In recent publications, Harré and Llored (in: Javenovic (ed) Challenges of cultural psychology, Routledge, London, pp 189–206, 2018a; Philosophy, 93:167–186, 2018b; The analysis of practices, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, 2019) take the role of philosophy of science as a digging out of the ‘hinges’, that are the tacit elements of a discipline. In this perspective, the philosophy of chemistry consists, at least partly, in making explicit the hinges on which chemistry turns and in examining their origins and logical status. In this paper, we propose to query Harré and Llored’s research approach in the case study of the element chlorine. Whereas most early nineteenth-century textbooks define the element as the endpoint of chemical decomposition, the controversy surrounding the element chlorine reveals implicit criteria that surpass operational indivisibility. From 1810 onwards, Davy argued that chlorine was a simple substance; yet, even though it had been known to be indecomposable using the strongest instruments available, the widespread acceptance of chlorine took until 1816–1818. The main factor that contributed to the resolution of the debate was the discovery of iodine, an analogous element which provided new theoretical coherence between explanations of different phenomena (Chabot, in: Du nouveau dans les sciences. Groupe rech. philos. langag., Université des sciences sociales de Grenoble, St-Martin-d’Hères, pp 121–169, 2006; Golinski in Science as public culture: chemistry and enlightenment in Britain, 1760–1820, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1992; Gray et al. in An element of controversy: the life of chlorine in science, medicine, technology and war, British Society for the History of Science, London, pp 41–72, 2007; Siegfried in Isis 54(2):247–258, 1959). Thus, the idea that elements should qualitatively resemble each other is an implicit belief which appears to have been shared by many prominent chemists of the time, despite the fact that it was not stated as part of the definition of the chemical element. Could we assert that this idea was a ‘hinge’ around which the notion of chemical element revolved? Our talk will answer this question.

中文翻译：

---

如何研究科学的基础？元素氯的案例

在最近的出版物中，Harré 和 Llored（在：Javenovic (ed) Challenges of culture Psychology, Routledge, London, pp 189–206, 2018a; Philosophy, 93:167–186, 2018b; The analysis of practice, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle泰恩河畔，2019 年）将科学哲学的角色视为挖掘“铰链”，这是一门学科的默认元素。从这个角度来看，化学哲学至少部分在于明确化学所依赖的铰链，并检查它们的起源和逻辑状态。在本文中，我们建议在元素氯的案例研究中质疑 Harré 和 Llored 的研究方法。而大多数 19 世纪早期的教科书都将元素定义为化学分解的终点，围绕元素氯的争议揭示了超越操作不可分割性的隐含标准。从 1810 年开始，戴维认为氯是一种单质；然而，尽管已知使用最强大的仪器无法分解，但直到 1816-1818 年才广泛接受氯。促成争论解决的主要因素是碘的发现，碘是一种类似元素，它为不同现象的解释提供了新的理论连贯性（Chabot, in: Du nouveau dans les sciences. Groupe rech. philos. langag., Université des sciences sociales de Grenoble, St-Martin-d'Hères, pp 121–169, 2006；Golinski in Science as public culture：英国的化学与启蒙，1760–1820，剑桥大学出版社，纽约，1992；Gray 等. 在争议的元素：氯在科学、医学、技术和战争中的生命，英国科学史学会，伦敦，第 41-72 页，2007 年；Siegfried in Isis 54(2):247–258, 1959)。因此，元素应该在性质上彼此相似的想法是一种隐含的信念，当时许多著名的化学家似乎都认同这种信念，尽管它并未作为化学元素定义的一部分加以说明。我们能否断言这个想法是化学元素概念围绕的“铰链”？我们的谈话将回答这个问题。元素应该在性质上彼此相似的想法是一种隐含的信念，当时许多著名的化学家似乎都认同这种信念，尽管它并未作为化学元素定义的一部分加以说明。我们能否断言这个想法是化学元素概念围绕的“铰链”？我们的谈话将回答这个问题。元素应该在性质上彼此相似的想法是一种隐含的信念，当时许多著名的化学家似乎都认同这种信念，尽管它并未作为化学元素定义的一部分加以说明。我们能否断言这个想法是化学元素概念围绕的“铰链”？我们的谈话将回答这个问题。