It;s an emlimination. If it were a reduction, there would still be phlogiston as is there is still heat.
The reductive explanation of combustion did not need phlogiston as a posit, so it was eliminated. Note the difference
beteen phlogiston, a posit, and heat/​combustion, which are prima-facie phenomena. Nobody was trying to
reductivley explain phlogiston, they were trying to explain heat with it.
It;s an emlimination. If it were a reduction, there would still be phlogiston as is there is still heat. The reductive explanation of combustion did not need phlogiston as a posit, so it was eliminated. Note the difference beteen phlogiston, a posit, and heat/​combustion, which are prima-facie phenomena. Nobody was trying to reductivley explain phlogiston, they were trying to explain heat with it.
I disagree.
Please, just read this.