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.
In <strong>the</strong> late 19th century <strong>the</strong>re were two conflicting interpretations <strong>of</strong> cathode rays. According to <strong>the</strong> first view, mainly endorsed by<br />
British physicists, <strong>the</strong>y were beams <strong>of</strong> charged particles. The alternative view, favoured by German physicists, was that <strong>the</strong>y were ano<strong>the</strong>r<br />
species <strong>of</strong> waves in <strong>the</strong> e<strong>the</strong>r. In that context, Walter Kaufmann (<strong>18</strong>71-1947) reported, in early <strong>18</strong>97, his measurements <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> magnetic<br />
deflection <strong>of</strong> cathode rays. He pointed out that, on <strong>the</strong> assumption that cathode rays were charged particles, those measurements<br />
implied that <strong>the</strong>ir charge to mass ratio was three orders <strong>of</strong> magnitude larger than <strong>the</strong> corresponding ratio <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ions <strong>of</strong> electrolysis.<br />
Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong> that ratio depended nei<strong>the</strong>r on <strong>the</strong> chemical composition <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> gas contained in <strong>the</strong> cathode ray tube nor<br />
on <strong>the</strong> material <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tube’s electrodes. Both <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se implications eliminated <strong>the</strong> possibility that cathode rays were composed <strong>of</strong> electrolytical<br />
ions. Kaufmann <strong>the</strong>n concluded, mistakenly, that <strong>the</strong> identification <strong>of</strong> cathode rg at atomic exchange during <strong>the</strong> four year period<br />
leading up 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<br />
<strong>the</strong> wake <strong>of</strong> Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” address <strong>of</strong> December 1953, AERI was designed to provide South Korea with a cheap,<br />
efficient source <strong>of</strong> energy, power which would subsequently drive <strong>the</strong> nation’s industrial and economic recovery. The collaborative relationship<br />
between American researchers and <strong>the</strong>ir Korean counterparts was complicated, however, by tensions centering on: (1) <strong>the</strong> proper<br />
approach to be taken toward nuclear power (research-based versus industrial), (2) <strong>the</strong> relationship between <strong>the</strong> construction <strong>of</strong> new<br />
facilities and <strong>the</strong> larger Korean university community, and (3) <strong>the</strong> type and length <strong>of</strong> training necessary to undertake an atomic energy<br />
program. If <strong>the</strong> successful start-up <strong>of</strong> South Korea’s first research reactor in 1962, along with its first commercial reactor in 1977,<br />
remains in part a legacy <strong>of</strong> this early period iy those very results that were supposed to falsify its precursor.<br />
Ka<strong>the</strong>rine Arens, University <strong>of</strong> Texas, <strong>Austin</strong> (k.arens@mail.utexas.edu)<br />
Saturday, 20-Nov-04, 1:30 - 3:10 PM - Hill Country C<br />
Mach, Haeckel, and <strong>the</strong> Rejection <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> “Two Cultures”: Popular <strong>Science</strong> as Epistemology in German-Language <strong>Science</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
(Last) Fin de siècle<br />
At <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 19th and start <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 20th centuries, Austria and Germany attained international visibility in physics, chemistry, biology,<br />
and many technical fields. This presentation will take on a less familiar side to this preeminence: a large corpus <strong>of</strong> popular science<br />
writing by major scientists aimed at <strong>the</strong> German-speaking public. Using as case studies <strong>the</strong> Popular-Scientific Lectures (<strong>18</strong>86, 4th ed. 1916)<br />
and Knowledge and Error (1905) by (physicist, <strong>18</strong>38-1916) and The Riddle <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Universe at <strong>the</strong> Close <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nineteenth Century (<strong>18</strong>99) by Ernst<br />
Haeckel (evolutionary biologist, <strong>18</strong>34-1919), this presentation will argue for <strong>the</strong> significance <strong>of</strong> such texts not simply as publicity for <strong>the</strong><br />
pure sciences, but as a significant force in establishing science as a dominant social paradigm for scientists and lay people alike. Not<br />
popularized in <strong>the</strong> common sense <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> term, <strong>the</strong>se texts are at pains to present cognitively accessible thought experiments to <strong>the</strong> general<br />
public, and thus to bridge <strong>the</strong> general world view <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> era and <strong>the</strong> specific scientific world view <strong>of</strong> front-end <strong>the</strong>ory. Thus Mach’s<br />
famous thought experiments are recast as observations <strong>of</strong> historical and natural phenomena, to make <strong>the</strong> case by examples that <strong>the</strong> point<br />
<strong>of</strong> view <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> observer and <strong>the</strong> anthropocentric rationality <strong>of</strong>ten imposed on analytic frames may need to be questioned. Haeckel takes<br />
on a more difficult project in evolutionary biology, teaching through <strong>the</strong> Riddle <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Universe how biological evidence <strong>of</strong> historical<br />
process ought to be thought through — including in a speculative mode that tacitly combats what today might be called creationism.<br />
Such very visible texts, I argue, create a Central European environment for science that integrates ethical-social considerations (and questions<br />
<strong>of</strong> historical hermeneutics) with <strong>the</strong> pure sciences, and creates a very different epistemological claim for science and scientific <strong>the</strong>ory-building.<br />
The most specific results <strong>of</strong> this approach are a rejection <strong>of</strong> a purely ma<strong>the</strong>matical approach to modeling <strong>of</strong> natural<br />
processes and an insistence on <strong>the</strong> physicality and cultural position <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> observer, ra<strong>the</strong>r than an assertion <strong>of</strong> neutrality. Thus, just as<br />
Canguilhem argued for early modern science, and as Roger Caillois did for species biology in <strong>the</strong> twentieth century, Mach and Haeckel<br />
take <strong>the</strong>ir sciences as fundamental determined by social processes ra<strong>the</strong>r than as <strong>the</strong>ory in its own right, rejecting <strong>the</strong> very idea <strong>of</strong> “two<br />
cultures” and <strong>the</strong> competition for resources, status, and validity which that notion is predicated on.<br />
Jean-Francois Auger, Universite Louis-Pasteur, Strasbourg (jean-francois.auger@gersulp.u-strasbg.fr)<br />
Friday, 19-Nov-04, 1:30 - 3:10 PM - Hill Country C<br />
The Cultural Meaning <strong>of</strong> Leon Provancher’s Entomological Collections, <strong>18</strong>77-1980<br />
At <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ninetieth century, <strong>the</strong> French Canadian naturalist and priest, Leon Provancher, built entomological collections containing<br />
more than one thousand previously unknown species <strong>of</strong> hymenoptera. Still in existence today, <strong>the</strong> collections are consulted by<br />
entomologists for research in systematic. In this paper we explore how <strong>the</strong> cultural meaning <strong>of</strong> this scientific artefact has been shaped<br />
by scientific, educational and political considerations. Provancher built insect collections according to his fixist and anti-evolutionist<br />
beliefs. He wanted to contemplate God’s creation, publish insect descriptions in his journal, Le Naturaliste canadien, and exchange correspondence<br />
with North-American natural historians. Provancher’s first collection was given for reference purposes to <strong>the</strong> Quebec<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture in <strong>18</strong>77, and <strong>the</strong> second was bought for courses in natural history by <strong>the</strong> College <strong>of</strong> Levis in <strong>18</strong>88. After <strong>the</strong><br />
naturalist’s death in <strong>18</strong>92, a third collection was acquired by <strong>the</strong> Quebec Museum <strong>of</strong> Public Instruction. The collections were used as<br />
teaching tools for college students in natural history and for reference purposes in economic entomology by civil servants. The two collections<br />
possessed by <strong>the</strong> government were finally brought toge<strong>the</strong>r in <strong>the</strong> Provincial Museum in 1933. They were used by American<br />
entomologists for work in systematic and were visited by Quebec City citizens during public exhibitions. The collections had been physically<br />
altered when <strong>the</strong> type specimens were put into separate drawers by <strong>the</strong> curator, according to <strong>the</strong> international standard code in<br />
entomology. When <strong>the</strong> museum began to specialize its collection in <strong>the</strong> arts, <strong>the</strong> entomological collections were transferred to <strong>the</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Biology at Laval University in 1962 according to an agreement with de Quebec Department <strong>of</strong> Culture. They were used<br />
to train entomologists in master’s and doctoral degrees. The remaining collection was kept by <strong>the</strong> College <strong>of</strong> Levis in its museum <strong>of</strong> his-