Gunpowder and the Chemical Revolution

Mauskopf, Seymour H.

doi:10.1086/368674

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For many decades, chemists, historians, and philosophers of science have discussed revolutions in chemistry. ,,,− But they have done so in the absence of any formulated, consistent, and portable definition of this concept. In a recent publication, I identified hundreds of characteristics of revolutions in science that have appeared in the literature, many of which were close relatives to each other.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revolutions in Chemistry: Assessment of Six 20th Century Candidates (The Instrumental Revolution; Hückel Molecular Orbital Theory; Hückel’s 4n + 2 Rule; the Woodward–Hoffmann Rules; Quantum Chemistry; and Retrosynthetic Analysis)

Seeman

2023

JACS Au

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Six 20th century candidates for revolutions in chemistry are examined, using a definitional scheme published recently by the author. Six groupings of 13 characteristics of revolutions in science are considered: causes and birthings of revolutions, relationships between the old and the new, conceptual qualities of the candidate revolutions, instrumental and methodological functions, social construction of knowledge and practical considerations, and testimonials. The Instrumental Revolution was judged to be a revolution in chemistry because of the enormous increase in community-wide knowledge provided by the new instruments and the intentionality in the identification of specific target instruments, in the mindfulness in their design, manufacture, testing, use, and ultimately commercialization. The Woodward–Hoffmann rules were judged to precipitate the Quantum Chemistry Revolution because of theoretical, practical, and social construction of knowledge characteristics. Neither Hückel molecular orbital theory nor Hückel’s 4n + 2 rule was considered an initiator of a revolution in chemistry but rather participants in the Quantum Chemistry Revolution. Retrosynthetic analysis was not judged to initiate a revolution in chemistry.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revolutions in Chemistry: Assessment of Six 20th Century Candidates (The Instrumental Revolution; Hückel Molecular Orbital Theory; Hückel’s 4n + 2 Rule; the Woodward–Hoffmann Rules; Quantum Chemistry; and Retrosynthetic Analysis)

Seeman

2023

JACS Au

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Or consider the explosion of gunpowder, which happens without the help of ambient oxygen gas, the oxygen being present in the solid state in the nitre (saltpetre) in the gunpowder. As Seymour Mauskopf relates in illuminating detail, Lavoisier was very interested in the chemistry of gunpowder, and made a few different attempts to explain its workings in terms of his theory (Mauskopf, 1988). Lavoisier's interest in gunpowder is no surprise after all, as he was a commissioner of the Royal Gunpowder Administration from 1775 and in that capacity set up his residence and laboratory at the Paris Arsenal 4 .…”

Section: Lavoisier Was Quite Wrong or Useless Whiggishly Speakingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 5 See Mauskopf, 1988, for all details; pp.110–111 highlights Berthollet's objection, and p.115 relates Lavoisier's ultimate discontent. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

We Have Never Been Whiggish (About Phlogiston)¹

Chang

2009

Centaurus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. If whiggism involves judging past scientific theories according to our modern standards, not many people have been properly whiggish about the Chemical Revolution. From a modern perspective, Lavoisier's theory is just as wrong as advanced versions of the phlogiston theory. Three of the central pillars of Lavoisier's system are clearly at odds with modern chemistry: the oxygen theory of acidity, the caloric theory of heat (which also explained the three states of matter), and the theory of combustion (especially with regard to the production of heat and light). On the other hand, if we examine Lavoisier's lasting contributions, we find that various phlogistonists anticipated or outdid Lavoisier (e.g. Cavendish on precise weight measurements, and Priestley on the role of oxygen in combustion and physiology). The real problem with the much‐reviled traditional historiography of the Chemical Revolution (and of much else) is not whiggism, but a crude triumphalism, which unreflectively continues to celebrate what was once victorious in the past. The misidentification of this triumphalism as whiggism has confounded critics, sending them off into a total renunciation of judgement regarding the scientific merits of past ideas. I propose a two‐part corrective to this misguided critique. First, the most straightforward and effective antidote to triumphalism is a historiographical pluralism that pays conscious attention to the losers. Second, and more broadly, there is much to be gained from an ‘independent judgementalism’ in historiography, which restores the role of the historian as a responsible free agent.

show abstract

“…Les rapports entre la découverte de l'oxygène et la poudre à canon ne sont pas qu'une affaire de stimuli ou même d'organisation du laboratoire à partir des moyens rassemblés à l'Arsenal. Le lien établi par Lavoisier entre le sort du royaume, la poudre et les études sur la calcination est convaincant parce qu'il s'appuie sur les expériences sur la combustion du nitre et sur le rôle des gaz dans la détonation de la poudre (49). Le mémoire sur la calcination de 1775 se termine ainsi par une interprétation de la détonation bâtie sur l'idée d'une libération brutale de l'air accumulé dans le nitre (50).…”

Section: Du Phlogistique De L'oxygène Et Des Savants D'ancien Régimeunclassified

Lavoisier, Priestley, le phlogistique et l'oxygène: de l'étude de controverse à la réplication pédagogique

Gaudillière¹

1994

aster

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Utiliser l'histoire de la chimie pour enseigner la chimie est une perspective souvent évoquée, au nom des homologies supposées entre les processus d'apprentissage et les étapes d'élaboration des savoirs, mais rarement pratiquée. Une exception notable est la découverte de l'oxygène au XVIIIème siècle, que l'on a associée à l'enseignement des notions d'oxydation, de combustion et/ou d'élément. L'histoire utilisée est le plus souvent centrée sur l'expérience de calcination du mercure et de réduction de la chaux mercurique pratiquée par Lavoisier qui est considérée comme cruciale et ayant emporté la décision. Cette image de la découverte est historiquement contestable et sans grand bénéfice pédagogique. Des historiens et enseignants britanniques ont proposé une autre approche, centrée sur la replication pédagogique des controverses. L'enjeu est d'aborder les conflits socio-cognitifs sousyacents à l'apprentissage en utilisant les matériaux d'une histoire des sciences plus attentive aux situations d'incertitude et de choix, aux pratiques de laboratoire et aux contextes socio-culturels. On introduit ici les travaux historiques récemment consacrés aux activités de Lavoisier et Priestley ainsi qu'au débat sur le phlogistique et l'oxygène. On aborde ensuite les problèmes posés par leur exploitation dans un cours de chimie. PRÉAMBULE Un lycée polyvalent du nord de la France. Une classe de terminale F7 attend dans le couloir avant une séance de travaux pratiques de biochimie. À l'ordre du jour, la lecture de deux textes sur la fermentation alcoolique. Les commentaires vont bon train sur le vocabulaire incompréhensible : diastases, sucre inverti, teinte de passage, principe azoté... De fait les deux textes datent des années 1860, l'un est de dans le cadre Louis Pasteur, l'autre de Marcellin Berthelot. L'un plaide «."D^+I'.»' pour une interprétation chimique de la fermentation alcoolique, l'autre pour une explication microbienne de la production d'alcool. Temps de l'action : printemps 1988. Contexte : le Projet d'Action Éducative sur Pasteur associant les enseignants de philosophie, chimie et biologie. Les élèves entrent en salle de travaux pratiques. Le professeur annonce qu'on va reproduire les expériences de Berthelot sur la saccharase de levure. Murmures sur le programme et le bac qui cèdent rapidement devant les explica-sur Pasteur ASTER N° 18. 1994. La réaction chimique. INRP, 29, rue d'Ulm. 75230 Paris Cedex 05 la position de Pasteur à bien resituer dans son époque

show abstract

Gunpowder and the Chemical Revolution

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Revolutions in Chemistry: Assessment of Six 20th Century Candidates (The Instrumental Revolution; Hückel Molecular Orbital Theory; Hückel’s 4n + 2 Rule; the Woodward–Hoffmann Rules; Quantum Chemistry; and Retrosynthetic Analysis)

Revolutions in Chemistry: Assessment of Six 20th Century Candidates (The Instrumental Revolution; Hückel Molecular Orbital Theory; Hückel’s 4n + 2 Rule; the Woodward–Hoffmann Rules; Quantum Chemistry; and Retrosynthetic Analysis)

We Have Never Been Whiggish (About Phlogiston)¹

Lavoisier, Priestley, le phlogistique et l'oxygène: de l'étude de controverse à la réplication pédagogique

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Gunpowder and the Chemical Revolution

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Revolutions in Chemistry: Assessment of Six 20th Century Candidates (The Instrumental Revolution; Hückel Molecular Orbital Theory; Hückel’s 4n + 2 Rule; the Woodward–Hoffmann Rules; Quantum Chemistry; and Retrosynthetic Analysis)

Revolutions in Chemistry: Assessment of Six 20th Century Candidates (The Instrumental Revolution; Hückel Molecular Orbital Theory; Hückel’s 4n + 2 Rule; the Woodward–Hoffmann Rules; Quantum Chemistry; and Retrosynthetic Analysis)

We Have Never Been Whiggish (About Phlogiston)1

Lavoisier, Priestley, le phlogistique et l'oxygène: de l'étude de controverse à la réplication pédagogique

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

We Have Never Been Whiggish (About Phlogiston)¹