Research Paper Example: The Scientific Revolution of the 20th Century

In this paper, I will discuss whether there was a scientific revolution or not in the early 20th century. I will take two opposing points of view from articles written by Wray and Scerri, respectively. Moreover, how I agree with Wray that there was a scientific revolution in the early 20th century.

The first point of view that will be discussed is that there was a scientific revolution. Wray believes that there was a scientific revolution surrounding the periodic table in the 20th century. The atomic number replaced the atomic weights as the main categorization. This change led to discovering isotopes and a periodic table without any known anomalies, contrary to the atomic weights periodic table. This exchange in how the periodic table is organized is a revolution, even though there was no substantial change in the actual table. The revolution part was how the thought process of the elements as they are described and the discovery of isotopes. The isotopes explained for instance why iodine and tellurium could not be separated as expected since their atomic weights were different. The isotopes theory could explain anomalies such as why the weight of iodine and tellurium are different. (Wray 2018)

However, Scerri claims that the change that occurred was not nearly as significant as Wray describes the exchange to atomic numbers. Scerri claims that there was no significant change in the placement of the elements in the periodic table or any change in the theory but rather just a change from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics. Furthermore, Scerri states that there were not adequate anomalies to say that it was necessary to change the periodic table. The periodic table was already altered to fit the atomic numbers. However, it did not have an explanation for why the periodic table needed to be arranged that way. After all, it was just a theoretical change and not a revolution in chemistry. According to Scerri, there was no crisis or resistance to the change, so it did not follow a scientific revolution from how Kuhn represents a revolution. (Scerri 2021)

The reason I resonate more with Wray’s point of view is that there is a lack of the focal point introduced by Wray in Scerri's criticism. Furthermore, Scerri glances over how important isotopes are and only focuses on the switch from atomic weights to atomic numbers. Scerri also disregards the revolution even though the change fulfills two out of four characteristics Kuhn established regarding if something is a scientific revolution. Altogether that is why I tend to agree more with Wray. If Scerri wants all the four characteristics fulfilled, then he is right that the switch in the periodic table cannot be defined as a revolution. (Kuhn 1962/2012, 154-158) The two characteristics I believe are fulfilled are it is a simple description and that it will/has helped chemists/scientists with future discoveries. Furthermore, I think that achieving two out of four requirements for the revolution, set by Kuhn, should be considered a scientific revolution. Both Wray and Scerri state that there was no real change in the placements of the elements, which is true. However, the way scientists think of the elements has changed, and these changes have made the chemistry field faster at making discoveries since there are not infinite new elements to discover and to memorize all the different elements placements and weights. The thought process also changes more than Scerri claims. There was a change in focus in terms of how the periodic table was constructed even this small change has made a big difference. The simple and more understandable periodic table is one of the main parts of chemistry today since it shows a consistent placement of the elements with no exceptions. 

The reason for Scerri to undermine Wray’s claim that there was a revolution is that there is a different focus on what is the most important aspect in this discovery. This difference makes me believe more in Wray’s claims though I can see what Scerri is trying to explain. It is the discovery of isotopes that makes it a revolution, compared to the actual change from atomic weight to atomic numbers. If it was just the change from the weight of the element to the number of protons in the elements, then I can see why it is not nearly as revolutionary. However, there are the isotopes which are the part that make it revolutionary since it made it simpler and explained the anomalies that there were. 

In conclusion, the focus of Scerri is on the actual change in the parodic table while Wray has more focus on the isotopes. Isotopes make the change a scientific revolution. The change in the periodic table was minor if the focus was only on the placements of the elements. The most crucial changes, which the switch from atomic weight to atomic number has resulted in, is the thought process of how the elements work concerning one another and most importantly the discovery of isotopes.