Erkenntnis

, Volume 75, Issue 3, pp 413–429

The Persistence of Epistemic Objects Through Scientific Change

Article

Abstract

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.

References

  1. Allchin, D. (1992). Phlogiston after oxygen. Ambix, 39, 110–116.Google Scholar
  2. Arabatzis, T. (2006). Representing electrons: A biographical approach to theoretical entities. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bensaude-Vincent, B. (1996). Between history and memory: Centennial and bicentennial images of Lavoisier. Isis, 87, 481–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cardwell, D. S. L. (Ed.). (1968). John Dalton and the progress of science. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Chang, H. (2004). Inventing temperature: Measurement and scientific progress. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. Chang, H. (2009a). “Operationalism”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Online at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/operationalism.
  8. Chang, H. (2009b). We have never been whiggish (about phlogiston). Centaurus, 51, 239–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chang, H. (2010). The hidden history of phlogiston: How philosophical failure can generate historiographical refinement. HYLEInternational Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 16, 47–79.Google Scholar
  10. Chang, H. (2012). Is water H 2 O? Evidence, pluralism and realism. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. Daston, L. (Ed.). (2000). Biographies of scientific objects. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. Hoyningen-Huene, P. (2008). Thomas Kuhn and the Chemical Revolution. Foundations of Chemistry, 10, 101–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kellert, S. H., Longino, H. E., & Waters, C. K. (Eds.). (2006). Scientific pluralism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  16. Klein, U. (1994). Origin of the concept of chemical compound. Science in Context, 7(2), 163–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Klein, U. (1996). The chemical workshop tradition and the experimental practice: Discontinuities within continuities. Science in Context, 9(3), 251–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Klein, U., & Lefèvre, W. (2007). Materials in eighteenth-century science. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Lavoisier, A.-L. (1789). Traité élémentaire de chimie. Paris: Cuchet.Google Scholar
  21. 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).Google Scholar
  22. Lewis, G. N. (1926). The anatomy of science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  23. McEvoy, J. G. (1997). Positivism, whiggism, and the Chemical Revolution: A study in the historiography of chemistry. History of Science, 35, 1–33.Google Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. 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).Google Scholar
  26. Rheinberger, H.-J. (1997). Toward a history of epistemic things: Synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Rheinberger, H.-J. (2005). A reply to David Bloor: ‘Toward a sociology of epistemic things’. Perspectives on Science, 13, 406–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Siegfried, R. (2002). From elements to atoms: A history of chemical composition. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.Google Scholar
  29. Stanford, P. K., & Kitcher, P. (2000). Refining the causal theory of reference for natural kind terms. Philosophical Studies, 97, 99–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sudduth, W. M. (1978). Eighteenth-century identifications of electricity with phlogiston. Ambix, 25, 131–147.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of History and Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations