Brush, Stephen

Brush, Stephen G. (1983), Statistical Physics and the Atomic Theory of Matter from Boyle and Newton to Landau and Onsager, Princeton University Press Princeton, NJ. 

Brush, Stephen (2003), The Kinetic Theory of Gases An Anthology of Classic Papers with Historical Commentary, Imperial College Press River Edge, NJ. 

Brush, Stephen (1986), The Kind of Motion We Call Heat A History of the Kinetic Theory of Gases in the 19th Century, 2 Vols., North Holland Amsterdam. 

Brush, Stephen. 1999. "Dynamics of Theory Change in Chemistry Part I. The Benzene Problem 1865-1945." Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 30 21-79. 

Brush, Stephen G. Cautious Revolutionaries Maxwell, Planck, Hubble. College Park, Md. American Association of Physics Teachers, 2002. 

I was also familiar with the work of science historian Stephen Brush who had argued that in most important cases, such as relativity theory and quantum mechanics, and contrary to popular opinion, it was successful accommodations that had swayed scientists of the time rather than any dramatic predictions. 

Worrall had made similar claims regarding theories of light developed in the seventeenth century and in particular, the case of Fresnel whose dramatic and subsequently confirmed predictions had not been as influential as his accommodation of already known optical phenomena. Meanwhile, Stephen Brush had turned his attention to chemistry and the periodic table, given that this seemed to be a case for which successful predictions made by Mendeleev are widely held to have been the reason for the acceptance of the periodic... 

Stephen Brush has, in several papers (for example Brush, 1989), examined different episodes from the history of science and argued that the scientists involved in them did not in fact regard (temporal) predictive success as carrying an epistemic premium. However, in a recent paper (Brush, 1996) on the reception of Mendeleev s ideas, he claims that this case is exceptional—here temporal novelty of predictions really did count. 

Acknowledgements—We have worked together on this paper for several years. It in turn represents a coming together of two still older single-authored papers. One or other (or both) of the authors would like to thank each of the following for helpful comments on at least one previous version Michael Akeroyd, Nathan Brookes, Stephen Brush, Fernando Dufour, Carmen Giunta, Robin Hendry, Colin Howson, Peter Lipton, and two anonymous referees of this journal. 

Stephen G. Brush. Transmuted Past The Age of the Earth and the Evolution of the Elements from Lyell to Patterson. Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 1996. Source for Rhode Island granite and unknown and uncited work. 

I.G. Chesnutt, F. Schafer, A.P.M. Jacobson, K.W. Stephen, The influence of tooth-brushing frequency and post-brushing rinsing on caries experience in a caries clinical trial, Commun. Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 26 (1998) 406-411. 

Scerri, Eric R. 1996. "Stephen Brush, the Periodic Table and the Nature of Chemistry." In P. Jannich 8t N. Psarros, eds. Die Sprache der Chemie, Proceedings of the Second Erlen-meyer Colloquium on Philosophy of Chemistry (pp. 169-176). Wurtzburg Koningshausen Neumatm. 

From the time he first published his mature periodic system, in 1869, Mendeleev began to predict the existence of specific unknown elements and also to correct the values of atomic weights of already known elements. Both of these forms of prediction were essential to the refinement of his system and are examined in the course of this chapter. Although the prediction of new elements and the correction of atomic weights of existing elements both represent forms of predictions, they are of a somewhat different character, an aspect that will be explored. The historian Stephen Brush has coined the apt phrase con-trapredictions to describe the correction of already known elements. He, too, believes that they represent a different category from the prediction of previously unknown elements. 

Doctoral students Richard J. Karpowicz, Yoshio Oyumi, Stephen F. Palopoli, James T. Cronin, Thomas P. Russell, Peter J. Brush and Jangkang Chen, and post-doctoral student Mark D. Timken took this field from dream to reality. The Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR-80-0258, AFOSR-85-0353, AFOSR-87-0033), the Army Research Office (DAAG29-84-K-0198), the Air Force Armament Test Laboratory (F08635-87-C-0130), and Morton-Thiokol, Inc., supported chemistry programs during which most of the methods described here were developed. 

See, for example, the following articles in the Washington Post Agencies Brushed Off Lead Warnings, February 29, 2004, p. A.Ol Blood and Water, March 4, 2004, p. C.Ol and D.C. Lead Issue Was Debated for Months, March 16, 2004, p. A.Ol. See also Accusations in Capital on Lead Levels in Water, New York Times, March 6, 2004, p. A.7. For a concise overview of the events in Washington, D.C., that explains the linkage between lead solvency and new water treatment processes, see Stephen (2004). 

Stephen Brush, the Periodic Table and the Nature of Chemistry. In Die Sprache der Chemie,... 

Stephen C. Brush, The Reception of Mendeleev s Periodic Law in America and Britain, Isis 87 (1996) 595-628. 

Stephen G. Brush wrote a comprehensive paper on the reception of the periodic law in the United States and Britain. He also studied some German books, including forty-six books from the years 1871 to 1890. These books were used in schools and universities. According to Brush about 45 percent of these texts mention the periodic system. The number is surprisingly high, but the relatively small number of reviewed books should not be overlooked. Some books provided diagrams of the system, others discussed the question of the best way to illustrate the periodic law or deal with the question of primary matter. Brush established that mention of the periodic system increased sharply after the discovery of predicted elements. ... 

See Stephen G. Brush, Dynamics of Theory Change The Role of Predictions, Proceedings of the biennial meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association (1994), 133-145. 

The discovery of periodicity in the properties of the elements and its connection to their atomic weights is one of the most important advances in nineteenth-century chemistry. This chapter will consider the tables of John Newlands (1837-1898) and William Odling (1829-1921), which preceded that of Dmitrii Ivanovich Mendeleev (1834-1907). Mendeleev s table was published in 1869, prior to his being aware of the UK precedents of his tabulation. The major portion of this chapter will extend the ideas advanced by Stephen Brush in The Reception of Mendeleev s Periodic Law in America and Britain but wiU restrict itself to the dissemination of the periodicity concept within the United Kingdom. Th is will be monitored by recording its appearances in textbooks and examination papers, and in a wider context, by extracting data from Google Books. 

See Stephen G. Brush, The Reception of Mendeleevs Periodic Law in America and Britain, Isis 87 (1996) 595-628, and Ludmilla Nekoval-Chikhaoui, Diffusion de la classification periodique de Mendeleiev en France entre 1869 et 1934 (PhD diss.. University of Paris, 1994). See also the chapter by Garcia Belmar and Bensaude-Vincent in this book. On the earlier circulation in Russia, see the chapter by Masanori Kaji and Nathan Brooks in this volume and his previous paper, Mendeleev s Discovery of the Periodic Law The Origin and the Reception, Foundations of Chemistry 5 (2003) 189-214. Many chapters in this book offer similar conclusions for other countries. 

---