In its attempt to achieve acknowledgement and support as a true science and academic discipline eighteenth-century chemistry experienced that the traditional distinction between theory and practice, respectively between science and art, was an incriminating heritage and did not longer conform to the way chemists saw themselves. In order to substitute the former, socially judging classification into theoretical science and practical art, J. G. Wallerius from Uppsala coined the term pure and applied chemistry in 1751. The idea behind this new conception (...) was that it ought to be chemistry's research aim and not the kind of work, be it manual or intellectual, which was to decide about its branches and their dignity. The change in orientation which took place during the eighteenth century, and which is symbolized by the new dichotomy “pure and applied”, led towards a revaluation of the utilitarian aspects of chemistry. Its historical roots reach back to a long and fruitful cooperation of, and interaction between chemistry and economy, which was reinforced by the Stahlian tradition in Germany and Scandinavia. Subsequently, it was its strong economic bias that helped chemistry to become institutionalized and accepted as an academic discipline distinct from the medico-pharmaceutical profession. The analysis of this change of attitudes, behaviour and institutional pattern suggests that, at least during the period of institutionalization of this particular discipline, social structures and the intrinsic scientific contents are so tightly interrelated, that any division into “internal”, cognitive developments and “external” conditions would be artificial, since they both constitute the scientific community as a context of argumentation and action. (shrink)

The authors discuss Popper's and Kuhn's theories of science and consider whether these can explain the real course taken by the history of science, that is the real behaviour of scientists seen in an historical light. It has mainly to do with the problem of what criteria influence scientists in deciding on the acceptance of one of several possible theories. The authors postulate the necessity of introducing the category of "objective technological Erkenntnisinteresse" to help solve the problem. They illustrate this (...) by analysing the various models of the structure of Benzol, proposed by Kekulé, Claus and Ladenburg. According to the authors, Popper and Kuhn cannot explain the fact that the model of Kekulé was readily accepted. It can however be explained with the category of Erkenntnisinteresse. (shrink)