Common empirical foundations, different theoretical choices: The Berthollet-Proust controversy and Dalton’s resolution

IF 1.8 3区 化学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Foundations of Chemistry Pub Date : 2023-04-24 DOI:10.1007/s10698-023-09471-0
Yachun Xu, Yichen Tong, Jiangyang Yuan
{"title":"Common empirical foundations, different theoretical choices: The Berthollet-Proust controversy and Dalton’s resolution","authors":"Yachun Xu,&nbsp;Yichen Tong,&nbsp;Jiangyang Yuan","doi":"10.1007/s10698-023-09471-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Based upon the demarcation between Elementalism and Atomism Chemistry from the perspective of the long-term history of chemistry, the authors re-examine the Berthollet-Proust controversy on the three types of chemical compounds, pointing out that Berthollet proposed the law of indefinite proportions by deduction, while Proust proposed the law of definite proportions by induction. The controversy is beyond the framework of affinity chemistry and entail a synthesis of meta-chemical thinking and experiments. Proust’s discovery of the law of definite proportions not only function as Bacon’s “instances of lamp” to invoke Dalton and other atomism chemists to envision atomism, but also served as a bridge linking the two meta-chemistries. John Dalton, the third choice, envisioned his atomism by abduction. The case study on “the Berthollet-Proust controversy and Dalton’s resolution” mandates a reinvestigation of the crucial role of the system of experiments and the evolution of chemistry according to the demarcation between the established branches of Elementalism and Atomism Chemistry.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":568,"journal":{"name":"Foundations of Chemistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foundations of Chemistry","FirstCategoryId":"92","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-023-09471-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Based upon the demarcation between Elementalism and Atomism Chemistry from the perspective of the long-term history of chemistry, the authors re-examine the Berthollet-Proust controversy on the three types of chemical compounds, pointing out that Berthollet proposed the law of indefinite proportions by deduction, while Proust proposed the law of definite proportions by induction. The controversy is beyond the framework of affinity chemistry and entail a synthesis of meta-chemical thinking and experiments. Proust’s discovery of the law of definite proportions not only function as Bacon’s “instances of lamp” to invoke Dalton and other atomism chemists to envision atomism, but also served as a bridge linking the two meta-chemistries. John Dalton, the third choice, envisioned his atomism by abduction. The case study on “the Berthollet-Proust controversy and Dalton’s resolution” mandates a reinvestigation of the crucial role of the system of experiments and the evolution of chemistry according to the demarcation between the established branches of Elementalism and Atomism Chemistry.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
共同的经验基础,不同的理论选择:贝托莱-普鲁斯特之争与道尔顿的解决
本文从化学的长期历史出发,在划分元素主义和原子主义化学的基础上,重新审视贝托莱和普鲁斯特关于三种化合物的争论,指出贝托莱是通过演绎提出不定比例定律的,而普鲁斯特是通过归纳法提出定比例定律的。争论超出了亲和化学的框架,需要综合元化学思维和实验。普鲁斯特的定比定律的发现,不仅起到了培根的“灯的实例”的作用,唤起了道尔顿等原子论化学家对原子论的设想,而且起到了连接两种元化学的桥梁作用。第三个选择是约翰·道尔顿,他的原子论是通过诱变来实现的。“Berthollet-Proust之争和道尔顿的决议”的案例研究,要求根据已建立的元素化学和原子化学分支之间的界限,对实验系统和化学演变的关键作用进行重新研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Foundations of Chemistry
Foundations of Chemistry HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-
自引率
22.20%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Foundations of Chemistry is an international journal which seeks to provide an interdisciplinary forum where chemists, biochemists, philosophers, historians, educators and sociologists with an interest in foundational issues can discuss conceptual and fundamental issues which relate to the `central science'' of chemistry. Such issues include the autonomous role of chemistry between physics and biology and the question of the reduction of chemistry to quantum mechanics. The journal will publish peer-reviewed academic articles on a wide range of subdisciplines, among others: chemical models, chemical language, metaphors, and theoretical terms; chemical evolution and artificial self-replication; industrial application, environmental concern, and the social and ethical aspects of chemistry''s professionalism; the nature of modeling and the role of instrumentation in chemistry; institutional studies and the nature of explanation in the chemical sciences; theoretical chemistry, molecular structure and chaos; the issue of realism; molecular biology, bio-inorganic chemistry; historical studies on ancient chemistry, medieval chemistry and alchemy; philosophical and historical articles; and material of a didactic nature relating to all topics in the chemical sciences. Foundations of Chemistry plans to feature special issues devoted to particular themes, and will contain book reviews and discussion notes. Audience: chemists, biochemists, philosophers, historians, chemical educators, sociologists, and other scientists with an interest in the foundational issues of science.
期刊最新文献
Laws of nature according to some philosophers of science and according to chemists Chemical jargon: thinking out loud Editorial 77 Identity in the nanoworld: processes and contextuality Are there distinct views of chemistry behind the old and the new definition of mole?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1