comments on readings

[Kristen Frederick-Frost]

Good Afternoon,

I hope everyone is enjoying their weekend. I am quite excited about
attending RASI. Yannis, you will not be alone in being new to the
History of Science. I too come from a physics and engineering
background and this meeting is the equivalent of testing the waters of
the field before I dive all the way in this fall and attend Oxford
for a MSc in the history of sci. med. & tech. Currently I am working
at the University of New Hampshire. I am specifically interested in
the replication and recreation of historical experiments and the tacit
knowledge required to perform them.

I recently enjoyed the following suggested readings and wrote down a
few informal thoughts:

“Reworking the Mechanical Value of Heat: Instruments of Precision and
Gestures of Accuracy in Early Victorian England”
Heinz Otto Sibum

“Working with words or with objects? The contribution of university
museums”
Marta Lourenco

→ The readings hit on several interesting subjects that I would like
to explore further.

1) The value of reworking experiments
As an experimentalist, the inherent value of replication strikes me as
a no-brainer. So I was surprised to find in my recent discussions
with those in the field of history of science that this is actually a
bit of a controversy – or at least seen by some as a lesser art (this
feeds into #4 below). The article itself shows many profitable uses
of replication. I was given a whole new respect for temperature
measurement … it is a lot more than just glancing at a graduated
tube. Sibum brings difficulties inherent in the environment, tools,
and observer into light that are not only skipped over by Joule
himself but ignored by the community at large.

2) How typical forms of representation (publication, presentation)
limited the transfer of scientific knowledge
The machine of publication can strip the experimenter of the tools to
express the intricacies of any laboratory setup and procedural
methods. What is more interesting to me is how this machine has
changed with time. Sibum highlights the importance of public
presentation as a form of disseminating knowledge in the mid 1800s and
the preferred style of demonstration being seemingly independent of
the actual influence of the apparatus itself. Sibum relates how this
was a difficult task for Joule, because his experimental setup was
absolutely linked to the accuracy and precision of the instruments and
was anything but observer friendly.

3) The idea of a 'gestural collective'
I found this in Sibum's article and found it interesting. How do
individuals share skills and feedback that knowledge into a self
supporting community?

4) Historian vs. Curator debate
How could I be surprised by this? There is no reason the history of
science should be immune to the debate between the concrete and the
abstract. As a physicist, how much flack have I given my
mathematician friends and vice versa? The same is true within my
field – the constant (often playful) battle between theorists and
experimentalists. Lourenco's paper may rehash an old debate but the
issues of isolation within the academic community and the need for
both types of understanding are important to visit.

5) Object research - balancing preservation and use
Lourenco brings up a key issue constraining curators by pointing out
the responsibility of preservation as well as that of doing research.
I am interested in how you all have juggled this and your views on the
matter.

→ On the personal side.
Two quotes that resonated with me:

The first is from Lourenco and is taken from an argument that object
based research does indeed need to be accompanied by study of the
literature.

“Objects are only the physical content of memories: they are neither
the actors nor the script. Curators need to find the protagonists,
the story guidelines behind the objects in order to explain these
memories to the public and to preserve them properly. To do so, they
do need supporting written and oral evidence – they do need words.”

It is interesting to think of objects as memories – to look at an
apparatus and ask - What is your story? Where have you been? What
have you done?

The second is a quote within the Sibum article and is by James
Martineau.

“Machinery is rapidly supplanting human labour, and rendering mere
muscular force a worthless drug. That natural machine, the human
body, is depreciated in the market. But if the body has lost its
value, the mind must get into business without delay. The
intelligence of man bust be brought to the mint and coined and set
into instant circulation.”

Within the design of an experimental setup, the simple act of making
what you need instead of just buying it seems to be falling out of
fashion (at least in my field). You can find yourself surrounded by
“black boxes” without any knowledge of their inner workings (or their
limitations). It is all too easy not to think and just to use. One
can't read something like Sibum's article and think of temperature
measurement dismissively. And that is the value of replication to me
- how doing brings about knowing.

Yes, so, I had good fun with these articles. Hopefully I will get
through some more before we all meet up in mid August.

Looking forward to it,

Kristen Frederick-Frost

[dpant...@technomuses.ca]

Thank you Kristen!

Related to your commentary on the replication readings, I would add that at the heart of the best replications are thorough and creative studies of historic artifacts. We have one hands-on activity planned during RASI, for example, targeting black box artifacts - the ultimate testing ground for object-based research and teaching.