The concepts of ‘atom’ and of ‘element’ have a long and venerable history both in the history of philosophy and that of chemistry. With the support of experiment, analysis, and quantitative data regarding weights, Dalton establishes that chemical atoms have a demonstrable empirical status and are not, as Lavoisier had believed, suspect metaphysical entities. What this paper seeks to establish is that, despite its flaws, Dalton’s chemical atomism represents the first major attempt at reconciling the empirical and quantitative criteria of modern chemistry with the long-standing theory of discrete particles that account for the fundamental nature of substances. He concludes that atoms of different weights combine differently, according to specific laws of proportion, to form the different elements. His chemical atomic theory seeks, among other things, to establish how the atoms of different elements combine to form compounds. Dalton claims that, since elements are composed of atoms and since there are differences between elements, there must also be differences between the atoms that compose those elements. For Dalton, the primary determinable feature of chemical atoms is their weight. Dalton purports to establish that chemical atoms are empirical entities, that is, that they have empirical and quantifiable features that can be experimentally determined. The challenge for Dalton, however, is to avoid any metaphysical implications in his atomism by employing the experimental and quantitative criteria advanced by Lavoisier. John Dalton, on the other hand, seeks to establish an empirical link between ‘elements’ and ‘atoms’, through the notion of ‘chemical atom’. Instead, by ‘element’, Lavoisier means those substances that remain as the last product of chemical analysis. Thus, for Lavoisier, the term ‘element’ should not be applied to atoms or to fundamental particles, which he considers to be suspect metaphysical entities. In his view, since atoms have no empirically determinable or quantifiable properties, they contribute nothing to actual experimental work or to the chemist’s understanding of chemical elements. His emphasis on both empirical data and quantitative analysis greatly influences his position on this issue. Lavoisier rejects the epistemic value of such positing and considers it to be mere metaphysical speculation. This paper addresses the fundamental disagreement between the views of Antoine Lavoisier and John Dalton regarding the scientific and epistemic value of positing indivisible atoms as the most simple and fundamental particles of matter.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |