Priestley’s views on the composition of water and related airs

Foundations of Chemistry 21 (2):147-178 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In some views in the history, philosophy and social studies of chemistry, Joseph Priestley is at least as well-known and cited for his objections to the new chemistry and his promotion of his own late version of the theory of phlogiston, as for his early series of discoveries about types of air for which he had become famous. These citations are generally not associated with any detailed indications about his late work from 1788 onwards and his late phlogistic theory, of which there has not been a detailed study. This paper undertakes a detailed study of Priestley’s late work on water and related airs. He put forward a theory to support which his apparatus and initial substances would have needed to exclude impurities altogether. His theory did not take into account the solutions to the difficulties with the experiment which had been comprehensively understood and published by the phlogistian Cavendish several years previously, and with which the Lavoisians were in agreement. Priestley readily and fundamentally changed his interpretations of experiments in order to support the theory he currently favoured, and he was highly selective about replying about the criticisms of any opponent. This detailed analysis shows many divergences between his own practices and aspects of his objections to the new chemistry, which have implications for those stances in the secondary literature which do not question his objections. Accordingly, this study has implications concerning the nature of chemistry and other sciences, how they do progress and how they should progress.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 98,072

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Theory and application: the early chemical work of J. A. C. Chaptal.H. E. Le Grand - 1984 - British Journal for the History of Science 17 (1):31-46.
Collecting airs and ideas: Priestley’s style of experimental reasoning.Victor D. Boantza - 2007 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 38 (3):506-522.
Lavoisier's Early Career in Science: An Examination of Some New Evidence.J. B. Gough - 1968 - British Journal for the History of Science 4 (1):52-57.
František Wald's Empiricism.Jaap Van Brakel - 2013 - Hyle: An International Journal for the Philosophy of Chemistry 19 (2):161 - 183.
John Dalton’s puzzles: from meteorology to chemistry.Karen R. Zwier - 2011 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 42 (1):58-66.
Emerging from the museum: Joseph Dawson, mineralogist, 1740–1813. [REVIEW]A. J. Pacey - 2003 - British Journal for the History of Science 36 (4):455-469.

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-05-04

Downloads
24 (#766,598)

6 months
4 (#1,161,861)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Geoffrey Blumenthal
Last affiliation: University of Bristol

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Is Water H2O? Evidence, Realism and Pluralism.Hasok Chang - 2012 - Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science.
Scientific pluralism and the Chemical Revolution.Martin Kusch - 2015 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 49:69-79.

View all 6 references / Add more references