id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentences	flesch	summary	cache	txt
work_tlj67jaxlbh4ddfqrtt6ff6kva	Ursula Klein	A Revolution that never happened	2015	11	.pdf	application/pdf	12750	960	47	"chemical revolution," which is accepted by Chang and Kusch, I argue that Lavoisier shared with the Lavoisier made no systematic contribution to the flourishing chemical sub-field studying proximate organic components. "chemical revolution."3 In Lavoisier's theories several substancesdphlogiston, oxygen, caloric, water, acids, and permanent variety of substances than Lavoisier did in the context of his selfpronounced chemical revolution. kinds of "reversible chemical operations."6 Among the many substances studied by early modern chemists, it was a very distinct "chemical substances," along with studies of the reversible operations carried out with them, that resulted in a new sub-field of the early modern concept of chemical compound differed from "mixts" and first "chemical compound" in the early modern sense was a substance chemists' flat ontology of chemical substances, implied in their question of whether Lavoisier changed chemists' ontology of substances. If Lavoisier did not change chemists' ontology of substances,	./cache/work_tlj67jaxlbh4ddfqrtt6ff6kva.pdf	./txt/work_tlj67jaxlbh4ddfqrtt6ff6kva.txt