Sponsored by the Office for History of Science and Technology (UC Berkeley)
And the History of Health Sciences Program (UCSF)
Hasok Chang
University College London
-
We Have Never Been Whiggish (About Phlogiston)
If whiggism involves judging past science 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 the advanced versions of the phlogiston theory. Three 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 judgment regarding the scientific merits of past ideas and practices. I propose a two-part corrective to this misguided critique. First, the most straightforward and effective antidote to triumphalism is a historiographical pluralism, with a focus on the losers. Second, and more broadly, there is much to be gained from an "independent judgmentalism" in historiography, which restores the role of the historian as a responsible free agent.
4:00PM
Monday, April 14, 2008
140 Barrows Hall
UC Berkeley
Office for History of Science and Technology, 543 Stephens Hall #2350
University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-2350
tel: (510) 642-4581, e-mail: ohst@berkeley.edu
