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 |