priestly

[rd14962]

what gave priestly the idea of discovering oxygen?
many thanks

[Loosehead]

What are you talking about. No one has the "Idea" of discovering something. Mmm I'm bored I think I'll just pop out and discover Uranium 238! .

Discovery is about furnishing an explanation for a gap in knowledge of some behaviour or effect that is up to the time not known.

[HWKE]

Joseph Priestley had at first discovered Carbon Dioxide through watched the bubbles coming to the surface in the brewing process. From this he began experimenting to see what gases he could isolate. He noticed that when he heated mercuric oxide, it gave off a gas (oxygen) which he described as having an 'exalted state'. He found that a mouse could live in it for more than an hour and emerge unharmed and that a candle would burn brighter than usual.
He also discovered nitrous oxide, nitrogen dioxide, ammonia and sulphur dioxide.

[rd14962]

Loosehead, this question was posted by my 12 year old daughter for a homework project. Your response was uncalled for. You sound like a complete prick to me, go and sort yourself out.
Meanwhile HWKE came up with a vey helpful amswer.
Perhaps you could go and discover masturbation, it may keep your offensive self away from this site.
Tosser!
Regards
Rupert

[Peter Pedant]

Roop, come on

Lots of us contribute to this site and we know the kids come on in the early evening - some just typing in the h'work question

IN fact the Children ask much better q
wh dont fit in with how adults think, and get Loosehead's smart answers.

I recollect kjc used to mail from Korea, and just about every time, someone would answer in a smart a++e fashion. The kids have to learn that that someone is gonna give a smart answer rather than a sensible one. IF they learn it at 13 rather than 23, it may bebetter, but still painful for you.

ACTUALLY....it is not a bad q

and can be recast as what was the nature of C18 scientific thought...
after all, Priestley used to say, I'm gonna say a prayer, or have a slice of ham,
and since he didnt say, I'm gonna discover oxygen, how did he do it ?

The answer above - he got the idea from brewing

but what idea was that ?

he saw gases coming off and wondered [possibly] if there were others but even that means that he was aware that one gas was not the same as another.

In the 1700s there were two basic ways of scientific exploration, French (speculation) and ENglish (scientific induction)
The Frogs started off with an observation and then thought about the possible causes (speculation) and went out to collect evidence to support the idea.
Examples, Lavoisier, Gay Lussac, Diderot, Champollion -your child will have done all these at school

[Peter Pedant]

so long it got truncated.....

....the English made the observation and then collected evidence and data
and having done that drew conclusions
Bacon started this (he of the frozen chicken experiment) and so it is called baconian induction
Examples, Newton, Hooke (ut tensio sic vis, and so on) huyghens (Dutch) wave theory

Neither one is right or wrong: both worked

So if the above entry is correct then Priestley was using French speculation to make his discovery....

As I said, it is an interesting q
kids ask far more interesting q than adults - no I am not a teacher

and just think ! if you hadnt flamed Looshead [oh there is a clone going around to complicate things] you and your child would not have got far more about eighteenthcentury scientific method than you eva wanted !

P P

kids have to get used to put downs - they will be with us eva more !

[Peter Pedant]

So from the child's pointof view:

French, think and then collect data (=speculation)

English, collect data and then think (= induction)

Wasnt Priestley a non Conformist minister ? Could his free thinking views about God have made it easier to think freely about science ?

Clearly I will have a good night on the internet reseraching this.....

so thanks for the q., Roop's kid.....10/10 !

[Peter Pedant]

what gave Priestley the idea....

A. He got the idea from looking at the breweery vat which was next door to him

or.

A. he got the idea from repeating Scheele's experiments, of heating mercury calx which we call Mercuric Oxide HgO and which gives off oxygen when heated

It seems clear that he didnt know what hehad done at the time, and died in 1806 still supporting the old phlogiston theory which was wrong wrong wrong.

BUT

here he is in 1775
explaining his method
from Experiments and Observations Priestley J 1775.

The contents of this section will furnish a very striking illustration of the truth of a remark, which I have more than once made in my philosophical writings, and which can hardly be too often repeated, as it tends greatly to encourage philosophical investigations; viz. that more is owing to what we call chance, that is, philosophically speaking, to the observation of events arising from unknown causes, than to any proper design, or pre-conceived theory in this business. This does not appear in the works of those who write synthetically upon these subjects; but would, I doubt not, appear very strikingly in those who are the most celebrated for their philosophical acumen, did they write analytically and ingenuously.

[Peter Pedant]

and that was a bit long...
so here is the rest.....

For my own part, I will frankly acknowledge, that, at the commencement of the experiments recited in this section, I was so far from having formed any hypothesis that led to the discoveries I made in pursuing them, that they would have appeared very improbable to me had I been told of them; and when the decisive facts did at length obtrude themselves upon my notice, it was very slowly, and with great hesitation, that I yielded to the evidence of my senses. And yet, when I re-consider the matter, and compare my last discoveries relating to the constitution of the atmosphere with the first, I see the closest and the easiest connexion in the world between them, so as to wonder that I should not have been led immediately from the one to the other. That this was not the case, I attribute to the force of prejudice, which, unknown to ourselves, biasses not only our judgments, properly so called, but even the perceptions of our senses: for we may take a maxim so strongly for granted, that the plainest evidence of sense will not intirely change, and often hardly modify our persuasions; and the more ingenious a man is, the more effectually he is entangled in his errors; his ingenuity only helping him to deceive himself, by evading the force of truth.

[brachiopod]

Still, at least rd14962 has some decent explanations as to Priestley's inspiration behind his discovery - (other than suffocating small rodents for the hell of it.)

rd14962 also has some foul languaged abuse from their own parent to pick through amongst the answers......

Hmmm.... nice.

[rd14962]

Sorry to anyone that found my response too graphic, I wrote it whilst feeling very annoyed and really had no intention of upsetting anyone.
Also (in my defence) I thought that any words that were offensive were edited, I didn't realise I had to do that myself.
So, once again I am sorry.
Regards and thanks for the genuine replies.
Rupert.

[Loosehead]

Well I thought the question was posted by you! How should I know when kids are posting! All that verbal is uncalled for. If you check I've probably been helpful to you in the past but still one slip eh?

I have given 5000 answers here you make a judgement on me based on the fact that your daughter used your account to post a question.

I feel sorry for the kid though having a hot headed tw@t for a dad. Poor girl

Tell you what get here to post under her own user name and I'll answer any amount of homeork questions for her. I'll even answer yours as you clear ly know sod all.