|
|
Пишет Misha Verbitsky (![[info]](http://lj.rossia.org/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} tiphareth) |
The Periodic System of the Chemical Elements: The Search for Its Discoverer
Author(s): Heinz Cassebaum and George B. Kauffman
Source: Isis, Vol. 62, No. 3 (Autumn, 1971), pp. 314-327
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/e
IN A LONG SERIES OF ARTICLES Johannes Willem van Spronsen has attempted
to prove that de Chancourtois, Newlands, Meyer, Odling, Hinrichs, and finally
Mendeleev discovered the periodic system independently of one another.' The im-
portance of the periodic system and the number of apparent discoverers would seem
to make this an appropriateexample for the study of the meaning of the term discovery
in science,2 and to this end van Spronsen's careful work provides an unusually rich
background of historical research. In this paper we have attempted to analyze the
work of the six claimants, according to rigorously specified criteria, to decide to what
extent they should be viewed as discoverers of the periodic system.
Our criteria are fivefold and together constitute a definition of a classical periodic
system. We define it as a table which has the following characteristics:
1. It contains a continuously increasing sequence of atomic weights of all the ele-
ments which were well known at the time in question.
2. The sequence of atomic weights referredto in point 1 serves only to define a place
value (ordinal number)in the table.
[...]
In the light of the above discussion we maintain that the classical periodic system
originated in the course of a continual development in which the efforts of the six
scholars mentioned do not particularly stand out, either relative to one another or
in comparison with the efforts of their predecessors such as Dumas, Carey Lea, Glad-
stone, or Strecker. Thus, even if Odling really takes priority by virtue of his total
recognition of our five points, this fact nonetheless loses significance in view of the
continuing development, for the efforts of his predecessors cannot be ignored merely
because he took the last small step. Finally, the finest discoveries are of no use to man-
kind if no one secures their universal recognition. Basically, then, the choice of the
year 1869 as the date for the discovery of the periodic system is completely arbitrary.
Furthermore, in the future the term "independent" should be used more cautiously in
referenceto the history of the discovery of the periodic system.
Author(s): Heinz Cassebaum and George B. Kauffman
Source: Isis, Vol. 62, No. 3 (Autumn, 1971), pp. 314-327
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/e
IN A LONG SERIES OF ARTICLES Johannes Willem van Spronsen has attempted
to prove that de Chancourtois, Newlands, Meyer, Odling, Hinrichs, and finally
Mendeleev discovered the periodic system independently of one another.' The im-
portance of the periodic system and the number of apparent discoverers would seem
to make this an appropriateexample for the study of the meaning of the term discovery
in science,2 and to this end van Spronsen's careful work provides an unusually rich
background of historical research. In this paper we have attempted to analyze the
work of the six claimants, according to rigorously specified criteria, to decide to what
extent they should be viewed as discoverers of the periodic system.
Our criteria are fivefold and together constitute a definition of a classical periodic
system. We define it as a table which has the following characteristics:
1. It contains a continuously increasing sequence of atomic weights of all the ele-
ments which were well known at the time in question.
2. The sequence of atomic weights referredto in point 1 serves only to define a place
value (ordinal number)in the table.
[...]
In the light of the above discussion we maintain that the classical periodic system
originated in the course of a continual development in which the efforts of the six
scholars mentioned do not particularly stand out, either relative to one another or
in comparison with the efforts of their predecessors such as Dumas, Carey Lea, Glad-
stone, or Strecker. Thus, even if Odling really takes priority by virtue of his total
recognition of our five points, this fact nonetheless loses significance in view of the
continuing development, for the efforts of his predecessors cannot be ignored merely
because he took the last small step. Finally, the finest discoveries are of no use to man-
kind if no one secures their universal recognition. Basically, then, the choice of the
year 1869 as the date for the discovery of the periodic system is completely arbitrary.
Furthermore, in the future the term "independent" should be used more cautiously in
referenceto the history of the discovery of the periodic system.
Добавить комментарий:
