13 found
Sort by:
  1. F. Michael Akeroyd (2008). Mechanistic Explanation Versus Deductive-Nomological Explanation. Foundations of Chemistry 10 (1):39-48.
    This paper discusses the important paper by Paul Thagard on the pathway version of mechanistic explanation that is currently used in chemical explanation. The author claims that this method of explanation has a respectable pedigree and can be traced back to the Chemical Revolution in the arguments used by the Lavoisier School in their theoretical duels with Richard Kirwan, the proponent of a revised phlogistonian theory. Kirwan believed that complex chemical reactions could be explained by recourse to affinity tables that (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. F. Michael Akeroyd (2004). Popper's Evolutionary Epistemology Revamped. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 35 (2):385 - 396.
    In a paper entitled “Revolution in Permanence”, published in the collection “Karl Popper: Philosophy and Problems”, John Worrall (1995) severely criticised several aspects of Karl Popper’s work before commenting that “I have no doubt that, given suffi-cient motivation, a case could be constructed on the basis of such remarks that Popper had a more sophisticated version of theory production......” (p. 102). Part of Worrall’s criticism is directed at a “strawpopper”: in his “Darwinian Model” emphasising the similarities and differences between genetic (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. F. Michael Akeroyd (2003). Prediction and the Periodic Table: A Response to Scerri and Worrall. [REVIEW] Journal for General Philosophy of Science 34 (2):337-355.
    In a lengthy article E. Scerri and J. Worrall (2001) put forward the case for a novel ‘accommodationist’ version of the events surrounding the development of Mendeleef's Periodic Table 1869–1899. However these authors lay undue stress on the fact that President of the Royal Society of London Spottiswoode made absolutely no mention of Mendeleef's famous predictions in the Davy Medal eulogy in 1883 and undue stress on the fact that Cleve's classic 1879 Scandium paper contained an acknowledgement of Mendeleef's prior (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. F. Michael Akeroyd (2002). Philosophy of Science and History3 of Science: A Non Troubling Interaction. [REVIEW] Journal for General Philosophy of Science 33 (1):159-162.
    Cassandra Pinnick and George Gale (Journal for General Phisophy of Science 31, 109–125) examined the post-Lakatos period of historical cum philosophical case studies and concluded that a new methodology is required. Lakatos' proposed ‘history2’ (the theory- and value-laden reconstruction of history1, the set of historical events) was criticised. Recently a group of scholars have been pursuing a methodology which could be described as history 3, a history1 account of the interaction between the significant scientific papers published during the time period (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. F. Michael Akeroyd (2002). The Lavoisier Revolution: Some Philosophical Aspects. Kem. Ind 51:393-396.
    No categories
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. F. Michael Akeroyd (2000). Reply to Psarros: Popper and Chemistry. [REVIEW] Journal for General Philosophy of Science 31 (1):127-131.
    In this article I reply to criticism of my published work by N. Psarros (Journal for the General Philosophy of Science 28: 297–305,1997). I show that I had already answered the first criticism in my published work and not overlooked his supposed refutation. However I offer a plausible argument which he could have used to strengthen his claim. Psarros cites my work on Hopkins in his opening paragraph, but then makes no further reference to it in the text. I indicated (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. F. Michael Akeroyd (2000). The Foundations of Modern Organic Chemistry: The Rise of the Highes and Ingold Theory From 1930–1942. [REVIEW] Foundations of Chemistry 2 (2):99-125.
    The foundations of modern organic chemistry were laid by the seminal work of Hughes and Ingold. The rise from being an interesting alternative hypothesis in 1933 to being the leading theory (outside the USA) in 1942 was achieved by a multiplicity of methods. This include:the construction of a new scientific notation, the rationalisation of some seemingly contradictory reported data, the refutation of the experimental work of one of their persistent critics, the use of conceptual arguments and also the achievement of (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. F. Michael Akeroyd (2000). Why Was a Fuzzy Model so Successful in Physical Organic Chemistry? Hyle 6 (2):161 - 173.
    This paper examines a facet of the rise of the Hughes-Ingold Theory of Nucleophilic Substitution in Organic Chemistry 1933-1942, arguing that the SN1/SN2 model of reaction mechanism used by Hughes and Ingold is an example of a fuzzy model. Many real world 'Fuzzy Logic' Controlling Devices gave better results compared to classical logic controlling devices in the period 1975-1985. I propose that the adoption of fuzzy principles in the Hughes-Ingold program 1933-1940 led to scientific advance at a time when the (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. F. Michael Akeroyd (1997). Conceptual Aspects of Theory Appraisal: Some Biochemical Examples. Hyle 3 (1):95 - 102.
    This paper considers papers on conceptual analysis by Laudan (1981) and Whitt (1989) and relates them to three biochemical episodes: (1) the modern 'biochemical explanation' of acupuncture; (2) the chemio-osmotic hypothesis of oxidative phosphorylation; (3) the theory of the complete digestion of proteins in the gut. The advantages of including philosophical debate in chemical/biochemical undergraduate courses is then discussed.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. F. Michael Akeroyd (1993). Laudan's Problem Solving Model. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44 (4):785-788.
    A historical example is considered which conflicts with Laudan's Problem Solving Model [1981]. In the period 1840–85 chemists preferred a theory with 3 major conceptual problems (the Liebig Theory of Acids) to Lavoisier's which had only one major conceptual problem (why are the halogen hydrides acids?). The overall conceptual merits of Lavoisier's scheme have been revived in the modern Lux-Flood classification of Acids. Larry Laudan [1977], [1981] proposed a problem solving model of scientific rationality which not only applied to global (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. F. Michael Akeroyd (1990). An Oscillatory Model of the Growth of Scientific Knowledge. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 41 (3):407-414.
    No categories
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. F. Michael Akeroyd (1990). The Challenge to Lakatos Restated. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 41 (3):437-439.
  13. F. Michael Akeroyd (1986). A Challenge to the Followers of Lakatos. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37 (3):359-362.