Tracings of the north of Europe: Robert Chambers in search of the Ice Age

Scottish publisher and naturalist Robert Chambers pursued an amateur interest in geology through much of his life. His early measurements of raised beaches in Scotland earned him membership in the Geological Society of London in 1844, a recognition much appreciated by the anonymous author of the ‘scandalous’ Vestiges published the same year. Although familiar with emerging ice age theories, Chambers remained with most British geologists a sceptic through the 1840s, even after a trip to the glaciers of the Alps in 1848, which nevertheless prepared him for the turning point, which came in 1849 during an extensive field trip in Norway and Sweden. Here a wealth of observations left him in no doubt that vast glaciers had formerly covered Scandinavia, polishing cliffs, scouring striations, depositing old moraines and erratic boulders. This also led him to a new glacial reading of the British landscape, and with the ardent conviction of a fresh convert he became one of the most vocal supporters of glacial theory in Britain in the 1850s at a time when the iceberg drift theory for boulder transport was still favoured by most prominent British geologists. While Chambers through his popular Chambers’s Edinburgh Journal communicated his travels and ice age vision to a wide audience, and also pointed out ice age evidence on guided excursions around Edinburgh, he did not enter this new vision into subsequent editions of Vestiges, probably in order not to reveal its author. This paper explores Chambers’s contributions to the ice age debate, his field trips and the genesis of his convictions, and evaluates his impact on the scientific debate.     

The American Philosophical Society and the rise of astronomy in the United States in the middle of the nineteenth century

Early geological investigations in the St David's area (Pembrokeshire) are described, particularly the work of Murchison. In a reconnaissance survey in 1835, he regarded a ridge of rocks at St David's as intrusive in unfossiliferous Cambrian; and the early Survey mapping (chiefly the work of Aveline and Ramsay) was conducted on that assumption, leading to the publication of maps in 1845 and 1857. The latter represented the margins of the St David's ridge as ‘Altered Cambrian’. So the supposedly intrusive ‘syenite’ was regarded as younger, and there was no Precambrian. These views were challenged by a local doctor, Henry Hicks, who developed an idea of the ex-Survey palaeontologist John Salter that the rocks of the ridge were stratified and had formed a Precambrian island, round which Cambrian sediments (now confirmed by fossil discoveries) had been deposited. Hicks subsequently proposed subdivision of his Precambrian into ‘Dimetian’, ‘Pebidian’, and (later) ‘Arvonian’, and he attempted correlations with rocks in Shropshire, North Wales, and even North America, seeking to develop the neo-Neptunist ideas of Sterry Hunt. The challenge to the Survey's work was countered in the 1880s by the Director General, Geikie, who showed that Hicks's idea of stratification in the Dimetian was mistaken. A heated controversy developed, several amateur geologists, supported by a group of Cambridge Sedgwickians, forming a coalition of ‘Archaeans’ against the Survey. Geikie was supported by Lloyd Morgan. Attention focused particularly on Ogof Lle-sugn Cave and St Non's Arch, with theory/controversy-ladenness of observations evident on both sides. Evidence from an eyewitness student record of a Geological Society meeting reveals the ‘sanit`ized’ nature of the official summary of the debate in QJGS. Field mapping early in the twentieth century by J. F. N. Green allowed a compromise consensus to be achieved, but Green's evidence for unconformity between the Cambrian and the Dimetian, obtained by excavation, can no longer be verified, and his consensual history of the area may need revision. Unconformity between the Cambrian and the Pebidian tuffs is not in doubt, however, and Precambrian at St David's is accepted. The study exhibits features of geological controversy and the British geological community in the nineteenth century. It also furnishes a further instance of the great influence of Murchison in nineteenth-century British geology and the side-effects of his controversy with Sedgwick.     

Stanisław Staszic: An Early Surveyor of the Geology of Central and Eastern Europe

In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries the Polish geoscientist, philosopher, and statesman Stanis?aw Staszic (1755–1826) conducted an extensive geological survey of Poland and adjacent areas. In 1815, he completed a book (in Polish), On the geology of the Carpathians and other mountains and lowlands of Poland, complemented by a well-made geological map of Central and Eastern Europe. Early in the nineteenth century, Staszic refined the idea of ‘geological mapping’, though initially he was interested in the exploration of mineral deposits, rock salt, copper and iron ores, and coal. Unlike his predecessors, his book adopted a temporal subdivision of rocks, using a somewhat modified version of Abraham Gottlob Werner's system. He delineated the surface distribution of five rock units and coloured them onto his map. His work gave expression to his view of geological history, and brought the ‘Enlightenment Period’ of geology in Central and Eastern Europe to a close.     

Field Life: Science in the American West During the Railroad Era

Historians generally assume that the geological theories of George Hoggart Toulmin (1754–1817) are identical to those of James Hutton. This paper seeks to establish that Toulmin's ideas are significantly distinct and possess an independent interest. It argues that Toulmin was highly exceptional in his treatment of the nature and history of Man within the discipline of geology, for he saw Man (like the Earth) as being eternal, and also treated Man totally naturalistically, as an integral, non-privileged part of the terraqueous system. The neglect of Toulmin by subsequent geologists is examined, and it is suggested that it was in part attributable to the unacceptability of his interpretation of Man.     

Essay Review: Looking for the Rhetoric of Science

The characteristics of inductivist historiography of science, as practised by earlier scientist/historians, and Whig historiography, as practised by earlier political historians, are described, according to the accounts of Agassi and Butterfield. It is suggested that the writings of Geikie on the history of geology allow us to characterize him as a Whig/inductivist historian of science who formulated anachronistic judgements. It is further suggested that his writings have had a considerable long-term effect on interpretations of the history of geology. The character of Geikie's historiography is related to his social, political and religious views, his historicism, and his romantic enthusiasm for Nature. His methodological pronouncements are examined: he believed that the present is the key to the past, and also that the past is the key to the present. He was an empiricist and inductivist. These epistemological and methodological views impinged on his historiography of science. If one attempts to criticize Geikie's historiography, though one may try to judge his work according to the norms of his own day and age, historical anachronism cannot be avoided entirely and one may oneself be charged with acting ‘Whiggishly’. Historians of science, in the process of professionalization, have accepted the historiographical norms of general historians (perhaps for socio-economic reasons), but in so doing have inherited a problem that arises whenever they contemplate earlier historical writings. It is suggested that there may be more room for Whiggish historiography of science than is presently deemed acceptable. Alternatively, one may wish to draw a careful distinction between science and its meta-discipline, the historiography of science. Whig historiography conflates the two, and the work of Geikie (a scientist/historian par excellence) provides a good illustration of this.     

The archaean controversy in britain: Part IV—Some general theoretical and social issues

The main theoretical issues in the study of the history of the Archaean Controversy in Britain, which arose in the first three papers of the present series, are summarized and discussed—in particular the problem of stratigraphical work in rocks where no fossils can be discerned. The ‘Archaean’ geologists showed some leanings towards Neo-Neptunism and this, together with the fact that their work challenged the Murchison/Survey view of British geology, was one of the reasons for the controversy. At a deeper level, however, the question concerned the doctrine of uniformitarianism: Were metamorphic rocks to be found at any part of the stratigraphical column, or were they confined to the earliest period of the Earth's history? The establishment of the concept of Precambrian rocks and a suitable stratotype boundary is essentially a social question that has to be determined within the geological community. Some of the social processes whereby these matters are decided internationally are considered, and it is noted that the best location of the ‘Golden Spike’ for the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary has only just been settled (by vote). The paper also explores some nineteenth-century ideas about the nature of metamorphism, and the early conditions of the world.     

Chemist,entomologist, Darwinian,and man of affairs: Raphael Meldola and the making of a scientific career

In 1925 a debate erupted in the correspondence columns of the British Medical Journal concerning the effectiveness of eating raw pancreas as a treatment for diabetes. Enthusiasts were predominantly general practitioners (GPs), who claimed success for the therapy on the basis of their clinical impressions. Their detractors were laboratory‐oriented ‘biochemist‐physicians,’ who considered that their own experiments demonstrated that raw pancreas therapy was ineffective. The biochemist‐physicians consistently dismissed the GPs' observations as inadequately ‘controlled’. They did not define the meaning of ‘control’ in this context, although it clearly did not have the term's present‐day meaning of a trial employing an untreated comparison group of patients. Rather, the physician‐biochemists' ‘properly controlled’ experiments involved careful regulation of their patients' diet and other environmental factors, and evaluation of the therapy's success through biochemical, rather than just clinical, criteria. However, my analysis suggests that these factors alone are inadequate to account for the biochemist‐physicians' dismissal of the GPs' work as ‘uncontrolled’. I suggest that the biochemist‐physicians were deliberately exploiting the powerful rhetorical connotations of the term ‘control’. Ultimately, they implied that only a trial which they themselves had conducted could be deemed ‘adequately controlled’.     

The importance of regional geology in the geological theories of Abraham Gottlob Werner: a contrary opinion

It has been and still is commonly believed by geologists and historians of geology alike that geological theory is an extrapolation from the empirical knowledge of the geology of a region. Abraham Gottlob Werner (1749–1817), whose theory concerning the origin of basalt and the minor role of volcanoes and the major role of water in the history of the earth's crust was eventually proven wrong in some respects, is usually cited as the prime example of a geologist who had not ventured beyond the confines of his native region, Saxony, and had developed a universal geological theory based almost entirely on his observations of that region. In this essay I show that the geology of Saxony played a relatively unimportant role in the development of Werner's universal geological theory; that he became a neptunist before he had closely examined the geology of Saxony; and that his explanation of the history of the earth's crust was as reasonable, if not more reasonable, than the explanations brought forth by those of his contemporaries who opposed his views.     

Duncan F. Gregory,William Walton and the development of British algebra: ‘algebraical geometry’, ‘geometrical algebra’, abstraction

This paper provides a detailed account of the period of the complex history of British algebra and geometry between the publication of George Peacock's Treatise on Algebra in 1830 and William Rowan Hamilton's paper on quaternions of 1843. During these years, Duncan Farquharson Gregory and William Walton published several contributions on ‘algebraical geometry’ and ‘geometrical algebra’ in the Cambridge Mathematical Journal. These contributions enabled them not only to generalize Peacock's symbolical algebra on the basis of geometrical considerations, but also to initiate the attempts to question the status of Euclidean space as the arbiter of valid geometrical interpretations. At the same time, Gregory and Walton were bound by the limits of symbolical algebra that they themselves made explicit; their work was not and could not be the ‘abstract algebra’ and ‘abstract geometry’ of figures such as Hamilton and Cayley. The central argument of the paper is that an understanding of the contributions to ‘algebraical geometry’ and ‘geometrical algebra’ of the second generation of ‘scientific’ symbolical algebraists is essential for a satisfactory explanation of the radical transition from symbolical to abstract algebra that took place in British mathematics in the 1830s–1840s.     

The correspondence between James Hutton (1726–1797) and James Watt (1736–1819) with two letters from Hutton to George Clerk-Maxwell (1715–1784): Part I

In the collection of Watt's papers at Doldowlod, home of Lord Gibson-Watt, there are seven previously unpublished letters from James Hutton to James Watt, and four letters from Watt to Hutton, also unpublished. The letters were written between 1774 and 1795. Very little of Hutton's other correspondence survives, so these letters add significantly to our knowledge. The earliest letters, together with two letters to George Clerk-Maxwell (in the Scottish Record Office), describe geological tours that Hutton made through Wales, the Midlands, and the south-west of England in 1774. The correspondence after 1774, which will appear in a later edition of Annals of Science, reveals Watt's expertise in geology, and also discusses meteorology, varnish making, Symington's steam engines, the first experiments with steam navigation, pneumatic medicine, and other topics.     

Savant Officials in the Prussian Mining Administration

Summary

In the second half of the eighteenth century, the Prussian State supported savants who combined learned inquiry into nature with technical work. Members of the physical and mathematical classes of the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences were involved in State projects such as surveying for the construction of canals, chemical analysis of Silesian iron, production of porcelain and of beet sugar. Some of these men were truly ‘hybrid’ experts living both in the worlds of State-directed manufacture and academic natural inquiry. Among these savant experts there was a particular sub-group that is at the centre of this paper: mining officials who were also recognized as mineralogists, geologists and chemists. The paper describes and analyses the training and the varied technical and scientific activities of these ‘savant officials’. At the centre of attention are the travels of inspection of the mineralogist and mining official Carl Abraham Gerhard (1738–1821) in the late 1760s. I argue that Gerhard's travels of inspection were at the same time geological travels and that savant officials like Gerhard made a significant contribution to the fledgling science of geology.     

The story of ‘Scientist: The Story of a Word’

This examination of an important paper by Sydney Ross is the first in a projected series of occasional reflections on ‘Annals of Science Classic Papers’ that have had enduring utility within the field of history of science and beyond. First the messages of the paper are examined, some well known but others, particularly Ross's own contemporary concerns about the use of the word ‘scientist’, less so. The varied uses made of the paper by scholars are then traced before Ross's biography is examined in order to try to understand how a figure professionally marginal to the field of history of science came to write such a significant piece. Ross’s interest in the topic appears to have been informed by a romantically tinged scientific progressivism and a deep concern with the importance of linguistic precision in science and in public affairs. The inspirations of the author and the interests of his audience have been only partially aligned, but the paper's insights remain of broad historical interest and have wider ramifications since the denotation ‘scientist’ and its proper application are much debated today in contests over the authority of science.     

The Archaean Controversy in Britain: Part III—The rocks of Anglesey and Caernarvonshire

A detailed account is given of the development of the Archaean Controversy in Caernarvonshire and Anglesey. Sedgwick had found no base for his Cambrian in North Wales, but had intimated that some of the unfossiliferous rocks of the Lleyn Peninsula and Anglesey might be older than his Cambrian. He also described two ‘ribs’ of igneous rock: one running from Caernarvon to Bangor; the other inland, parallel to the first and crossing the Llanberis Pass at Llyn Padarn. The early Surveyors (especially Ramsay) supposed that these ‘ribs’ had altered the surrounding rocks, and the resulting ‘Altered Cambrian’ could be traced across the Menai Strait to Anglesey, where it formed the various metamorphic rocks of that island. This view (which thus denied the occurrence of Precambrian on Anglesey) was challenged by the usual coalition of ‘amateurs’ (Hicks, Hughes, Bonney, Callaway, Blake, etc.) with attempts being made to recognize a sequence of Archaean rocks in North Wales similar to that in Pembrokeshire. However, vigorous debate occurred amongst the ‘Archaean’ geologists themselves, especially about a rock at Twt Hill, Caernarvon, and about a claimed unconformity at the base of the Cambrian in the Llanberis Pass, perhaps adjacent to the Llyn Padarn ‘rib’. (This was at first regarded as a Precambrian ‘island’ like those claimed at St David's, the Malverns, etc.) Vigorous debate took place about the location of the claimed Llanberis unconformity, but the ‘Archaeans’ were united in regarding the metamorphic rocks of Anglesey as Precambrian (or Archaean). Eventually, the greywackes of Anglesey, and around Bangor and Caernarvon, were identified as Ordovician, not Cambrian. Very detailed map-work in Anglesey was carried out privately by Edward Greenly, and his results were published by the Survey in the form of a map and a high-quality Memoir. Greenly utilized for Anglesey tectonic ideas derived from his earlier fieldwork in the Scottish Highlands, so that although his mapping and stratigraphical divisions have proved to be of permanent value it is believed that his structures for Anglesey were mistaken and his stratigraphic sequence inverted. The Survey eventually abandoned its earlier (Ramsay) model of Anglesey without too much difficulty; and the igneous ‘rib’ of Llyn Padarn is now construed as an ignimbrite. However, a definite base for the Cambrian has still not been found in Caernarvonshire, and the stratigraphical evidence for the Precambrian age of the Anglesey rocks (by perceived unconformity with known Cambrian strata) remains incomplete. The study reveals the great difficulty experienced by early geologists when working in unfossiliferous rocks, the evidence from included fragments proving particularly uncertain. The paper also examines further the community of nineteenth-century British geologists, with their various factions and competing interests.     

Realism on the rocks: Novel success and James Hutton's theory of the earth

In this paper, I introduce a new historical case study into the scientific realism debate. During the late-eighteenth century, the Scottish natural philosopher James Hutton made two important successful novel predictions. The first concerned granitic veins intruding from granite masses into strata. The second concerned what geologists now term “angular unconformities”: older sections of strata overlain by younger sections, the two resting at different angles, the former typically more inclined than the latter. These predictions, I argue, are potentially problematic for selective scientific realism in that constituents of Hutton's theory that would not be considered even approximately true today played various roles in generating them. The aim here is not to provide a full philosophical analysis but to introduce the case into the debate by detailing the history and showing why, at least prima facie, it presents a problem for selective realism. First, I explicate Hutton's theory. I then give an account of Hutton's predictions and their confirmations. Next, I explain why these predictions are relevant to the realism debate. Finally, I consider which constituents of Hutton's theory are, according to current beliefs, true (or approximately true), which are not (even approximately) true, and which were responsible for these successes.     

The career of continental drift theory: An application of Imre Lakatos' analysis of scientific growth to the rise of drift theory

The continental drift research programme reigns supreme within the geological community. The programme achieved its regal status only within the last decade. Its ascension to the summit took over fifty years, and required numerous switchbacks. Although its climb may seem haphazard, I argue that there is an overall rationale to its development which is partially elucidated by the account of scientific growth and change as put forth by Imre Lakatos. However, at least two alterations must be made in Lakatos' analysis. One concerns his analysis of ‘novel fact’, and the other is concerned with his thesis that the hard core of a research programme remains the same throughout the programme's lifetime. I consider and reject Elie Zahar's notion of ‘novel fact’, introduce an alternative notion of ‘novel fact’, and argue that Lakatos and his followers must abandon the thesis that a research programme's hard core is immune from change, but that they can do so without endangering Lakatos' overall account of scientific growth and change.     

Spheres of Influence: Illustration,Notation, and John Dalton's Conceptual Toolbox, 1803–1835

In the early years of the nineteenth century, the English chemist John Dalton (1766–1844) developed his atomic theory, a set of theoretical commitments describing the nature of atoms and the rules guiding their interactions and combinations. In this paper, I examine a set of conceptual and illustrative tools used by Dalton in developing his theory as well as in presenting it to the public in printed form as well as in his many public lectures. These tools—the concept of ‘atmosphere’, the pile of shot analogy, and Dalton's system of chemical notation—served not just to guide Dalton's own thinking and to make his theories clear to his various audiences, but also to bind these theories together into a coherent system, presented in its definitive form in the three volumes of A New System of Chemical Philosophy (1808, 1810, and 1827). Despite these links, Dalton's contemporaries tended to pick and choose which of his theories to accept; his system of notation failed to be adopted in part because it embodied the whole of his system indivisibly.     

The scholastic pendulum

The history of the physics of pendular motion rightly begins with Galileo's discovery of the isochronous character of that motion. There is, however, a ‘pre-history’ of the pendulum, centering on its initial recognition as a significant special case requiring explanation. This occurred in the writings of Jean Buridan and Nicole Oresme in the middle of the fourteenth century. Earlier works that might have been construed as discussing pendular motion are considered, as are the explanations for the scholastic ‘discovery’ of pendular motion put forth by Thomas Kuhn and Piero Ariotti. In contrast to these writers, this paper seeks to account for the pendulum's emergence with reference to an imaginary experiment concerning a body moving past the earth's center, medieval theories of impetus, and the proximate physical model of pendular motion, the late medieval heavy suspended church bell.