Abstract

The history of the diffusion and confirmation of Mendeleev’s periodic table of elements has proven to be a challenging testbed for contemporary philosophical debates on the role of predictions in science. More than ten years of fruitful literature came after Scerri and Worrall (Stud Hist Phil Sci 32(3):407–452, 2001) versus Maher (Proc Bienn Meet Philos Sci Assoc 1:273–285, 1988) and Lipton (Inference to the best explanation, 2004 edition, Routledge, London, 1991); nevertheless, such a long-lasting debate left quite a few open questions. The aim of this contribution is to go through the various cases that emerged during the debate, in an effort to explain them coherently in a weak predictivist perspective. Maher’s early account—according to which the astounding success of the major predictions alone was enough to explain the confirmation of the periodic table—can now be replaced by a more balanced and thorough picture, where both predictions and accommodations do weight.

中文翻译：

---

预测，适应和周期表：重新评估

摘要

事实证明，门捷列夫元素周期表的扩散和确证历史，对当代有关科学预测作用的哲学辩论是一个具有挑战性的试验台。在Scerri和Worrall（Stud Hist Phil Sci 32（3）：407-452，2001）与Maher（Proc Bienn Meet Philos Sci Assoc 1：273-285，1988）和Lipton（推理到最佳解释，2004年版，Routledge，伦敦，1991年）；然而，如此持久的辩论留下了许多未解决的问题。这项贡献的目的是研究辩论中出现的各种情况，以便以较弱的预测主义观点来连贯地解释它们。