Holmes F L
Section of the History of Medicine, School of Medicine, Yale University, SHM, L130, P.O. Box 208015, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, USA.
Isis. 2000 Dec;91(4):735-53. doi: 10.1086/384947.
Recent revisionist interpretations of the chemical revolution have left intact the core of the traditional view that its central feature was the overthow of the phlogiston theory by the oxygen theory of combustion of Antoine Lavoisier. The central confrontation has been seen as that between the adherents of the chemical system that Lavoisier built around his theory and the form of the phlogiston theory defended by Joseph Priestley. This essay contends that Priestley's use of phlogiston was so loosely connected with the older phlogiston theories descended from that of Georg Ernst Stahl that the events at the heart of the chemical revolution should be viewed more as a competition between two rival new research programs than as the replacement of a reigning paradigm.
最近对化学革命的修正主义解释，并未改变传统观点的核心内容，即其核心特征是安托万·拉瓦锡的燃烧氧化学说推翻了燃素说。这场核心对抗被视为是拉瓦锡围绕其理论构建的化学体系的支持者与约瑟夫·普里斯特利所捍卫的燃素说形式之间的对抗。本文认为，普里斯特利对燃素的运用与源自格奥尔格·恩斯特·施塔尔的旧燃素说联系非常松散，以至于化学革命核心的事件，更应被视为两个相互竞争的新研究计划之间的较量，而非一个占主导地位的范式的更替。
