Editing Antoine Lavoisier (section)

===Chemical revolution and opposition===
Lavoisier is commonly cited as a central contributor to the [[chemical revolution]]. His precise measurements and meticulous keeping of balance sheets throughout his experiment were vital to the widespread acceptance of the law of conservation of mass. His introduction of new terminology, a binomial system modeled after that of [[Carl Linnaeus|Linnaeus]], also helps to mark the dramatic changes in the field which are referred to generally as the chemical revolution. Lavoisier encountered much opposition in trying to change the field, especially from British phlogistic scientists. Joseph Priestley, [[Richard Kirwan]], [[James Keir]], and [[William Nicholson (chemist)|William Nicholson]], among others, argued that quantification of substances did not imply conservation of mass.<ref name=":0">{{cite journal|author=Golinski, Jan |title=Precision instruments and the demonstrative order of proof in Lavoisier's chemistry|url=https://paperzz.com/doc/8733716/precision-instruments-and-the-demonstrative-order-of-proo...|journal= Osiris|year=1994|pages=30–47|jstor=301997|volume=9|doi=10.1086/368728|s2cid=95978870}}</ref> Rather than reporting factual evidence, opposition claimed Lavoisier was misinterpreting the implications of his research. One of Lavoisier's allies, [[Jean-Baptiste Biot|Jean Baptiste Biot]], wrote of Lavoisier's methodology, "one felt the necessity of linking accuracy in experiments to rigor of reasoning."<ref name=":0" /> His opposition argued that precision in experimentation did not imply precision in inferences and reasoning. Despite opposition, Lavoisier continued to use precise instrumentation to convince other chemists of his conclusions, often results to five to eight decimal places. Nicholson, who estimated that only three of these decimal places were meaningful, stated: 
{{blockquote|If it be denied that these results are pretended to be true in the last figures, I must beg leave to observe, that these long rows of figures, which in some instances extend to a thousand times the nicety of experiment, serve only to exhibit a parade which true science has no need of: and, more than this, that when the real degree of accuracy in experiments is thus hidden from our contemplation, we are somewhat disposed to doubt whether the ''exactitude scrupuleuse'' of the experiments be indeed such as to render the proofs ''de l'ordre demonstratif''.<ref>Kirwan, ''Essay on Phlogiston'', viii, xi.</ref>}}