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

门捷列夫元素周期表的传播和确认的历史已被证明是当代关于预测在科学中的作用的哲学辩论的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 (Inference to最佳解释，2004 年版，劳特利奇，伦敦，1991 年）；然而，如此持久的辩论留下了许多悬而未决的问题。这篇文章的目的是通过辩论期间出现的各种案例，努力以弱预测主义的视角对它们进行连贯的解释。