02 Nov 2018 09:00 AM - 11:45 AM(America/Vancouver)
20181102T090020181102T1145America/VancouverChemistry and the "Big Picture" in the History of Science
In an attempt to create a more coherent general picture of the history of science, historians have offered suggestions for categorizing the large-scale historical transformations in understanding nature, including "Ways of Knowing" (Pickstone) or "Styles of Knowing" (Kwa) and the use of mechanical metaphors like clocks and computers (van Lunteren). Other historians have advocated a generalist vision that moves away from microstudies to a "Grand Narrative." In many of these generalist histories of modern science, chemistry is relatively neglected, and this session brings together scholars to suggest ways in which the history of chemistry can enrich these larger narratives. Ramberg offers some speculations on possible reasons for the rarity of chemistry, and sketches out how history of chemistry would enrich the broader narratives in history of science. Gordin argues that fully incorporating chemistry into broader narratives is related to the difficulty in defining the boundaries of chemistry, connecting the historiographic problem to that of defining the political boundaries of Germany. Chang suggests that the “compositionist” way of knowing in chemistry has influenced the later development of the reductionism that underlies much of modern science, and that understanding this role of chemistry is crucial to any “big picture” thinking in the history of science. Roberts and Werrett argue that the broader field of history can benefit from the integrated inclusion of the history of chemistry and its range of practices. All of these presentations argue that understanding the development of modern science requires considering the richness of chemical thought.
Commentator: Mary-Jo Nye (Oregon State University)
Organized by Peter Ramberg (Truman State Un ...
Ravenna C, Third FloorHistory of Science Society 2018meeting@hssonline.org
In an attempt to create a more coherent general picture of the history of science, historians have offered suggestions for categorizing the large-scale historical transformations in understanding nature, including "Ways of Knowing" (Pickstone) or "Styles of Knowing" (Kwa) and the use of mechanical metaphors like clocks and computers (van Lunteren). Other historians have advocated a generalist vision that moves away from microstudies to a "Grand Narrative." In many of these generalist histories of modern science, chemistry is relatively neglected, and this session brings together scholars to suggest ways in which the history of chemistry can enrich these larger narratives. Ramberg offers some speculations on possible reasons for the rarity of chemistry, and sketches out how history of chemistry would enrich the broader narratives in history of science. Gordin argues that fully incorporating chemistry into broader narratives is related to the difficulty in defining the boundaries of chemistry, connecting the historiographic problem to that of defining the political boundaries of Germany. Chang suggests that the “compositionist” way of knowing in chemistry has influenced the later development of the reductionism that underlies much of modern science, and that understanding this role of chemistry is crucial to any “big picture” thinking in the history of science. Roberts and Werrett argue that the broader field of history can benefit from the integrated inclusion of the history of chemistry and its range of practices. All of these presentations argue that understanding the development of modern science requires considering the richness of chemical thought.
Commentator: Mary-Jo Nye (Oregon State University)
Organized by Peter Ramberg (Truman State University)
Sponsored by Forum for the History of the Chemical Sciences (FoHCS)
Chemistry as Part of "Grand Narratives" in the History of ScienceView Abstract Part of Organized SessionHistoriography09:00 AM - 09:30 AM (America/Vancouver) 2018/11/02 16:00:00 UTC - 2018/11/02 16:30:00 UTC
Despite having relative prominence in the early years of the emergence of professional history of science as a discipline, history of chemistry declined in prominence and has played only a small role in attempts to craft “grand narratives,” “big pictures,” or textbooks in history of modern science. This decline of chemistry can perhaps be explained by general trends in historiography, the “invisibility” of chemistry in daily life, its explicit practicality, and its perceived cosmological and ideological neutrality. Yet, history of chemistry can and should enrich and inform broader narratives in history of science. In particular, consideration of the emergence of modern chemistry can enhance and bring together different models for understanding the historical process of creating knowledge about nature, including van Lunteren’s use of the analytical balance as metaphor, Kwa’s “taxonomic” and “experimental” styles, and Pickstone’s “analytical” and “experimentalist” ways of knowing. Chang has suggested that “compositionism” could serve as an effective modification of Pickstone’s categories, and I would suggest we could further refine this to include “structuralism,” a way of thought that has dominated chemistry for over a century. Applying each of these models to chemistry supports in turn a pluralistic view of chemical thought and practice, creating a “grand narrative” for chemistry itself.
The History of Chemistry and/as the German QuestionView Abstract Part of Organized SessionHistoriography09:30 AM - 10:00 AM (America/Vancouver) 2018/11/02 16:30:00 UTC - 2018/11/02 17:00:00 UTC
The difficulty of integrating the history of chemistry into general narratives in the history of science recalls a historical (and historiographical) problem of how to deal with “Germany” within the general arc of European history. At most points of European history, defining where precisely “Germany” lay was a contested issue, but it has been even trickier to locate “the Germans.” The superficial solution is typically to focus attention on historical populations who lived on territory that today falls within the boundaries of the present-day Federal Republic, which excludes not only Austrians and Swiss Germans, but Bohemians, Transylvanians, Volga Germans, Pennsylvania Dutch, and more. This taxonomic dilemma presents an analogy with the history of chemistry: the boundaries of the discipline and who might count as a “chemist” over the centuries is notoriously difficult to pin down. Beyond drawing the comparison, this talk suggests that the two historiographical puzzles are historically related. The location of “Germany” as a site for alchemy, chemical industry, and chemical warfare consistently troubles the incorporation of the field into the general history of science, and into narratives of European history more broadly.
Is Compositionist Chemistry the Paradigm for Reductionist Science?View Abstract Part of Organized SessionHistoriography10:15 AM - 10:45 AM (America/Vancouver) 2018/11/02 17:15:00 UTC - 2018/11/02 17:45:00 UTC
One of the rare instances in which chemistry has been present in the “big picture” discussions of the history of science is John Pickstone’s emphasis on the role of Lavoisierian chemistry in the establishment of analysis as a way of knowing. I have previously tried to build on Pickstone’s work to discern a longer history of the development of “compositionist” thinking in chemistry. In this paper I would like to suggest that 19th-century atomic chemistry has served as a model for micro-reductionist practices that became pervasive in modern science, including the biological and social sciences. While physics is often taken as the foundation for reductionist science, the development of physics through the 20th century has actually pushed against naïve ideas of material composition. Rather, it is pre-quantum chemistry that has continued to provide the image of compositionist science underlying much of the philosophical and popular discourse about science by scientists and others alike.
Chemical Practice and Compound HistoriesView Abstract Part of Organized SessionHistoriography10:45 AM - 11:15 AM (America/Vancouver) 2018/11/02 17:45:00 UTC - 2018/11/02 18:15:00 UTC
The problem of integrating chemistry into “grand narratives” or macro-scale studies of the past applies not only to the history of science but also to history more generally. How has chemistry figured in the history of politics, industry, education, or the environment, in the longue durée? Chemistry identified as a series of abstract theories is unlikely to feature prominently in such accounts, but chemistry understood as rooted in practice, craft, productive activities and material culture offers a different picture. In this paper, taking a “sociomaterial” approach that highlights the integrated nature of social and cultural history with histories of chemical science, practice, and technology, we discuss two recent projects centered on chemistry and chemical practices rather than the mechanical sciences and mechanization as foundational elements of modern history. The first was an edited volume, Compound Histories: Materials, governance and production, 1760-1840. The second was a special issue of the journal History of Science (54 / 2016), entitled "Exploring global history through the lens of history of chemistry." Our contribution will focus on the interpretive consequences of a sociomaterial approach for understanding the history of domestic (o)economy in the eighteenth century, nineteenth-century industrialization and more recent discussions of 'commodity value chains'.
Simon Werrett
