Theorists v. Experimenters (Hacking) and thoughts about American Curiosity
In the Hacking article, he discusses the role of class and caste in the "argument" between theory and the experiment. Although he mentioned that certain philosophers "such as Bacon and Leibniz show we don't have to be anti-experimental", it is interesting to note that the more revered scientists during that period of time were those who spent time developing theories (150). The idea of "leisure" that we brought up at the end of Wednesday's class discussion also plays a role in this "theory versus experiment dilemma". Theorists were not required to see their theories come to fruition; they merely spent time coming up with ideas and left them to be tested by experimenters. In his article, Hacking mentions that the theoretical insights of many experimenters were ignored, for example Robert Hooke, because they were of a lower social ranking than theorists. Similarly, many experiments performed by theorists have been ignored because their theories have made considerable strides in science. As we mentioned in class, this argument continues presently as we try to determine whether theory or the experiment is more beneficial to science. I believe that we have narrowed the gap between the social rankings of theorists and experimenters; however, I do think that we still consider theorists to be on a different intellectual level than experimenters because of their ability to decipher and explain abstract thought in a way that will benefit their specific area of scientific study.
On a totally different note, I found the introduction to American Curiosity to be more interesting than the other articles that we have read thus far. As the colonists sought their independence from the British monarch, it was intriguing to learn about how they used science to show that their intelligence matched that of their English counterparts. Although their intelligence may have not been exactly equal, it was clever of the colonial men and women to use "novel or beautiful specimens of American nature" to truly convince the critics in England (17). It was also interesting to learn of Crevecoeur's ideas that "cold, rugged climates produced virtuous hardworking citizens, whereas hot climates necessarily produced the monstrous twins of tyranny and slavery"(20). I believe that it was quite easy for Crevecoeur to come up with this idea after seeing what had taken place historically in colonial America and well as in Africa and helped to further spread the belief in America's "national virtue"(20). Because of Crevecoeur's seemingly stringent belief in the climate's effects on every aspect of life as well as his belief in the superiority of America, I wonder what he would have thought about the emergence of slavery in the American South...
On a totally different note, I found the introduction to American Curiosity to be more interesting than the other articles that we have read thus far. As the colonists sought their independence from the British monarch, it was intriguing to learn about how they used science to show that their intelligence matched that of their English counterparts. Although their intelligence may have not been exactly equal, it was clever of the colonial men and women to use "novel or beautiful specimens of American nature" to truly convince the critics in England (17). It was also interesting to learn of Crevecoeur's ideas that "cold, rugged climates produced virtuous hardworking citizens, whereas hot climates necessarily produced the monstrous twins of tyranny and slavery"(20). I believe that it was quite easy for Crevecoeur to come up with this idea after seeing what had taken place historically in colonial America and well as in Africa and helped to further spread the belief in America's "national virtue"(20). Because of Crevecoeur's seemingly stringent belief in the climate's effects on every aspect of life as well as his belief in the superiority of America, I wonder what he would have thought about the emergence of slavery in the American South...
posted by maxine at 10:13 PM
2 Comments:
The American South and its slavery could be considered in accordance with Crevecoeur's statements, due to the hot and muggy weather I've personally had to endure. Still, the South deviates from the "superior matrix for national virtue" (Parrish 20) that Crevecoeur and other promoters of America claim, but these early American inhabitants couldn't have predicted this as their knowledge of the country was primarily of the "cold, rugged" (20) North East. Crevecoeur's assumption that "men are like plants" in their susceptibilty to the weather actually brings to mind my intro Cultural Anthropology course. Early anthropologist Herbert Spencer related society to organisms and in cult. anthropology's beginnings, it was widely believed that environment determined a society's 'evolution' and similar civilizations would be found in similar climates.
Katie and Maxine--these are great comments. I'm glad you brought up this issue about climate--how Europeans and Am. colonists were invested in the idea that the environment had a powerful incluence on shaping character and identity.
And Maxine, you are definitely onto to something when you bring the question of slavery to Crevecoeur's concerns. (Actually, I'm writing on that *very* topic right now for my own research. At the end of his _Letters of an American Farmer_, Crevecoeur actually happens upon a grotesque scene in the otherwise calm, peaceful woods: a slave shackled inside of a birdcage. As you can imagine, this is quite a dramatic part of the text and it ends up causing a real crisis for Crevecoeur's thoughts on climate and national identity, If you're interested, let me know and we can talk some more about it).
Post a Comment
<< Home