Abstract
Both Lavoisier and Priestley were committed to the role of experiment and observation in their chemistry practice. According to Lavoisier the physical sciences embody three important ingredients; facts, ideas, and language, and Priestley would not have disagreed with this. Ideas had to be consistent with the facts generated from experiment and observation and language needed to be precise and reflect the known chemistry of substances. While Priestley was comfortable with a moderate amount of hypothesis making, Lavoisier had no time for what he termed theoretical speculation about the fundamental nature of matter and avoided the use of the atomic hypothesis and Aristotle’s elements in his Elements of Chemistry. In the preface to this famous work he claims he has good educational reasons for this position. While Priestley and Lavoisier used similar kinds of apparatus in their chemistry practice, they came to their task with completely different worldviews as regards the nature of chemical reactivity. This paper examines these worldviews as practiced in the famous experiment on the composition of air and the implications of this for chemistry education are considered.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Mercury is the only metal which imbibes air and releases air within the temperature range of the Bunsen burner.
In modern terms the reaction is represented as: Fe(s) + H2O(g) → FeO(s) + H2(g).
Pb3O4 in modern terms.
PbO in modern terms; massicot was well known to the French as a mineral used in painting.
One should note here that PbO doesn’t liberate oxygen on heating whereas PbO2 and Pb3O4 (PbO2.2PbO) do liberate oxygen.
Azote in French; azoto in Italian; azot in Polish.
References
Albury, W. R. (1986). The order of ideas: Condillac’s method of analysis as a political instrument in the French revolution. In J. A. Schuster & R. R. Yeo (Eds.). The politics and rhetoric of scientific method (pp. 203–225). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Aykroyd, W. R. (1935). Three philosophers: Lavoisier, Priestley, and Cavendish. London: Heinemann.
Basu, P. K. (1992). Similarities and dissimilarities between Joseph Priestley’s and Antoine Lavoisier’s Chemical Beliefs. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 23(3), 445–469.
Bensaude-Vincent, B. (1993). Lavoisier: Memoires d’une revolution. Paris: Flammarian.
Bensaude-Vincent, B., & Simon, J. (2008). Chemistry: The impure science. London: Imperial College Press.
Bent, H. A. (1986). Flames: A demonstration lecture for young students and general audiences. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(2), 151–154.
Bradley, J. (1964a). Chemistry II: The copper problem. School Science Review, 45(156), 364–368.
Bradley, J. (1964b). Chemistry III: The ramifications of the copper problem. School Science Review, 46(158), 126–133.
Bradley, J. (1965). Chemistry IV: Air and fire. School Science Review, 47(161), 65–71.
Bradley, J. (1966). Chemistry V: Water. School Science Review, 47(163), 702–710.
Brock, W.H. (2008). Joseph Priestley, enlightened experimentalist. In D. L.Wykes & I. Rivers (Eds.). Joseph Priestley, scientist, philosopher, and theologian (pp. 49–79). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brooke, J. H. (1995). Thinking about matter. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
Chalmers, A. F. (1982). What is this thing called science? (2nd ed.). St. Lucia, QLD: University of Queensland Press.
Davis, K. S. (1966). The Cautionary scientists: Priestley, Lavoisier and the founding of modern chemistry. New York: Putnam.
Donovan, A. (1993). Antoine Lavoisier: Science, administration, and revolution. Oxford: Blackwell.
Feyerabend, P. (1987). Fairwell to reason. London: Verso.
Feyerabend, P. (1993). Against method (3rd ed.). London: Verso.
Fowles, G. (1937). Lecture experiments in chemistry. London: G. Bell & Sons.
Gillispie, C. C. (1960). The edge of objectivity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003). Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jackson, J. (2005). A world on fire: A heretic, an aristocrat, and the race to discover oxygen. New York: Penguin.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lavoisier, A. (1965). Elements of chemistry (Translated by Robert Kerr) (Original 1789). New York: Dover.
Matthews, M. R. (1997). Introductory comments on philosophy and constructivism in science education. Science & Education, 6(1–2), 5–14.
McKie, D. (1935). Antoine Lavoisier. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd.
McKie, D. (1952). Antoine Lavoisier. London: Constable.
Medawar, P. (1984). The limits of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moran, B. T. (2005). Distilling knowledge: Alchemy, chemistry, and the scientific revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Munro, L. A. (1928). A modification of the pyrogallol method for determining the amount of oxygen in the air. Journal of Chemical Education, 5(6), 741.
Najdoski, M., Petrusevski, V. M., & Alexander, M. D. (2000). A novel experiment for fast and simple determination of the oxygen content in the air. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(11), 1447.
Poirier, J. P. (1996). Lavoisier: Chemist, biologist, economist. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania Press.
Priestley, J. (1767). The history and present state of electricity, with original experiments. London: J. Johnson.
Priestley, J. (1775). The discovery of oxygen. Part 1. Experiments by Joseph Priestley. In Alembic club reprints no. 7. (1992). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Priestley, J. (1790a). Experiments and observations on different kinds of air, and other branches of natural philosophy, Vol I. Birmingham: Thomas Pearson.
Priestley, J. (1790b). Experiments and observations on different kinds of air, and other branches of natural philosophy, Vol II. Birmingham: Thomas Pearson.
Priestley, J. (1790c). Experiments and observations on different kinds of air, and other branches of natural philosophy, Vol III. Birmingham: Thomas Pearson.
Rayleigh, J. W. (1894). On the anomaly encountered in determination of the density of nitrogen gas. Proceedings of the Royal Society, 55, 340.
Rayleigh, J. W., & Ramsay, W. (1895). Argon, a new constituent of the atmosphere. Philosophical Transactions, 186A, 187.
Roberts, L. (1992). Condillac, Lavoisier, and the Instrumentalization of Science. The Eighteenth Century, 33(3), 252–271.
Schofield, R. E. (1997). The enlightenment of Joseph Priestley. A study of his life and work from 1733–1773. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Schofield, R.E. (2004). The enlightenment of Joseph Priestley. A study of his life and work from 1773–1804. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Vera, F., Rivera, R., & Nunez, C. (2011). A simple experiment to measure the content of oxygen in the air using heated steel wool. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(9), 1341–1342.
Watson, P. (2009). Ideas: A history: from fire to Freud (Vol. I). London: The Folio Society.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank one of the reviewers of the manuscript for directing his attention to the work of J. Bradley in the School Science Review.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
de Berg, K. Teaching Chemistry for All Its Worth: The Interaction Between Facts, Ideas, and Language in Lavoisier’s and Priestley’s Chemistry Practice: The Case of the Study of the Composition of Air. Sci & Educ 23, 2045–2068 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-014-9712-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-014-9712-z