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.
<strong>the</strong>se diverse materials, Hardy constructed for his readership a complex new cosmological myth that expressed his perception <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
personal, social, and philosophical implications <strong>of</strong> his culture’s “place in <strong>the</strong> universe.” Hardy’s “novel” universe <strong>of</strong>fers useful insights<br />
into <strong>the</strong> formal possibilities <strong>of</strong> a more overtly literary history <strong>of</strong> astronomy that richly resonate with current trends expressed by <strong>the</strong><br />
publication <strong>of</strong> such works as Dava Sobel’s Longitude and Galileo’s Daughter, as well as Neal Stephenson’s Quicksilver.<br />
Robert Goulding, University <strong>of</strong> Notre Dame (Goulding.2@nd.edu)<br />
Friday, 19-Nov-04, 9:00 - 11:45 AM - Texas Ballroom VI<br />
How can Alexandria be Brought to Oxford? Henry Savile’s <strong>History</strong> <strong>of</strong> Ma<strong>the</strong>matics and Institutional Reform.<br />
Henry Savile’s 1570 lectures at Oxford on <strong>the</strong> Almagest were prefaced by a vastly detailed history <strong>of</strong> ma<strong>the</strong>matics and astronomy, stretching<br />
from Adam to Ptolemy himself. Savile’s principal (though unacknowledged) source for his history was Petrus Ramus’s Prooemium<br />
ma<strong>the</strong>maticum <strong>of</strong> 1567, which he supplemented by his own wide reading and study <strong>of</strong> manuscripts he found in Oxford. Although indebted<br />
to Ramus, Savile’s understanding <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> nature and purpose <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sciences is entirely opposed to that <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> French educator. I<br />
examine how Savile reconstrued Ramus’s historical researches in order to advance his own <strong>the</strong>oretical and educational goals.<br />
Joel Hagen, Radford University (jhagen@runet.edu)<br />
Thursday, <strong>18</strong>-Nov-04, 5:00 - 7:00 PM - Texas Ballroom II<br />
Fossil Proteins, Chemical Paleogenetics, and <strong>the</strong> Early Development <strong>of</strong> Molecular Systematics<br />
During <strong>the</strong> early 1960s Nobel laureate Linus Pauling and his younger colleague Emile Zuckerkandl proposed a field <strong>of</strong> study that <strong>the</strong>y<br />
dubbed “chemical paleogenetics.” This new field would supplement, and in some cases supplant, traditional paleontology by bringing<br />
<strong>the</strong> rigorous tools <strong>of</strong> biochemistry to bear on <strong>the</strong> study <strong>of</strong> extinct life forms. It would also require advanced methods drawn from computer<br />
science and computational biology to test amino acid sequences for homology, construct hypo<strong>the</strong>tical phylogenetic trees, and evaluate<br />
alternative trees statistically. Although <strong>the</strong> term “paleogenetics” didn’t catch on, <strong>the</strong> analogy between proteins and fossils was widely<br />
employed during <strong>the</strong> early years <strong>of</strong> molecular evolution and molecular systematics. By reconstructing phylogenies <strong>of</strong> proteins and<br />
<strong>the</strong> organisms that possessed <strong>the</strong>m, practitioners hoped to infer <strong>the</strong> structure and function <strong>of</strong> ancestral molecules. This, <strong>the</strong>y hoped,<br />
would lead to a better understanding <strong>of</strong> extinct species and might even have practical applications for medicine. This paper examines<br />
<strong>the</strong> tension between traditional natural history and paleogenetics during <strong>the</strong> 1960s. It explores <strong>the</strong> promises and limitations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> analogy<br />
between fossils and macromolecules, <strong>the</strong> methods <strong>of</strong> representing phylogenetic relationships among related proteins, methods <strong>of</strong><br />
statistically evaluating alternative phylogenetic hypo<strong>the</strong>ses, and <strong>the</strong> implications <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se methods for <strong>the</strong> early development <strong>of</strong> what has<br />
become a burgeoning field <strong>of</strong> molecular systematics.<br />
Alexander J. Hahn, University <strong>of</strong> Notre Dame (hahn.1@nd.edu)<br />
Saturday, 19-Nov-04, 3:30 - 5:30 PM - Big Bend A, B, & C<br />
Discorsi and Experiment in Conflict: Galileo’s Folio 116v and his Resolution <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Mirandum Paradox<br />
It is generally accepted that <strong>the</strong> time in Padua from 1604 to 1610 is <strong>the</strong> primary period <strong>of</strong> formation <strong>of</strong> Galileo’s final account <strong>of</strong><br />
motion. Leaving behind his earlier attempts (still based on <strong>the</strong> concept <strong>of</strong> impetus and its consequences), he develops <strong>the</strong> axiomatic <strong>the</strong>ory<br />
<strong>of</strong> uniformly accelerated motion that would comprise <strong>the</strong> discussions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> third and fourth days <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> “Discors” published in<br />
1638. With this account Galileo establishes himself as <strong>the</strong> discoverer <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> fundamental facts and insights <strong>of</strong> what would<br />
later become <strong>the</strong> classical <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> motion in <strong>the</strong> hands <strong>of</strong> Newton. In particular, Galileo realizes that horizontal motion is conserved,<br />
elevates uniformly accelerated motion to a status <strong>of</strong> central importance, conceptualizes it as an amalgam <strong>of</strong> a horizontal and a vertical<br />
component, and derives <strong>the</strong> parabolic trajectory (at least in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> a horizontal projection). A matter <strong>of</strong> considerable discussion by<br />
historians <strong>of</strong> science is <strong>the</strong> role that experiments played in Galileo’s process <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> discovery and confirmation <strong>of</strong> his insights. Some<br />
historians have asserted that Galileo generally trusts <strong>the</strong> conclusion <strong>of</strong> a pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> a pro<strong>of</strong> that resides within a consistent <strong>the</strong>oretical<br />
framework - more than an outcome <strong>of</strong> an experiment that deviates from such a conclusion. It is <strong>the</strong> primary purpose <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> proposed<br />
paper to illustrate this point with a comparative study <strong>of</strong> Galileo’s folio 116v and <strong>the</strong> “Mirandum Paradox.” For a related article, see<br />
Hahn, Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 56 (2002), 339-361.<br />
Michael Cory Halliburton, Independent Scholar (mhallibu@midsouth.rr.com)<br />
Friday, 19-Nov-04, 1:30 - 3:10 PM - Hill Country D<br />
Paul Kammerer, Immortal Suicide<br />
While alive, Paul Kammerer was a controversial figure. Since his suicide in 1926, he has remained controversial and lived on as a symbol—as<br />
one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> undead in o<strong>the</strong>r people’s ideological wars. Arthur Koestler used Kammerer’s Neo-Lamarckianism as an example <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> methods that materialistic Darwinists would use to destroy <strong>the</strong>ir enemies. Creationists have also found a niche for Kammerer in<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir contemporary struggle against everything evolutionary: Kammerer’s failure proves <strong>the</strong> impossibility <strong>of</strong> any alternatives to<br />
Darwinian evolution. However, <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> Kammerer still has historical interest. The morphologists at <strong>the</strong> University <strong>of</strong> Vienna and<br />
Hans Przibram’s “Vivarium” in <strong>the</strong> Prater still had <strong>the</strong>ir evolutionary options open. In <strong>the</strong> early years <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> twentieth century anything