Scientific Rationality: Phlogiston as a Case Study

Citation data:

Rationality: Constraints and Contexts, Page: 37-59

Publication Year:
2017
Usage 223
Downloads 223
Social Media 2
Tweets 2
Repository URL:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/12413
Author(s):
Hricko, Jonathon
Publisher(s):
Elsevier Academic Press
Most Recent Tweet View All Tweets
article description
I argue that it was rational for chemists to eliminate phlogiston, but that it also would have been rational for them to retain it. I do so on the grounds that a number of prominent phlogiston theorists identified phlogiston with hydrogen in the late eighteenth century, and this identification became fairly well-entrenched by the early nineteenth century. In light of this identification, I critically evaluate Hasok Chang's argument that chemists should have retained phlogiston, and that doing so would have benefited science. I argue that these benefits would have been unlikely, and I go on to consider some more likely benefits and harms of retaining phlogiston. I conclude that there is a sense in which scientific rationality concerns what is permissible, as opposed to what is required, so that retention and elimination may, at least sometimes, both be rationally permissible options.