14.01.2014 Views

Listing of Sessions and Abstracts of Papers - History of Science ...

Listing of Sessions and Abstracts of Papers - History of Science ...

Listing of Sessions and Abstracts of Papers - History of Science ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

1931) faith <strong>and</strong> his Jesuit philosophical training intersected to reconcile evolution <strong>and</strong> Catholicism by<br />

delineating the philosophical limits <strong>of</strong> science: Wasmann demarcated a material <strong>and</strong> historical world,<br />

which science can describe, <strong>and</strong> the realm <strong>of</strong> subjective experience <strong>and</strong> the soul, which it cannot.<br />

Wasmann’s evolution contrasted (<strong>and</strong> conflicted) strongly with contemporary German atheistic <strong>and</strong><br />

anticlerical monistic evolutionary biology, <strong>and</strong> I will discuss Wasmann’s very public debates with<br />

monism’s prophet, Ernst Haeckel. Finally, I will briefly contrast Wasmann’s Catholic evolutionism with<br />

Teilhard de Chardin’s, <strong>and</strong> conclude with some remarks on the diverse influences <strong>of</strong> religious faith in<br />

evolutionary biology.<br />

Lynch, William<br />

E-mail Address: ae8917@wayne.edu<br />

Seeing, Doing, <strong>and</strong> Uncovering: Interpreting Bacon's Method in the Early Royal Society <strong>of</strong> London<br />

Rejecting the view that methodology acts more as window dressing than a program that can help<br />

direct research practice, I argue that Francis Bacon's program for methodological reform shaped the<br />

Royal Society's earliest work in important, if <strong>of</strong>ten contradictory, ways. The Royal Society developed<br />

Bacon's programs in different directions, building upon a richer underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>of</strong> Bacon's methodological<br />

program than the undirected empiricism <strong>of</strong>ten associated with his name. Bacon's call for a focus on<br />

"things themselves" built upon three distinct images <strong>of</strong> objects <strong>of</strong> knowledge. Identifying a threefold<br />

metaphorical ontology <strong>of</strong> objects <strong>of</strong> knowledge <strong>and</strong> corresponding objectivities at the core <strong>of</strong> Bacon's<br />

method, I argue that the Royal Society was more sophisticated <strong>and</strong> unified in their methodological<br />

approach than is commonly accepted. At the same time, development <strong>of</strong> their interpretations <strong>of</strong> Bacon's<br />

legacy ultimately pulled in different directions. Specular objects <strong>of</strong> knowledge privileged passive<br />

observation <strong>and</strong> justified an empiricist objectivity. Pulling in a different direction, manipulated objects <strong>of</strong><br />

art or manual objects emphasized an engaged, constructivist objectivity, where knowing is doing. Finally,<br />

a vision <strong>of</strong> underlying forms as generative objects <strong>of</strong> knowledge, combinable like letters <strong>of</strong> the<br />

alphabet to produce phenomena at will, defined a theoretical concept <strong>of</strong> objectivity. These components<br />

<strong>of</strong> Bacon's method inform in different ways the early publications <strong>of</strong> the Royal Society by John Evelyn,<br />

Robert Hooke, John Wilkins, Thomas Sprat, <strong>and</strong> John Graunt. The Royal Society developed an ambitious<br />

inductive program employing hypotheses, active powers, <strong>and</strong> the disciplined use <strong>of</strong> analogy.<br />

Maas, Harro<br />

E-mail Address: harro@fee.uva.nl<br />

Mimetic Experiments: Stanley Jevons's Construction <strong>of</strong> Evidence for Theories<br />

William Stanley Jevons (1835-1882) is commonly considered one <strong>of</strong> the great 19th century innovators<br />

in economics. Until to date, however, his empirical work in economics is considered quite apart from his<br />

theoretical innovations. My argument in this paper is that Jevons’s empirical <strong>and</strong> theoretical work are<br />

much more interwoven than such an account suggests. Jevons’s experimental practices in meteorology<br />

(on cloud formation) are illuminating here. As many experimental scientists, Jevons was fully aware that<br />

empirical data do not speak for themselves: the experimental scientist is not a passive observer, perceiving<br />

reality <strong>and</strong> only then arriving at an explanation. Rather, he uses experimental practices to reveal the<br />

phenomena from the data, the actual observations are loaded with error. One might think <strong>of</strong> these phenomena<br />

in terms <strong>of</strong> essential characteristics or mean values. Phenomena could then be further analysed<br />

to reveal the natural laws they obeyed. For Jevons, these laws were stable functional relationships. The<br />

step from phenomena to laws depended critically upon the role <strong>of</strong> analogy, given the many possible<br />

mathematical relations consistent with the phenomena. In a nutshell, this procedure can be seen in<br />

Jevons' experiments on cloud formation, in his Principles <strong>of</strong> <strong>Science</strong>, <strong>and</strong> also in his statistical studies in

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!