NavList:

   

Reply

On 4 Apr 2006 at 23:34, George Huxtable wrote:

> The story, it seems to me, was dramatised, to emphasise the point he was
> trying to make, at the expense of the literal truth. It doesn't detract
> from the importance of his discovery. But it diminishes the stature of the
> man, in my eyes and perhaps in the eyes of others.

George, scientific discourse has changed over the years and it seems to me
that Sumner was trying to write in a manner that was consistent with the
earlier tradition. The most striking example of this tradition, to my
mind, comes from Newton's description of his optical discoveries. Here is
the opening to his account from the Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society, 80:3075. 1672

"...in the beginning of the year 1666 (at which time I applyed my self
to the grinding of Optick glasses of other figures than *Spherical*,)
I procured me a Traingular glass-Prisme, to try therewith the
celebrated *Phenomena* of *Colours*. And in order thereto having
darkened my chamber, and made a small hole in my window-shuts, to let
in a convenient quantity of the Suns light, I placed my Prisme at his
entrance, that it might be thereby refracted to the opposite wall. "

And he goes on in this narrative style to describe these events as clearly
happening sequentially, on the same day. Are we to believe that his
corpuscular theory of light and the experiments that led him to it just
happened on that particular day? He was a genius but these things
take time, even for genii. He undoubtedly had false starts, unproductive
thoughts, etc. along the way. Yet he tells the narrative as if none of
that ever happened.

I don't think Newton is being perfectly honest in his reconstruction,
although he does not fudge anything that would impair anyone else's
ability to replicate any of his experiments. It may be that the intended
effect is to describe what one might find upon going through the process
of repeating his experiments, or perhaps it is dramatised to create an
impression upon the reader. At any rate, my conjecture is that Sumner is
not writing to be willingly dishonest, but rather to fit into a tradition
of scientific discourse that has such illustrious precedents as the
writings of Sir Isaac himself.

Ken Muldrew.

   

Reply