Talk:Adolph Wilhelm Hermann Kolbe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
[edit] Kolbe and vitalism
Two comments on the first sentence in the section Work: "At that time, some believed that organic compounds could be created only by living organisms."
1. By the normal rules of English, "At that time" should mean the last time mentioned which is 1876, when vitalism was long dead. The context implies that the intended meaning is rather the next time mentioned, about 1843-45.
2. There is an apparent contradiction with the article on Wohler which suggests that his urea synthesis killed off belief in vitalism immediately. A more accurate history is found in Wohler synthesis which explains that Wohler convinced few at the time, and that vitalist belief persisted until Kolbe's work.
I suggest that the sentence above be modified to something like: "As late as the 1840s, many chemists believed the doctrine of vitalism that organic compounds could be created only by living organisms. This belief persisted despite the Wohler synthesis of urea in 1828 which was considered an anomaly.
Other opinions please before I edit the article? Dirac66 (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Dirac66, you are quite right about the misleading phrase "at that time," for the time intended to be indicated, as you suggest, is indeed the earlier date. An appropriate edit by you to clarify this passage would be great. Your second point raises an interesting set of issues. If one looks at the current state of research in the history of chemistry, neither of your assertions appear to be statements that historians of science would agree with -- that Woehler killed off vitalism at a stroke, OR that he convinced few at the time. (See, for example, P. Ramberg, "The Death of Vitalism and the Birth of Organic Chemistry," Ambix, 47 (2000), 170-95.) Rather, Woehler's 1828 synthesis of urea appears to have been just one event along a continuum, in which vitalism gradually was abandoned. For instance, if you look at the private correspondence between Woehler, Berzelius, and Liebig, none of them appeared to have much sympathy for transcendental chemical vitalism even before 1828; on the other hand, one can find some convinced vitalists (mostly non-chemists!) long after 1850. Considering all this, I would suggest modifying your suggested sentence to something like the following: "As late as the 1840s, and despite Friedrich Woehler's synthesis of urea in 1828, some chemists still believed in the doctrine of vitalism, according to which a special life-force was necessary to create organic compounds." This may also call for some appropriate re-editing of the Woehler article! Ajrocke (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I accept your point about a gradual abandonment of vitalism, and I realize now that there was no "magic moment" when everyone saw the light simultaneously. Your phrasing seems better given the facts so I will insert it into the article.
I will just change the spelling of Wöhler for consistency with his article, and suppose that your "oe" was a gentle hint to remember the umlaut.
As for the Wöhler article, the phrase "Until 1828, it was believed ..." certainly suggests that he killed off vitalism at a stroke, and should be modified. As the historian, perhaps you could consider the most appropriate change. Dirac66 (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
