At my blog Ether Wave Propaganda, I posted in May on an ongoing dispute between Indiana historian Bill Newman and Flinders U. philosopher Alan Chalmers over the “chymistry” of Robert Boyle (1627-1691) and its relationship to his vision of experimental philosophy. These were well-read at the time — by EWP’s standards anyway — and may be of interest to some new readers in this venue. See Part 1 (on my non-expert outsider’s perception of the historical relationship between natural philosophy and early modern chymistry) and Part 2 (which examines the dispute’s contours in terms of conflicts between a demarcationist philosopher’s perspective versus the intellectual historian’s; it also suggests many historians who do not attend to the particulars of intellectual history unwittingly replicate a philosophical empiricist’s position, possibly more on which anon).
Those interested in the early modern relationship between chymistry and natural philosophy will be interested in Cassino historian Antonio Clericuzio’s new article in Science in Context, “‘Sooty Empiricks’ and Natural Philosophers: The Status of Chemistry in the Seventeenth Century” (paywall protected). I have not yet had a chance to peruse it, but will offer impressions when opportunity permits.