previous sub-section
Notes
next section

Issues and Reflections

1. H. E. Armstrong, "The Doctrine of Atomic Valency," Nature , 125 (1930), 807-810 (on p. 808). [BACK]

2. Alexander Vucinich, Science in Russian Culture, 1861-1917 (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ. Press, 1970), and Nathan M. Brooks, "The Formation of a Community of Chemists in Russia, 1700-1870," Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1990. [BACK]

3. W. H. Brock, H. E. Armstrong and the Teaching of Science, 1880-1930 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1973); J. Vargas Eyre, Henry Edward Armstrong, 1848-1937 (London: Butterworths, 1958), esp. pp. 62-64 and 263-296. The broader context is given in D. S. L. Cardwell, The Organization of Science in

England , rev. ed. (London: Heinemann, 1972), passim, esp. p. 167, and in R. Bud and G. K. Roberts, Science Versus Practice: Chemistry in Victorian Britain (Manchester: Manchester Univ. Press, 1984). [BACK]

4. ". . . because I know of no one who is more capable of doing this than you, and no one whose views agree more closely with mine than yours." Wöhler to Kolbe, 5 December 1862, SSDM 3538. [BACK]

5. Lothar Meyer to Adolf Baeyer, 11 February 1872, Baeyer Collection. [BACK]

6. Kolbe to Volhard, 19 June 1873, SSDM 3659; J. Volhard, Justus von Liebig , 2 vols. (Leipzig: Barth, 1909), 2 , 427. [BACK]

7. Kolbe to Wöhler, 22 August 1875, Wöhler Nachlass. [BACK]

8. That Kolbe was the first-born of a large number of siblings instantiates Frank Sulloway's suggestion that birth order correlates strongly to resistance to scientific novelty: Daniel Goleman, "The Link Between Birth Order and Innovation," New York Times , 8 May 1990, B5 and B9. [BACK]

9. One exception to this generalization was Wilhelm Heintz, Wislicenus' doctoral advisor, who was born in 1817; remarkably, Heintz was one of the very few structural chemists with whom Kolbe remained friends. [BACK]

10. Kolbe, footnote to Heintz, "Noch ein Wort über die Constitution der Diglycolsäure," JpC , 111 (1871), 122-123n.; "Ueber die realen Typen der organischen Chemie," Das chemische Laboratorium der Universität Marburg (Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1865), pp. 515-519. [BACK]

11. Kolbe, JpC , 132 (1881), 405. [BACK]

12. Kolbe, "Kritisch-chemische Gänge IV," JpC , 136 (1883), 356-582 (on pp. 362-363). [BACK]

13. For example, in Kolbe, "Reale Typen," pp. 518-519. [BACK]

14. Kolbe, Kurzes Lehrbuch der organischen Chemie (Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1883), pp. vi-vii. [BACK]

15. Lothar Meyer to Kolbe, 13 October 1871, SSDM 3531. On Neumann's conventionalism, see Kenneth Caneva, "From Galvanism to Electrodynamics: The Transformation of German Physics and Its Social Context," Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences , 9 (1978), 63-159, who also has much to say about the growth of hypothetico-deductive theorization in nineteenth-century Germany; also Kathryn Olesko, Physics as a Calling: Discipline and Practice in the Königsberg Seminar for Physics (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univ. Press, 1991). [BACK]

16. Frankland to Kolbe, 19 April 1871, SSDM 3567. This passage constitutes a concise statement of the conventionalist's creed. [BACK]

17. See Rocke, "Kekulé's Benzene Theory and the Appraisal of Scientific Theories," in A. Donovan, L. Laudan, and R. Laudan, eds., Scrutinizing Science: Empirical Studies of Scientific Change (Boston: Kluwer, 1988), pp. 145-161. [BACK]

18. Of course, "structure theory" was not monolithic, and there was continual and often bitter controversy within the structuralist camp over details—double bonds, free affinities, variability of valence, the nature of aromaticity, and so on. For these events, see C. A. Russell's fine treatment in The History of Valency (Leicester: Leicester Univ. Press, 1971). Here I am most interested in the conflict between Kolbe and the structure theorists as a group, who comprised most of the active collegial community after around 1865. [BACK]

19. The strong program is defined and characterized in David Bloor, Knowledge and Social Imagery (London: Routledge, 1976), pp. 1-19. The quotes by Latour are found in K. D. Knorr-Cetina and Michael Mulkay, eds., Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Studies of Science (London: Sage, 1983), p. 141; and Steve Woolgar, ed., Knowledge and Reflexivity (London: Sage, 1988), p. 166. See also Latour and Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (London: Sage, 1979); and Latour, The Pasteurization of France (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1988). Collins' sentence is in his "Stages in the Empirical Program of Relativism," Social Studies of Science , 11 (1981), 3-10 (on p. 3). Barnes and Shapin's statement is in their introduction to their edited volume Natural Order: Historical Studies of Scientific Culture (London: Sage, 1979), p. 9. [BACK]

20. The first of these phrases is used in Paul A. Roth's elaborate critique, Meaning and Method in the Social Sciences (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univ. Press, 1987), pp. 152-225, and the second is in Larry Laudan, "The Pseudo-Science of Science?" Philosophy of the Social Sciences , 11 (1981), 173-198; see also Laudan, Science and Relativism (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1990). [BACK]

21. The first of these quotes is from Bloor, Knowledge and Social Imagery , p. 45; the second is in John A. Schuster, "Constructing Contextual Webs," Isis , 80 (1989), 493-496 (on p. 494). [BACK]

22. For example, Bloor, Knowledge and Social Imagery , pp. 13-14; Wool-gar, ed., Reflexivity ; review by Bloor of the latter book, in Isis , 81 (1990), 155-156; Steve Woolgar, Science: The Very Idea (London: Tavistock, 1988), pp. 43-44; and Laudan, "Pseudo-Science of Science?". [BACK]

23. But see, for example, Terry Shinn, "Orthodoxy and Innovation in Science: The Atomist Controversy in French Chemistry," Minerva , 18 (1980), 539-555; Mary Jo Nye, "Berthelot's Anti-Atomism: A 'Matter of Taste'?," Annals of Science , 38 (1981), 585-590; idem, Science in the Provinces: Scientific Communities and Provincial Leadership in France, 1860-1930 (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1986); Harry W. Paul, The Sorceror's Apprentice: The French Scientist's Image of German Science, 1840-1919 (Gainesville: Univ. of Florida Press, 1972); and Robert Fox, "Scientific Enterprise and the Patronage of Research in France, 1800-70," in G. L'E. Turner, ed., The Patronage of Science in the Nineteenth Century (Leiden: Noordhof, 1976), pp. 9-51. [BACK]

24. Joseph Ben-David, The Scientist's Role in Society , 2d ed. (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1984); Avraham Zloczower, Career Opportunities and the Growth of Scientific Discovery in Nineteenth-Century Germany (New York: Arno, 1981); Steven Turner, Edward Kerwin, and David Woolwine, "Careers and Creativity in Nineteenth-Century Physiology: Zloczower Redux," Isis , 75 (1984), 523-529; Peter Borscheid, Naturwissenschaft, Staat und Industrie in Baden (1848-1914) (Stuttgart: Klett, 1976); Jeffrey Johnson, "Academic Chemistry in Imperial Germany," Isis , 76 (1985), 500-524; and idem, The Kaiser's Chemists: Science and Modernization in Imperial Germany (Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1990). [BACK]

25. A French model of center-periphery competition has recently been explored in Nye, Science in the Provinces . [BACK]

26. On this question, see Fox, "Scientific Enterprise." [BACK]

27. Note, for example, the historical and historiographical similarities between Martin Rudwick's The Great Devonian Controversy (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1985), James A. Secord's Controversy in Victorian Geology: The Cambrian-Silurian Dispute (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1986), and David Oldroyd's The Highlands Controversy: Constructing Geological Knowledge through Fieldwork in Nineteenth-Century Britain (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1990). A concise and perceptive discussion is Charles Rosenberg, ''Woods or Trees? Ideas and Actors in the History of Science," Isis , 79 (1988), 565-570. [BACK]


previous sub-section
Notes
next section