Patterns of Congruence and Divergence Among 18Th Century Chemical Affinity Theories
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
VARIATIONS ON A THEME: PATTERNS OF CONGRUENCE AND DIVERGENCE AMONG 18TH CENTURY CHEMICAL AFFINITY THEORIES Georgette Nicola Lewis Taylor University College London Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Science and Technology Studies University College London August 2006 1 I, Georgette Nicola Lewis Taylor, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. 2 Acknowledgements This study could not have been completed without a great deal of help and support. First in the list of thanks must be my supervisor, Dr Hasok Chang at UCL. Our regular meetings over the past five years, together with his readiness to listen to my ideas and to rigorously press me to clarify my thoughts have been invaluable. I am eternally grateful to him for offering me the opportunity to study at UCL and for teaching me more than I can ever put into coherent words. I must also acknowledge with thanks the funding provided by the AHRB/C, without which the work would not have been possible. Other scholars have also assisted in the process, and I must thank all the staff of UCL’s Science and Technology Studies department, and in particular all those who have read my various writings along the way. Thanks also to Professor Simon Schaffer at HPS in Cambridge for reading my work and taking the time to offer his invaluable advice. Also to Dr Matthew Eddy at Durham, whose help and advice has been of great assistance over the years. Also to Dr John Crellin, Professor Alan Chalmers, Dr Ursula Klein, Dr Arthur Donovan, Professor Bill Brock, Dr David Kaiser and Dr Mimi Kim, all of whom have responded to calls for help at one time or another. Grateful thanks also to the family of Dr Alistair Duncan, and particularly his son George, who very kindly went through his father’s papers to dig out a bundle of papers on affinity. The staff at a variety of libraries have kindly allowed me access to a number of wonder manuscripts, and I must thank in particular the staff of the Wellcome Library for the History and Understanding of Medicine, Glasgow University Library, Edinburgh University Library, the Library of the Royal College of Physicians, Edinburgh, Kings College Library, the library of the Royal College of Physicians, London, Gonville and Caius Library, Cambridge and Trinity College Library, Cambridge. Finally, personal thanks to a list of people who supported me constantly in my extension of my ‘hobby’ to a level never dreamed of when I began. Firstly to 3 the Open University, which got me back into the habit of study after too many years away. In particular my first course tutor, Toni Clarke who has encouraged me now for over ten years. Next to Charles Russell. A law firm might seem an odd appearance in this list, but their support (both as a firm and via individuals too numerous to list) throughout both my Open University endeavours and this PhD study has been enlightened and essential. My brother Dr Fabian Ironside must be thanked for his advice and for listening, and my parents for their love and support throughout. Also love and thanks to Robbie Taylor and ‘Bug’ Taylor for their valuable assistance and for keeping me sane. My husband Alastair Taylor deserves a paragraph of his own. His belief in me and his love and support have never failed, and I owe him more than I can ever say. Without his constant encouragement and faith this study would neither have been started nor finished. There really is nothing else to say. 4 Abstract The doctrine of affinity deserves to be recognised by historians of chemistry as the foundational basis of the discipline of chemistry as it was practiced in Britain during the 18th century. It attained this status through its crucial structural role in the pedagogy of the discipline. The importance of pedagogy and training in the practice of science is currently being reassessed by a number of historians, and my research contributes to this historiographical endeavour. My analysis of the variety of theories sheltered under the umbrella term ‘affinity theory’ has emphasised the role of pedagogy in influencing both the structure and the content of knowledge. I have shown that there were wide ranging discrepancies between many of the components of individual affinity theories. Nevertheless, the scope of divergence was limited. This underlying organisation resulted from the unifying hub of affinity theory, the logical common ground. This was the essence of the doctrine of affinity, encompassing the law of affinity and the conceptualisation of the table that brought together the relations described in the law. The doctrine of affinity thus provided a disciplinary common ground between chemists, providing a mediating level of understanding and communication for all those who subscribed to the doctrine of affinity, in spite of their detailed differences. 5 VARIATIONS ON A THEME: PATTERNS OF CONGRUENCE AND DIVERGENCE AMONG 18TH CENTURY CHEMICAL AFFINITY THEORIES ................................................................................................1 1. ‘MANUFACTURING A THEORY’: THE DOCTRINE OF AFFINITY IN 18TH CENTURY CHEMISTRY.....................................8 1.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................8 1.2 Some Preliminary notes about Language ..................................................................................9 1.2.1 ‘Affinity’ .............................................................................................................................9 1.2.2 ‘Chemists’ .........................................................................................................................10 1.3 The Historiography of Affinity .................................................................................................11 1.4 ‘Manufacturing’ a Theory: Methodology................................................................................25 1.5 The Plan ......................................................................................................................................33 2. AFFINITY: A TRUE AND ACCURATE HISTORY OF THE SCIENCE AS PRACTISED BY THE PHILOSOPHERS OF THE BRITISH ISLES ......................................................................................34 2.1 The Cast (in order of appearance)............................................................................................34 2.2 Prologue: Pedagogical Experimentations and Philosophical Investigations.........................38 2.3 Act 1: In Which a Frenchman builds a Table, and the Natural Philosophers of Britain Pay it no Heed ...............................................................................................................41 2.4 Act 2: In which a Pedagogical Tool is Constituted and it is Discovered to beget the Great and Distinguishing Principle of the Science ..................................................................55 2.5 Interlude: In Which a Swede builds a Bigger Table ...............................................................80 2.6 Act 3: Attempts by some Ingenious Chemists to Bring a Scientific Precision to the Pedagogical Tool that was Proving of such Great Utility.......................................................82 2.7 Epilogue: The Pedagogical Pyramid: Those who can …........................................................90 3. “THO’ ALL THINGS DIFFER, ALL AGREE” –VARIETY AND CONFORMITY WITHIN FUNCTIONAL COMPONENT-TYPES.95 3.1 Concepts of Substance Identity.................................................................................................98 3.1.1 Correspondences and Divergences: Elements, Principles and Affinity.............................99 3.1.2 Identity and Recognition: The Specific Character of the Chemical Substance ...............112 3.2 Concepts of Combination ........................................................................................................126 3.2.1 Complexity: The Epistemology of Combination.............................................................126 3.2.2 Modification: Combination as an Agent of Change........................................................135 3.2.3 Mechanism: How does Combination take place?............................................................141 6 3.3 Concepts of Order....................................................................................................................150 3.3.1 Relativity: The Methodology of Order............................................................................151 3.3.2 George Fordyce’s “On Compound Elective Attractions” ...............................................160 3.3.3 Quantification: Richard Kirwan’s Saturation Proportions...............................................169 3.4 Conclusion: Diversity and Affinity .........................................................................................183 4. HEAT: WORK IN PROGRESS ..........................................................187 4.1 The Paradox of Heat: Promoting Combination and Separation .........................................191 4.1.1 Destroyer of Affinity.......................................................................................................192 4.1.2 Increasing Affinity ..........................................................................................................198 4.2 Chemical Generation of Heat and Cold .................................................................................211