{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024906600249066, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00311332503113325, 'mean_word_length': 4.822463768115942, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Lavoisier's Theory of Acidity

JAVOISIER'S OXYGEN THEORY was from the beginning as much a theory of acidity as a theory of combustion. Yet, with few exceptions,' this aspect of the theory has been passed over. Although the preoccupation of historians with combustion is understandable, one of the obvious reasons for neglect of the other aspect may be described as embarrassment. Traditionally those who, over the past 150 years, have discussed Lavoisier's ideas on acidity have regarded them as unfortunate, and the very etymology of the term oxygen (oxus = "acid," geinomai = "I engender") has disconcerted admirers of Lavoisier and historians of science wishing to judge the eighteenthcentury French chemist by modern standards. It is little comfort to such historians that few modern chemists learn Greek. I cannot agree with Partington and others2 who can only see the theory as a "major mistake" and who refuse to regard it as a contribution to chemistry. In many respects it gave a satisfactory account of the chemistry of the time. Only hindsight enables us to condemn it. It was a stage in the development of modern chemistry; in a very limited sense it can be shown that it was not "wrong," but even where it was, this provided the next generation with a starting point for a better theory. Lavoisier himself criticized those scientific authors who, he said, enlarge their books by giving the historical background to their discoveries.3 Such an attitude has left to historians the task of reconstructing the development of his ideas. In this paper I shall attempt to answer three main questions: