title: The Chemical Revolution revisited.
abstract: I respond to the critical comments by Martin Kusch and Ursula Klein on my account of the Chemical Revolution. I comment along three different lines: descriptive, explanatory, and normative. (1) I agree with Klein that Lavoisier did not introduce drastic changes in chemical ontology, but maintain that there was methodological incommensurability in the Chemical Revolution; in response to Kusch's view, I maintain that Lavoisier's victory was slow and incomplete. (2) Admitting that there were many causes shaping the outcome of the Chemical Revolution, including the convenience of Lavoisier's theoretical scheme and various complicated social factors, I still think that the general rise of compositionism was an important factor. (3) I defend my normative pluralist view on the Chemical Revolution, denying Kusch's argument that chemists had overwhelmingly good reasons to trust Lavoisier and his allies over the phlogistonists. Overall, I agree with Kusch that it would be desirable to have a good descriptive-normative sociological account of the Chemical Revolution, but I also think that it should be an account that allows for divergence in individuals' and sub-communities' self-determination.
authors.affiliation: Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, Free School Lane, Cambridge CB2 3RH, United Kingdom. Electronic address: hc372@cam.ac.uk.
authors.forename: Hasok
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Chang
mesh_terms: D002621:Chemistry / Q000266:history*; D018864:Cultural Diversity; D049671:History, 18th Century; D010684:Philosophy; D012961:Sociology
keywords: Chemical Revolution; Compositionism; Incommensurability; Phlogiston; Pluralism