The Persistence of Epistemic Objects Through Scientific Change
- Hasok Chang
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Why do some epistemic objects persist despite undergoing serious changes, while others go extinct in similar situations? Scientists have often been careless in deciding which epistemic objects to retain and which ones to eliminate; historians and philosophers of science have been on the whole much too unreflective in accepting the scientists’ decisions in this regard. Through a re-examination of the history of oxygen and phlogiston, I will illustrate the benefits to be gained from challenging and disturbing the commonly accepted continuities and discontinuities in the lives of epistemic objects. I will also outline two key consequences of such re-thinking. First, a fresh view on the (dis)continuities in key epistemic objects is apt to lead to informative revisions in recognized periods and trends in the history of science. Second, recognizing sources of continuity leads to a sympathetic view on extinct objects, which in turn problematizes the common monistic tendency in science and philosophy; this epistemological reorientation allows room for more pluralism in scientific practice itself.
- Allchin, D. (1992). Phlogiston after oxygen. Ambix, 39, 110–116.
- Arabatzis, T. (2006). Representing electrons: A biographical approach to theoretical entities. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
- Bensaude-Vincent, B. (1996). Between history and memory: Centennial and bicentennial images of Lavoisier. Isis, 87, 481–499. CrossRef
- Cardwell, D. S. L. (Ed.). (1968). John Dalton and the progress of science. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
- Chang, H. (2004). Inventing temperature: Measurement and scientific progress. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Chang, H. (2008). Contingent transcendental arguments for metaphysical principles. In M. Massimi (Ed.), Kant and philosophy of science today (pp. 113–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Chang, H. (2009a). “Operationalism”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Online at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/operationalism.
- Chang, H. (2009b). We have never been whiggish (about phlogiston). Centaurus, 51, 239–264. CrossRef
- Chang, H. (2010). The hidden history of phlogiston: How philosophical failure can generate historiographical refinement. HYLE—International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 16, 47–79.
- Chang, H. (2012). Is water H 2 O? Evidence, pluralism and realism. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Conant, J. B. (1957). The overthrow of the phlogiston theory: The Chemical Revolution of 1775–1789. In J. B. Conant (Ed.), Harvard case histories in experimental science (Vol. 1, pp. 65–115). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Daston, L. (Ed.). (2000). Biographies of scientific objects. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
- Elliott, J. (1780). Philosophical observations on the senses of vision and hearing; to which are added, a treatise on harmonic sounds, and an essay on combustion and animal heat. London: J. Murray.
- Hoyningen-Huene, P. (2008). Thomas Kuhn and the Chemical Revolution. Foundations of Chemistry, 10, 101–115. CrossRef
- Kellert, S. H., Longino, H. E., & Waters, C. K. (Eds.). (2006). Scientific pluralism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
- Klein, U. (1994). Origin of the concept of chemical compound. Science in Context, 7(2), 163–204. CrossRef
- Klein, U. (1996). The chemical workshop tradition and the experimental practice: Discontinuities within continuities. Science in Context, 9(3), 251–287. CrossRef
- Klein, U., & Lefèvre, W. (2007). Materials in eighteenth-century science. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.
- Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
- Lavoisier, A.-L. (1789). Traité élémentaire de chimie. Paris: Cuchet.
- Lavoisier, A.-L. (1965). Elements of chemistry, with an introduction by D. McKie. New York: Dover (reprint of R. Kerr’s English translation (1790) of Lavoisier 1789).
- Lewis, G. N. (1926). The anatomy of science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
- McEvoy, J. G. (1997). Positivism, whiggism, and the Chemical Revolution: A study in the historiography of chemistry. History of Science, 35, 1–33.
- Odling, W. (1871). On the revived theory of phlogiston (address at the Royal Institution, 28 April 1871). Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, 6, 315–325.
- Partington, J. R., & McKie, D. (1937–1939). Historical studies on the phlogiston theory. Annals of Science, 2, 361–404; 3, 1–58, 337–371; 4, 113–149 (in four parts).
- Rheinberger, H.-J. (1997). Toward a history of epistemic things: Synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
- Rheinberger, H.-J. (2005). A reply to David Bloor: ‘Toward a sociology of epistemic things’. Perspectives on Science, 13, 406–410. CrossRef
- Siegfried, R. (2002). From elements to atoms: A history of chemical composition. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.
- Stanford, P. K., & Kitcher, P. (2000). Refining the causal theory of reference for natural kind terms. Philosophical Studies, 97, 99–129. CrossRef
- Sudduth, W. M. (1978). Eighteenth-century identifications of electricity with phlogiston. Ambix, 25, 131–147.
- The Persistence of Epistemic Objects Through Scientific Change
Volume 75, Issue 3 , pp 413-429
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Hasok Chang (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, Free School Lane, Cambridge, CB2 3RH, UK