Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Research Traditions, Lavoisier, and the Chemical Revolution

1988; University of Chicago Press; Volume: 4; Linguagem: Inglês

10.1086/368672

1933-8287

C. E. Perrin,

Philosophy and History of Science

Previous articleNext article No AccessThe Core of the Revolution: Research Problems and Conceptual InnovationsResearch Traditions, Lavoisier, and the Chemical RevolutionC. E. PerrinC. E. Perrin Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Osiris Volume 4, Number 11988The Chemical Revolution: Essays in Reinterpretation Published for the History of Science Society Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/368672 Views: 20Total views on this site Citations: 15Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1988 The History of Science Society, Inc.PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Martin Kusch Scientific pluralism and the Chemical Revolution, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 49 (Feb 2015): 69–79.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2014.10.001José Antonio Chamizo The Role of Instruments in Three Chemical’ Revolutions, Science & Education 23, no.44 (Mar 2014): 955–982.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-014-9678-xGeoffrey Blumenthal On Lavoisier's Achievement in Chemistry, Centaurus 55, no.11 (Oct 2012): 20–47.https://doi.org/10.1111/1600-0498.12001Gary G. Tibbetts Antoine Lavoisier and Joseph Priestley Both Test the Befuddling Phlogiston Theory, (Jan 2013): 45–60.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-398498-2.00004-7Carsten Reinhardt Habitus, Hierarchien und Methoden: „Feine Unterschiede“ zwischen Physik und Chemie, NTM Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Technik und Medizin 19, no.22 (Apr 2011): 125–146.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00048-011-0048-3Hasok Chang We Have Never Been Whiggish (About Phlogiston) 1, Centaurus 51, no.44 (Oct 2009): 239–264.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0498.2009.00150.xRaffaella Seligardi Views of Chemistry and Chemical Theories: A Comparison between two University Textbooks in the Bolognese Context at the Beginning of the 19th Century, Science & Education 15, no.7-87-8 (Nov 2006): 713–737.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-005-2486-6Malcolm Oster The Chemical Revolution, (Jan 2002): 262–280.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-21461-3_15Andrew Pyle The Rationality of the Chemical Revolution, (Jan 2000): 99–124.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3935-9_3Elizabeth Garber Eighteenth—Century Physics and Mathematics: A Reassessment, (Jan 1999): 63–91.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1766-4_3 Evan M. Melhado Scientific Biography and Scientific Revolution: Lavoisier and Eighteenth-Century Chemistry, Isis 87, no.44 (Oct 2015): 688–694.https://doi.org/10.1086/357655Douglas Allchin Phlogiston After Oxygen, Ambix 39, no.33 (Jul 2013): 110–116.https://doi.org/10.1179/amb.1992.39.3.110Prajit K. Basu Similarities and dissimilarities between Joseph Priestley's and Antoine Lavoisier's chemical beliefs, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 23, no.33 (Sep 1992): 445–469.https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(92)90004-PC. E. Perrin Document, Text and Myth: Lavoisier's Crucial Year Revisited, The British Journal for the History of Science 22, no.11 (Jan 2009): 3–25.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007087400025516C. E. Perrin The Lavoisier–Bucquet Collaboration: a Conjecture, Ambix 36, no.11 (Jul 2013): 5–13.https://doi.org/10.1179/amb.1989.36.1.5