Lavoisier sistematizou a nomenclatura química com base na Lógica de Condillac, e ambos os autores foram inspirados por John Locke. Atacou persistentemente a teoria flogística até a sua derrocada e conseguiu a adesão de vários cientistas a sua teoria do oxigênio. O uso da nova nomenclatura química implicava a aceitação dessa última teoria. Escreveu várias obras, entre elas Méthode de nomenclature chimique e Traité élémentaire de chimie, nas quais divulgou a nova nomenclatura química por toda a Europa. Assumindo que (...) a ciência é um produto cultural, tecemos considerações a luz do pensamento de Thomas Kuhn e Ludwik Fleck. (shrink)

Lavoisier defined an element as a chemicalsubstance that cannot be decomposed usingcurrent analytical methods. Mendeleev saw anelement as a substance composed of atoms of thesame atomic weight. These `definitions' doquite different things: Lavoisier'sdistinguishes the elements from the compounds,so that the elements may form the basis of acompositional nomenclature; Mendeleev's offersa criterion of sameness and difference forelemental substances, while Lavoisier's doesnot. In this paper I explore the historical andtheoretical background to each proposal.Lavoisier's and Mendeleev's explicitconceptions of elementhood (...) differed from eachother, and from the official IUPAC definitionof `element' of the 1920s. However, Lavoisierand Mendeleev both subscribed to – andemployed – a deeper notion of a chemicalelement as the component of compound substancesthat (i) can survive chemical change, and (ii)explains the chemical behaviour of itscompounds. (shrink)

We present historical and epistemological notes on the relationships between Chemistry–Physics as dating back to two scientific revolutions: Lavoisier’s Traité Élémentaire de Chimie (1789) and by Sadi Carnot’s Réflexions sur la Puissance Motrice du Feu (1824). Their scientific paradigms and mathematical interpretations of chemical and physical phenomena did not made use of infinitesimal analysis as, i.e., exposed within mechanics and, generally speaking, they were totally different from notable Newtonian paradigm survived until to 19th century. An anomaly was, and two (...) revolutions were produced. (shrink)

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 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. (shrink)

Professional historians of science generally recognize the importance of Lavoisier's theory of heat. However, it commonly receives scant attention in the historical treatment of his chemical theories except perhaps as an example illustrating his conservatism and giving the impression that the caloric theory, although perhaps important in the development of ideas on the nature of heat, is independent of and bears little relationship to his general chemistry or is incidental to an understanding of that chemistry. An examination of (...) class='Hi'>Lavoisier's writings suggests that the caloric theory is not merely a milestone in the development of physics; and rather than an omittable appendage, his concept of heat forms an integral part of his chemical system and plays a central, necessary role in his oxidation theory in particular. The purpose of this paper is to give a general description of Lavoisier's ideas on the nature and action of heat, the origin of these ideas, their development, and their relation to his general chemistry, pointing out his conservatism as well as his innovations. (shrink)

Having refuted the phlogiston theory, Lavoisier uses this second portion of his essay to expound his new theory of combustion, based on the oxygen principle. He gives a mechanistic account of thermodynamic phenomena in terms of a subtle fluid and its ability to penetrate porous bodies. He uses this hypothetical fluid to explain volume changes, heat capacity and latent heat. Beyond the three types of combustion that he distinguishes and defines, Lavoisier also explains other chemical sources of heat, (...) such as the heat of solution. (shrink)

Shortly before his death in 1934, the British historian of chemistry, A. N. Meldrum, published two lengthy articles on Lavoisier's early career in science. After a careful investigation of the collection of manuscripts at the Académie des Sciences in Paris and in light of a detailed and penetrating analysis of Lavoisier's published work, Meldrum concluded that as a youth, Lavoisier was concerned with chemistry only to the extent that he found it useful for his mineralogical and geological (...) researches. Lavoisier began his career as a mineralogist; he became a chemist only in 1772, the “crucial year” when he turned his attention to chemical theory for its own sake and started his famous course of experiments on the nature of combustion and fixed air. Although some details—notably concerning Lavoisier's early education and geological work—have been added to this account since Meldrum's time, the broad conclusions of Meldrum's study are still generally accepted by historians of the chemical revolution. (shrink)

In this article I examine Lavoisier's collaboration with his wife in the translation of Kirwan's An essay on phlogiston into French (Essai sur le phlogistique, 1788). This translation is a kind of counter attack by the school of French scholars around Lavoisier. Mrs Lavoisier is generally considered only to have translated Kirwan's book, not to have refuted it. Through a detailed analysis of the translation, of her manuscripts, and of other documents of the period, I conclude that (...) Mrs Lavoisier not only actively attacked the doctrine of phlogiston in her translation, but in the notes and preface to it as well. In addition to her high-level knowledge of chemistry, her close scientific relationship with her husband should be noted. In the first three parts of the translation, the two shared the work between them, in order to convine the readers. A show that Mrs Lavoisier advocated the study of gases from the point of view of their motions, and that she always believed that her husband's theory would prevail. Moreover, Lavoisier assessed his wife's talent at its true value. (shrink)

On the basis of a significant number of unpublished documents, here published for the first time, the article reconstructs the historical and scientific origins of Lavoisier's Mémoires de physique et de chimie. Because of the paucity of primary sources available so far, this work has previously received little attention and its 'publication' is commonly attributed to Madame Lavoisier's effort to revive the memory of her husband. In contrast with this image, this article suggests that Madame Lavoisier had (...) only a subsidiary role and that Armand Séguin's contribution to both the editing and the scientific organization of the Mémoires needs a historical reassessment. Lavoisier's collaboration with Séguin, dating from 1792, resulted in a work the aim of which was far more ambitious than that of collecting already published memoirs. Furthermore, it is argued that the contents of the first volume of the Mémoires indicate an important evolution in Lavoisier's chemical theory. (shrink)

In 1821 the French Académie Royale des Sciences sponsored a prize competition on the causes of animal heat. Carefully designing the contest to serve several interests, the Académie (especially Cuvier and Berthollet) sought to defend Lavoisier's theory and method for studying animal heat and to restore a pre-1789 ideal of non-utilitarian scientific practice. Changing standards of precision in physical research, however, sabotaged these intentions. Even with improved experimental apparatus and techniques, the chief contestants could not quantitatively confirm Lavoisier's (...) theory. Unpublished documents reveal anonymous entrants who refused to accept the Académie's definition of the question. The 1821 competition, then, rendered Lavoisier's theory more dubious than ever in the eyes of contemporary physiological writers. (shrink)

My chief purpose, in the remaining part of this paper, is to study LAVOISIER'S work upon the Nature of Water in itself and in its bearing on opinion in the eighteenth century: to show how it arose, how it was carried on, how it was published and how it was received.

IT is my purpose in this essay to review, in as brief a compass as the com- plexity of the subject permits, the progress that has been made in Lavoisier studies. This I shall do by examining as closely as space and my abilities allow, certain of the most recent biographies of the so-called Founder of Modern Chemistry. I shall emphasize the use that has been made of the available printed sources, both primary and secondary, in the hope that (...) this paper may serve as a bibliographical introduction to a subject that still awaits thorough and critical treatment despite the number of books that have appeared dealing with it. (shrink)

BOTH Lavoisier and Columbus are universally and deservedly famous, but owing to the divergence between their fields of endeavour and the different periods in which they flourished, it will probably come as something of a surprise to the reader to find their names coupled together. They were thus connected by a French author, Franqois Pagbs (1745-1802), who wrote a collection of imaginary dialogues between well-known public figures of the past as well as of the times in which he lived. (...) Each dialogue illustrates a particular moral aphorism with which it closes. The dialogues of the dead with the maxims they are supposed to set forth are as follows. (shrink)

SINCE the publication in 1952 of Douglas McKie's Antoine Lavoisier, the standard biography which is of great value to all students of eighteenth-century science, there has been a steady increase in knowledge of most aspects of Lavoisier's life and work. This survey will be concerned ,mainly with monographs and papers in scientific and historical journals, but several important books may first be noted.

On November 14th, 1770, the young chemist Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier (1743–1794) read his ‘Sur la nature de l’eau’ to the Académie des Sciences. Eventually published in the Académie’s journal in 1773, the two-part memoire challenged a widely held view of earlier experimenters: the transmutability of matter. Specifically, experimenters such as Jean-Baptiste Van Helmont (1580–1644), Robert Boyle (1627–1691), and Ole Borsch (1626–1690) had noted that when distilled water was heated in a glass vessel, a small amount of earthy residue remained, seemingly (...) demonstrating the transmutation of water into earth. Antoine-Laurent designed an experiment to determine whether it was really to the ‘destruction of a portion of the water that this residual earth owed its origin, or if it was to that of the glass.’ In partial agreement with Jean-Baptiste Le Roy (1720–1800), a fellow academician, Antoine-Laurent aimed to disprove the antiquated belief – the transmutation of one element into another – by using a glass vessel from the alchemist’s cabinet: the pelican. (shrink)

In this paper, I challenge the long-established view that the term phlogiston fails to refer. After a close examination of the reference of phlogiston during Lavoisier’s Chemical Revolution, I show that it referred throughout to a natural substance, fire matter. I state that Lavoisier eliminated the term but not its referent, which he renamed caloric, and I claim that it is in the historical and cultural context of the Chemical Revolution that the Lavoisier’s intentions can be understood.

The list of Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier's opponents is a long and distinguished one, ranging from Joseph Priestley and Henry Cavendish to Jean-Paul Marat. Among the less distinguished members of this company is Antoine Monnet, a minor chemist and mineralogist whose fame rests in large part on the very fact that he and Lavoisier became enemies. Unlike his better-known contemporaries, Monnet remains almost wholly neglected, and no attempt has yet been made to sort out the issues in his controversy with (...) Lavoisier; instead, Lavoisier's biographers have been content to accept Lavoisier's own version of at least a part of the affair, with the result that Monnet has emerged as the villain of the piece and Lavoisier as the injured victim. The two men probably first came into close contact in 1776 or 1777, the nature of their relationship has remained obscure for the period 1777–1780, and the situation after 1780 has been summarized by biographers in a manner resembling that of Edouard Grimaux:“ayant en main tous les documents réunis par Guettard et Lavoisier, il [Monnet] ajouta de nouvelles cartes à celles qui étaient déjà gravées, et publia, en 1780, un altas minéralogique incomplet, qu'il signa avec Guettard, tout en s'attribuant la plus grande part du travail. Il cita, il est vrai, Lavoisier comme l'auteur des seize premières cartes, mais il utilisa sans son aveu et sans le nommer les matériaux préparés pour le reste du travail, et négligea d'indiquer que les coupes placées en marge de chaque carte étaient le résultat des nivellements faits au baromètre par Lavoisier. Celui-ci en fut vivement froissé … Il trouva toujours en Monnet un adversaire obstiné qui, en 1798, attaquait encore les doctrines nouvelles en publiant une soi-disant Démonstration de la fausseté des principes des nouveaux chimistes.”. (shrink)

Limitations of space dictate that we confine ourselves to Miss Stern's most salient comments. First, a preliminary point. Miss Stern says “Levin offers no argument” for why “e happened because of c” implicitly contains an explanatory description, while “c caused e” does not. But surely the remark that we often know that c caused e without knowing why c caused e is just such an argument. Our linguistic intuition suggests that we use the first locution in this case; Miss Stern's (...) evidently does not. Cases of non-diagnostic causal ascriptions do exist, and even ordinary language must provide for them; how it does so is a verbal dispute about English. (shrink)