Talk:Elizabeth Fulhame

Biased with an Agenda
This article claims that Elizabeth Fulhame "invented" catalysis before Berzelius "and Buchner" (the latter has no role anyway in the discovery of catalysis). It claims:
 * "Her theoretical work on catalysis was "a major step in the history of chemistry",[13] predating both Jöns Jakob Berzelius and Eduard Buchner."

The claim and the statement "...theoretical work on catalysis was a major step in the history of chemistry..." is based on an article (by Keith J. Laidler and Athel Cornish-Bowden) which spans 4 pages and can be read by anyone interested by following the link given in the citation. It is obvious that that contribution is extremely biased and following some political agenda in attempting to rewrite the history of chemistry. You can call it "fake history". The evidence presented in that 4 pages article that Fulhame "invented" the concept of catalysis is absolutely unconvincing and actually shows that the authors have not understood the concept of catalysis (as opposed to a stoichiometric reaction, or a solvent effect). The simple fact that the authors cite "Buchner" as a key figure for catalysis shows what little they understand of the topic. Maybe they mixed him up with Ostwald? Leidler/Cornish-Bowden cite a statement from Fulhame's book:
 * "to show that the hydrogen of water is the only substance, that restores oxygenated bodies to their combustible state; and that water is the only source of the oxygen, which oxygenates combustible bodies."

and then they boldly write:
 * "In modern terms, we can interpret this as an expression of the rather extreme view that all oxidation-reduction reactions require water as a catalyst.

Which is clearly wrong, since the statement of Fulhame obviously relates to stoichiometric reactions of metal oxides with hydrogen (and of metals with water, but that statement is wrong anyway), and is essentially following the view of Lavoisier who died in the year Fulhames book was published. There are other articles on Fulhame's work and claims of her "theory of catalysis", but clearly the concept of catalysis was invented later and was only applied to her work with hindsight. In any case her theories on the necessity of water in reductions of metal oxides or of oxidations of metals are not correct and the modern foundations of catalysis have been laid out by Ostwald without the need for Fulhams work. You can certainly dig up dozens of theories from the past and try to give them a modern spin just to claim some "important scientist overlooked for whatever reason" to push your political agenda. It is outrageous how politically biased views and obvious misrepresentations of facts by authors who don't have a clue of their topic find their way into Wikipedia.Elhacat (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * o.k., having cooled down a little: if the theory of Fulhame is that any oxidation of metal to oxide requires water (M + H2O = MO + H2), and the resulting H2 is reoxidized to H2O by reaction with oxygen, then I see that there is a catalytic reaction operating, from a modern point of view. Same for the reverse reaction. However, I may state that this theory is factually wrong: metals can very well oxidize without intermediacy of water, and the other way round. Second, to describe a catalytic process does not mean to invent catalysis. In fact, Berzelius did not invent catalysis, but he gave the concept a name and a definition, which allowed others to work with it and make further progress. Observations of catalysis were already in the literature (yeast fermentation being an example) and Berzelius (who was essentially writing a review) compiled various phenomena together under the umbrella of catalysis, thereby making an impact in the history of chemistry. Claiming that Fulhames work was "a major step in the history of chemistry" is simply factually wrong, as clever as she may have been. She did not make an impact. The step forward was Ostwalds work, who revived Berzelius' old term after it had not been overly popular with some leading chemists of the day for decades (Liebig, for example, did not like it). Claims like "she's an important historical figure in the history of chemistry" (see below) are factually wrong. There is an objective history of chemistry; what the person below means is: "in my personal opinion she should have deserved an important role in the history of chemistry... (but unfortunately she didn't)".Elhacat (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * After nearly seven years it's a bit late to reply to this diatribe, but I didn't see it until yesterday. "It is obvious that that contribution is extremely biased and following some political agenda": obvious to you, perhaps, but what political agenda do you think we were following? You do realize, I hope, that Keith Laidler was one of the most distinguished experts on catalysis of the post-war period, with three medals from the Royal Society of Canada, not to mention other honours. As a student of Cyril Hinshelwood and a collaborator with Henry Eyring he had as good a foundation in theoretical chemistry as one could ask for. As you hide your identity under a pseudonym and have no user page (not in 2024, anyway; maybe you had one in 2017), it's hard to judge what qualifications you have for attacking Laidler. In the years that I knew him (towards the end of his life) he never expressed anything one could call extreme bias or a political agenda. Athel cb (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Editing in progress
She's an important historical figure in the history of chemistry. There are quite a few accessible secondary sources on her work. This page is pretty much a stub. I've decided to take on the task of improving it, however I'll be slowly editing to include more the details and sources to summarize her life, work, and contributions to chemistry. Shameran81 (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Elizabeth Fulhame. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303165515/http://humantouchofchemistry.com/elizabeth-fulhame.htm to http://humantouchofchemistry.com/elizabeth-fulhame.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Scottish
I removed the argument that she wasn't known to be Scottish from the article since it seems to be original research. I note that 'Scottish' can mean Scottish born, Scottish ancestry, or Scottish residency. Given that her husband (and presumably her) worked in Scotland for a couple of decades (admittedly the evidence seems to be original research) and was studying medicine there before, Scottish by residency at a minimum is probable. And where did she meet Priestley in October 1793 or did he see some of her results and exchange letters? Erp (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * On that basis would you claim that Emma Darwin was Scottish because her husband studied medicine in Edinburgh? In her case we know a great about her family origins and life, so if you claimed she was Scottish you would be laughed at. Just because we know very little about Elizabeth Fulhame beyond what is in her book doesn't mean we can invent "facts" about her origins without even a trace of evidence.
 * Where did you get "a couple of decades" from? Do you have any evidence for it? If so, please cite it.
 * Incidentally, have you read Elizabeth Fulhame's book? (I have). Do you own a copy of it? (I do). Athel cb (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Emma Darwin has no claim to being Scottish as she never lived there (residency) and her husband to be didn't even complete his medical studies in Edinburgh (and her ancestry was either English or Welsh for quite a few generations before). According to the article Fulhame's husband, Thomas Fulhame, studied medicine in Edinburgh finishing with a degree in 1784 and then was listed in directories of Edinburgh up until 1800 (the directories are primary sources but perhaps inform the secondary sources claiming her as Scottish).  Since she started her research in 1780 and apparently was already married to him at the time or at least in the same circles (he is mentioned as being present then), she was presumably in Edinburgh along with him (during the time he was studying for the degree and then afterwards when he was practicing in the city).  More importantly for the purpose of Wikipedia entries, "The Biographical Dictionary of Scottish Women" published by the University of Edinburgh Press has an entry on her which states her husband enrolled in the University of Edinburgh in 1779-80 and graduated in 1784.  As an academic secondary source (or possibly tertiary) which lists her as Scottish this can be cited in Wikipedia articles as a reliable source. I have not read her book though have skimmed the preface.  Note I would like better sources but the usable ones seem to agree on Scottish. Erp (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * OK. That's better than I expected, and if you want to reinstate the description as Scottish I won't revert it. Athel cb (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)