2000 HSS/PSA Program 1 - History of Science Society
2000 HSS/PSA Program 1 - History of Science Society
2000 HSS/PSA Program 1 - History of Science Society
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>HSS</strong> Abstracts<br />
cosmology was wildly premature. This paper is about the debate over the maturity<br />
<strong>of</strong> astronomical data and theory, and focuses on why investigators so differed in<br />
whether they felt the time was ripe to make a science <strong>of</strong> observational cosmology.<br />
Was it a matter <strong>of</strong> field and affiliation? Of differing commitments to observation<br />
vs. theory? Of differing intellectual taste and style? The paper draws on my<br />
research into the life and work <strong>of</strong> one <strong>of</strong> the cautious optimists and pioneering<br />
theorists in galaxy evolution, Beatrice Tinsley (1941-1981).<br />
Jim Endersby University <strong>of</strong> Cambridge<br />
“From Having No Herbarium”:<br />
Local Knowledge vs. Metropolitan Expertise:<br />
Joseph Hooker’s Australasian Correspondence<br />
with William Colenso and Ronald Gunn<br />
Joseph Hooker’s Pacific floras- <strong>of</strong> New Zealand (1855) and Tasmania (1860)<br />
were partly the product <strong>of</strong> his own travels and collections in the region, but<br />
were largely compiled using the herbarium at Kew. Neither that herbarium<br />
nor the floras could have existed without the efforts <strong>of</strong> collectors based<br />
permanently in the colonies. William Colenson was one <strong>of</strong> the most<br />
significant in New Zealand, and Ronald Gunn did similarly invaluable work<br />
in Van Diemen’s Land (Tasmania). The correspondence between Hooker,<br />
Gunn and Colenso reveals complex relationships, characterised by both<br />
deference and friendship, and mediated by exchanges <strong>of</strong> plants, knowledge,<br />
and money. A central theme is a polite but <strong>of</strong>ten fierce competition over the<br />
value <strong>of</strong> their respective knowledge—the global, generalising erudition <strong>of</strong><br />
the metropolitan expert, and the local, particular expertise <strong>of</strong> the colonial<br />
collector. Sometimes sharp differences over plant taxonomy and distribution<br />
emerge from these competing interests. For example, Hooker argued that<br />
Kew’s herbarium and library gave him the sole authority to name species<br />
and determine their geographical and morphological limits, and while Gunn<br />
and Colenso largely accepted his authority, they occasionally tried to assert<br />
that their more detailed knowledge <strong>of</strong> living plants gave them unique insights<br />
into such questions. A close reading <strong>of</strong> the letters, together with an<br />
examination <strong>of</strong> Victorian botanical collecting practices, reveals a complex<br />
negotiation over the status <strong>of</strong> particular knowledge.<br />
78<br />
Nathan␣ L. Ensmenger University <strong>of</strong> Pennsylvania<br />
Chess Players, Music Lovers, and Mathematicians:<br />
Towards a Psychological Pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> the Ideal Computer Scientist<br />
In the early 1950s, the academic discipline that we know today as computer<br />
science existed only as a loose association <strong>of</strong> institutions, individuals, and