Abstracts of the History of Science Society 2004 Austin Meeting 18 ...

ning of the twentieth century as it was played out in habitat dioramas and other museum exhibits. The evolution of these museum
exhibits not only illustrates the influence of commercial entertainment on representations of the natural world, but also begs scholars
to ask if the ethos and practices of consumption and national conservation are ultimately mutually exclusive.
Jimena Canales, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (jcanales@mit.edu)
Friday, 19-Nov-04, 3:30 - 5:30 PM - Hill Country B
AUTO, NOMOS, and MATIC: Boundaries Between “Impersonal” and “Personal” Representations
In 1929 the experimental psychologist Edwin Boring considered all attempts to eliminate individual errors in scientific measurements
through graphic methods “a paradox” since “there can be no observation without an observer.” Although observation could never be
entirely eliminated from science, Boring acknowledged that the automatic recording and inscription instruments used by scientists significantly
reduced individual differences. During the nineteenth century the French astronomer Jules Janssen, creator of the photographic
revolver and one of the chief advocates of scientific photography, was particularly responsible for establishing new “impersonal”
imaging techniques in science. This paper analyzes the standards that made scientists consider these images “impersonal” and shows
how these criteria were contested by alternative artists (such as Zola) and scientists (such as Trouvelot). These standards, I claim, were
connected to late nineteenth-century efforts to circumscribe the field of art as autonomous. Janssen actively supported the autonomous
movement in the arts, first associated with Romanticism and later with Aestheticism. By looking at the role of scientists in the
autonomous movement in the arts, it will become patent that science and scientists served in the programmatic concealment of the
functions of purportedly purposeless art. Concomitantly, it was precisely in contrast to the alleged autonomy of art that science was
found to speak truthfully about the world.
Cathryn Carson, University of California, Berkeley (clcarson@socrates.berkeley.edu)
Friday, 19-Nov-04, 9:00 - 11:45 AM - Texas Ballroom II
Science, Politics, and Instrumental Reason: Heidegger, Habermas, Heisenberg
If post-WWII German intellectuals agreed on one thing, it was the instrumental character of modern natural science. Science was technological
in essence; it approached the world from the standpoint of manipulation, mastery, and control. This notion did not arise in a
vacuum. Growing from intellectual roots in Nietzsche, Dilthey, and Weber, it was worked out in direct dialogue with contemporary science
and politics. The paired cases of Martin Heidegger and Jürgen Habermas make this context plain. In particular, each played off
the figure of Werner Heisenberg, a dominant actor in both West German science policy and humanistic understandings of science. For
Heidegger and Habermas, Heisenberg came to figure as a last hope for deviation from the modern narrative of instrumentality, as science
placed itself in the service of technological and political power; and then, as he changed and they changed, in strangely parallel
fashion, as the age’s unthinking embodiment instead. The paper explores their exchanges as intellectual history and political history of
science. It seeks to explain how a new political consensus about science, crossing ideological divides, captured German intellectuals by
the 1960s – at the same moment, ironically, as the federal government finally made the leap to a real science policy.
Christopher Carter, Duke University (crc5@duke.edu)
Saturday, 20-Nov-04, 1:30 - 3:10 PM - Texas Ballroom III
Herschel, Humboldt, and Imperial Science
In the nineteenth century, geophysics and empire building developed in tandem, resulting in global science. Those sciences which focus
upon the measurement of geophysical phenomena have come to be known to historians as “Humboldtian” because of the zeal of their
promoter. In 1836, Humboldt challenged the Royal Society to establish observatories in British colonies for such scientific pursuits.
Despite early attempts to carry out this plan, none were successful until the participation of John Herschel. Several elements made
Herschel the ideal individual to carry out Humboldt’s proposed scheme. First, his philosophy of science held that inductive research
had to occur on a vast scale in order to provide the logical necessity for physical laws. Second, his own colonial experiences while
observing the Southern Hemisphere from the Cape Colony had convinced him of the scientific utility of colonial outposts. Finally, his
almost unique position as an aristocrat who had inherited the scientific prestige of his father, famed astronomer William Herschel,
placed him in a position to interact both with members of Britain’s ruling class as well as its scientists. Herschel provided a crucial connection
between philosophical, political and social elements. As a result, empirical science utilized the imperial structure to conduct
research on a worldwide scale. At Herschel’s instigation, colonial observatories were added to the British venture for an Antarctic expedition
known as the Magnetic Crusade. Herschel has often been portrayed as no more than the celebrity spokesman for this project, or
else merely drafted into an existing plan really carried out by others. I argue that Herschel’s influence was necessary not only for the
success of the scientific lobby, but also in shaping the final form of the project. The results of the Crusade were the culmination of
efforts in which Herschel had been involved for years.
David Cassidy, Hofstra University (chmdcc@optonline.net)
Saturday, 20-Nov-04, 1:30 - 3:10 PM - Texas Ballroom II
Militarized Science: J. Robert Oppenheimer as Federal Science Advisor
The stunning practical success of American military research during World War II propelled J. Robert Oppenheimer and a handful of
others like him to national prominence as statesmen of science at the highest levels of government and culture, casting them in new
roles that required difficult adjustments for them and their audience. As both physicist and cultural icon during the early cold war,