Foundations of Chemistry 21 (2):147-178 (2019)

Authors
Geoffrey Blumenthal
University of Bristol
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.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10698-018-9314-y
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 58,880
External links

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

Scientific Pluralism and the Chemical Revolution.Martin Kusch - 2015 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 49:69-79.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Electricity, Knowledge, and the Nature of Progress in Priestley's Thought.John G. McEvoy - 1979 - British Journal for the History of Science 12 (1):1-30.
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.
Reid and Priestley on Method and the Mind.Alan Tapper - 2003 - In John Haldane Stephen Read (ed.), The Philosophy of Thomas Reid. pp. 98-112.
Priestley Duality for Bilattices.A. Jung & U. Rivieccio - 2012 - Studia Logica 100 (1-2):223-252.
Reid and Priestley on Method and the Mind.Alan Tapper - 2002 - Philosophical Quarterly 52 (209):511-525.
Priestley on Politics, Progress and Moral Theology.Alan Tapper - 1996 - In Knud Haakonssen (ed.), Enlightenment and Religion: Rational Dissent in Eighteenth-Century Britain. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 272-86.
Point Atomism, Space and God, 1760–80.Karis Muller - 2007 - The European Legacy 12 (3):277-292.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-05-04

Total views
13 ( #726,169 of 2,426,358 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #542,164 of 2,426,358 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes