Spekulation und Physik im 18. Jahrhundert. Lomonossow,Kant und Lavoisier in Sachen Erhaltungsgesetz und Äther

As far as the law of preservation of matter and the existence of ether are concerned, Kant, Lomonossow and Lavoisier had very similar views. Nevertheless, according to historical evidence they worked out their theories never taking each other's results for granted. Whereas it is well known that Lavoisier did not base his experiments on the former ones by Lomonossow, it has been argued that Kant based his philosophy of nature on Lavoisier's experiments. I try to show here, that Kant had his philosophy of nature done, prior to Lavoisier's Elements of Chemistry. Further that the only one to have been able to influence Kant was not Lavoisier but Lomonossow. But Kant never mentioned Lomonossow. There is strong evidence that the similarity of views in Kant, Lomonossow and Lavoisier is not due to any kind of interaction between them. This also holds of the (same) mistakes, which Kant and Lomonossow made. The only substantial difference is that Kant thought, that some laws of nature may be logically inferred without experiments.     

Women's translations of scientific texts in the 18th century: a case study of Marie-Anne Lavoisier

In the 18th century, many outstanding translations of scientific texts were done by women. These women were important mediators of science. However, I would like to raise the issue that the 'selection,' which is the process by which intellectual women chose to conduct translation works, and those 'selections' made by male translators, would not be made at the same level. For example, émilie du Chatelet (1706-1749), the only French translator of Newton's "Principia," admitted her role as participating in important work, but, still, she was not perfectly satisfied with the position. For du Chatelet, the role as a translator was only an option under the current conditions that a female was denied the right to be a creator by society. In the case of Marie-Anne Lavoisier (1743-1794), like du Chatelet, we find an acute feeling in her mind that translation was not the work of creators. Because of her respect toward creative geniuses and her knowledge about the practical situation and concrete results of scientific studies, the translation works done by Marie-Anne Lavoisier were excellent. At the same time, the source of this excellence appears paradoxical at a glance: this excellence of translation was related closely with her low self-estimation in the field of science. Hence, we should not forget the gender problem that is behind such translations of scientific works done by women in that era. Such a possibility was a ray of light that was grasped by females, the sign of a gender that was eliminated from the center of scientific study due to social systems and norms and one of the few valuable opportunities to let people know of her own existence in the field of science.