, Dictionary of national biography, xlvi, 357–76, pp. 372–3;
285. idem, “The newer views of Priestley and Lavoisier”, Annals of science, xv (1941), 1–56, p. 27;
286. Jeffrey, “Review” (ref. 71), 137;
287. Gibbs, Priestley (ref. 70), 117–18;
288. Passmore John A. (ed.), Priestley's writings on philosophy, science and politics (New York, 1963), 21.
289. See, for example, Agassi, Historiography (ref. 6), 41–42;
290. Kuhn, “Boyle” (ref. 52), 392–5;
291. McEvoy, “Continuity” (ref. 49), 199–203;
292. Musgrave, “Oxygen” (ref. 69), 185;
293. Siegfried Robert, Dobbs Betty Jo, “Composition: A neglected aspect of the Chemical Revolution”, Annals of science, xxiv (1968), 275–93, p. 292.
294. Toulmin Stephen, “Crucial experiments: Priestley and Lavoisier”, Journal of the history of ideas, xviii (1957), 205–22, pp. 206–10 and 218–19.
295. Musgrave, “Oxygen” (ref. 69), 181–7.
296. See, for example, Schofield Robert E., “Joseph Priestley: Natural philosopher”, Ambix, xiv (1967), 1–15;
297. McEvoy, “Priestley, Part 1” (ref. 53), 1–5;
298. idem, “Joseph Priestley and the Chemical Revolution: A thematic overview”, in Schwartz Truman, McEvoy John G. (eds), Motion toward perfection: The achievement of Joseph Priestley (Boston, 1990), 129–60, pp. 132–4.
299. The history of postpositivism is yet to be written. For some helpful pointers relevant to the issues covered in this study see, for example, Benton, Structuralist Marxism (ref. 39);
300. Callinicos, Marxism (ref. 35);
301. Gordy, “Althusser” (ref. 41);
302. McEvoy, “Chemical Revolution” (ref. 2), 199–201.
303. See McEvoy, “Chemical Revolution” (ref. 2).