History and Philosophy of Chemistry

In this essay, we aim to provide an overview of the periodic table’s origins and history, and of the elements which conspired to make it chemistry’s most recognisable icon. We pay attention to Mendeleev’s role in the development of a system for organising the elements and chemical knowledge while facilitating the teaching of chemistry. We look at how the reception of the table in different chemical communities was dependent on the local scientific, cultural and political context, but argue that its eventual universal acceptance is due to its unique ability to accommodate possessed knowledge while enabling novel predictions. Furthermore, we argue that its capacity to unify apparently disconnected phenomena under a simple framework facilitates our understanding of periodicity, making the table an icon of aesthetic value, and an object of philosophical inquiry. Finally, we briefly explore the table’s iconicity throughout its representations in pop art and science fiction.

This edited volume of 13 new essays aims to turn past discussions of natural kinds on their head. Instead of presenting a metaphysical view of kinds based largely on an unempirical vantage point, it pursues questions of kindedness which take the use of kinds and activities of kinding in practice as significant in the articulation of them as kinds. It brings philosophical study of current and historical episodes and case studies from various scientific disciplines to bear on natural kinds as traditionally conceived of within metaphysics. Focusing on these practices reveals the different knowledge-producing activities of kinding and processes involved in natural kind use, generation, and discovery.
An esteemed group of contributors who are specialists in their field use diverse empirically responsive approaches to explore the nature of kindhood using detailed case studies that exemplify kinding in use. Each chapter is written specifically for this volume and engages with the activities of kinding across a variety of disciplines. Chapters address the nature of kinds, kindhood, kinding, and kind-making in linguistics, chemical classification, neuroscience, gene and protein classification, colour theory in applied mathematics, homology in comparative biology, sex and gender identity theory, memory research, race, extended cognition, symbolic algebra, cartography, and geographic information science.
The volume seeks to open up an as-yet unexplored area within the emerging field of philosophy of science in practice, and constitutes a valuable addition to the philosophy and history of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Contributions from a diverse group of established and junior scholars in the fields of Philosophy and History and Philosophy of Science including Hasok Chang, Jordi Cat, Sally Haslanger, Joyce C. Havstad Catherine Kendig, Bernhard Nickel, Josipa Petrunic, Samuli Pöyhönen, Thomas A. C. Reydon Quayshawn Spencer, Jackie Sullivan, Michael Wheeler, and Rasmus Grønfeldt Winther. Preface by John Dupré .

Decades of cognition research have shown that external stimuli “spark” neural patterns in particular regions of the brain. This has fostered a view of the brain as a space that we can map: here the brain responds to faces, there it perceives a sensation in your left hand. But it turns out that the sense of smell—only recently attracting broader attention in neuroscience—doesn’t work this way. A. S. Barwich asks a deceptively simple question: What does the nose tell the brain, and how does the brain understand it?

Barwich interviews experts in neuroscience, psychology, chemistry, and perfumery in an effort to understand the biological mechanics and myriad meanings of odors. She argues that it is time to stop recycling ideas based on the paradigm of vision for the olfactory system. Scents are often fickle and boundless in comparison with visual images, and they do not line up with well-defined neural regions. Although olfaction remains a puzzle, Barwich proposes that what we know suggests the brain acts not only like a map but also as a measuring device, one that senses and processes simple and complex odors.

Accounting for the sense of smell upsets theories of perception philosophers have developed. In their place, Smellosophy articulates a new model for understanding how the brain represents sensory information.

The book gathers contributions from philosophers of medicine, pharmacologists, philosophers of biology and (formal) epistemologists around topics such as causal inference, evidential standards and study design, as well as the interplay between ethical, social, and financial dimensions in strategic behaviour underpinning methodological choices, evidential standards, and policies related to drug approval, monitoring and regulation. Authors include: Rani Anjum, Jeffrey Aronson, Marta Bertolaso, Giovanni Boniolo, Gustavo Cevolani, Brendan Clarke, Roberto Festa, Sven Ove Hansson, Bennett Holman, Jürgen Landes,  Mael Lemoine, Ulrich Mansmann, Klaus Ruthenberg, Miriam Solomon, David Teira, and Jon Williamson.

ТОЛЬКО ОЗНАКОМИТЕЛЬНЫЙ ФРАГМЕНТ, электронная версия не распространяется.

Три английских трактата об алхимии: Прайс Дж. Эксперименты с меркурием и серебром. Бойль Р. Отчет о деградации золота. Уолл М. О происхождении и давности символов в астрономии и химии / Пер. с англ., коммент. и предисл. Ю. Ф. Родиченкова; послесл. М. Ю. Родыгина. — СПб.: Издательство «Академия исследования культуры», 2020. — 164 с.: ил. — (Серия Librarium Aureum. Opus Minus). ISBN 978-5-6045100-0-1

Авторы этих трактатов известные английские ученые XVII–XVIII веков, члены Лондонского королевского общества: молодой доктор медицины и искусный химик Джеймс Прайс написал отчет о своих экспериментах по превращению ртути в золото; прославленный Роберт Бойль, один из основателей современной химии, повествует о деградации золота в неблагородный металл, то есть о трансмутации наоборот, а доктор Мартин Уолл, обращаясь к древним текстам и изображениям, рассказывает о происхождении астрологических и алхимических символов планет.

Оглавление:

Ю. Ф. Родиченков. Три эпизода истории алхимии  ............. 4

Дж. Прайс. Отчет о нескольких экспериментах с меркурием, серебром и золотом, проделанных в Гилфорде в мае 1781 года в лаборатории Джеймса Прайса, доктора медицины, члена Королевского общества, ему
предшествует сокращенный отчет Бойля о деградации
золота  .................................................................................. 13
Введение .............................................................................. 16
Краткое изложение отчета Бойля о деградации золота 25

Р. Бойль. Отчет о деградации золота ............................. 27
Исторический отчет о деградации золота ............. 29

Дж. Прайс. Эксперименты с меркурием и серебром... 56
Эксперимент I ............................................................. 56
Эксперимент II  ........................................................... 61
Эксперимент III........................................................... 63
Эксперимент IV........................................................... 63
Эксперимент V............................................................ 64
Эксперимент VI .......................................................... 68
Эксперимент VII ......................................................... 71

М. Уолл. О происхождении и давности символов в астрономии и химии ...77

М. Ю. Родыгин. Научное искусство алхимии...................... 150

Приложение. Британские аптекарские меры веса .............. 159

La tabla periódica se ha desarrollado gracias a la teoría atómica, la física cuántica, la teoría de la relatividad y la química sintética. El planteo de autonomía de la química por parte de varios filósofos y químicos actuales, ha permitido encontrar otros criterios de organización y ordenamiento de los elementos, que han resultado en otras propuestas de modelo y representación que permitan integrar criterios físicos, químicos y filosóficos.
En el presente trabajo, se analizará la autonomía de la química a partir de una visión histórica, de algunas de las representaciones de la tabla periódica, considerando ventajas y desventajas en su enseñanza.

İnsanoğlu, tarih boyunca kendisine bahşedilen akıl ve duyu organları ile doğayı anlama ve anlamlandırma çabası içerisinde olmuş, gördüğü olay ve olgulardan hareketle teoriler kurmayı ve yasalara ulaşmayı, bunu yaparken de bir takım teknik icatlarla yaşamını kolaylaştırıp daha konforlu bir hayat sürmeyi başarmıştır. Bilim adı verilen biriken, sürekli ilerleyen ve sadece insan özgü olan bu uğraşın tek bir tanımı olmasa da doğru düşünme ve sistematik bilgi edinme süreci olduğu konusunda genel bir yaklaşım söz konusudur.
Bilim üreten ve icat yapan (homo faber) bir varlık olan insan, doğadaki en zayıf ve güçsüz varlıklardan biri olmasına rağmen, bilim ve teknikle yaşamını bugüne kadar sürdürebilmiş, her geçen gün yeni buluşlarla ihtiyaçlarını daha rahat karşılamayı, güvenliğini, konforunu artırmayı ve geleceğini güvence altına almayı büyük oranda başarmıştır.
Bilimleri ilk defa sınıflayan ve bu yüzden “Muallim-i Evvel” (Birinci Öğretmen) unvanı verilen Aristoteles, bilim ve felsefe yapma çabasını öğrenme içgüdüsü, merak ve hayret duygusu ile açıklamaktadır. Entelektüel bir etkinlik olarak bilme tutkusu, pratik faydalarının yanı sıra bir bakıma insanın evrendeki varoluşunu gerçekleştirme ve aklındaki sorulara cevap bulma çabasıdır. Aristoteles’ten itibaren bilim yapmanın nedeni olarak görülen uyumlu evren önünde hayret ve şaşkınlık anlayışının aksine Stoacılar, bilimi ve felsefeyi insanın aklın rehberliğinde doğayla uyum içinde yaşaması olarak görmüşlerdir. Bu yönleriyle bilim, insanlığı birleştiren evrensel bir uğraş olagelmiştir.
Bilimin din, mitoloji, sanat, edebiyat gibi diğer alanlardan belki de en büyük farkı, tartışılmaz ve mutlak olmayıp sürekli kendini yanlışlayarak ilerleyebilmesidir. Geçmişte mutlak doğru gibi görülen Batlamyus’un teorileri, Aristoteles’in kozmoloji anlayışı, hatta Newton’un mekanik evren tasarımı bugün geçerliliğini çoktan yitirmiş, tarihsel bir bilgi olarak kalmıştır. Bugün de doğru kabul edilen birçok bilimsel görüşün yarın yanlışlanacağı, hatta bir zamanlar böyle düşünülüp açıklama getirilmiş diye ironik bakılacağı da bir gerçektir.
Bu görüşün aksi de mümkün olabilmektedir. Şöyle ki bir zamanlar irrasyonel, hatta bilimsel bulunmayan teoriler ya da önermeler, zamanla geçerli ve sınanabilir kuramlar hâline gelebilmektedir. Örneğin insanlık tarihi kadar eski olan atom düşüncesi (Leukippos, Demokritos vd.), Güneş merkezli evren (heliocentric) anlayışı (Sisamlı Aristarkhos, İbnü’ş-Şâtır, Bitrûcî vd.), evrim kuramı (Anaksimandros, Nazzâm, Câhız, İhvân-ı Safâ vd.), gökteki nesnelerin şeffaf küreler olmadığını düşüncesi (İbnü’l-Heysem, Harakî vd.) ya da görmenin nasıl oluştuğunu açıklayan nesne-ışın kuramı (Aristoteles, İbn Sînâ ve İbnü’l-Heysem vd.) buna örnek verilebilir. O dönemin şartları, deney ve gözlem araçlarının yetersizliği ya da baskın bilimsel otoritelerin görüşleri bu doğru yaklaşımların öne çıkmasına engel olabilmiştir. Bu yüzden bilimi zamanın ve mekânın dışında, olması gereken ideal bir anlayış yerine; olanın, bugünün teorisi şeklinde düşünmek daha doğru olacaktır. Bu ve benzeri konular son yüzyılda sıkça tartışılan bilim felsefesinin temel meseleleri olmuştur.
Bilimin ilerleyip yeni açılımlar yapabilmesi, durağanlıktan kurtulabilmesi ancak felsefe ile mümkündür. Tarih boyunca bilimi olmuş bitmişlikten kurtarıp merak duygusuyla sürekli yeni arayışlara yönelten, bilimi parçalardan kurtulup bütünlüğe, yasaya ulaşmaya yönelten hep felsefe olmuştur. Çünkü felsefe olanı olduğu gibi kabul etmek yerine; eleştirel, sorgulayıcı, temellendirici yönüyle bilimsel bilgi, değer ve düşünce üretimine imkân sağlamaktadır.
Batı’nın bilimsel gelişim evrelerinde, Orta Çağ’ın Patristik ve Skolastik dönem bilim anlayışı Karanlık Çağ olarak görülmekte, modern bilim Francis Bacon, Kepler, Galilei gibi isimlerle XVI. yüzyıl sonrasından itibaren başlatılmaktadır. Bu yüzyıldaki bilim anlayışının en büyük özelliği, bilimin Kilise’nin kontrolünden çıkması, deney ve gözleme önem verip tümevarım gibi yöntemlerin kullanılmasıdır.
Batı’nın aksine aynı yüzyıllarda İslam dünyasında bilim ve teknoloji Altın Çağı’nı yaşamış, yeni bilimsel teoriler ve buluşlar ortaya konmuş, iki dünya arasında bilim, felsefe, sanat gibi alanlarda çok keskin farklılıklar yaşanmıştır. İşte bilimin tarihsel ve coğrafi şartlarda değişimi ve gelişimini konu edinen bilim tarihi, bu bağlamda insanlık tarihine tutulan bir ayna görevini görmektedir.
Tarihi insanlık kadar eski olan bilimin geçirmiş olduğu serüveni, bilimsel düşüncenin doğuşu, gelişimi ve evrelerini, teknik bilginin oluşumunu, bilim insanlarının uğraşlarını, buluşlarını, izledikleri yöntemleri, bilimsel araç ve gereçleri konu edinen bilim tarihi son dönemde bilim felsefesi ile birlikte ilerlemekte, tarihsel bilgileri felsefi yorumlarla zenginleştirmektedir.
İnsanlık tarihi kadar eski ve kapsamı oldukça geniş olan bilim tarihinin bağımsız bir akademik disiplin hâline gelmesi oldukça yenidir. George Sarton’un (1884-1956) Harvard Üniversitesi’nde 1936’da Bilim Tarihi Kürsüsünü kurmasıyla yeni bir bilim dalı olarak ortaya çıkmış, felsefe ve tarih alanlarından faydalanarak son yılların en popüler interdisiplini hâline gelmiştir. Akademik olarak bilim tarihinin kurucusu sayılan Sarton, kendisinden önce Auguste Comte (1798-1857) ve Paul Tannery’i (1843-1904) bilim tarihinin öncü isimleri olarak görmektedir. Bu isimleri takiple Pierre Duhem (1861-1916) ve Lynn Thorndike (1882-1965) gibi bilim insanları da bilim tarihinin kurumsallaşmasına katkı sağlamışlardır. Sarton’a göre bilim tarihi, bilimsel düşüncenin, yani insanın bilincinin gelişimini açıklamaktır. Ancak bu din ve felsefe gibi toplumsal yaşamda etkili kurum ve disiplinlerin ihmal edilmeden, değerlendirmelerde bunları da hesaba katarak yapılmalıdır.
Bilim tarihi çalışmalarının hız kazandığı bu yüzyılda “Felsefe tarihi bilmeden felsefe yapılabilir mi?” sorusuna benzer şekilde “Bilim tarihi bilmeden bilim yapılabilir mi?” sorusu sorulmaya ve değişik cevaplar verilmeye başlanmıştır. Bu sorunun cevabı “Evet, mümkündür.” olsa da insanoğlu hem bilimin hem de felsefenin tarih içerisindeki serencamını, din, sanat, teknik gibi diğer düşünsel etkinliklerle olan ilişkisini hep merak edegelmiştir. Benzer şekilde “Bilim evrensel midir, değil midir?”, “Bilim mi teknolojiye yön verir, yoksa teknoloji mi bilime yön verir?” soruları ya da “Bilimin ilerleyişi lineer midir, yoksa -Thomas Kuhn’un iddia ettiği gibi- paradigmatik olarak devrimsel ve sıçramalı mı ilerler?” tartışmaları da hız kesmeden devam etmektedir.
Batı dünyası, akıl ve bilimi öne çıkaran bir döneme girdiği Aydınlanma Çağında (XVIII. yüzyıl), Müslümanların geçmişteki bilimsel başarılarına gözlerini çevirmiş ve bu başarılar oryantalizmin ilgi sahasına girmiştir. Bu çağda Condorcet gibi Aydınlanmacı düşünürler, Müslümanların bilimsel başarılarını, Batı’da karanlık bir çağın hüküm sürdüğü bir dönemde, Aydınlanma’nın süregelen gelişiminin bir garantisi olarak görmüştür. Bu durumu Batı dünyasındaki Herder, Goethe, von Humboldt, Sarton gibi çok sayıda aklıselim düşünür ve oryantalist de itiraf etmektedir.

Bu çalışmada, İslam bilim tarihi yüzyıllar şeklinde kronolojik olarak ele alınmış, her yüzyılın bir değerlendirilmesi yapılmış, ardından öne çıkan kuram ve kurumlarla önemli bilim insanları tanıtılmaya çalışılmıştır. Hâlid b. Yezîd (661-704) ile başlayıp Abdülkelam (1931-2015) ile son bulan İslam bilim tarihinin kısa bir özetini sunan bu çalışma, bilim tarihinde asıl anlatacak hikâyesi olan Müslüman bilim insanlarının küçük bir kesitini sunmaktadır. Çalışmada Arapça, Farsça ve Osmanlıca kitap isimlerinin secili ve kafiyeli ifadeler olmasından dolayı tam tercümesini yapmanın güçlüğüne rağmen, okuyucuyu bilgilendirmek için Türkçe karşılıkları verilmeye çalışılmıştır.
İslam bilim tarihi ve felsefesi alanına küçük bir katkı olan bu eser, bu konulara ilgi duyanlara faydalı olması dileğiyle…

Abstract: A complete history of early atomic models would fill volumes, but a reasonably coherent tale of the path from mechanical atoms to the quantum can be told by focusing on the relevant work of three great contributors to atomic physics, in the critically important years between 1904 and 1913: JJ Thomson, Ernest Rutherford and Niels Bohr. We first examine the origins of Thomson's mechanical atomic models, from his ethereal vortex atoms in the early 1880's, to the myriad" corpuscular" atoms he proposed following the discovery ...

Fors, Hjalmar, 2003: Mutual Favours: The social and scientific practice of eighteenth-century Swedish chemistry. Written in English. Institutionen för idé- och lärdomshistoria, Uppsala universitet, Skrifter 30. 225 pp. Uppsala.

The dissertation is a study of the creation of chemistry as a science in eighteenth-century Sweden. It is argued that the chemists in the study participated in a network for exchange of scientific facts and all kinds of favours, in which science was both conducted, negotiated and created. A number of relationships between chemists are analyzed with regards to two central eighteenth-century institutions: the patron-client relationship and the egalitarian ideal of reciprocity articulated in the eighteenth-century Republic of Letters.
In the first half the background to the success of Swedish chemistry is sketched out. It is discussed which groups supported chemistry and for what reasons. There is a discussion of the theoretical and methodological changes that were initiated by Torbern Bergman when he took over the chair of chemistry in Uppsala. Bergman's attempts to marginalize his two major opponents, Johan Gottschalk Wallerius, the previous holder of the Uppsala chair and Gustav von Engeström, the head of the Board of Mines laboratory in Stockholm, are also analyzed.
In the second half the focus shifts to the interaction of university chemistry with industry. It is shown how industrial processes gradually came to be redefined as a kind of “coarse chemistry”, a process which benefited both engineers employed at industrial installations and university chemists. The many themes explored in the study are brought together in an analysis of Carl Wilhelm Scheele’s adoption into the network of Swedish chemists. The dissertation concludes with a survey of the more general conclusions.

Key words: Sweden, chemistry, mineralogy, eighteenth century, enlightenment science, republic of letters, reciprocity, networks, Johan Gottschalk Wallerius, Torbern Bergman, Carl Wilhelm Scheele.

Hjalmar Fors, Department of History of Science and Ideas, Uppsala University, Slottet, entrance A0, S-751 37 Uppsala, Sweden.

© Hjalmar Fors 2003

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate two objections to the 'kinetic derivation' of the equilibrium constant expression which is commonly seen in textbooks. To this end, it begins by consulting the history of deriving the equilibrium expression, and from there goes on to consider of the nature of scientific explanation and the value of demonstrations in education.

Update 2018/03/12: I have made some small changes to the body, and added a significant improvement to the kinetic derivation itself. I have removed from the body the derivation which shows that multiplying together the K of each step yields the correct K of the overall equation, and instead have added to the appendix a more rigorous derivation that shows exactly why this occurs. The superscripts get small, so it may be necessary to download the PDF in order to zoom in.

A Cultural History of Chemistry in the Eighteenth Century covers the period from 1700 to 1815. Setting the history of science and technology in its cultural context, the volume questions the myth of a chemical revolution. Already boasting a laboratory culture open to both manufacturing and commerce, the discipline of chemistry now extended into academies and universities. Chemists studied myriad materials - derived from minerals, plants, and animals - and produced an increasing number of chemical substances such as acids, alkalis, and gases. New textbooks offered opportunities for classifying substances, rethinking old theories and elaborating new ones. By the end of the period – in Europe and across the globe - chemistry now embodied the promise of unifying practice and theory.

Identifying students' misconceptions and learning difficulties and finding effective ways of addressing them has been one of the major concerns in chemistry education. However, the chemistry education community has paid little attention to determining discipline-specific aspects of chemistry that can lead to learning difficulties and misconceptions. In this article, it is argued that emergence plays a critical role in the epistemology and the ontology of chemistry and hence it should be taken into account for understanding learning difficulties and finding ways of addressing them in chemistry. It is particularly argued that one of the fundamental sources of learning difficulties and chemical misconceptions is learners' failure to understand the emergent nature of chemical entities, their properties, and interactions. In this article, an interpretive analysis framework is suggested for identifying specific learning demands and the sources of learners' misconceptions about the emergent chemical properties and phenomena. Findings from previous research on learners' misconceptions regarding emergent chemical properties are reanalyzed and interpreted through this framework. Inadequacies of typical teaching practices and their consequences are discussed from an emergentist perspective. Finally, implications of the emergentist perspective for more meaningful chemical education are discussed.

Spirit and Soul of Elixir Alchemy is the introduction to Gold Elixirs - A Cross-cultural History of Therapeutic Gold, currently being written by J. Erik LaPort. The book outlines the origins of Asian Elixir Alchemy, traces the cultural intercourse and development of gold therapeutics worldwide, and discusses surviving examples of Gold Elixirs available today from an historic and cultural perspective. Expected publication date late 2015 or early 2016.

The last twenty-five years have witnessed some provocative transmutations in our understanding of early modern chemistry.  The alchemist, once marginalized as a quack, now joins the apothecary, miner, humanist, and natural historian as a practitioner of “chymistry”.  In a similar vein, the Chemical Revolution of the eighteenth century, with its focus on phlogiston and airs, has been expanded to include artisanal, medical, and industrial practices.  This collection of essays builds on these reappraisals and excavates the affinities between alchemy, chymistry, and chemistry from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries.  It reveals a rich world of theory and practice in which instruments, institutions, inscriptions and ideas were used to make material knowledge.  More generally, the volume will catalyze wide-ranging discussions of material and visual cultures, the role of expertise, and the religious and practical contexts of scientific inquiry.

"Michel Weber and Will Desmond, (eds.), Handbook of Whiteheadian Process Thought, Frankfurt / Lancaster, ontos verlag, Process Thought X1 & X2, 2008. (695 p. + 726 p. ; ISBN 978-3-938793-92-3 ; 398 €)
Gathering 115 entries written by 101 internationally renowned experts in their fields, the Handbook of Whiteheadian Process Thought aims at interpreting Whitehead secundum Whitehead, at canvassing the current state of knowledge in Whiteheadian scholarship and at identifying promising directions for future investigations through (internal) cross-elucidation and (external) interdisciplinary and crossdisciplinary development.
Table of Contents
Introduction
I. Aesthetics
II. Anthropology
III. Ecology
IV. Economy
V. Education
VI. Ethics
VII. Gender Studies
VIII. History
IX. Language
X. Mathematics and Logic
XI. Metaphysics
XII. Psychology and the Philosophy of Mind
XIII. Public Policy
XIV. Science
XV. Sociology of Science
XVI. Theology and Religion
XVII. Theory of Knowledge
XVIII. Urbanism & Architecture
XIX. Biographical entries
XX. Critical Apparatus

Authors : A Sister of St-John, Adam Scarfe , Albert C. Lewis, Alessandro Sardi, Alix Parmentier, Andrew Dawson, Annamaria Miranda, Arran Gare, Barbara Muraca, Berit Brogaard, Beth Lord, Brian G. Henning, Bruce Duncan MacQueen, Bruce G. Epperly, Carol F. Johnston, Carol P. Christ, Claude de Jonckheere, Claus Michael Ringel, Clifford Cobb, Craig Eisendrath, Daniel A. Dombrowski, David G. Butt, David Ray Griffin, Dominic J. Balestra, Donald Wayne Viney, Donna Bowman, Douglas R. Anderson, Elias L. Khalil, Elie During, Frédéric Fruteau de Laclos, Franck Robert, Gao Shan, Gary A. Cook, George Allan, Giangiacomo Gerla , Gottfried Heinemann, Graham Bird, Granville C. Henry, jr., Gudmund Smith, Guillaume Durand, Howard Woodhouse, Ivor Grattan-Guinness, Jaime Nubiola, James Connelly, James Williams, Jean-Pascal Alcantara, Johanna Seibt, John B. Cobb, Jr., John H. Buchanan, John Quiring , John W. Lango, Jonathan Delafield-Butt, Jorge Luis Nobo, Joseph A. Bracken, S.J., Joseph E. Earley, Sr., Joseph Grange, Juan Vicente Mayoral de Lucas, Judith Jones, Julie A. Nelson, Kipton Jensen, Leemon McHenry, Les Muray, Lieven Decock, Liliana Albertazzi, Luca Gaeta, Luca Vanzago, Manuel Bächtold, Marc Maesschalck, Maria Pachalska , Mark Modak-Truran, Mark R. Dibben, Mary Elizabeth Moore, Max Velmans, Michael Epperson, Michael Fortescue, Michel Weber, Murray Code, Mustafa Ruezgar, Norman Sieroka, Patrick J. Coppock, Paul Custodio Bube, Peter Hare, Peter Simons, Pierfrancesco Basile, Les Muray, Randall E. Auxier, Richard Feist, Robert Castiglione, Robert J.Valenza, Ronny Desmet , Ross L. Stein, Rudolf Windeln, Stephen T. Franklin, Sylviane R. Schwer, T. L. S. Sprigge, Thomas A. F. Kelly, Thomas E. Hosinski, C.S.C., Timothy E. Eastman, Vincent Shen, Volker Peckhaus, William Jay Garland, William T. Myers"

U članku je prikazan rad profesora Mladena Deželića (1900.-1989.), hrvatskog kemičara, u doba njegova djelovanja na utemeljenju visokoškolske nastave i znanstvenih istraživanja na području kemije u Sarajevu i Bosni i Hercegovini. Istražen je njegov doprinos izgradnji univerzitetskog središta i Prirodno-matematičkog fakulteta, a osobito njegov doprinos osnivanju Instituta za hemiju i fiziku. Upravo inicijativom, zalaganjem i trudom profesora Mladena Deželića taj projekt gradnje je započeo, razvijao se i postigao svoju svrhu. Uz njegovu stručnu pomoć i suradnju je projektiran i opremljen Hemijski institut, organizirana je nastava kemije i znanstveno istraživački rad na tom području. U ovom radu je izložen i analiziran njegov doprinos izgradnji i utemeljenju Instituta za hemiju i fiziku, kroz koji je tekao i napredovao razvitak kemije i njezino promicanje u Bosni i Hercegovini.

This article presents the work of Croatian chemist professor Mladen Deželića ( 1900-1989), in Sarajevo and  his contribution to the developement of higher education and scientific research in the field of chemistry in Sarajevo as well as Bosnia and Herzegovina. We have explored his contributions to the building of the university center of the Faculty of Sciences , and his particular contributions regarding the establishment of the Institute of Chemistry and Physics . His initiative, dedication and hard work resulted with the start of this project, which then later developed and achieved its purpose. With his expert assistance and co-operation the Chemical Institute was designed and equipped. He and his collaborators also organized the teaching of chemistry and scientific research in this area.

'Matthew D. Eddy succeeds in making a significant contribution to [the] recent and more nuanced approach to post-Kuhnian history of science… Students of eighteenth-century Scottish culture and medicine will find much of value here, as will students of eighteenth-century geology and chemistry.’  -- Arthur Donovan, American Historical Review

Summary
Classification is an important part of environmental science, yet the specific methods used to construct Enlightenment systems of natural history have proven to be the bête noir of studies of eighteenth-century culture. One reason that systematic classification has received so little attention is that natural history was an extremely diverse subject which appealed to a wide range of practitioners, including wealthy patrons, professionals, and educators. In order to show how the classification practices of a defined institutional setting enabled naturalists to create systems of natural history, this book focuses on developments at Edinburgh's medical school, one of Europe's leading medical programs. In particular, it uses the career of the influential naturalist Rev Dr John Walker, the school's professor of natural history, to reconstruct the cultural and scientific basis of early environmental science.

Walker was a traveller, cleric, author and advisor to extremely powerful aristocratic and government patrons, as well as teacher to hundreds of students, some of whom would go on to become influential industrialists, scientists, physicians and politicians. This book explains how Walker used his networks of patrons and early training in chemistry to become an eighteenth-century naturalist. Walker's mineralogy was based firmly in chemistry, an approach common in Edinburgh's medical school, but a connection that has been generally overlooked in the history of British geology. By explicitly connecting eighteenth-century geology to the chemistry being taught in medical settings, this book offers a dynamic new interpretation of the nascent earth sciences as they were practiced in Enlightenment Britain. Because of Walker's influence on his many students, the book also provides a unique insight into how many of Britain's leading Regency and Victorian intellectuals were taught to think about the composition and structure of the material world.

There are many ways of understanding the nature of philosophical questions. One may consider their morphology, semantics, relevance, or scope. This article introduces a different approach, based on the kind of informational resources required to answer them. The result is a definition of philosophical questions as questions whose answers are in principle open to informed, rational, and honest disagreement, ultimate but not absolute, closed under further questioning, possibly constrained by empirical and logico-mathematical resources, but requiring noetic resources to be answered. The article concludes with a discussion of some of the consequences of this definition for a conception of philosophy as the study (or “science”) of open questions, which uses conceptual design to analyse and answer them.

This study used qualitative research method includes a study of literature, analysis descriptive method, historical and philosophical approach by considering substantial and functional relation between information and opinion from Jabir Ibn Hayyan’s manuscripts, ‘Mukhtâr Rasâ’il vol. 1 (collected by Paul Kraus, 1935). Even though he was influenced by mysticism, Jabir categorized as a pioneer of modern chemistry knowledge with empirical principle and scientific method base on experiment, contrary to the development was inclined of speculative rational at the time, mixing with Greek mysticism. His concept of atom is more advanced than Democritus atomism, parallel to Dalton’s atomic theory. His concept of Mizan mixing mysticism influence and cosmology, compounding quantitative and qualitative aspects of chemistry processes. Jabir used chemistry technique such as distillation, evaporation, sublimation, filtration, metal mixture, calcinations and so on.

Semiotics (sometimes spelled “semeiotic”) is the name first given by John Locke, and later reprised by Charles S. Peirce, for the “doctrine of signs,” or the study of how some things can stand for other things to still other things. This deliberate inquiry can be contrasted with “folk semiotic” accounts, which assume that there is some intrinsic feature about, say, the human voice or a painted board that makes them capable of signifying. Such a naive assumption does not withstand serious scrutiny. From a philosophical standpoint, what makes something a sign is an involvement in a specific sort of triadic relation. This relation is found in human/nonhuman and deliberate/nondeliberate signs alike. Semiosis, the action of signs, is what permits communication, but it is wider than communication. For example, if while in an adjacent room I smell that the turkey in the oven is ready, my pet dog can smell it too, and the turkey is not trying to “tell” us anything. But if the cook in the kitchen tells me it is ready, I receive that message, while my dog hears the sounds but is none the wiser (in contemporary semiotic parlance, my dog and I couple our Umwelten via indices, but the symbols at hand generate interpretants only in my anthroposemiosis). In spite of the fact that it has a long and distinguished history (especially during the medieval period), general inquiry into signs became an organized research program only in the mid-20th century. Today, in addition to philosophers, semiotics attracts a wide range of scholars, such as ethologists, cognitive scientists, linguists, art historians, logicians, media theorists, literary critics, computer programmers, biologists, sociologists, and so on. From a methodological standpoint, then, parochialism is not an option. The scholarly literature can nevertheless be fruitfully divided into theoretical and applied strands. Not surprisingly, most philosophers drawn to semiotic questions work in the former strand. Semiotics is not to be confused with “semiology,” a (now largely defunct) project that originated in the lectures of the linguist Ferdinand de Saussure and which was active in the 1960s, mainly in France. Semiotics, by contrast, is a vibrant tradition that continues to flourish worldwide. Although some persist in employing the term “semiotics” when discussing narrow studies that focus exclusively on cultural codes, such terminological misuse masks the fact that a study of signs is broader than a study of language. A sustained philosophy of signs, then, promises (as Locke initially surmised) to yield truly novel insights.

In 1766, Thomas Cochran entered the Edinburgh classroom of Joseph Black (1728-1799) to learn chemistry for the first time.  Cochran was studying medicine and, like so many of Black’s students, he dutifully recorded several diagrams in his notebooks.  These visualisations were not complex.  They were, in fact, simple.  One of them was a single ‘X’, a chiasm, and Black used it to illustrate ratios of chemical attraction [Figure 1].  This diagram is often held to be the first chemical formula and, as such, historians have endeavoured to explain why it was unique and how Black invented it. 

In this essay, I wish to turn the forgoing premise on its head by arguing that Black’s chiasm was neither visually unique nor invented by him.  I do this by approaching the diagrams via a visual anthropology that allows me to examine how students learned to attach meaning to patterns that were already familiar to them.  In the end, we will see that Black’s diagrams were successful because their visual simplicity and familiarity made them ideally suited to carry the chemical theories that he so skilfully attached to them.

It is widely known that Joseph Black's late eighteenth-century chemistry lectures were extremely popular for the hundreds of  students who studied science, medicine and the arts at the University of Edinburgh.  When his students attended his lectures  they had to learn how to use his figures and tables as diagrams, as visualisations that could be read in a number of ways.  This means that these pedagogical images consisted not only of a visual form, but also of a set of practices used to learn, make and understand that form.  They were visualisations that students were taught to think with, things that shaped what they knew and what they thought they knew.  It is this active view of an image that I use to unpack Black’s diagrams in this essay, especially the notion that they were visual forms that gained meaning and value as they moved through time and space in the notes kept by professors and students.  My intent is to gain deeper understanding of the role they played as learning tools and informatic devices that made chemistry easier for students to understand.

In recent decades historians have devoted a notable amount of research to the economic, social, and experimental relevance of the mineral water available for consumption in the spas that appeared across Europe from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries. Although studies have shed light on the links between tourism and commodification, the role of patient authority, and the isolation of chemical substances, they have not offered a clear account of how the composition of the wells connected with the medical theory that legitimated their commodification and use as a remedy. In this chapter I address this gap by focusing on Peterhead Well, a provincial spa located on the northeastern tip of Scotland. In particular, I focus on several authors who wrote about the well, including Rev. Dr. William Laing, the local Episcopal priest who composed two pamphlets that used chemical analysis, personal testimony, and local case histories to substantiate the tonic power of the spa's water. Using Laing's work as well as the testimony of others who drank the well's water, I explore the complex world of pharmaceutical commodification at the dawn of of the nineteenth century. More specifically, this essay unpacks why spa water was seen as a pharmaceutical commodity and how Laing acquired the necessary skills that allowed him to be a local medical authority. It also explains how chemistry was used to isolate substances that were widely thought to cure nervous complaints arising from the stress of daily life. The final section reveals how socioeconomic factors influenced the interpretation of the water’s therapeutic efficacy and its popularization in Scotland’s print culture.

Volume 9 of Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science presents an eclectic but surprisingly harmonious collection of invited and peer-reviewed papers, organized under the title “The Future of the Scientific Realism Debate: Contemporary Issues Concerning Scientific Realism.”

Curtis Forbes's editor's introduction starts off the collection by tracing some of the broader themes that unite the pieces.  It is followed by a dialogue between Bas van Fraassen and Anjan Chakravartty entitled "What is Scientific Realism?", which sets the tone for the twenty one essays that follow: all quite stimulating, sometimes perplexed, and often freely speculative.  In order of appearance, there are contributions from Jeff Foss, Hasok Chang, Theodore Arabatzis, Harry Collins, Arthur Fine, Joseph Rouse, Alan Musgrave, Howard Sankey, Stathis Psillos, P. Kyle Stanford, Jamie Shaw, James Ladyman, Robin Hendry, Pete Vickers, Mario Alai, Kerry McKenzie, K. Brad Wray, Tim Lyons, Paul Teller, Nancy Cartwright, as well as Cliff Hooker and Giles Hooker.

The journal's usual distinction between full length articles, focused discussion pieces, and shorter opinion statements was suspended to give invited contributors maximal freedom to speak their mind. Some chose to share a new and carefully articulated, lengthy argument. Others chose to briefly clarify some previous work of theirs, or offer a preface to something forthcoming. Still others raise new problems for the would-be scientific realist, or their opponents, or boldly proffer some new terms the debate might, will, or should be based on moving forward. 

The result is a kind of snapshot that records some ways these specific philosophers of science are currently thinking about the state, history, and future of the debate over scientific realism. Much of it is reflective and opinionated, so the reader deserves some clarification: many of the ideas found here deserve to be fleshed out more fully elsewhere, and in most cases the authors have either referenced prior publications where they have done so, or mentioned their plans to do so soon. 

This special issue has given various parties to the scientific realism debate the opportunity to describe where they presently stand, and where they think the discussion should be going.  The reader, however, will likely need to consult separate works to fully understand why each author stands where they do, and wait to see where the debate over scientific realism goes moving forward.  As a whole, therefore, this collection is probably best treated as a touchstone or launching point for further study and discussion of many contemporary issues concerning scientific realism. 

Enjoy.

This seminal paper, which marks a turning point of the chemical revolution, is presented for the first time in a complete English translation. In this first half Lavoisier undermines phlogiston chemistry by arguing that his French contemporaries (particularly P.-J. Macquer and Baumé) had replaced Stahl’s original theory with radically different systems that conceptualised the phlogiston principle in completely incompatible ways. He refutes their claims by showing that these later models were riddled with inconsistencies as to phlogiston’s weight, its ability to penetrate glass and its role as a source of colour and odour in chemical compounds.