KİMYA TARİHİNDE BİR KIRILMA NOKTASI: ROBERT BOYLE İLE DÖNÜŞEN “DENEY” KAVRAMI

Kimyanın gelişim süreci mercek altına alındığında, dikkati çeken en önemli dönem, deneysel bilginin de çıkışını bünyesinde barındıran, Bilim Devrimi'nin başlangıcı kabul edilen 17. yüzyıldır. Deney sonucu elde edilen bilgileri içeren "deneycilik ve bilgi" bu yüzyıla ait en önemli kavramlardandır. Bu makalede Robert Boyle'un çalışmaları ile deneysel felsefenin modern kimyanın başlangıcını teşkil ettiği savunulmaktadır. Bilim Devrimi'nin üyelerinden biri olan Boyle uzun yıllarını deneysel öğrenme temelli mekanik felsefeye adamıştır. Bu amaçlarla 1650-1660 yılları arasında bilimsel bilgide devrim niteliğindeki deneylerini gerçekleştirmiştir. Kapalı kapılar ardında, yalnızca sınırlı sayıda gözlemcisinin bilgisine ulaşabildiği deney kavramı, Robert Boyle ile hangi kültürden, dilden ve sosyal statüden olursa olsun insanların gözlemine ve bilgisine sunularak, kimyaya kamusal bir dil kazandırılmıştır. Çünkü Boyle'a göre sınırlı sayıda kişinin şahitlik ettiği bir deneyin sonuçları maddenin gerçeğini yansıtamazdı. Bu bağlamda bilimsel bilginin elde edilmesi için tanık olunan deney sayılarının çoğaltılması şarttı. Bu makalede Boyle'un deneye nasıl tanık olunabilir ve nasıl kamusal bir anlam yüklenebilir sorularına aradığı cevapları araştıracağız. Bu çalışmanın amacı, klasik dönemde gizli tutulan deney anlayışının yerine, Robert Boyle'un tanık olunabilir, tekrarlanabilir ve paylaşılabilir deney kavramının ve 17. yüzyılda modern kimyanın başlangıcında oynadığı rolün irdelenmesidir

REVOLUTIONARY POINT IN THE HISTORY OF CHEMISTRY: EVOLUTION OF “EXPERIMENT” CONCEPTION BY ROBERT BOYLE

When we take a closer look at the development of chemistry in history, we are drawn to more likely the 17th century when the scientific revolution as involving the emergence of experimental knowledge as occured. And the “experimental philosophy and knowledge” which is often used in this century to refer to knowledge acquired via experiment, was the most important conception. The point of view advocated in this paper is that it was the experimental philosophy that constituted the beginnings of modern chemistry by Robert Boyle’s works. One participant in the scientific revolution, namely Robert Boyle, devoted much time and effort developing a version of the mechanical philosophy as well as advancing “experimental learning” as matter of fact. His experiments about the behaviour of air in the late 1650 s and early 1660 s represent a revolutionary moment in the career of scientific knowledge. He translated chemistry’s vast material knowledge into a public language. In this way experimental knowledge was to be generated and he proposed that matters of fact be generated by a multiplication of the witnessing experience. In Boyle’s view, one way of securing the multiplication of witnesses was to perform experiments in a social space and facilitate replication of experiments. In this paper it’s indicated how he achieved the multiplication of witnessesing of experiment and what helped Boyle make significance advances in chemistry. The aim of this study is to explicate Robert Boyle’s conception of experiment which is witnessing, and the role of his works beginning of modern chemistry in the 17th century. It’s about the evolution of “experience” to “experiment” in the history of chemistry

___

A. Clericuzio; “A redefinition of Boyle’s chemistry and corpuscular philosophy”, Annals of Science, 1990, 47, pp. 561-589.

—; “From van Helmont to Boyle: study of the Transmission of Helmontian Chemical and Medical Theories in Seventeenth-Century England”, British Journalfor the History of Science, 26, 1993, pp. 303-34.

—; “Elements, Principles and Corpuscles: Study of Atomism and Chemistry in the Seventeenth Century”, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000, pp. Xi 223.

A. Einstein, L. Infeld; Fiziğin Evrimi, Onur Yayınları, Ankara, 1976.

A. Rupert Hall, Marie B. Hall; Brief History of Science, The New American Library, New York, 1964.

Alan Chalmers; “Boyle and the origins of modern chemistry: Newman tried in the fire”, Studies in History and Philosophy ofScience, 41(1), 2010, pp. 1-10.

—; “Experiment versus mechanical philosophy in the work of Robert Boyle: reply to Anstey and Pyle”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 33, 2002, pp. 191-197.

; “Intermediate Causes And Explanations: The key to understand the scientific revolution”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 43, 2012, pp. 551-562.

Aristoteles; Physics, Book II, 194a. Eser için İngilizce şu baskılar kullanılmıştır: Jonathan Barnes (edit.), The Complete Works of Aristotle [The Revised Oxford Translation: Sixth

Printing, with corrections], c. I-II, New Jersey 1995; R. Hooykaas, Religion and The Rise of Modern Science, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972, s. 5-6. Kullanı- lan Türkçe tercümeler için ise bkz. Metafizik, çev. Ahmet Arslan, II. Basım, Istanbul 1996.

Fizik, çev. Saffet Babür, İstanbul 1997.

C. P. Snow; İki Kültür, çev. Tuncay Birkan, TÜBİTAK Yayınları, Ankara, 2001.

Desmond Reilly; “Robert Boyle and His Background”, Journal of Chemical Education, 28 (4), 1951.

Edwin Arthur Burtt; The Methaphysical Foundatitions of Modern Physical Scienc, Routledge&Kegan Paul, London and Henley, 1980, pp. 37-103.

Fabrizio Trifirio, Ferruccio Trifirio; History of Chemistry, Fundamentals of Chemistry, vol. I, Italy.

Gale E. Christianson; Isaac Newton ve Bilimsel Devrim, çev. Zekeriya Aydın, TÜBİTAK Yayınları, Ankara, 2004.

Gert König; “Doğa Felsefesi”, Günümüz Felsefe Disiplinleri, çev. Doğan Özlem, Inkılap Yayınları, İstanbul, 2007, s. 233.

Golinski; Science as Public Culture, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992.

H. Levere Trevor; “The Role Of Instruments In The Dıssemination Of The Chemical Revolution”, Endoxa 19, 2005, pp. 227-242.

Hasok Chang; “The Hidden History of Phlogiston”, Hyle: International Journalfor Philosophy ofChemistry, vol. 16, No. 2, 2010, pp. 47-79.

—; “We Have Never Been Whiggish (About Phlogiston)”, Centaurus, 2009, vol. 51(4), s. 239-264.

I. B. Cohen; Revolutions in Science, Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1985.

I. Newton; Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Great Books of Western World, volume: XXXIV, 1952.

Ishak Arslan; Çağdaş Doğa Düşüncesi Küre Yayınları, İstanbul, 2011.

J. B. Conant; “The Overthrow of the Phlogiston Theory: The Chemical Revolution of 1775- 1789”, Harvard Case Histories in Experimental Science, Harvard Univ. Press, vol. 1., Cambridge, Mass., 1957.

R. Partington; Short History of Chemistry, Harper &Row, 3rd ed., New York, 1960.

Jan-Erik Jones; “Locke vs. Boyle: The Real Essence of Corpuscular Species”, British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 15 (4), 2007, pp. 659-684.

John Henry; Bilim Devrimi ve Modern Bilimin Kökenleri, çev. Selim Değirmenci, Küre Yayınları İstanbul 2011

John Steward; “The Realty of Phlogiston in Great Britain”, Hyle: International Journal for Philosophy ofChemistry, 18 (2), 2012, pp. 175-194.

L. Jardine, M. Silverthorne; The New Organon, Cambridge, 2000.

M. Hall; “Boyle, Robert”, Dictionary of Scientific Biography, ed. C.C.Gillispie, New York: Scribners, 1970-80, vol.16, ii, 377-82.

M. G. Kim; “The ‘Instrumental’ Reality of Phlogiston”, Hyle: International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 14, 2008, pp. 27-51.

Marina Paola Banchetti-Robino; “The ontological function of first-order and second-order corpuscles in the chemical philosophy of Robert Boyle: the redintegration of potassium nitrate”, Foundations of Chemistry, 2012, 14, pp. 221-234.

Michael Hunter (ed.); Letters and Papers of Robert Boyle: Guide to the Manuscripts and Microfilm, Collections from the Royal Society, University Publications of America, Bethesda, Maryland, 1992.

—; “The Boyle archive”, The Boyle Papers and Works, vol. 1, s. c-cii. N. R. Percey, C. B. Thaxton; The Soul of Science/Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy, Crossway Books, 1994.

Paul Hoyningen, Huene; “Thomas Kuhn and the Chemical Revolution”, Foundations of Chemistry 10 (2), 2008, pp. 101-115.

Peter Whitfield; Batı Bilimina'e Dönüm Noktaları, çev. Serdar Uslu, Küre Yayınları, İstanbul, 2012.

R. Boyle; Experimental history of colours”, In: Hunter, M., Davis, E.B. (eds.) The Works of Robert Boyle, vol. 4, pp. 1-183. Pickering and Chatto, London, 2000.

—; “The origin of forms and qualities”, In: Hunter, M., Davis, EB. (eds.) The Works of Robert Boyle, vol. 5, pp. 1-550. Pickering and Chatto, London, 2000.

R. Hooykaas; Religion and The Rise of Modern Science, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972.

Richard Westfall; The Construction ofModern Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1977. Eserin kullanılan Türkçe tercümesi için ise bkz. Modern Bilimin Oluşumu, çev.

İsmail Hakkı Duru, TÜBİTAK Yayınları, Ankara, 1997.

Rossi Paolo; Francis Bacon: From Magic to Science, Routledge&Kegan Paul, vol. 26, London, 1968.

Roy G. Neville; The Discovery of Boyle’s Law, 39 (7), Journal of Chemical Education, 1962.

Steven Shapin; “Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle’s Literary Technology, Social Studies of Science”, vol. 14, no. 4, Nov., 1984, pp. 481-520.

—; “The House of Experiment in Seventeenth-Century England”, Journal of the History ofScience, 79, 1988, pp. 373-404.

—; Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the Experimental Life, Princeton University Press, 1985.

W.R. Newman; “The alchemical sources of Robert Boyle’s corpuscular philosophy”, Annals ofScience, 1996, 53, 567-585.

—; “The significance of “chymical atomism”, Early Science and Medicine, 2009, 14, 248- 264.

William J. Green; “Models and metaphysics in the chemical theories of Boyle and Newton”, Journal of Chemical Education, 1978, 55 (7), p. 434.