Content uploaded by Charles Bazerman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Charles Bazerman on Dec 07, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
HOW
NATURAL PHILOSOPHERS
CAN
COOPERATE
THE
LITERARY TECHNOLOGY
OF
C OO RD I N AT ED
INVEST I G AT I ON
IN JOSEPH PRIESTLEY'S
HISTORY
AND PRESENT STATE
OF
ELECTRICITY
(1767
)
CHARLES
BAZERMAN
Cheerfulness
and social
intercourse
do,
both
of
them,
admirably suit
,
and
promote the
true
spirit
of philosophy.
(2:164)
Recent studies
of
the rhetoric
of
science have emphasized
the competitive struggle played out through scientific texts. Scientific pub
-
lications are seen
as
persuasive briefs for claims seeking communal vali
-
dation as knowledge (Latour and Woolgar; Knorr
-
Cetina). Moreover,
individual texts have been seen as part
of
a negotiation process among
competing interests that may result in statements of knowledge different
than those proposed in the initiating texts (Myers; Collins; Latour). Dur
-
ing these struggles authors draw on many extratextual resources (social,
economic, intellectual, and empirical) which are deployed in the text
13
14
Charles
Bazerman
(Collins and Pinch; Callon, Law, and Rip; Rudwick). Only after com
-
munal acceptance do these claims take on the appearance of irrefutable
truths stated with objective authority transcending the urging of an author
(Latour).
Genres
of
scientific writing can be seen as recurrently successful rhe
-
torical solutions to the persuasive problem of advancing claims within an
empirical research community. Communally persuasive forms
of
repre
-
senting empirical experience and structuring compelling arguments upon
that experience have resulted in claims appearing to be proven knowledge,
except to those who know of the local struggles. The standardization of
textual form has helped to regularize and focus the struggle of scientific
writing, even while it has served to hide that struggle (Bazerman, chap.
2)
.
Nonetheless, an older tradition has considered scientific activity as more
than competitive play. Scientific communication has most often been
conceived
of
as part
of
a cooperative endeavor.
The
charter myth of this
tradition is Sir Francis Bacon's description
of
Salomon's House in
The
New
Atlantis.
Here Bacon describes a cooperative bureaucracy of thirty
-
six field
researchers, reviewers of the literature, experimenters, experimental de
-
signers, theorists, and applied technologists. Bacon anticipated no par
-
ticular communication difficulty in this cooperative project, beyond the
general linguistic problem of the four idols. Later in the seventeenth cen
-
tury, this cooperative, bureaucratic model inspired a number
of
organi
-
zational decisions of the French Royal Academy and the British Royal
Society. However, personal interests and disagreements soon tore at the
fabric of such an untroubled plan, and a communication system which
facilitated and structured disagreement took shape over the next century
(Bazerman, chap.
3)
.
Despite the systemic competitiveness of modern science, when we
remove ourselves from the daily hand
-
to
-
hand combat
of
scientific argu
-
mentation, we can perceive large patterns of cooperation and the com
-
munal construction of a shared knowledge. This knowledge is not dictated
by a single text or monumental figure (whether God, Aristotle, or Newton),
but is advanced (sometimes slowly, sometimes rapidly, sometimes spas
-
modically) through the joint endeavors of large numbers of people. Not
only are little details filled in and puzzles worked out within static para
-
digms, but major novel findings appear and are absorbed, theories are
modified and replaced, and knowledge moves in startling and unantici-
How Natural Philosophers Can Cooperate
pated directions. To be persuaded
of
the overall cooperative pattern of
scientific work, one need only contemplate the remarkable changes cur
-
rently being wrought and absorbed by diverse researchers in
“hot”
areas
such as superconductivity, fundamental forces, viral biochemistry, and
neural physiology. Indeed many modern commentators of science make
cooperation an essential component of scientific activity and communi
-
cation (Merton; Ziman; Garvey).
The
Puzzle
of
Cooperation
Noticing that cooperation seems to occur, however, does
not let us know how it happens, nor why the cooperation should seem
to
be as enduring and fundamental as it appears to be in science. Persua
-
sion and cooperation
as
we know from political and other familiar every
-
day realms are uncertain and fragile phenomena. Beliefs seem
to
change
rapidly, alliances fall apart, and cooperation often needs to be cemented
by laws, money, and coercion.
If
even the degree
of
cooperation we man
-
age in everyday affairs remains beyond our full comprehension, how can
we begin to account for the much more remarkable cooperation evident
in scientific
work,
a cooperation which seems to span religions, philoso
-
phies, national boundaries, and centuries? However, until we have as
concrete, detailed accounts of the microprocesses by which cooperation
and coordination occur as we do of competitive processes, cooperation and
coordination may only appear to be value
-
laden suppositions rather than
actual social activities. This chapter, accordingly, offers a microanalysis
of
the cooperative mechanisms of one eighteenth
-
century text that was
self
-
consciously constructed to foster cooperation and that foreshadows
a number
of
features
of
modern scientific papers. This analysis reveals
the many levels on which coordination needs to be achieved through lan
-
guage and the tension which needs to be maintained between coopera
-
tion and competition, codification and originality, if communal endeavor
of
science is to move forward.
Certainly early science did not
seem
to achieve the cooperative com
-
plexity and coordination
of
contemporary science, despite Bacon’s high
hopes. Rather than building on one another‘s theories, authors were as
likely
to
attempt to supplant each other’s claims. Authors rarely con
-
16
Charles Bazerman
structed claims that explicitly integrated a wide range
of
the claims
of
others. Even the Baconian hopes for an appeal to the facts did not lead
to
philosophic harmony, as facts themselves became a matter of dispute.
Within this atmosphere, local cooperation was only created by the domi
-
nance of strong individuals who set the national theoretical terms and
research agendas, supported by institutionalized power; Newtonianism
and Cartesianism, although occasionally communicating in individual ad
hoc circumstances, more often fired salvos across the English channel
(Bazerman, chap.
4).
While science remained small, with relatively few results to coordinate
and few compelling challenges to the hegemony of the brilliant works
of
early giants, such ad hoc cooperation as existed through unsystematic
familiarity with each others' works from travel, correspondence, and
publications was perhaps adequate
to
carry the communal work of science
forward. The emergence
of
societies and journals helped create regular
forums for communication among scientists and organize the communi
-
cation practices (Bazerman, chap.
5);
however, as natural philosophic
findings proliferated
in
the eighteenth century, cooperation had
to
be
explicitly achieved within the substance of the communications. Textual
mechanisms needed
to
be developed
to
coordinate the work
and
emerg
-
ing perceptions
of
researchers widely
dispersed
temporally, geographically,
and theoretically.
Joseph Priestley's
1767
book
The
History
and
Present
State
of
Electricity
explicitly takes up the challenge of fostering cooperation among the
grow
-
ing number of electricians and drawing new participants into this emerg
-
ing research community. Besides expressing concern for the benefits of
joint work, the book employs many textual mechanisms that integrate
past, present, and future
work
in the field. Through a comprehensive
review of the literature Priestley establishes the corpus
of
communal ex
-
perience and organizes it around problems and principles that define an
evolving state
of
knowledge and research agenda.
A
list
of
generalizations
emerging from that communal history provides a common knowledge base
for
continuing
work;
a discussion of the major theories sorts out the con
-
ceptual meaning of research; a list
of
open issues suggests directions for
research; and a historical review
of
the
development
of
apparatus and
practical suggestions for construction provide a common material basis
for generating phenomena to be investigated. Besides trying
to
establish
coherence and focus within a research front emerging from a shared un
-
derstanding
of
past work, Priestley is concerned to draw new researchers
into the communal project,
so
he provides practical suggestions for carry
-
ing out experiments and a series of amusing experiments to attract and
train neophytes. Finally he provides narratives
of
his own work to de-
mystify the process of investigation and to provide exemplars
of
work
How Natural Philosophers Can Cooperate
that might be carried on with only humble means. With our current,
limited knowledge of the development of textual features
of
scientific
writing, we cannot unequivocally credit Priestley with invention of the
textual devices he employs nor can we trace a direct line of evolution to
current cooperative literary practices.
l
Yet Priestley's thoroughgoing inter
-
est in fostering coordinated work of an extensive community offers a
striking starting point for examining the complexity of cooperative tex
-
tual machinery that has developed to coordinate the voluminous and
undeniably competitive work of contemporary science.
Priestley and Eighteenth
-
Century Electricity
Electricity by the mid
-
eighteenth century was a prolifer
-
ating area and presented much that could use coordination. The modern
study of electricity is usually dated from William Gilbert's
On
the
Magnet
(1600),
which includes one chapter on the attractive power
of
rubbed
amber, known since classical times. Gilbert noted a number of other sub
-
stances that showed a similar property. During the seventeenth century
a
few items were added to the list of electricals, various theories were
presented
to
account
for
the phenomenon, and electrical repulsion was
noticed for the first time. At the beginning of the eighteenth century,
however, the invention of the electrostatic generator made possible the
discovery and investigation
of
such phenomena as luminosity, sparks,
shocks, conduction, induction, and the difference between two varieties
of electricity. The improvements of these machines and the
1745
inven
-
tion
of
the Leyden jar (the modern condenser) permitted experiments with
charges
of
increasingly great power; medicinal and lethal effects were
noted. By
1750
Benjamin Franklin had presented evidence
of
the equiva
-
lence of lightning and electricity, setting
off
a series
of
investigations into
atmospheric electrical phenomena. Electricity was literally exploding across
the mid-eighteenth-century natural philosophic scene
.2
Although Joseph Priestley
(1733- 1804)
had an interest in natural phil
-
osophy during his own education and early career as dissenting minister
and schoolmaster, he did not actively pursue scientific studies until the
mid
-
1760s when Matthew Turner, his colleague at Warrington Academy,
offered a course of lectures in chemistry (Schofield,
8).
Priestley was to
achieve his greatest fame in this area through the discovery of oxygen in
1774.
Nonetheless, electricity and not chemistry provided the subject of
Priestley's first investigations and publications.
We do not know exactly when Priestley began to work
on
electricity,
but by late
1765
on a trip to London he arranged an introduction to
Franklin and several other prominent electricians to gain their support (see
18
Charles Bazerman
the letter from John Seddon to John Canton in Schofield,
14).
Franklin
encouraged him in his plan to write a "history of discoveries in electricity,"
and helped arrange for the requisite books (Priestley,
Autobiography)
.
Franklin, John Canton, William Watson, and Richard Price remained his
correspondents, mentors, and benefactors over the next year as he wrote
The History and Present State of Electricity.
The first, longer half of the lengthy book
(432
of
736
quarto pages in
the first edition) is a detailed history
of
all investigations and discoveries
in electricity from the time of the ancients to his day. In its synoptic com
-
mand, attention to empirical details in the literature, and its open
-
ended
attitude, it can be seen as one of the earliest versions of the modern genre
of review
of
the literature.
The second half of the work, not indicated in any
of
Priestley's early
plans, consists of seven additional parts: a list of general properties
of
electricity then known; a discussion of the history of electrical theories
including a detailed comparison
of
two major theories; some general con
-
siderations
on
the current state of electrical research and a series
of
queries
to direct future work; descriptions and directions
for
constructing elec
-
trical machines; a set of procedural advice
(or
practical maxims) for those
wishing
to
carry out electrical experiments; directions for carrying out
entertaining demonstration experiments; and a description of his own new
experiments on the subject. As the first half may be designated the his
-
tory, this latter half may be said to be the "current state
of
electricity."
Much of this material is presented in no other previous work on electricity.
Although today we might find the various kinds
of
materials presented
in this latter half in a variety of places, ranging from children’s activity
books through advanced textbooks, equipment manuals, and research
journals, we are not likely to find them all under the same cover.
Doing
Natural
Philosophy by Doing History:
Priestley's Philosophic Framework
Although this odd mixture
of
things may appear to
be a neophyte's grab bag, talking about everything he sees with little
sense of design, such lack
of
design is unlikely, for each part
of
the book
is introduced by several pages of explicit description and rationale for
the literary procedures that follow. Moreover, at Warrington Academy
Priestley had regularly delivered a series
of
lectures on oratory and criti
-
cism (eventually published in
1777)
as well as a course of lectures on the
theory
of
language (printed privately in
1762).
He was a self
-
conscious
user of language, and his procedures in
The History and Present State
of Electricity
are consistent with his teachings on rhetoric (see Moran).
How
Natural Philosophers
Can
Cooperate
His rhetorical practices, moreover, are a
self
-
conscious attempt to
realize
his millenarian vision of human progress, particularly relevant here is his
understanding of the role of historical discourse in increasing human
wis
-
dom, for it
is
a history
of
electricity that he tells and it is
as
participants
in a historical process that he addresses his
readers.3
As instructor at Warrington Academy since
1761
he had been deliver
-
ing a series
of
lectures on history (later published in
1788).
In these lec
-
tures he argues that the study of history
"
strengthens the sentiments
of
virtue
"
by showing
us
the characters of the many kinds of humans and
"
improves the understanding
"
by extending
our
experience. In particular,
study
of
the history of natural philosophy presents edifying portraits
"
of
genius in such men as Aristotle, Archimedes, and Sir Isaac Newton,
[which] give
us
high ideas
of
the dignity of human nature, and the capac
-
ity of the human mind
(120)
.
Moreover, the history of natural philosophy increases our individual
empirical experience by attaching
us
to a community of experience.
Priestley declares,
"
the most exalted understanding is nothing more than
the power of drawing conclusions, and forming maxims of conduct, from
known facts and experiments,
of
which necessary materials of knowledge
the mind is wholly barren
"
(108)
.
Understanding is based on experience
to form the proper associations.4 But each individual is limited,
so
only
through history can we come to share in the experience of others. For
"
the
improvement of human kind and human conduct, and to give mankind
clear and comprehensive views
of
their interest, together with the means
of
promoting it,
"
Priestley felt
"
the experience of some ages should be
collected and compared, that distant events should be brought together
"
(108
) .
Natural philsophy gives order to the accumulated human experi-
ence,
so
that we may then choose wisely about our lives and improve the
human condition.
Priestley himself seemed to have
a
strong synoptic grasp of history
revealed in his invention of the historical time line. Using the bar graph
for the first time
to
represent historical duration (Funkhouser), Priestley
published in
1765
an extremely popular
Chart of
Biography,
which went
through over fifteen editions by
1820,
and in
1769
an equally popular
Chart
of
History,
which also had at least fifteen editions by
1816
(Fulton,
6-7).
By this now
-
common technique he was able to give graphic shape to the
sweep of history. This sense of the sweep
of
history
is
essential
to
the vision
of the
History
of E
lectricity.
Moreover, he reveals an open
-
ended attitude
toward the historical process by leaving a blank space at the far end
of
the
Chart
of
History
for the reader to fill in the developments of the last
decades of the eighteenth century. Again this open
-
ended sense
of
the
historical process imbues the electricity book. He does not pretend that
electrical knowledge is complete and history ends with his account. Rather
20
Charles
Bazerman
he views electricity as an evolving practice and investigation, caught at
a present moment
or
state
of
development and leading into an unknown
future.
Priestley's concern for progressive historical improvement of life is
founded in his millennial theological positions concerning the perfectibility
of man led by a benevolent deity
(see
Hiebert; Laboucheix; McEvoy) and
consonant with his radical politics, including support of both the Ameri
-
can and French Revolutions
(see
Crosland,
"
Image
"
; Fruchtman; Kramnick;
Priestley,
Autobiography).
In his writings
on
education, Priestley turns
this concern into a practical program
of
training young men for a life of
worldly activity to replace the purely clerical education common at his
time
(An
Essay
on
a
Course
of
Liberal Education
for
Civil and
Active Life
,
1765).
Natural philosophy has an obvious place within such a theology,
politics, educational plan, and progressive view of history. Natural phi
-
losophy reveals the benevolence and wisdom
of
God's
plan and offers
humans a way to participate actively in the fulfillment of that plan.6
Within these theological, historical, educational, and rhetorical contexts,
Priestley's aim for his account of electricity becomes clear:
to
further the
communal work
of
electrical investigation. The preface to the
first
edition
of
the
History and Present State of Electricity
keeps returning to the theme
of
how this history and others like it may advance the progress of sci
-
ence; for example,
"
once the entire progress, and present state of every
science shall be fully and fairly exhibited,
I
doubt not but we shall see
a new and capital aera commence in the history of all sciences
"
(1:xviii).
Later he states even more directly,
"
To
quicken the speed
of
philosophers
in pursuing this progress, and at the same time, in some measure, to
facilitate it,
is
the intention of this treatise
" (
2: 53-54
).
Moreover, in a
simplified version published the year after
(1768),
he reveals his plan
comprehensively:
"
My principal design was to promote discoveries in
Science, by exhibiting a distinct view of the progress that had been made
hitherto, and suggesting the best hints that
I
could for continuing and
accelerating that progress
"
(Familiar
Introduction,
v).
A
History
of
Natural
Philosophy:
Part
1
The first step
in
this project
of
furthering the communal
work is to gather together the accumulated experience
of
electricity by
natural philosophers.
As
Priestley comments in the preface to the first
edition,
"
At present, philosophical discoveries are
so
many, and the ac
-
counts of them are
so
dispersed, that it is not in the power
of
any man
to come to the knowledge of all that has been done, as a foundation for
his own inquiries.
And
this circumstance appears to me to
have
very much
How Nat
ural Philosophers Can Cooperate
retarded the progress of discoveries
"
(1:vii). Although this comment may
be familiar in the twentieth century, it represents an attitude not gener
-
ally reflected in natural philosophic texts before this time. Generally refer
-
ences to the work of others was perfunctory, if present at all, and little
attempt was made to make systematic sense of the previous literature.
Often the writers seem unfamiliar with relevant published work. Franklin,
in the distant colonies, presents an extreme example; he began his work
with only the aid of a popular summary
of
contemporary work published
in the
Gentleman's Magazine.
Even after he became familiar with a wider
range of work, his publications rarely mentioned any historical work and
gave only passing mention to the work
of
his contemporaries.
The most extensive discussion
of
the electrical literature Priestley had
seen before writing his history was the four
-
page bibliographic appendix
to Desaguliers'
1742
forty
-
eight
-
page pamphlet,
A
Dissertation Concern
-
ing Electricity
,
which elaborates and gives citations for items mentioned
in the main text.
A
more extensive German summary of the literature and
annotated bibliography by Daniel Gralath did not come into Priestley's
hands until after the first edition had been published; Priestley
used
Gralaths work to revise the second edition.
Priestley took very seriously the task
of
gathering the accumulated
experience
of
prior electricians. He insisted on reading, wherever possible,
the original texts of all his predecessors. Much of Priestley's correspondence
in this period concerns his attempt to obtain rare volumes (Schofield),
and he apparently incurred large expenses in this regard (see Crosland,
"
Practical Perspective
"
). In the bibliography
of
his
book
he also requests
his readers
to
send him volumes he has not yet seen.
To
establish the immediate connection between the sources and his re
-
telling,
he
footnotes with specific page references each text quoted, sum
-
marized,
or
discussed. About half of the pages
of
the historical section
have at least one reference note and some have as many as five or six.
Except for secondary format differences, Priestley follows modern foot
-
note practice. He also includes a bibliography of all items on electricity
he had heard of (sixty
-
three items
in
the first edition and seventy
-
five in
the second and ensuing editions) and also notes the volumes which he had
consulted (thirty for the first edition and forty
-
three for later editions).
In addition, a detailed index identifies where each author is discussed.
In giving such care to identify sources he emphasizes that he is writing
a history of natural philosophy embodied in publications rather than a
Baconian natural history
of
the phenomena themselves. Priestley com
-
ments, for example, on Franklin's
New Experiments and Observations
on
Electricity:
"
Nothing was ever written upon the subject of electricity which
was more generally read and admired in
all
parts of Europe than these
letters. There
is
hardly any European language into which they have not
22
Charles Bazerman
been translated
(1:192)
The history of electricity is in part the history
of the appearance and circulation of texts which carry accounts of experi
-
ences. The experiences are not separable from the people who encounter
them nor from the texts in which accounts are transmitted.
Historical Consciousness within
Progressive
Knowledge
This historical awareness of the evolving human account
-
ing for natural phenomena allows him to treat earlier findings within
historically appropriate knowledge, while still using later developments
to
comment on, evaluate,
or
interpret the findings.8 Typically, we see
Priestley's historical awareness of the current state of knowledge in his
discussion
of
Boyle’s work: “We should now be surprised that any person
should not have concluded
a
priori,
that
if
an electric body attracted other
bodies, it must, in return, be attracted by them, action and reaction being
universally equal to one another. But it must be considered, that this axiom
was not
so
well understood in Mr. Boyle‘s time, nor till
it
was afterwards
explained in its full latitude by Sir Isaac Newton”
(1:8)
.
He even includes material that was by his time considered in error, so
as to
make the account
of
communal experience complete. Although some
-
times he labels the discredited results as delusions, elsewhere he presents
them with no comment, and in other places as productive challenges. His
account includes so
many cases
of
at first implausible results later accepted
as common knowledge that he is chary to exclude any result. Discredited
theories are respected for their appropriateness to the state of knowledge
in their times and their heuristic value for new discoveries.
Where results evoked controversy and troubled attempts at replication,
he gives accounts of the processes by which the community came to pass
judgment, as when J
.
A.
Nollet travels to Italy to investigate claims about
the medicinal effects of an electrical device and becomes “convinced that
the
accounts of cures had been much exaggerated
(1:187).
Priestley then
recounts other unsuccessful
at
tempted replications, including some per
-
formed ”in the presence of
a
great number of witnesses, many of them
prejudiced in favour
of
the pretended discoveries; but they were all forced
to be convinced of their futility, by the evidence of facts"
(1:187).
He com
-
ments, "After the publication of these accounts properly attested, every
unprejudiced person was satisfied, that the pretended discoveries from Italy
and Leipsick, which had raised the expectation
of
all electricians in Europe,
had no foundation in fact”(
1:188).
Priestley describes judgment as being
passed
by
the accumulated experience, which is recorded and circulated
in
a
sequence of documents.
23
How Natural Philosophers Can Cooperate
Specific
Accounts
and General
Claims
In
the attempt to represent fairly the experience and think
-
ing of previous electricians, Priestley offers lengthy accounts, staying self
-
consciously close to the original presentations. Rarely
is
any publication
given less than a full paragraphs discussion and often several pages are
devoted to describing crucial findings. In both the preface and in passing
he shows self
-
conscious awareness
of
the responsibilities and difficulties
of accurate summary and he often quotes at length, sometimes for more
than a page at a time. In the preface he comments “that
I
might not mis
-
represent any writer, I
have generally given the reader his own words,
or
the plainest translation
I
could make of them”
(1:x).
And through
-
out he explains and justifies any liberties he takes with the text or the
chronology.
Priestley’s discussion
of
each electrician is built on specific empirical
experiences or experiments which that individual was the first to notice
or
verify. These are recounted in sufficient detail for the particular event
to be pictured, and in a number of cases to be replicated. Further, Priestley
seems
to have replicated many of the experiments he recounts. He explicitly
notes the few cases when experiments present practical obstacles
for
repli
-
cation, such as the need for unusual, costly,
or
sensitive apparatus.
A
description
of
one of Francis Hauksbee’s experiments is typically
particular yet concise, relying as it does on the familiarity of typical
apparatus and general procedures.
Having tied threads round a wire hoop and brought it near to an
excited globe
or
cylinder, he observed, that the threads kept a
constant direction towards the center of the globe, or towards
some point on the axis
of
the cylinder, in every position
of
the
hoop; that this effect would continue for about four minutes
after the whirling of the globe ceased, and that this effect was the
same whether
the
wire was held above
or
under the glass;
or
whether the glass was placed with
its
axis parallel, or perpendicular
to the horizon.
He observed, that the threads pointing towards the center
of
the globe were attracted and repelled by a finger presented to
them; that if the finger, or any other body, was brought very near
the threads, they would be attracted; but if they were brought
to
the distance
of
about an inch, they would be repelled, the reason
of which difference he would not seem to understand.
(1:10)
Specific observations are the core
of
the account, but they are intro
-
duced and punctuated by discussion of experimental procedures and fol
-
lowed
by
a brief discussion. By such accounts
of
experiments Priestley
24
Charles
Bazerman
makes available a vicarious experience
of
essentially all the significantly
novel experiments performed by all electricians to that point in time and
opens
up
the possibility of actual repetition
of
the experiments.
These accounts
of
experiences are
not,
however, presented
as
isolated
events. Priestley organizes the experiments around general principles of
electrical behavior. The Hauksbee experiment described above is preceded
by statements classifying the experiment
at
two levels
of
generalization,
with Priestley's italics emphasizing the significant general concepts:
''I
shall
first relate the experiments [Hauksbee] made concerning
electrical
attrac-
tio
n and r
epulsion.
. .
,
The most curious
of
his experiments concerning
electrical attraction and repulsion are those which shew the direction in
which these powers are exerted"
: 19-20)
.
Moreover, he presents series of experiments as coherent sequential in
-
vestigations into particular phenomena,
so
that one experience seems to
lead
to
the next according to the dictates
of
rational investigation. The
Hauksbee experiments quoted above are immediately followed by further
experiments
to
explore attraction and repulsion phenomena. This sense
of
a coherent program
is
extended beyond the work
of
individual researchers
to be used as an organizing device for the work
of
many researchers. He
imposes a rational shape to communal work, which by this gesture be
-
comes a communal research program. Such generalizing coherence, natu
-
rally enough, appears at the head
of
chapters and sections, such as at the
beginning of section
9:
"
Electricians, after observing the great quantity
of
electrical matter with which clouds are charged during a thunderstorm,
began to attend to the lesser quantities of it which might be contained
in
the
common state
of
the atmosphere, and the more usual effects of this
great and general agent in nature
"
(1:421).
At times, the coherence of a communal program is identified through
a fundamental problem being investigated, rather than through the phe-
nomena discovered, as at
the
beginning
of
section
2:
"
One of the princi
-
pal desiderata in the science
of
electricity is to ascertain wherein consists
the distinction between those bodies which are conductors, and those
which are non
-
conductors
of
the electrical fluid
(1:241).
As
we shall see
in considering the later section on desiderata, the concept
of
research ques
-
tion
is
to Priestley an important device for organizing current work and
helps project the discipline into the future. And even in this historical part,
such open questions can be used to make sense of and evaluate work
already accomplished. The opening
of
section
2
quoted just above
continues:
All
that has been done relating
to
this question,
till
the present
time, amounts to nothing more than observations, how near
these two classes of bodies approach one another; and before the
25
How
Natural Philosophers Can Cooperate
period of which
I
am now treating, these generalizations were
few, general, and superficial. But
I
shall
now present my reader
with several very curious and accurate experiments, which,
though they do not give
us
intire satisfaction with respect to the
great desideratum above mentioned; yet throw some light on
the subject.
(1:241)
Overall the book presents
a
progressive historical account
of
increasing
knowledge, organized around the accretion of general principles that give
order to the accumulated experience. This textual structure does require
some chronological adjustments and conceptual relabelings. Priestley
admits his imposition
of a
n after
-
the
-
fact logic on events, such as com
-
menting that his accounts
of
Hauksbee’s experiments are ”related not
exactly in the order in which he published them, but according to their
connection. This method
I
have chosen, as best adapted to give the most
distinct view of the whole”
(1:19).
Moreover, as mentioned previously,
he makes connections between earlier observations and later
-
developed
general principles. Although such anachronistic use of generalizations may
offend modern historiography, it does give order to prior empirical experi
-
ence and establish broad empirical grounding
to
current generalizations.
By creating an account
of
all prior experiences using current generaliza
-
tions, yet remaining close to the original experimental particulars, Priestley
demonstrates the general force of his generalizations. In a late chapter,
Priestley even goes back to examine ancient Roman accounts of phe
-
nomena that only since the time of Franklin could have been considered
electrical. This procedure, later articulated by Pierre Duhem
as
“saving
the phenomenon,” ensures that the history
of
experience is not ignored
when new concepts are developed. This is also the historical standpoint
of contemporary reviews
of
the literature that use current concepts and
research questions to make sense
of
the previous work in the field.9
Despite the organizing power Priestley finds in his contemporary con
-
cepts, he does not discard those experiences that do not fit under any
concept or contradict current categories. To make room for anomalous
and aconceptual material Priestley vigorously
uses
the category of
mis-
cellaneous
both at the end of chapters and
as
full chapters,
as
in the
”Miscellaneous Discoveries
of
Dr. Franklin and his Friends in America
During the Same Period and the final chapter
of
the historical section,
“Miscellaneous Experiments and Discoveries Made Within This Period.”
Because he believes in the power of anomalies
to
reveal new truths, he
carefully notes them. In introducing his discussion
of
tourmalin he remarks,
”This period
of
my history furnishes an entirely new subject of electrical
inquiries; which, if
properly pursued, may throw great light upon the most
general properties
of
electricity. This
is
the
Tourmalin:
though, it must
26
Charles Bazerman
be acknowledged, the experiments which have hitherto been made upon
this fossil stand like exceptions
to
all that was before known
of
the sub
-
ject’’
(1:367).
Codification and Access to Ordered Experience
In the collection, representation, and codification
of
all
recorded experience of electrical phenomena, Priestley has made accessi
-
ble and given order to the communal empirical experience. By rescuing
from obscurity early and unread work and showing that work consistent
with following work and contemporary concepts, he draws a wider range
of
participants and experience into the cooperative effort of coming to
terms with nature. Moreover, in making the previous work available,
intelligible, and experienceable (vicariously or in actual practice) to his
readers, he enriches each person‘s experience and provides a common base
of experience and knowledge for all new participants in the field. All elec
-
tricians will now know and have contact with essentially the same range
of experience, with whatever local additions they might have access to
or
create themselves. With the history of the field available and codified,
and all participants knowing the same thing, work may then proceed more
rapidly, efficiently, and cooperatively. Throughout the history Priestley
had noted as admonitory examples just those instances where lack
of
access, ignorance of previous work, or lack of shared assumptions led
to
duplication of effort or unnecessary conflict.
The shared history Priestley presents has not reached conceptual
or
empirical closure. He indicates the open questions, the anomalies, and the
incompletely understood phenomena. In the preface he promises to pro
-
vide updates on future research (as
is
provided in the second edition and
as a separately published pamphlet). Last
-
minute prepublication addenda
were
also
included in both first and second editions. The third edition had
only limited revisions, for Priestley promised to write a
Continuation
to
the
History
-
a promise never fulfilled. Even more significantly, the latter
half of the
book
points to an open
-
ended future by establishing the shared
basis for continued work and offering practical guidance for further ex
-
periments. Priestley presents the extensive history of the first half as only
a necessary prologue to the ongoing practice
of
knowledge creatiun.
General Propositions and
Observable Knowledge: Part
2
The product
of
history, as Priestley tells it, is emergent
principles which order the accumulated experiences. In part
2
of
the
book,
How Natural Philosophers Can Cooperate
Priestley abstracts these generalizations in a seven
-
page
"
series of proposi
-
tions comprising all the general properties
of
electricity.
"
These propo
-
sitions describe the observable effects of electricity, rather than present
ontological statements about the nature of electricity itself.
The propositions are largely cast in terms of generalized experimental
events: for example,
"
It is the property
of
all kinds of electrics, that when
they are rubbed by bodies differing from themselves (in roughness or
smoothness chiefly) to attract light bodies
of
all kinds which are presented
to
them
"
(2:4).
Accordingly many statements begin with
"
if
"
clauses
to
indicate the generalized experimental conditions that may be experienced
by all observers.
"
If
an electric shock, or strong spark pass through, or
over the belly
of
a
muscle,
it
forces it to contract
as
in
a convulsion
"
(2:9)
.
Even the occasional existential statement is elaborated in generalized
operational experimental terms:
"
Electricity and lightning are, in all re
-
spects, the same thing. Every effect of lightning may be imitated by elec
-
tricity, and every experiment in electricity may be made with lightning,
brought down from the clouds, by means
of
insulated pointed rods of
metal
"
(2:10).
The succinctness and generality
of
these claims
is
to Priestley a sign
of
the advance
of
knowledge:
"
For the more we know
of
any science, the
greater number
of
particular propositions we are able
to
resolve into
general ones
"
(2:2)
.
Since these propositions are not a priori projections,
but rather inductive generalizations, they compose an order created out
of
accumulated experience. The ability to find encompassing propositions
of
increasing generality indicates understanding
of
more powerful and
fundamental principles of phenomena.
Nonetheless, the propositions presented by Priestley, although gener
-
ally following a sequential expository order, are not tightly organized
around
a
single account of the nature
of
electricity, although such an
account might have led to even greater succinctness, as Priestley notes
(2:2).
They are largely disjunct statements about separately observable
phenomena, with only a few logical connectives. Priestley is very careful
to distinguish these general propositions which may be separately observ
-
able by all electricians from any coherent account
of
what electricity might
be, for in his time that was only a matter of theoretical speculation about
unobservable matters.
By establishing a succinct codification of what is currently known,
generally agreed to, and observable, Priestley clarifies the extent of shared
knowledge. This brief, yet comprehensive, list allows for coordination
of
continuing work, recognition
of
novelties and anomalies in new obser
-
vations, rapid socialization
of
neophyte electricians into the current
state
of
knowledge, and easy reference. The list
of
propositions thus serves the
functions of both the modern handbook and the modern textbook. Fur-
28
Charles Bazerman
thermore, by separating those statements which are generally agreed to
be empirical truths from uncertain theories, Priestley allows for a differ
-
entiation of discussion in ensuing work. He does not propose a unitary
system of knowledge, as
Newton does where general theory appears
inseparable from representation
of
empirical experiences, so
that the
theorizing is made invisible and denied (see Bazerman, chap. 4).
Rather
he establishes agreement on the level at which all can agree and focuses
debate
on
less certain matters. Thus he not only codifies the existing
knowledge, but codifies the levels and manners
of
discussion. He provides
literary technology first for coordination of areas of agreement by slow
-
ing down the communal ascent up the ladder
of
generalization (as Bacon
cautions the individual researcher to do) and second for domestication
of
conflict by limiting the arena of disagreement.
Historicizing Theory: Part
3
Having historicized experience and discovery in the early
parts of his work, Priestley historicizes theory in the third part. Theories,
as Priestley presents them, historically precede knowledge. Theories, which
he uses interchangeably with hypotheses, help frame experiments and lead
to newly observed phenomena, but they themselves are not substantiated
knowledge. When the hypothesized phenomenon is made observable
through experiment, it passes out
of
the realm of theory into the realm
of operational knowledge. As Priestley states in his introductory comments
to part
3:
Hypotheses
.
. .
lead persons to try a variety of experiments, in
order to ascertain them. In these experiments, new facts generally
arise. These new facts serve to correct the hypothesis which gave
occasion to them. The theory, thus corrected, serves to discover
more new facts, which, as before, bring the theory still nearer
to
the truth.
In
this progressive state,
or
method of approximation,
things continue; till, by degrees, we may hope that we shall have
discovered
all
the facts, and have formed a perfect theory
of
them. By this perfect theory,
I
mean a system of propositions,
accurately defining all the circumstances
of
every appearance, the
separate effect of each circumstance, and the manner ofits
operation.
(2:15-16)
At the end of investigation, then, theory changes from a conjecture about
causes to an empirically based operational account.
How Natural Philosophers Can Cooperate
Theories, then, are useful but uncertain and historically bounded ac
-
counts. They are heuristic. Discussion of theories leads to difficulties only
because investigators present their hypotheses as general truths and be
-
come too attached
to
them. Thus they
do
not allow the replacement or
modification of theory in relation to new findings, nor do they admit new
hypotheses that would serve as heuristic for new discoveries. Priestley
found this attachment to speculative theories particularly rife within elec
-
tricity because,
"
As
the agent is invisible, every philosopher is at liberty
to make it whatever he pleases, and to ascribe to it such properties and
powers as are most convenient for his purpose
"
(2:16).
In his
own
account of electrical theory, Priestley adopts several liter
-
ary methods
to
identify the limited and transient utility of theories and
to decrease his own and the reader's attachment to any particular theory.
He describes the historical state of knowledge out of which each theory
arises and which
it
is meant to account for, identifies the new findings
that the theory led to, and finally presents the empirical results the theory
could not adequately account for. Unlike the timeless presentation of
general propositions, theories are given a specific time and place. More
-
over, Priestley casts theories aside after they have played their role in the
generation of empirical truths and have been made obsolete by further
discoveries.
Priestley adopts this historical attitude even to theories viable in his own
time, including his favored account: Franklin's theory of positive and nega
-
tive electricity. Priestley discusses how Franklin's theory provides a satis
-
factory account
of
a number of phenomena, especially that of the Leyden
jar
-
the phenomenon which the theory was first developed to explain.
But he also discusses a number of phenomena for which the theory re
-
mains inadequate, such as the influence of points and the electrification
of
clouds. Moreover, he points out that the theory is in
a
state
of
flux,
being subject to modification by a number of electricians. On the other
hand, he finds that the ability of this theory to incorporate findings and
ideas from previous theory very much in its favor, as it does not aban
-
don collective experience. Finally, although Priestley ends this chapter with
a panegyric to Franklin, the quality he praises
most
is Franklin's diffidence
about his own theory and his just
"
sense of the nature, use and impor
-
tance of hypotheses
"
(2:39) w
hich attributes more importance to the facts
produced than the general accounts.
The most significant feature of Priestley's presentation of theories is that
the chapter on his favored theory is followed by an almost equally long
chapter on a contending theory to which he also attributes great utility.
Priestley comments,
"
I
shall, notwithstanding the preference
I
have given
30
Charles Bazerman
to Dr. Franklin’s theory, endeavour to represent [the theory
of
two elec
-
trical fluids]
to
as much advantage as possible, and even to do it more
justice than has yet been done to
it,
even by Mr. Symmer himself”
(2:41)
.
After an extensive summary of the theory he points out certain phenomena
for which this theory appears useful and plausible, in some instances
providing less
-
tortured accounts than Franklin’s single
-
fluid theory. Like
Franklin’s theory, Robert Symmer’s theory offers no inconsistency, but
lacks insight into certain phenomena. Priestley then modifies the theory
to answer the chief objection made to
it
and comes
to
the conclusion that
the theory is consistent with all available evidence. Priestley cites another
electrician, Cigna, granting Franklin’s theory the upper hand because of
its overall greater simplicity, but no final strong judgments are made. The
section ends with Priestley inviting readers to communicate “any other
theory, not obviously contradicted by facts”
(2:52)
.
Thus even while maintaining a favored theory, Priestley manages to
distance himself from it and develop a dispassionate method for discus
-
sing and evaluating competing theories. Not only does his tone and liter
-
ary method allow for modification and theory change, it
separates the
advocacy of theory from the discovery of facts, even while recognizing
the dialectical connection between fact and theory. His mode of discus
-
sion diffuses the argumentative gap that results from theory differences,
allows cooperative research on the level
of
general propositions, and offers
an orderly procedure
for
discussing and evaluating theories.
He
offers
a
means for communal theory development and modification short of total
replacement. Finally, by reducing the status of theory, he reduces the stakes
in theory wars.
"A
Great Deal Still Remains
to
be
Done": Part
4
To
Priestley, the codification (or gathering together and
conceptual organization) of prior work only served to highlight the in
-
completeness
of
our communal electrical knowledge. In the first three
parts
-
the history, the general propositions, and the theory
-
he is at pains
to point out what issues are left open, what
is
unknown, what is puzzling,
One
of
the great dangers he finds in the individual’s adherence to a single
theory is that the individual may feel that electricity has been solved and
therefore find little motivation to extend researches. Such is his accusa
-
tion against Nollet
(2:25). S
ystematic codification, to the contrary, identi
-
fies specific areas needing investigation and unsolved research problems
(or desiderata, as Priestley calls them).
How Natural Philosophers Can Cooperate
To make these incompletenesses even more visible, and therefore to guide
future work, Priestley gathers them together in the middle chapters of
section
4,
in the form of
"
queries and hints,
"
following on the exhortation
to
continuing research of the opening chapter. These queries and hints
are presented as lists of questions. Questions, even while they invite
unknown answers, constrain the form of the answers. A series of ques
-
tions can set an agenda for communal work and provide a framework
for comparing competing answers.
Priestley's questions are set under various headings corresponding to
phenomena identified and elaborated in the previous work. Under each
heading, the opening questions tend to be the more fundamental ques
-
tions, which are then elaborated more specifically in the following ques
-
tions. For example, the
"
Queries and Hints Concerning Excitation
"
begins
with a fundamental question of structure, moves to elaborating phe
-
nomena, and then specific experiments:
What is the difference, in the eternal structure of electrics, that
makes some of them excitable by friction, and others by heating
and cooling?
What have friction, heating, cooling, and the separation after
close contact in common to them all? How do any of them
contribute to excitation? And in what manner
is
one,
or
the other
electricity produced by rubbers and electrics of different surfaces?
Is
not Mr. Aepinus's experiments of pressing two flat pieces
of glass together, when one of them contracts a positive and the
other a negative electricity, similar
to
the experiments of
Mr. Wilcke concerning
,
.
.
?
By explicitly mentioning recent and ongoing