Abstracts of the History of Science Society 2004 Austin Meeting 18 ...
Abstracts of the History of Science Society 2004 Austin Meeting 18 ...
Abstracts of the History of Science Society 2004 Austin Meeting 18 ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Mioara Deac, University <strong>of</strong> Notre Dame (mioara.deac.1@nd.edu)<br />
Friday, 19-Nov-04, 1:30 - 3:10 PM - Texas Ballroom V<br />
Psychology, Vision, and <strong>the</strong> Late Nineteenth-Century Modernist Project<br />
My paper is an exploration <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> connections between <strong>the</strong> late nineteenth-century ‘psychology <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> unconscious’ and <strong>the</strong> project <strong>of</strong><br />
aes<strong>the</strong>tic modernism. Drawing from <strong>the</strong> Kantian <strong>the</strong>me <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sublime, J. F. Lyotard has argued that modernity strove to make visible<br />
something that could be conceived but could not be seen. The endeavor <strong>of</strong> ‘visualizing <strong>the</strong> unseen’ was a pervasive <strong>the</strong>me in psychology,<br />
art, and physical sciences in <strong>the</strong> late nineteenth century: Symbolist art tried to render visible ‘<strong>the</strong> optical unconscious’, while <strong>the</strong><br />
newly discovered X-rays, as well as various photo-chemical techniques, tried to visualize a ‘previously unseen’ world through scientific<br />
methods. Also, in <strong>the</strong> last two decades <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> nineteenth century, <strong>the</strong> concept <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> unconscious diffused from <strong>the</strong> philosophical realm<br />
into <strong>the</strong> psychological conceptualizations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> human mind, becoming by <strong>the</strong> turn <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> century one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> master metaphors in<br />
psychiatry. The speculative approach <strong>of</strong> Schopenhauer and von Hartmann was woven into a new cloth: what was unprecedented in<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>18</strong>80s was <strong>the</strong> attempt to ‘visualize’ <strong>the</strong> unconscious through psychological research. I examine <strong>the</strong> experimental and clinical investigation<br />
<strong>of</strong> phenomena such as hypnotism, hysteria, and hallucinations, in <strong>the</strong> psychological work <strong>of</strong> Alfred Binet, Harlow Gale, Morton<br />
Prince, Pierre Janet, Frederick Myers, and Frank Podmore. I relate <strong>the</strong>se trends in psychology to <strong>the</strong> ‘yearning for visualizability’ and<br />
<strong>the</strong> desire to ‘stabilize’ metaphysics, which characterized also <strong>the</strong> aes<strong>the</strong>tic modernity in <strong>the</strong> last two decades <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> nineteenth century.<br />
Michael R Dietrich, Dartmouth College (michael.dietrich@dartmouth.edu)<br />
Friday, 19-Nov-04, 3:30 - 5:30 PM - Texas Ballroom III<br />
Reviving <strong>the</strong> Hopeful Monster: Richard Goldschmidt and Saltational Evolution<br />
Beginning in 1932, Richard Goldschmidt championed a saltational <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> evolution that integrated developmental biology, evolutionary<br />
biology, and genetics. While Goldschmidt’s efforts won him a reputation as a “scientific heretic,” his approach was not forgotten.<br />
In fact, a small but growing group <strong>of</strong> biologists have maintained an interest in Goldschmidt’s ideas and approach. This interest in<br />
Goldschmidt’s saltational ideas <strong>of</strong> hopeful monsters and developmental macromutations has become even more pronounced during <strong>the</strong><br />
recent surge <strong>of</strong> research in evo-devo. In this paper I will survey Goldschmidt’s saltational ideas and <strong>the</strong>ir subsequent fate in <strong>the</strong> biological<br />
community. I will argue that contemporary researchers who invoke Goldschmidt’s saltational ideas do not seem to be trading on<br />
his reputation as a heretic in <strong>the</strong> same way as had earlier “neo-Goldschmidtians.” The current revival <strong>of</strong> Goldschmidt’s views does not<br />
indicate that his ideas have been proven correct. Ra<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> invocation <strong>of</strong> his work is no longer intended to shock, but to mark a reemerging<br />
field <strong>of</strong> research.<br />
John Paul DiMoia, Princeton University (jdimoia@princeton.edu)<br />
Friday, 19-Nov-04, 9:00 - 11:45 AM - Hill Country B<br />
Teaching <strong>the</strong> Atom: AERI and <strong>the</strong> Origins <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> South Korean Nuclear Program, 1955-1959<br />
Following <strong>the</strong> Korean War (1950-1953), South Korea’s nascent scientific institutions and universities attempted to recover from <strong>the</strong> damage<br />
sustained during <strong>the</strong> previous three years. Under a commission from <strong>the</strong> Foreign Operations Administration, <strong>the</strong> University <strong>of</strong><br />
Minnesota undertook an intensive program <strong>of</strong> technical assistance with Seoul National University, <strong>the</strong> nation’s premier institution <strong>of</strong><br />
higher education, focusing initially on providing training in three critical areas: agriculture, engineering, and medicine. Amidst <strong>the</strong>se difficult<br />
circumstances, Korean atomic scientists began to undertake a series <strong>of</strong> ambitious new projects, requesting access to technical training<br />
and American atomic energy facilities as early as 1955. A number <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se researchers would subsequently attend <strong>the</strong> International<br />
School <strong>of</strong> Nuclear <strong>Science</strong> and Engineering at Argonne National Laboratory and <strong>the</strong> Oak Ridge Institute <strong>of</strong> Nuclear <strong>Science</strong>. This<br />
paper thus examines <strong>the</strong> Korean-American scientific relationship by looking at atomic exchange during <strong>the</strong> four year period leading up<br />
to <strong>the</strong> establishment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Atomic Energy Research Institute (AERI), a body comparable to <strong>the</strong> AEC. Established in <strong>the</strong> wake <strong>of</strong><br />
Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” address <strong>of</strong> December 1953, AERI was designed to provide South Korea with a cheap, efficient source<br />
<strong>of</strong> energy, power which would subsequently drive <strong>the</strong> nation’s industrial and economic recovery. The collaborative relationship between<br />
American researchers and <strong>the</strong>ir Korean counterparts was complicated, however, by tensions centering on: (1) <strong>the</strong> proper approach to<br />
be taken toward nuclear power (research-based versus industrial), (2) <strong>the</strong> relationship between <strong>the</strong> construction <strong>of</strong> new facilities and <strong>the</strong><br />
larger Korean university community, and (3) <strong>the</strong> type and length <strong>of</strong> training necessary to undertake an atomic energy program. If <strong>the</strong><br />
successful start-up <strong>of</strong> South Korea’s first research reactor in 1962, along with its first commercial reactor in 1977, remains in part a legacy<br />
<strong>of</strong> this early period in <strong>the</strong> Korean-American collaborative relationship, South Korea has never<strong>the</strong>less pursued its own course in<br />
emphasizing this source <strong>of</strong> energy: nuclear power currently provides an estimated 39% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> nation’s energy needs at a time when<br />
many o<strong>the</strong>r countries have abandoned it and have instead sought alternative sources <strong>of</strong> power.<br />
Michael Eckert, Deutsches Museum (Munich) (m.eckert@deutsches-museum.de)<br />
Saturday, 20-Nov-04, 3:30 - 5:30 PM - Hill Country B<br />
The DPG and “Aryan Physics”<br />
After <strong>the</strong> war, <strong>the</strong> German Physical <strong>Society</strong> used <strong>the</strong> successful fight against “Aryan Physics” as an example <strong>of</strong> how <strong>the</strong> society had resisted<br />
National Socialism. This paper examines <strong>the</strong>se claims critically, shedding light on <strong>the</strong> conflict over “Aryan Physics,” <strong>the</strong> conduct <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> society under National Socialism, and <strong>the</strong> postwar apologia.