Chemistry Reference
In-Depth Information
Lavoisier, “I have imposed upon myself the rule of proceeding only from the known
to the unknown, [and] of deducing no consequence that does not immediately
derive from experience and observation.” 37 Based upon these strictly empiricist
principles of study, Lavoisier concludes that the positing of suspect metaphysical
entities, such as Boyle
s atoms, is scientifically unaccept-
able since it does not advance but, rather, hinders our empirical knowledge about
substances, their behavior, their interaction, and their transformation. Because
corpuscles or atoms cannot be measured, weighted, or otherwise empirically
studied, their postulation contributes nothing to experimental work or to empirical
chemical knowledge.
In order to steer clear of metaphysical speculations about the ultimate nature of
matter, Lavoisier avoids any reference to atoms or to minutest particles of matter
and proposes, instead, “a reformed nomenclature for chemistry, in which the names
of compound substances would reflect their elementary composition”. 38 In fact, he
regards the decomposition of material bodies into the substances of which they are
composed as the chief aim of chemistry. Ultimately, however, this proposed reform
of the nomenclature of compound substances in terms of their elementary compo-
sition forces the question of what is to be regarded as an
'
s corpuscles or Newton
'
. Lavoisier
proposes to answer this question by restricting himself to what can be ascertained
by strict empirical means. He explains that, “[i]f by the name of element, we mean
the simple and indivisible molecules that compose bodies, it is probable that we do
not know them: if, on the contrary, we attach to the name of element or principle of
bodies the idea of the last point at which analysis arrives, all of the substances that
we have not yet been able to decompose by any means are, for us, to be considered
elements.” 39
For Lavoisier, this
element
'
'
'
serves “to supplant [any] a priori metaphysical speculation about the ultimate
principles of which things are made.” 40 This operational definition provides a
criterion for deciding when a substance should be regarded as an element but it
does not tell us what the term
'
analytical definition
'
of element as a
'
simple substance
means. 41 In fact, Lavoisier admits that the
table of elements that he derives by applying this notion is entirely open to revision.
He admits that those substances that are regarded as simple could, at some time, be
element
'
'
37 “[J]e me suis impos ´ la loi de ne proc ´ der jamais que du connu ` l ' inconnu, de ne d ´ duire aucune
cons ´ quence qui ne d ´ rive imm ´ diatement des exp ´ riences & des observations.” [Lavoisier,
Antoine-Laurent, Traite´E ´ l ´mentaire de Chimie , Vol. 1 (Paris: 1789), pp. x-xi].
38
Ibid , p. 866.
39
“Si par le nom d ' ´l´mens, nous entendons d´signer les mol´cules simple & indivisibles qui
composent les corps, il est probable que nous ne les connoisons pas: que si au contraire nous
attachons au nom d ' ´l´mens ou de principe des corps l ' id´e du dernier terme auquel parvient
l
avons encore pu d´composer par aucun moyen, sont
pour nous des ´l´mens.” [Lavoisier, Antoine-Laurent, Traite´E ´ l ´mentaire de Chimie , Vol. 1 (Paris:
1789), p. xii].
40 Hendry ( 2012 ), p. 66.
41 Ibid .
analyse, toutes les substances que nous n
'
'
Search WWH ::




Custom Search