Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A revisionist history of atomism

Chalmers, Alan. The Scientist’s atom and the Philosopher’s stone: how science succeeded and philosophy failed to gain knowledge of atoms. 2009, Springer, 288 pp, €99,95 HB

  • Book Symposium
  • Published:
Metascience Aims and scope

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Boscovich, R.J. (1749/1966). A theory of natural philosophy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Boyle, R. 1666. The origins of forms and qualities. Oxford: Davis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock, S. 2004. Niels Bohr and the philosophy of nature. Berlin: Logos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodie, B. 1866. The calculus of chemical operations. Philosophical Transactions 156: 781–859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butlerov, A.M. 1861. Einiges über die chemische Structur der Körper. Zeitschrift für Chemie 4: 549–560.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, A. 2001. Maxwell, mechanism and the nature of electricity. Physics in Perspective 3: 425–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, A. 1986. The heuristic role of Maxwell’s model of electromagnetism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 17: 415–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, H. 2004. Inventing temperature: Measurement and scientific progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Davy, H. (1825/1870). Consolations in travel. Boston: Roberts.

  • Duhem, Pierre. (1906). The aim and structure of physical theories, trans. by Philip Wiener. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Duhem, P. 1902. Le mixte et la combinaison chimique: Essai sur l’évolution d’une idée. Paris: C. Naud.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galileo, G. (1640). The assayer. In Discoveries and opinions of Galileo, ed. Stillmen Drake, G. Garden City New York: Doubleday.

  • Gilbert, W. (1600/1958). De Magnete. New York: Basic Books.

  • Glymour, C. 1980. Theory and evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harré, R. 2002. Structural explanation in chemistry. In Chemical explanation, ed. J. Earley. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harré, R. 1986. Varieties of realism. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harré, R. 1983. Great scientific experiments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, U. 1995. E. F. Geoffroy’s table of different ‘Rapports’ between different chemical substances—a reinterpretation. Ambix 42: 79–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, U. 1994. Origin of the concept of chemical compound. Science in Context 7: 163–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, D. 1967. Atoms and elements. London: Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, K. 1981. The manufacture of knowledge. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladyman, J., and D. Ross. 2007. Every thing must go, metaphysics naturalized. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leibniz, G. (1686/1988). Discourse on metaphysics. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

  • Locke, J. 1689. An essay concerning human understanding. London: Churchill and Manship.

    Google Scholar 

  • Needham, P. 2009. An Aristotelian theory of chemical substance. Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy 12: 149–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Needham, P. 2004. When did atoms begin to do any explanatory work in chemistry? International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 8: 199–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newton, I. 1730. Opticks. London: Innys.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paneth, F. A. (1962). The epistemological status of the chemical concept of element. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 13, 1–14, 144–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce-Williams, L. 1965. Michael Faraday. London: Chapman and Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scerri, E.R. 2009. The dual sense of the term ‘Element’, attempts to derive the Madelung Rule and the optimal form of the periodic table, if any. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 109: 959–971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scerri, E.R. 2007. The periodic system, its story and its significance. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scerri, E.R. 2006. On the continuity of reference of the elements, a response to Hendry. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37: 308–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Psychology Department, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 20057, USA

    Rom Harré

  2. Department of Philosophy, University of Stockholm, 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden

    Paul Needham

  3. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA

    Eric Scerri

  4. Unit for History and Philosophy of Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia

    Alan Chalmers

Authors
  1. Rom Harré
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul Needham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eric Scerri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alan Chalmers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rom Harré.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Harré, R., Needham, P., Scerri, E. et al. A revisionist history of atomism. Metascience 19, 349–371 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11016-010-9411-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11016-010-9411-6

Search

Navigation