Reporting the discovery of new chemical elements: working in different worlds, only 25 years apart
- 88 Downloads
In his account of scientific revolutions, Thomas Kuhn suggests that after a revolutionary change of theory, it is as if scientists are working in a different world. In this paper, we aim to show that the notion of world change is insightful. We contrast the reporting of the discovery of neon in 1898 with the discovery of hafnium in 1923. The one discovery was made when elements were identified by their atomic weight; the other discovery was made after scientists came to classify elements by their atomic number. By considering two instances of the reporting of the discovery of a new chemical element 25 years apart, we argue that it becomes clear how chemists can be said to have been responding to different worlds as a result of the change in the concept of a chemical element. They (1) saw, (2) did, and (3) reported different things as they conducted their research on the new chemical elements.
KeywordsChemical element Discovery Thomas Kuhn Neon Hafnium World changes Theory change
We thank Eric Scerri for feedback on an earlier draft.
Funding was provided by Aarhus Universitets Forskningsfond (Grant No: AUFF-E-2017-FLS-7-3).
- Grandy, R.E.: Kuhn’s world changes. In: Nickles, T. (ed.) Thomas Kuhn, pp. 246–260. Cambridge University Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
- Hacking, I.: Working in a new world: the taxanomic solution. In: Horwich, P. (ed.) World Changes: Thomas Kuhn and the Nature of Science, pp. 275–310. MIT Press, Cambridge (1993)Google Scholar
- Heilbron, J.L.: Atomic structure. In: Heilbron, J.L. (ed.) The Oxford Guide to the History of Physics and Astronomy, pp. 23–25. Oxford University Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
- Hoyningen-Huene, P.: Reconstructing scientific revolutions. In: Kuhn T.S. (ed.) Philosophy of Science. Translated by A. T. Levine, with a Foreword by T. S. Kuhn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1989/1993)Google Scholar
- Hoyningen-Huene, P.: Kuhn’s development before and after structure. In: Devlin, W.J., Bokulich, A. (eds.) Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions - 50 Years On, pp. 185–195. Springer, Dordrecht (2015)Google Scholar
- Kuhn, T.S.: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 4th edn. With an introductory essay by I. Hacking. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1962/2012)Google Scholar
- Marcum, J.A.: Thomas Kuhn’s revolutions: a historical and an evolutionary philosophy of science. Bloomsbury Academic, London (2015)Google Scholar
- Nickles, T.: Introduction. In: Nickles, T. (ed.) Thomas Kuhn, pp. 1–18. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
- Ramsey, W., Travers, M.W.: On the companions of argon. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 63(1), 437–440 (1898)Google Scholar
- Scerri, E.: A Tale of Seven Elements. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2013)Google Scholar
- Scerri, E.R.: The Periodic Table: Its Story and Its Significance. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2007)Google Scholar
- Thornton, B.F., Burdette, S.C.: Chemistry’s decision point: isotopes. In: Benvenuto, M.A., Willaimson, A., Williamson, T. (eds.) Elements Old and New: Discoveries, Developments, Challenges, and Environmental Implications, pp. 119–140. American Chemical Society, Washington (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Van Spronsen, J.W.: The Periodic System of Chemical Elements: A History of the First Hundred Years. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1969)Google Scholar
- Wray, K.B.: The atomic number revolution in chemistry: a Kuhnian analysis. Found Chem Philos Hist Educ Interdiscip Stud 20(3), 209–217 (2018)Google Scholar