Williamson

Betsalel Williamson HPS 0545 SEC1200 Julia Bursten Monday, February 17, 2014 Commentary Week 12

I thought that this chapter of history of dealing with the changes in the world of chemistry during the 18th century less interesting than last week's chemical narrative. This week, the Bowler selection was too dense with material to fully get a good grip on the chemical revolution. Id rather the material either more focused like the material on Platos theory of matter or more digestible like Blum's chemical stories. What irked me most was the fact that after spending so much time learning about the phlogiston theory, the oxygen theory and even Daltons atomic theory Im left knowing that I will seldom use this information outside of this course. Though I found it quite fantastic that chemists before the 18th century were using these theories I was left grasping for any explanation as to why they would conduct these experiments in the first place. This reading left me wondering how this archaic information was used for in practical terms. In addition, the concepts are so foreign and contradictory to my current understanding of chemistry that I cant even imagine how to apply the concepts of phlogiston and calxes or how make sense of oxygen the way Lavoisier intended. Even Daltons atomic theory while aiming in the right direction gives an incomplete version of the nature of chemical bonds. From this confusion I will clearly suggest that the chemical revolution was quite different than the general natural philosophy revolution (math and physics). This revolution was more evolutionary. Unlike the general scientific revolution that saw the birth of calculus and physics these chemical discoveries failed to lay a foundation for future generations to rely on.