On Lavoisier's Achievement in Chemistry

Abstract

Methodological recommendations common during the last 30 years have not prevented the emergence of views which are arguably no less caricatured and incorrect than was previously the case, even when account is taken of the heavily biased, mainly nationalistic, accounts concerning Lavoisier from the century after 1835. This article considers many of the categories of Lavoisier's achievement in chemistry, considers some of the more startling issues in the recent historiography, including negative accounts by Bensaude‐Vincent (1993), Siegfried (1988), Kim (2003) and Chang (2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012), and contributes towards a process of identifying a judicious view.

Scientific pluralism and the Chemical Revolution

“…The claim advanced here is merely that Chang's particular historical and philosophical claims founder inter alia on some important lessons from SSK. I write "inter alia" since there may be other perspectives too from which Chang's pluralism might be successfully challenged (Blumenthal 2013, Blumenthal and Ladyman 2014, Chalmers 2013, Mauskopf 2013.…”