Advertisement

Was Early Eighteenth-Century Chemistry an Empirical Science?

Chapter
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science book series (BSPS, volume 331)

Abstract

The Table des diffrents rapports observs entre les différentes substances which Etienne-François Geoffroy established 1718 seems, at first sight, to have been built solely on the basis of many observations made by chemists in their laboratories during the seventeenth century as well as on the works that himself and others chemists of the Parisian Académie royale des sciences, such as Wilhelm Homberg and Louis Lémery, had recently undertaken. In view of this, it seems that Geoffroy can be called a Newtonian because he didn’t build any hypothesis, refraining from giving any references to chemical principles or theories.

At the same time, he was said by Fontenelle and others to have introduced tenets of the Newtonian attraction, while we can see that, in fact, he was alluding to Homberg’s theory of the “Soufre principe” and maybe also to some alchemical considerations taken from the works of J.J. Becher. Hence, on closer examination, the “Table des rapports” appears to be overloaded with theories. Moreover, in the early eighteenth-century, chemistry seems to have made the same ambiguous use of laboratory operations that ancient alchemy: experiments weren’t designed to confront the theory with matters of fact, but rather to visualize or to make visible the main aspects of a chosen theory.

In my paper, I shall explore precisely those intricate links between theory and experience, in order to specify the limits of empirical knowledge in eighteenth-century chemistry.

Keywords

Chemical principles Chemistry Experiment Etienne-François Geoffroy 

Bibliography

Other Primary Literature

  1. Bergman, Torbern. 1785. A dissertation on elective attraction. London/Edinburgh: J. Murray/Charles Elliot. (= Engl. transl. of De attractionibus electivis, Uppsala, 1775).Google Scholar
  2. Berthollet, Claude-Louis. 1803. Essai de statique chimique. Paris: Firmin Didot.Google Scholar
  3. de Fontenelle, Bernard le Bovier. 1764. Eloge de Geoffroy. Histoire de l’Académie Royale des Sciences 1731: 93–99.Google Scholar
  4. de Maupertuis, Pierre Louis Moreau. 1745. Vénus Physique. [Paris]: s.n.Google Scholar
  5. Geoffroy l’Aîné, Étienne-François. 1722. Sur la Table inserée dans les Mémoires de 1718. concernant les Rapports observés entre différentes substances. Mémoires de l’Académie Royale des Sciences de Paris 1720: 20–34.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 1741. Table des différents rapports observés en chimie entre différentes substances. Mémoires de l’Académie Royale des Sciences de Paris 1718: 202–212.Google Scholar
  7. Homberg, Wilhelm. 1720. Essai de l’analyse du soufre commun. Mémoires de l’Académie Royale des Sciences de Paris 1703: 31–40.Google Scholar
  8. Lavoisier, Antoine. 1789. Traité élémentaire de chimie. Paris: Cuchet.Google Scholar
  9. Limbourg, Jean-Philippe de. 1761. Dissertation sur les affinités chimiques: qui a remporté le prix de physique de l’an 1758, quant à la partie chymique, au jugement de l’Académie Royale de Sciences, Belles Lettres et Arts de Rouen. Liege: F.J. Desoer.Google Scholar

Secondary Literature

  1. Brockliss, Laurence. 1994. Consultation by letter in early eighteenth-century Paris: The medical practice of Etienne-François Geoffroy. In French medical culture in the nineteenth century, ed. Ann La Berge and Mordechai Feingold, 79–117. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  2. Cohen, I. Bernard. 1964. Isaac Newton, Hans Sloane and the Académie Royale des Sciences. In Mélanges Alexandre Koyré, vol. I: “L’aventure de la science”, 60–116. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
  3. Goupil, Michelle. 1991. Du flou au clair? Histoire de l’affinité chimique de Cardan à Prigogine. Paris: Éditions du comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques.Google Scholar
  4. Holmes, Frederic. 1996. The communal context for Etienne-François Geoffroy ‘Table des rapports’. Science in Context 9 (3): 289–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Joly, Bernard. 2006. Les Affinités électives de Goethe: entre science et littérature. Methodos 6. http://methodos.revues.org/482.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 2007. Quarrels between E.F. Geoffroy and Louis Lémery at the Académie royale des sciences in the early seventeenth century. Mecanism and alchemy. In Chymists and chymistry. Studies in the history of alchemy and early modern chemistry, ed. Lawrence Principe. Philadelphie/Sagamore Beach: Chemical Heritage Foundation and Science History Publications.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 2008a. Le mécanisme et la chimie dans la nouvelle Académie royale des sciences: les débats entre Louis Lémery et Etienne-François Geoffroy. Methodos 8. http://methodos.revues.org/document1403.html.Google Scholar
  8. ———. 2008b. Etienne-François Geoffroy, un chimiste français entre l’Angleterre et l’Allemagne. In Neighbours and territories. The evolving identity of chemistry, ed. José Ramón Bertomeu-Sánchez, Duncan Thorburn Burns, and Brigitte Van Tiggelen, 105–114. Louvain-la-neuve: Mémosciences asbl. (http://www.euchems.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/binaries/10_Joly_tcm23-139352.pdf).
  9. ———. forthcoming. Le médecin, philosophe mécanico-chimiste selon Etienne-François Geoffroy (1672–1731). In Machine and life: Epistemological models and moral implications, ed. Nunzio Alloca. Münster: Nodus Verlag.Google Scholar
  10. Kim, Mi Gyung. 2003. Affinity, that elusive dream. A genealogy of the chemical revolution. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Klein, Ursula. 1995. E.F. Geoffroy Table of different ‘Rapports’ observed between different chemical substances. A reinterpretation. Ambix XLII (2): 79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ———. 1996. The chemical workshop tradition and the experimental practice: Discontinuities in continuities. Science in Context 9 (3): 251–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pépin, François. 2012a. Fontenelle, l’Académie et le devenir scientifique de la chimie. Methodos 12. http://methodos.revues.org/2898.Google Scholar
  14. Peterschmitt, Luc. 2012. Fontenelle et la chimie: la recherche d’une ‘loi fondamentale’ pour la chimie. Methodos 12. http://methodos.revues.org/2873.Google Scholar
  15. Principe, Lawrence. 2008. Wilhelm Homberg et la chimie de la lumière. Methodos 8. http://methodos.revues.org/1223.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of LilleVilleneuve d’AscqFrance

Personalised recommendations