Johann Beckmann (1739–1811) and Modern Chemical Technology

From Firenze University Press Journal: Substantia

Juergen Heinrich Maar, Retired, Departamento de Química, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina

Despite his overwhelming importance in the evolution of chemical tech-nology, including its introduction as a university course, Johann Beckmann does not receive in many places the recognition he deserves. His name is frequently omitted from histories of chemistry. This omission is especially serious when we consider that his work began during the phlogiston era and continued under the aegis of Lavoisier’s new oxygen theory. Beckmann’s the-oretical work, however, shows no break in continuity, no significant structur-al change, or no paradigm shift (in Kuhnian terminology). On the contrary, Beckmann’s work on chemical technology is an example of a subject’s linear evolution in terms of knowledge.

Beckmann’s oblivion in many countries is not a consequence of opinions or attitudes against Beckmann himself, a typical representative of the Enlightenment, but a reaction against the very idea of technology being necessary. As an example, in contemporary Latin Amer-ica there is a double origin for this pre-conceived idea against technology and innovation. The Iberian world is contrary to the concept of “technics”, an idea succinctly expressed by Miguel de Unamuno (1864–1936), with his famous “… que inventen ellos!” (“let others invent!”)[2] . Post-modern ideas, ever so popular in the Latin world, tend to minimize the role of scientific rationality and efficacy, often overemphasizing the importance of practi-cal knowledge, and resisting “rationalization of work” — as Bruno Jacomy puts it[3]. The entry of Technology in History, in the History of Science — regardless of the semantic issue associated with the term — and, therefore, in Culture in general, occurred from mid-19th century. In general, in the pio-neering countries of the Industrial Revolution, such as Great Britain and France, the revolution occurred with few concerns about technique and technology. In countries of more recent industrialization, such as Germany and the United States, there was a greater concern with a possible ‘methodology of technological progress’.

In these cases, it was part of the effort in favour of technology to awaken the interest of young people in the subject and to integrate the so-called ‘technological’ subjects in university curricula. Obviously no theory, neither technological nor economic, caused the old method of “trial and error” to leave the scene — we are here in face of chance as cause of social and economic development. But real progress is rare. What is of importance is an efficient “methodology of technology”, similar to an efficient methodology of scientific work. Also Johann Beckmann and his enlight-ened spirit are important. Science and Technology devel-op and advance by means of a pre-conceived, structured methodology, from time to time revised in accordance with its own principles, allowing a reliable applica-tion of the conditions underlying scientific knowledge, as defined by Sir Karl Popper (1902–1994) and by Imre Lakatos (1922–1974).

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/Substantia-1870

Read Full Text: https://riviste.fupress.net/index.php/subs/article/view/1870