Abstract
SUMMARY. — The chemical revolution is a classic example of revolutions in science, but historians do not agree on its nature or scope. Traditionally it was viewed as the overthrow of the phlogiston theory. Recent revisions of this view are mentioned, and it is suggested that the merger of two images of Lavoisier — as leader of the chemical revolution, and as founder of modern chemistry — has distorted efforts to define clearly the central issues over which the revolution was played out. Return to the earlier definition of the revolution does not signify that the dynamics of the revolutionary process has already been fully elucidated. The paper sketches some elements of a larger narrative that remains to be reconstructed.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
