Department of History and Philosophy of Science University of Cambridge Values in Action: Simplicity, Completeness, and Carefulness in the Development of the Systematisations of Chemical Elements This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Karoliina Julia Pulkkinen Darwin College February 2019 1 Declaration This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. It is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. I further state that no substantial part of my dissertation has already been submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for any such degree, diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. This dissertation does not exceed the prescribed word limit for the relevant Degree Committee. 2 Abstract Values in Action: Simplicity, Completeness, and Carefulness in the Development of the Systematisations of Chemical Elements Karoliina Julia Pulkkinen This thesis demonstrates how three chemists – Dmitrii Ivanovich Mendeleev, Julius Lothar Meyer, and John Newlands – emphasised different values when developing their systematisations of the chemical elements in 1863-1875. While no chemist emphasised just one value in the course of establishing of their systematisations, I argue that Newlands elevated simplicity (“simple relation”), Mendeleev completeness (polnost’), and Meyer carefulness when systematising the elements. This thesis sets to show that values provide an illuminating framework to articulate the differences among the competing periodic systems, and give us a novel reading of the priority dispute concerning the discovery of the periodic system. By examining the role of values in the systematisation of the elements, this thesis seeks to give an example of an integrated history and philosophy of science (iHPS) approach to values. As integrating history and philosophy of science introduces some methodological challenges, I will start by arguing in favour the hermeneutic model to iHPS as articulated by Jutta Schickore (Ch.1). Chapters 2-5 are largely historical. Chapter 2 introduces historical background to the challenge of systematising the elements in the nineteenth century. I then demonstrate how Newlands (Ch.3), Meyer (Ch.4), and Mendeleev (Ch.5) emphasised different values in the course of developing their systematisations of the chemical elements. Chapters 6-8 are more philosophical. In chapter 6, I argue in favour of specific abstract characterisations of simplicity, completeness, and carefulness on the basis of the historical material presented in chapters 3-5. After arguing in favour of a specific understanding of values, I identify a distinct relationship between the chemists’ subsequent uses of the systems and their emphasis on specific values during the development of their systems. In particular, I argue that valuing of completeness contributed to Mendeleev’s use of the system for making predictions (Ch.7), whereas valuing of carefulness did much to support using Meyer’s system for error determination (Ch.8). 3 Acknowledgements First and foremost, I am incredibly grateful to Hasok Chang for his wisdom and guidance in the process of developing this thesis. Either knowingly or unknowingly, Hasok must be a follower of what I consider Kurt Vonnegut’s most important piece of life advice (“God damn it, you’ve got to be kind”). The past three and a half years would have been far more gruesome without Hasok’s kindness, mentorship, generosity, and enthusiasm. I am also indebted to my advisor Anna Alexandrova for her excellent and extensive feedback on the many drafts that went into making this thesis. I see that Anna’s feedback not only contributed to my developing into a better writer of philosophy but was important in making me a more careful and precise researcher in general. Oskar Huttunen foundation provided the funding for this PhD, for which I am very thankful. The content of this thesis benefitted enormously from the meetings of our Ph.D. group, so big thanks are due to Claudia Baisini, Toby Bryant, Elina Vessonen, and Pascal Zambito. I’m also grateful to Charissa Varma, Stephen John, Jutta Schickore, Dunja Šešelja, Eric Scerri, Michael Gordin, and James Secord for the fruitful discussions and e-mail exchanges that helped in fleshing out the arguments of this thesis. I consider myself lucky to have such excellent colleagues, where I’m especially thinking of those who were based in Mond building in 2015-2019. Apart from the HPS community, I am also grateful for the community of Darwin College. With its enormously welcoming, friendly atmosphere, Darwin helped me to strike that much-famed work-life balance. Thanks are especially due to Ala Alenazi, Alkisti Alevropoulou-Malli, Valentina Ausserladscheider (who helped with the German translations), Jess Brooks, Patrick Mixon, Ann Sofie Cloots, Beverly McCann, Geoffrey Lloyd, and Harry Bhadeshia. I would also like to thank Jack Dixon and James Livesey for their help in organising the exhibition on Meyer’s systems at Whipple library. Jack and James also provided high-quality photographs of Meyer’s graphs used in this thesis. I am especially grateful for the BSHS-PG conference of 2015 for providing the setting to meet Oliver Marsh, who became my partner for the three years of completing my Ph.D. Oliver made the days so much more joyful than they would have been without his 4 presence in my life. Apart from Oliver proofreading most of the material on this thesis, I am indebted for his effective demonstrations of how philosophy of science is enhanced by sociology of science (or, at the very least, best practiced in a manner that does not actively put sociologists off – or so I hope). Furthermore, I do not think I would have been quite as happy a human being had I not shared the abodes with Ella Whittlestone, who injected some much needed zen, fun, and silliness to the process of writing up. Also Anne Bosse, you were not only my knight in shining armour, but also my knight with 24/7 access to philosophy library and its top quality printers – I owe you for making sure the initial version of this thesis got submitted on time. The biggest thanks are due to my parents Ludmila and Sakari and my sister Aliisa for their faith in my ability “to do this”, and for their encouragement to pursue the more academic paths of life. Finally, I dedicate this thesis to the memory of my philosophy teacher Juha Savolainen, who loved this wisdom-loving business, and was so exceptionally talented at making other people love it, too. We shall do our very best to keep the shop up and running. 5 Table of Contents Prologue ...................................................................................................................................... 8 Chapter 1. The Hermeneutic Model and Values in Science ......................................................... 14 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 14 1.2 What Is the Hermeneutic Model and Why Do We Need It? ............................................................ 15 1.3 Applying the Hermeneutic Model in Practice ................................................................................. 17 1.4 Testing the Accounts of Douglas and Steel ..................................................................................... 22 1.5 Iterating General Categories of Values: Functions Framework of Values ........................................ 27 1.6 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 30 Chapter 2. The Ingredients of Periodicity ................................................................................... 32 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 32 2.4. Natural Groups of Elements .......................................................................................................... 39 2.5 Triads ............................................................................................................................................ 43 2.6 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 45 Chapter 3. Newlands’ Law of Octaves ........................................................................................ 47 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 47 3.2 Relations Amongst Atomic Weights: Newlands’ Systems of 1863-1864 .......................................... 48 3.3 Law of Octaves: Newlands’ Systems of 1865-1866 ......................................................................... 58 3.4 Defending the Law of Octaves ....................................................................................................... 63 3.5 “Simple relation” and completeness .............................................................................................