Abstract
This paper argues that the field of chemistry underwent a significant change of theory in the early twentieth century, when atomic number replaced atomic weight as the principle for ordering and identifying the chemical elements. It is a classic case of a Kuhnian revolution. In the process of addressing anomalies, chemists who were trained to see elements as defined by their atomic weight discovered that their theoretical assumptions were impediments to understanding the chemical world. The only way to normalize the anomalies was to introduce new concepts, and a new conceptual understanding of what it is to be an element. In the process of making these changes, a new scientific lexicon emerged, one that took atomic number to be the defining feature of a chemical element.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Kuhn notes that it was in the course of conducting the necessary background research for a case study in early modern mechanics for Conant’s General Education Science course at Harvard that he had his epiphany and realized that scientists working with different theories work in different worlds (see Kuhn 1977a, b, pp. xi–xii).
One of Kuhn’s favorite examples of a change in concepts that accompanies a change in theory is the change from Newtonian mass to Einsteinian mass. “Newtonian mass is conserved; Einsteinian is convertible with energy. Only at low relative velocities may the two be measured in the same way” (see Kuhn 1962/2012, p. 102). Those who are resistant to the idea of revolutionary changes of theory tend to focus on the continuity between successive paradigms. Kuhn, though, believes that the continuity is often illusory, as this example illustrates.
Karl Popper even took issue with the rationality of normal science, as Kuhn characterized it (see Popper 1970). The dogmatic acceptance of a theory that Kuhn says characterizes normal science is anathema to Popper’s critical rationalism.
See Wray (2017) for an account of how social scientists responded to the term “paradigm”.
Kuhn also uses the term taxonomic change when he discusses theory change in his later work. He thought of the network of concepts associated with or constitutive of a theory as forming a taxonomy of the objects in the scientific field the theory serves (see Kuhn 1991/2000).
This problem is exacerbated in chemistry because some regard the Periodic Table of Elements as a theory. For example, Restrepo and Pachón argue that the various Periodic Tables are “just different representations of the same phenomena, different shadows of the same object—the Periodic Law” (Restrepo and Pachón 2007, p. 190). Insofar as the Table did not change, or changed in only minor ways, one may be tempted to infer that there was no scientific revolution. This, though, misses an important point of Kuhn’s account of theory change.
This knowledge has been put to work in other scientific fields. For example, space scientists rely on our knowledge of isotopes to determine whether particular meteorites on Earth originated from Mars (see Treiman et al. 2000). And archaeologists have relied on our knowledge of isotopes in order to aid in the identification of skeletal remains, knowing that different cultural groups are exposed to different isotopes of lead, for example (see Carlson 1996).
Textbooks play a crucial role in Kuhn’s analyses of science and scientific change. They are the means by which scientists-in-training learn the scientific lexicon in their field (see Kuhn 1962/2012, pp. 80–81; 164–165).
Scerri (2016) emphasizes the piecemeal way in which science advances. Indeed, this was part of his rationale for criticizing Kuhn’s theory of scientific change. Scerri sees the process as more evolutionary than revolutionary. Elsewhere I have argued that Kuhn believed it could be both (see Wray 2011).
References
Alvarez, S., Sales, J., Seco, M.: On books and chemical elements. Found. Chem. 10, 79–100 (2008)
Ben David, J.: The Scientist’s Role in Society: A Comparative Study. Prentice-Hall Inc, Englewood Cliffs (1971)
Carlson, A.K.: Lead isotope analysis of human bone for addressing cultural affinity: a case study from rocky mountain house, Alberta. J. Archaeol. Sci. 23, 557–567 (1996)
Cedarbaum, D.G.: Paradigms. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 14(3), 173–213 (1983)
Everts, S.: When science went international: looking back 150 years at the conference that led to the assembly of the periodic table. Chem. Eng. News (2010). https://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/88/8836sci1.html. Accessed 28 Dec 2017
Heilbron, J.L.: Noble gases. In: Heilbron, J.L. (ed.) The Oxford Guide to the History of Physics and Chemistry, pp. 230–231. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005)
Hendry, R.F.: Chemical substances and the limits of pluralism. Found. Chem. 14, 55–68 (2012)
Hudson, J.: The History of Chemistry. Chapman and Hall, New York (1992)
Idhe, A.J.: The Karlsruhe congress: a centennial retrospect. J. Chem. Educ. 38(2), 83–86 (1961)
Kaji, M.: D. I. Mendeleev’s concept of chemical element and the principles of chemistry. Bull. Hist. Chem. 27(1), 4–16 (2002)
Kuhn, T.S.: Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 4th edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1962/2012)
Kuhn, T.S.: The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1977a)
Kuhn, T.S.: Preface. In: Essential, The (ed.) Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. ix–xxiii. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1977b)
Kuhn, T.S.: What are scientific revolutions? In: Conant, J., Haugeland, J. (eds.) The Road Since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, pp. 13–32. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1987/2000)
Kuhn, T.S.: The road since structure. In: Conant, J., Haugeland, J. (eds.) The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, pp. 90–104. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1991/2000)
Masterman, M.: The nature of a paradigm. In: Lakatos, I., Musgrave, A. (eds.) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965, vol. 4, pp. 59–89. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1970)
Popper, K.R.: Normal science and its dangers. In: Lakatos I., Musgrave, A. (eds.) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London 1965, vol. 4, pp. 51–58 reprinted with corrections (1972). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1970)
Restrepo, G., Pachón, L.: Mathematical aspects of the periodic law. Found. Chem. 9, 189–214 (2007)
Scerri, E.R.: The Periodic Table: Its Story and Significance. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2007)
Scerri, E.R.: The Periodic table: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011)
Scerri, E.R.: A Tale of Seven Elements. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2013)
Scerri, E.R.: A Tale of Seven Scientists and a New Philosophy of Science. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2016)
Scerri, E.R., Worrall, J.: Prediction and the periodic table. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 32(3), 407–452 (2001)
Scheffler, I.: Science and Subjectivity. Bobbs-Merrill Company Inc, Indianapolis (1967)
Shapere, D.: Review of the structure of scientific revolutions. In: Gutting, G. (ed.) Paradigms and Revolutions: Applications and Appraisals of Thomas Kuhn’s Philosophy of Science, pp. 27–38. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame (1964/1980)
Soddy, F.: Intra-atomic charge. Nature 92(2301), 399–400 (1913)
Thornton, B.F.: Finding Eka-iodine: discovery priority in modern times. Bull. Hist. Chem. 35(2), 86–96 (2010)
Treiman, A.H., Gleason, J.D., Bogard, D.D.: The SNC meteorites are from Mars. Planet. Space Sci. 48(12–14), 1213–1230 (2000)
Van Spronsen, J.W.: The Periodic System of Chemical Elements: A History of the First Hundred Years. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1969)
Wray, K.B.: Kuhn’s Evolutionary Social Epistemology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2011)
Wray, K.B.: Kuhn’s influence on the social sciences. In: Rosenberg, A., McIntyre, L. (eds.) Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Social Science, pp. 65–75. Routledge, New York (2017)
Acknowledgements
I thank Lori Nash and Eric Scerri for critical feedback on early drafts of this paper. I also benefited from critical feedback from the audiences who heard an earlier version of this paper at the Centre for Science Studies, at Aarhus University, in Denmark, and Case Western Reserve University, in Cleveland, Ohio. Chris Haufe’s comments were especially helpful. Finally, I thank the referee for Foundations of Chemistry for their useful feedback on the paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wray, K.B. The atomic number revolution in chemistry: a Kuhnian analysis. Found Chem 20, 209–217 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10698-017-9303-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10698-017-9303-6