What do you think?
Rate this book
Lavoisier; Fourier; Faraday
Great Books of the Western World is a series of books originally published in the USA in 1952, by Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., to present the Great Books in a 54-volume set. A 2nd edition of the series comprises 60 volumes.
Antoine Laurent Lavoisier, Elements of Chemistry
Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier, Analytical Theory of Heat
Michael Faraday Experimental, Researches in Electricity
Antoine Laurent Lavoisier, Elements of Chemistry
Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier, Analytical Theory of Heat
Michael Faraday Experimental, Researches in Electricity
910 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1952
1 person is currently reading
56 people want to read
About the author
Antoine Lavoisier
241 books46 followersFrench chemist Antoine Laurent Lavoisier isolated the major components of air, determined the role of oxygen in combustion to disprove the phlogiston theory, and devised a system of chemical nomenclature; during the Reign of Terror, the period from 1793 to 1794 of the French revolution, the hands of a small group temporarily suspended the republican government, concentrated power, and executed him and thousands of other suspected counterrevolutionaries.
This central nobleman to the 18th century largely influenced on the history of biology. People widely consider him the "father of modern chemistry."
People most note Lavoisier for his discovery. He also first established sulfur as an element in 1777 rather than a compound. He recognized and named oxygen in 1778 and hydrogen in 1783 and opposed the theory. Lavoisier helped to construct the metric system, wrote the first extensive list of elements, and helped to reform. He predicted the existence of silicon in 1787. He discovered always the same mass of matter, which nevertheless may change its form or shape.
Lavoisier, an administrator of the Ferme Générale, served as a powerful member of a number of other aristocratic councils. All of these political and economic activities enabled him to fund his scientific research. At the height of the French revolution, Jean-Paul Marat accused him of selling adulterated tobacco and other crimes, and a year fater death of Marat, people eventually guillotined Lavoisier.
Joseph-Louis Lagrange expressed importance of Lavoisier to science and, lamenting the beheading, said: "Il ne leur a fallu qu’un moment pour faire tomber cette tête, et cent années peut-être ne suffiront pas pour en reproduire une semblable." ("It took them only an instant to cut off this head, and one hundred years might not suffice to reproduce its like.")
Lavoisier also early researched in physical chemistry and thermodynamics in joint experiments with Pierre-Simon Laplace. Lavoisier also contributed to early ideas on composition and chemical changes by stating the radical theory, believing that radicals, which function as a single group in a chemical process, combine with oxygen in reactions. He also introduced the possibility of allotropy in chemical elements when he discovered that diamond is a crystalline form of carbon.
Overall, his contributions are considered the most important in advancing chemistry to the level reached in physics and mathematics during the 18th century. Lavoisier's work was recognized as an International Historic Chemical Landmark by the American Chemical Society, Académie des sciences de L'institut de France and the Société Chimique de France in 1999.
This central nobleman to the 18th century largely influenced on the history of biology. People widely consider him the "father of modern chemistry."
People most note Lavoisier for his discovery. He also first established sulfur as an element in 1777 rather than a compound. He recognized and named oxygen in 1778 and hydrogen in 1783 and opposed the theory. Lavoisier helped to construct the metric system, wrote the first extensive list of elements, and helped to reform. He predicted the existence of silicon in 1787. He discovered always the same mass of matter, which nevertheless may change its form or shape.
Lavoisier, an administrator of the Ferme Générale, served as a powerful member of a number of other aristocratic councils. All of these political and economic activities enabled him to fund his scientific research. At the height of the French revolution, Jean-Paul Marat accused him of selling adulterated tobacco and other crimes, and a year fater death of Marat, people eventually guillotined Lavoisier.
Joseph-Louis Lagrange expressed importance of Lavoisier to science and, lamenting the beheading, said: "Il ne leur a fallu qu’un moment pour faire tomber cette tête, et cent années peut-être ne suffiront pas pour en reproduire une semblable." ("It took them only an instant to cut off this head, and one hundred years might not suffice to reproduce its like.")
Lavoisier also early researched in physical chemistry and thermodynamics in joint experiments with Pierre-Simon Laplace. Lavoisier also contributed to early ideas on composition and chemical changes by stating the radical theory, believing that radicals, which function as a single group in a chemical process, combine with oxygen in reactions. He also introduced the possibility of allotropy in chemical elements when he discovered that diamond is a crystalline form of carbon.
Overall, his contributions are considered the most important in advancing chemistry to the level reached in physics and mathematics during the 18th century. Lavoisier's work was recognized as an International Historic Chemical Landmark by the American Chemical Society, Académie des sciences de L'institut de France and the Société Chimique de France in 1999.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
Read
February 10, 2021I very much enjoyed this. Definitely helps if you already have a scientific background.
September 17, 2015
I'm not sure why I read this. Read about half of it, although towards the end I got lazy. Whats interesting is that these three books are included as "great books" but they are in fact dated. If anyone were to read this, it wouldn't be for the content in it. We have here, Fourier's "Analytic Theory of Heat", Lavoisier's "Elements of Chemistry" and Faraday's "Experimental Researches in Electricity" all of which are founding books of modern science but definitely dated by contemporary standards.
Still, with this we get very intelligent men documenting what they did, what others did, what they found and the methods they used to explore their separate areas of interest. While they still call themselves "philosophers" of natural philosophy, not yet making the distinction between philosophy and science, we get very little conjecture about the materials they work with. (Faraday towards the end of one of his letters, can't resist contemplating that atoms "touch" each other. He outlines this in a really interesting way.) Really they talk mostly about process.
So the lesson here, if there is one, is that material practice generates knowledge. What makes these books great aren't merely their methodology in the lab but also their strict mental disciplines, to just stick with what they are doing and logically ponder, what if I do this? What do I find? What if I do this? What do I find? There are strange conclusions. For example, Lavoisier believes that all plants are made of charcoal, since that's what's always left when you burn them and remove other elements from the plants. So he thinks charcoal is already in the plants to begin with since he didn't add it. Okay, we can see where he's going with that. But this is what I mean. Despite not having the wealth of understanding we have today to back up what one needs to do, these men went ahead and forged a large part of that understanding. Their mechanical methods leads to the mechanical science we have today because the mehcanical manipulations are immanent to the knowledge that is produced.
A great example is Fourier's relatively tiny book. Most of his analytical theory has to do with decomposing heat in its movement, dissipation and collection through solids, liquids and airs. As he states early on, such an examination wouldn't be possible without MATH. So math he applies, and boy does he apply it. He uses analytic geometry with calculus to describe the rate of change point by point, atom by atom as a derivative in order to organize his theory. This is brilliant! You can see how this book was widely influential in how other natural philosophers could then objectively compare notes and make predictions. Fourier, however, does not mistake the metric for the material. He doesn't claim that math is more real than the reality he measures, as some physicists might do today. He does end his book on the general implications of his analytics. This is basically a recasting of length, time, conductivity and so on in terms of each other. He relates them as functions of each other and in this pure mathematical sense, it's hard to argue with the formalism. You can see how people might eventually construe that math is more real than the materials. But the analytics was measured in terms of these units (time, conductivity/specific heat, length) because that's what we have here to figure out how fast heat can travel through material. The basic units are given so their relation is formalized to begin with.
Ah! Objectivity and specific experimentation give us the very building blocks we find later on, abstracted in a general sense to one another.
I will say this. It's not exciting reading for the most part. And these guys do not know how to end a book. Their endings usually conclude with a finding, a small detail left trailing. I guess in a way, since knowledge is incomplete, this is as a good as any a place to stop.
Still, with this we get very intelligent men documenting what they did, what others did, what they found and the methods they used to explore their separate areas of interest. While they still call themselves "philosophers" of natural philosophy, not yet making the distinction between philosophy and science, we get very little conjecture about the materials they work with. (Faraday towards the end of one of his letters, can't resist contemplating that atoms "touch" each other. He outlines this in a really interesting way.) Really they talk mostly about process.
So the lesson here, if there is one, is that material practice generates knowledge. What makes these books great aren't merely their methodology in the lab but also their strict mental disciplines, to just stick with what they are doing and logically ponder, what if I do this? What do I find? What if I do this? What do I find? There are strange conclusions. For example, Lavoisier believes that all plants are made of charcoal, since that's what's always left when you burn them and remove other elements from the plants. So he thinks charcoal is already in the plants to begin with since he didn't add it. Okay, we can see where he's going with that. But this is what I mean. Despite not having the wealth of understanding we have today to back up what one needs to do, these men went ahead and forged a large part of that understanding. Their mechanical methods leads to the mechanical science we have today because the mehcanical manipulations are immanent to the knowledge that is produced.
A great example is Fourier's relatively tiny book. Most of his analytical theory has to do with decomposing heat in its movement, dissipation and collection through solids, liquids and airs. As he states early on, such an examination wouldn't be possible without MATH. So math he applies, and boy does he apply it. He uses analytic geometry with calculus to describe the rate of change point by point, atom by atom as a derivative in order to organize his theory. This is brilliant! You can see how this book was widely influential in how other natural philosophers could then objectively compare notes and make predictions. Fourier, however, does not mistake the metric for the material. He doesn't claim that math is more real than the reality he measures, as some physicists might do today. He does end his book on the general implications of his analytics. This is basically a recasting of length, time, conductivity and so on in terms of each other. He relates them as functions of each other and in this pure mathematical sense, it's hard to argue with the formalism. You can see how people might eventually construe that math is more real than the materials. But the analytics was measured in terms of these units (time, conductivity/specific heat, length) because that's what we have here to figure out how fast heat can travel through material. The basic units are given so their relation is formalized to begin with.
Ah! Objectivity and specific experimentation give us the very building blocks we find later on, abstracted in a general sense to one another.
I will say this. It's not exciting reading for the most part. And these guys do not know how to end a book. Their endings usually conclude with a finding, a small detail left trailing. I guess in a way, since knowledge is incomplete, this is as a good as any a place to stop.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews