Recent philosophy and history of science has seen a surge of interest in the role of concepts in scientific research. Scholars working in this new field focus on scientific concepts, rather than theories, as units of analysis and on the ways in which concepts are formed and used rather than on what they represent. They analyze what has traditionally been called the context of discovery, rather than (or in addition to) the context of justification. And they examine the dynamics of research rather than the status of the finished research results. This volume provides detailed case studies and general analyses to address questions raised by these points, such as: - Can concepts be clearly distinguished from the sets of beliefs we have about their referents? - What - if any - sense can be made of the separation between concepts and theories? - Can we distinguish between empirical and theoretical concepts? - Are there interesting similarities and differences between the role of concepts in the empirical sciences and in mathematics? - What underlying notion of investigative practice could be drawn on to explicate the role of concept in such practice? - From a philosophical point of view, is the distinction between discovery and justification a helpful frame of reference for inquiring into the dynamics of research? - From a historiographical point of view, does a focus on concepts face the danger of falling back into an old-fashioned history of ideas?

The distinction between the contexts of discovery and justification has had a turbulent career in philosophy of science. At times celebrated as the hallmark of philosophical approaches to science, at times condemned as ambiguous, distorting, and misleading, the distinction dominated philosophical debates from the early decades of the twentieth century to the 1980s. Until today, it informs our conception of the content, domain, and goals of philosophy of science. It is due to this fact that new trends in philosophy of experimentation and history and sociology of science have been marginalized by traditional scholarship in philosophy. To acknowledge properly this important recent work we need to re-open the debate about the nature, development, and significance of the context distinction, about its merits and flaws. The contributions to this volume provide close readings and detailed analyses of the original textual sources for the context distinction.

This book describes the international effort to give order to colours and thus facilitate communication about it, two topics deemed essential to a modernising world that were also recognizably complex. Expert essays will enhance readers' understanding of the struggle to coordinate nature with art at a time when approaches to both were undergoing rapid change. Ordering Colours shows how such seemingly trivial concerns as identifying the basic colours and disseminating appropriate colour diagrams had to meet philosophical, scientific and professional needs across Europe. Contributors detail the many schemes for colour systematization and their real-world applications; questions of concern to both academic- and manufacturing-focused investigators throughout the long 18th century. They bring together original research and new thinking about landmark early modern studies to address important developments as well as neglected historical contributions of European arts, sciences, and economies. This collection is an important addition to the libraries of all who are interested in public culture and manufacturing developments in the early modern period and is aimed at historians of art, technology, philosophy and physics.

Like any goal-oriented procedure, experiment is subject to many kinds of failures. These failures have a variety of features, depending on the particulars of their sources. For the experimenter these pitfalls should be avoided and their effects minimized. For the historian-philosopher of science and the science educator, on the other hand, they are instructive starting points for reflecting on science in general and scientific method and practice in particular. Often more is learned from failure than from confirmation and successful application. The identification of error, its source, its context, and its treatment shed light on both practices and epistemic claims. This book shows that it is fruitful to bring to light forgotten and lost failures, subject them to analysis and learn from their moral. The study of failures, errors, pitfalls and mistakes helps us understand the way knowledge is pursued and indeed generated. The book presents both historical accounts and philosophical analyses of failures in experimental practice. It covers topics such as "error as an object of study," "learning from error," "concepts and dead ends," "instrumental artifacts," and "surprise and puzzlement."

This book will be of interest to historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science as well as to practicing scientists and science educators.

Schon bald nach dem Erscheinen von Lavoisiers Hauptwerk Traité élémentaire de chimie im Jahre 1789 sprach man von einer Chemischen Revolution, und diese Einschätzung bleibt auch heute noch gültig. Lavoisiers Erklärung des Verbrennungsvorgangs und der Rolle des Sauerstoffs auch bei anderen chemischen Vorgängen wie auch seine quantitative Bilanzmethode und seine systematische chemische Nomenklatur haben die seinerzeitige Chemie revolutioniert und die weitere Entwicklung dieser Wissenschaft geprägt. Eine deutsche Übersetzung erschien 1792. Jan Frercks hat aus der 2.Auflage von 1803 die wesentlichen Teile ausgewählt, durchgesehen und behutsam überarbeitet. Sein Kommentar erschließt nicht nur heutigen Leserinnen und Lesern den theoretischen und historischen Horizont des Werkes, sondern stellt auch selbst eine bedeutende wissenschaftsgeschichtliche Leistung dar. Mit dieser Ausgabe wird ein zentraler Text der modernen Naturwissenschaft einem heutigen Publikum zugänglich gemacht.

The distinction between the contexts of discovery and justification has left a turbulent wake in the philosophy of science. This book recognizes the need to re-open the debate about the nature, development, and significance of the context distinction, about its merits and flaws. The discussion clears the ground for the productive and fruitful integration of these new developments into philosophy of science.

Like any goal-oriented procedure, experiment is subject to many kinds of failures. These failures have a variety of features, depending on the particulars of their sources. For the experimenter these pitfalls should be avoided and their effects minimized. For the historian-philosopher of science and the science educator, on the other hand, they are instructive starting points for reflecting on science in general and scientific method and practice in particular. Often more is learned from failure than from confirmation and successful application. The identification of error, its source, its context, and its treatment shed light on both practices and epistemic claims. This book shows that it is fruitful to bring to light forgotten and lost failures, subject them to analysis and learn from their moral. The study of failures, errors, pitfalls and mistakes helps us understand the way knowledge is pursued and indeed generated. The book presents both historical accounts and philosophical analyses of failures in experimental practice. It covers topics such as "error as an object of study," "learning from error," "concepts and dead ends," "instrumental artifacts," and "surprise and puzzlement."

This book will be of interest to historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science as well as to practicing scientists and science educators.