David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 41 (1):1-10 (2010)
William Newman construes the Scientific Revolution as a change in matter theory, from a hylomorphic, Aristotelian to a corpuscular, mechanical one. He sees Robert Boyle as making a major contribution to that change by way of his corpuscular chemistry. In this article it is argued that it is seriously misleading to identify what was scientific about the Scientific Revolution in terms of a change in theories of the ultimate structure of matter. Boyle showed, especially in his pneumatics, how empirically accessible, intermediate causes, as opposed to ultimate, mechanical ones can be explored and identified by experiment. Newman is right to observe that Boyle constantly sought intimate links between chemistry and the mechanical philosophy. However, by doing so he did not thereby significantly aid the cause of attaining experimental knowledge of chemical phenomena and the support that Boyle’s chemistry provided for the mechanical philosophy was weaker than both Boyle and Newman imply. Boyle was intent on articulating and defending a strict, mechanical account of the ultimate structure of matter to be sure, but his contributions to the new experimental science in general, and chemistry in particular, are best seen as distinct from that endeavour.Keywords: Chemistry; Mechanical philosophy; Corpuscular philosophy; Experiment; Robert Boyle; William Newman
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Alan Chalmers (1993). The Lack of Excellency of Boyle's Mechanical Philosophy. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 24 (4):541-564.
William R. Newman & Lawrence M. Principe (1998). Alchemy Vs. Chemistry: The Etymological Origins of a Historiographic Mistake1. Early Science and Medicine 3 (1):32-65.
Antonio Clericuzio (1990). A Redefinition of Boyle's Chemistry and Corpuscular Philosophy. Annals of Science 47 (6):561-589.
A. Chalmers (2002). Experiment Versus Mechanical Philosophy in the Work of Robert Boyle: A Reply to Anstey and Pyle. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33 (1):187-193.
Peter R. Anstey (2002). Robert Boyle and the Heuristic Value of Mechanism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33 (1):157-170.
Citations of this work BETA
William R. Newman (2010). How Not to Integrate the History and Philosophy of Science: A Reply to Chalmers. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 41 (2):203-213.
Alan Chalmers (2011). Understanding Science Through its History: A Response to Newman. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 42 (1):150-153.
Antonio Clericuzio (2010). Sooty Empiricks” and Natural Philosophers: The Status of Chemistry in the Seventeenth Century. Science in Context 23 (3):329-350.
Kleber Cecon (2015). Robert Boyle's Experimental Programme: Some Interesting Examples of the Use of Subordinate Causes in Chymistry and Pneumatics. Intellectual History Review 25 (1):81-96.
Similar books and articles
A. Pyle (2002). Boyle on Science and the Mechanical Philosophy: A Reply to Chalmers. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33 (1):171-186.
Alan Chalmers (2012). Klein on the Origin of the Concept of Chemical Compound. Foundations of Chemistry 14 (1):37-53.
Andrew Sparling (2003). William Newman and Lawrence Principe,Alchemy Tried in the Fire: Starkey, Boyle, and the Fate of Helmontian Chymistry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002. [REVIEW] Metascience 12 (3):424-427.
J. A. Linthorst (2010). An Overview: Origins and Development of Green Chemistry. [REVIEW] Foundations of Chemistry 12 (1):55-68.
William R. Newman (2009). Alchemical Atoms or Artisanal "Building Blocks"?: A Response to Klein. Perspectives on Science 17 (2):pp. 212-231.
Lawrence Cross (2006). John Henry Newman. Newman Studies Journal 3 (1):5-11.
James M. Pribek (2009). Newman in Twentieth-Century American Literature. Newman Studies Journal 6 (1):5-19.
Ford (2012). Newman and Modern Japan—The Reception of Educational Ideas and Activities of J. H. Newman in Japan By Kei Uno. Newman Studies Journal 9 (2):103-104.
Thomas Holden (2007). Robert Boyle on Things Above Reason. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 15 (2):283 – 312.
David Frawley (2004). Yoga and the Sacred Fire: Self-Realization and Planetary Transformation. Lotus Press.
Rose-Mary Sargent (2004). Alchemy Tried in the Fire: Starkey, Boyle, and the Fate of Helmontian Chymistry (Review). Journal of the History of Philosophy 42 (1):104-105.
K. C. Bailey (1935). The Early History of Chemistry Professor J. R. Partington, M.B.E., D.Sc.: Origins and Development of Applied Chemistry. Pp. Xii + 597. London, New York, Toronto: Longmans, 1935. Cloth, 45s. [REVIEW] The Classical Review 49 (06):239-.
Alan G. Hill (1985). The Origins of Newman's Loss and Gain. Heythrop Journal 26 (2):184–186.
Marina Paola Banchetti-Robino (2011). Ontological Tensions in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Chemistry: Between Mechanism and Vitalism. Foundations of Chemistry 13 (3):173-186.
Added to index2010-09-14
Total downloads28 ( #109,369 of 1,724,915 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #268,623 of 1,724,915 )
How can I increase my downloads?