Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 8, 2026

Simulation of Early Earth Hydrothermal Chimneys in a Thermal Gradient Environment
Published on: February 27, 2021
The Chemical Revolution revisited
1Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, Free School Lane, Cambridge CB2 3RH, United Kingdom.
Abstract:
I respond to the critical comments by Martin Kusch and Ursula Klein on my account of the Chemical Revolution. I comment along three different lines: descriptive, explanatory, and normative. (1) I agree with Klein that Lavoisier did not introduce drastic changes in chemical ontology, but maintain that there was methodological incommensurability in the Chemical Revolution; in response to Kusch's view, I maintain that Lavoisier's victory was slow and incomplete. (2) Admitting that there were many causes shaping the outcome of the Chemical Revolution, including the convenience of Lavoisier's theoretical scheme and various complicated social factors, I still think that the general rise of compositionism was an important factor. (3) I defend my normative pluralist view on the Chemical Revolution, denying Kusch's argument that chemists had overwhelmingly good reasons to trust Lavoisier and his allies over the phlogistonists. Overall, I agree with Kusch that it would be desirable to have a good descriptive-normative sociological account of the Chemical Revolution, but I also think that it should be an account that allows for divergence in individuals' and sub-communities' self-determination.
Related Concept Videos
Chemical Reactions
Chemical Reactions Rearrange Atoms into New Substances
A chemical reaction takes starting materials—the reactants—and changes them...
Chemical Reactions
The relative amounts of reactants and products represented in a balanced chemical equation are often referred to as stoichiometric amounts. However, in...
Metabolism of Chemolithotrophs
Radical Reactivity: Overview
Introduction to Chemical Reactions
The Scientific Method

