Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:51:08.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dalton's Chemical Atoms versus Duhem's Chemical Equivalents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Karen R. Zwier
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Paul Needham has claimed in several recent papers that Dalton's chemical atomism was not explanatory. I respond to his criticism of Dalton by arguing that explanation admits of degrees and that under a view that allows for a spectrum of explanatory value, it is possible to see ample worth in Dalton's atomistic explanations. Furthermore, I argue that even Duhem, who rejected atomism, acknowledged the explanatory worth of Dalton's atomism.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 78 , Issue 5 , December 2011 , pp. 842 - 853
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

I thank Thomas Cunningham, Julia Bursten, and Matthew Zwier for helpful comments on previous versions of this article. I also thank Alan Chalmers for an interesting seminar on the history of atomism in the fall of 2007, which spurred my work on this topic.

References

Dalton, John. 1801. “New Theory of the Constitution of Mixed Aeriform Fluids, and Particularly of the Atmosphere.” Journal of Natural Philosophy, Chemistry, and the Arts 5 (October): 241–44.Google Scholar
Dalton, John. 1802. “Experimental Essays on the Constitution of Mixed Gases; on the Force of Steam or Vapour from Water and Other Liquids in Different Temperatures, both in a Torricellian Vacuum and in Air; on Evaporation; and on the Expansion of Gases by Heat.” Memoirs of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester 5 (2): 535–602.Google Scholar
Dalton, John. 1805. “On the Absorption of Gases by Water and Other Liquids.” Memoirs of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester, 2nd ser., 1:271–87.Google Scholar
Dalton, John. 1808. A New System of Chemical Philosophy. Vol. 1, pt. 1. Manchester: Bickerstaff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duhem, Pierre. 1892/2000. “Atomic Notation and Atomistic Hypotheses.” Trans. Paul Needham. Foundations of Chemistry 2:127–80. Originally published as “Notation atomique et hypotheses atomistiques,” Revue des questions scientifiques 31:391–457.Google Scholar
Duhem, Pierre. 1902/2002. “Mixture and Chemical Combination: An Essay on the Evolution of an Idea.” In Mixture and Chemical Combination and Related Essays, ed. Needham, Paul, 1–118. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Originally published as Le mixte et la combinaison chimique: Essai sur l’évolution d’une idée (Paris: Naud).Google Scholar
Duhem, Pierre. 1914/1954. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Trans. Wiener, Philip P.. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Originally published as La Théorie Physique: son Objet, Sa Structure, 2nd ed. (Paris: Rivière & Cie).Google Scholar
Needham, Paul. 2000. “What Is Water?” Analysis 60 (265): 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Needham, Paul. 2004a. “Has Daltonian Atomism Provided Chemistry with Any Explanations?” Philosophy of Science 71:1038–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Needham, Paul. 2004b. “When Did Atoms Begin to Do Any Explanatory Work in Chemistry?” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 18:199–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Needham, Paul. 2008. “Resisting Chemical Atomism: Duhem's Argument.” Philosophy of Science 75:921–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rocke, Alan J. 1984. Chemical Atomism in the Nineteenth Century: From Dalton to Cannizzaro. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Roscoe, Henry E., and Harden, Arthur. 1896. A New View of the Origin of Dalton's Atomic Theory: A Contribution to Chemical History. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar