The Early Axiomatizations of Quantum Mechanics: Jordan, von Neumann and the Continuation of Hilbert's Program

Hilbert's axiomatization program of physical theories met an interesting challenge when it confronted the rise of quantum mechanics in the mid-twenties. The novelty of the mathematical apparatus of the then newly born theory was to be matched only by its substantial lack of any definite physical interpretation. The early attempts at axiomatization, which are described here, reflect all the difficulty of the task faced by Jordan, Hilbert, von Neumann and others. The role of von Neumann is examined in considerable detail as he can be viewed here as the most outstanding of Hilbert's heirs. Von Neumann, especially in his work devoted to the proof of the impossibility of hidden variables, not only continued Hilbert's program but pushed it to its very limits, blending axiomatic rigor and interpretative commitment. (Received September 9, 1999)     

Becoming a Darwinian: the micro-politics of Sir Francis Galton's scientific career 1859-65

In 1865 Francis Galton (1822-1911) published 'Hereditary Talent and Character', an elaborate attempt to prove the heritability of intelligence on the basis of pedigree data. It was the start of Galton's lifelong commitment to investigating the statistical patterns and physiological mechanisms of hereditary transmission. Most existing attempts to explain Galton's fascination for heredity have argued that he was driven by a commitment to conservative political ideologies to seek means of naturalizing human inequality. However, this paper shows that another factor of at least equal importance has been overlooked by Galton scholars: his determination during the 1860s to be accepted among the ranks of the Darwinian inner circle. By hitching his career to the fortunes of what looked likely to emerge as a new scientific elite, Galton felt that he could bypass the typically slow and uncertain route to achieving scientific distinction. For this essentially strategic reason, between 1860 and 1865 he drifted away from a set of existing scientific concerns that were failing to deliver the approbation that he desired. Earnestly seeking to ingratiate himself with the Darwinian lobby, he then toyed with a variety of potential research projects relevant to Darwinian evolution. Yet Galton consistently failed to stimulate the enthusiasm of the Darwinians. Finally, however, after several months of ruminating, in 1864 he settled on a study of eminent pedigrees as a subject that was both germane and highly useful to the Darwinian enterprise. Galton's willingness to shift the direction of his scientific career during the 1860s underscores the importance of examining the micro-politics of scientific careers in addition to their broader social and political context. This account also emphasizes the limitations of class-based explanations even when considering scientists whose work seems so manifestly indicative of ideological motivation.     

Lime in the Early Bleaching Industry of Britain 1633-1828: Its Prohibition and Repeal

This essay describes the background and possible reasons for legal intervention in the use of lime in the early bleaching industry and draws on the Statutes at Large and other Acts of Parliament as primary sources. The developing chemical knowledge that may have contributed to the later Acts of repeal is also considered in some detail. The earliest noted prohibition was in 1633 and the years 1823, 1825, and 1828 were important repeal dates. No related legislation later than 1828 has been found. During the period from 1633 to 1828 there were many renewals and modifications to existing laws concerning linen and hempen manufacture; several of these contained subsections regarding bleaching. The considerable number of such Acts may account for the apparent confusion shown by earlier authors on this subject. Furthermore, the various Acts passed by the Irish House of Commons over its lifetime from 1400 to 1800, with its many interruptions, were published in a limited number of editions and are consequently held by few libraries. Ireland instituted its own laws and it was only after the Act of Union in 1800 that matters were dealt with by Westminster. Indeed, earlier historians have not always appreciated that, at certain periods of the history of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Scotland (as well as England) had their own separate parliaments.     

Setting up a Discipline: Conflicting Agendas of the Cambridge History of Science Committee, 1936–1950

Traditionally the domain of scientists, the history of science became an independent field of inquiry only in the twentieth century and mostly after the Second World War. This process of emancipation was accompanied by a historiographical departure from previous, ‘scientistic’ practices, a transformation often attributed to influences from sociology, philosophy and history. Similarly, the liberal humanists who controlled the Cambridge History of Science Committee after 1945 emphasized that their contribution lay in the special expertise they, as trained historians, brought to the venture. However, the scientists who had founded the Committee in the 1930s had already advocated a sophisticated contextual approach: innovation in the history of science thus clearly came also from within the ranks of scientists who practised in the field. Moreover, unlike their scientist predecessors on the Cambridge Committee, the liberal humanists supported a positivistic protocol that has since been criticized for its failure to properly contextualize early modern science. Lastly, while celebrating the rise of modern science as an international achievement, the liberal humanists also emphasized the peculiar Englishness of the phenomenon. In this respect, too, their outlook had much in common with the practices from which they attempted to distance their project.