Establishing Scientific Academies and Credibility - Research Paper Example

?Establishing Scientific Academies and Credibility Introduction This essay focuses on how historians treat the establishment of scientific academies in the history of science. Five selections have been chosen which deal on modern historians’ views on seventeenth century scientific institutions. The crux is not so much the historical account as the perception of historians on the nature of organised scientific inquiry of the period, significant because it climaxes the Scientific Revolution. Therefore much of the discussions revolves around the conventions and practises that have defined the new scientific societies and academies and influenced the development of scientific inquiry of the period. Rhetoric conveying authority Dear’s 1985 account of the establishment of the Royal Society turned on the interplay between rhetoric and authority during this period. He called this period of the emergence of scientific societies between 1650 and 1660 as indicative of the consolidation of the Scientific Revolution. At this time, science practitioners with similar views about scientific inquiry formed groups which “stand as testimony to a new attitude toward knowledge of nature” (Dear, 1985). The institutionalisation of scientific inquiry was a sign of the changing attitude of society towards the knowledge of nature. The establishment of the Royal Society in particular was the focal point that marked the end of the change process. The new attitude towards the pursuit of natural knowledge was shaped by the disciplines that were established during the Scientific Revolution. The discussion forwards the thesis that early scientific reporting employed rhetoric to convey authority pursuant to the convention of the period, which is separate and distinct from the truth discovered in the scientific inquiry itself. In early reporting, the format of the report needed to comply with a structure and convention that conveyed a credibility separate and distinct from the contents of the report. “The veracity of the report clearly depended on the original experience of a specified person on a particular occasion.” A discussion appears to be true or real no longer by virtue of reference to accepted authority, but by the amount of detail in the description of the event and an account of the witnesses and participants in the event. In his treatise, Dear described a report submitted by Newton in 1666 on a prism experiment, calling it a “fabrication”. It turned out that the series of experiments were genuine and their results were valid and relevant, but the description of the experiments were cast in a form that made the paper more acceptable for publication. The paper also highlights the contrast between the Old Learning and the New Learning (Rangachari, 1994). The very title of the piece was an ironic play on the motto of the Royal Society. Nullius in Verba was Latin for “Take nobody’s word for it,” referring to the stringent standards of scientific study. Totius Verba is the opposite, meaning to “Take everybody’s word for it.” Linguistic style and virtual witnessing. The thesis advanced by Shapin (1984) is that knowledge about reality is shaped by the speech in which such natural reality is couched. The language used is also the key to securing agreement of the scientific community to the knowledge discovered, and of differentiating the new discoveries from former theories that were accorded mediocre status. Shapin observed that there was a way of communicating that accords a greater credibility to the report than would have otherwise been attributed to it had it been reported in a more regular communicating style. Specific observations were made concerning the effective use of language to convey more than the scientific findings arrived at. For instance, accounts of experiments were replete with rich detail, the purpose of which was to build in the mind of the reader a picture of the execution of an experimental procedure at which they were not physically present to personally witness. Shapin terms this “virtual witnessing,” at which the reader imbibes through the language the vicarious experience of the performance of the scientific inquiry. On one hand, this “literary technology” was intended to clarify and describe the process as carefully as possible in order to dispel academic uncertainties. On the other hand, it may have created the effect of expanding and enlarging the size of the “witnessing public,” so to speak. There is a need for such a public which accepts the truth of the findings arrived at; it is indispensable to a thorough generation and acceptance of new knowledge as valid. Shapin concludes that “circumstantial reporting” (or rendering in careful detail the circumstances of an experiment or inquiry) is an effective method for “creating a public and for constituting authentic knowledge” (Shapin, 1984). Etiquette in building credibility and achieving social status. Biagioli (1996) drew relationships among etiquette, interdependence, and sociability in the early development of scientific institutions in Western Europe, in particular in Italy, England and France in the seventeenth century. It noted the polite niceties employed as conventions in presenting, evaluating, and publishing findings concerning their understanding of nature. The etiquette that was observed as protocol in that age was necessary, since scientific investigation was viewed as a matter of garnering collective acceptance of formulated theories through academic evaluation of published studies. Great care was taken, therefore, that unnecessary controversies were not stirred. Where new findings were arrived at which may prove contentious and challenge theories established and held true by other advocates, then it was important to observe such protocols to pre-empt any serious negative criticism which may unjustly discredit the new findings by prematurely swaying public opinion. Politics was also an important consideration, since many scientific institutions were supported by wealthy political philanthropists who were naturally averse to controversy, and who would want to be publicly perceived in the best possible light. Furthermore, credibility in the public eye determined one’s social status, and to be perceived with substantial measure of legitimacy would be the objective of young innovative scientists and newly established scientific institutions (Biagioli, 1996). Credibility determined legitimacy, patronage, and prestige, scandals, controversies, discredit are to be avoided at all times. Control over closed communication networks Lux & Cook (1998) examined the communication networks that existed during the time of the scientific revolution. Consistent with the observations of Biagioli and many others, scientific institutions of the day were closely associated with the aristocracy who comprised their patrons, and therefore were steeped in protocol and convention. The creation of the Paris Academy of Sciences, for instance, shifted the institutional bases from that of the Thevenot Academy, characterised by a prevailing set of personal relationships. The new network under the Paris Academy of Sciences drew the most important elements from the old system of “personal exchanges and weak ties,” and restructured them pursuant to a new and more functional set of relationships. These networks proved more effective in arriving at valid findings and defensible theories that more adequately filled the growing body of scientific knowledge. To enhance the Society’s credibility, it operated under an official policy of secrecy – that is, non-members were denied access to all sessions, and all deliberations were made privately without publicity. The only news allowed were the official publication of results by the Academy itself, and only after discussions have been satisfactorily completed. Importation of science institutions Gordin’s (2000) interest in the history of early modern science sought to provide an alternative view into the role played by etiquette protocols, the existence of which were seen to be necessary conditions for the establishment of scientific societies. His discussion focused in particular on the founding of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences in 1725, which he portrayed as an institution “imported ready-made from the Berlin model proposed to Peter the Great by Liebniz,” thus pre-empting such etiquette protocols. This thesis is the reason for the title, substituting the word “importation” for “importance” in the popular phrase. Gordin argues that whereas Liebniz envisioned his academy to be purely dedicated to the search and preservation of knowledge, Peter the Great took the academic structure but used the organization it housed not only for utilitarian purposes for the harnessing of science and technology for state building, but also as an institute to forward his political objectives. The Academy stood as the epitome of his educational and new manners reforms which were intended to transform the rustic Russian society into a truly “Western” state endowed with the prestige and culture of the European civilization. Conclusion The foregoing readings brought to light certain attributes highlighted by historians concerning the establishment of seventeenth century scientific academies. Rhetoric was seen to permeate much of scientific discussion to convey authority and credibility. Detailed reporting broadens public virtual witnessing and enhances authority. Furthermore, credibility was no longer determined by ancient authority but by legitimacy of the method of inquiry. Early academies were reliant on the patronage of the aristocracy, thus the establishment of etiquette and protocol was important to avoid controversy. Interactions within the new academies were no longer determined by personal relationships, but one governed more by a functional structure. Institutional structure may be emulated or duplicated, and new scientific institutions performed not only the traditional role of repository of knowledge, but also the functional role of providing applied technology for nation building, whilst serving the purposes of the political leadership. From a general perspective, historians appear to describe the establishment of early academic institutions as the next logical step to the Scientific Revolution, although their terms and perspectives are viewed from the context of contemporary scientific inquiry. The use of rhetoric, etiquette and protocol, and “secrecy” are generally still observed by the established institutions of today, although these are collectively viewed as conservatism. Otherwise, scientific societies in the seventeenth century essentially share several attributes with present day institutions, in the interest of establishing credibility. References: Biagioli, Mario. "Etiquette, Interdependence, and Sociability in Seventeennth- Century Science." Critical Inquiry 22(1996): 193-238. Dear, Peter "Totius in Verba: Rhetorica and Authority in the Early Royal Society." Isis 76(1985): 145-161. Gordin, Michael "The Importance of Being Earnest: The Early St Petersburg Academy of Science." Isis 91 (2000): 1-31. Lux, David S. & Cook, Harold J. "Closed Circles or Open Networks? Communicating at a Distance During the Scientific Revolution." History of Science 36(1998): 179-211. Rangachari, P K “The word is the deed: the ideology of the research paper in experimental science.” Advances in Physiology Education, 267 (1994):S120-S136. Shapin, Steven. "Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle's Literary Technology." Social Studies of Science 14(1984):481-520. Read More