Chapter 33 Conclusion to Chapter 30: The Phenomenon of Conversion as a Characteristic of the Scientific Revolution

Many aspects of the revolution, such as the creative process, the role of the individual scientist in the formation and dissemination of revolutionary scientific ideas, the personality of the scientific revolutionist, and the impact of changes in technologies and methods of scientific communication on scientific revolutions, are not covered in this book Be researched.I just touched on many aspects of the degree and level of interaction between scientific revolutions and their social, political, institutional or economic roots.Furthermore, I merely exemplify the possible connections and successors between scientific and sociopolitical revolutions.

But there is one empirical phenomenon that recurs in primary and secondary literature during scientific revolutions that I am happy to discuss here, and that phenomenon is conversion.Planck (194, 33-34) is often quoted to illustrate the difficulty of conversion: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents, but because these opponents eventually die, and A new generation familiar with it grows up to make scientific truth triumph." Half a century ago, Harvard professor Joseph Lovelling expressed a similar idea.He said to his students: There are two theories of light, the theory of waves and the theory of particles.It is said that he claimed at the time: Everyone believes in the wave theory today because all the people who believe in the particle theory are dead.Nevertheless, as we know, there must be a question of a standard of truth in such formulations, and new scientific ideas do win posterity, but also convince certain opponents, as the many examples in this book show.Planck witnessed firsthand the process by which his basic ideas were accepted, modified, and used by his scientific colleagues.This feature of scientific revolutions—winning scientists—is so common that I take its intensity as a marker of the transition from a theoretical revolution to a scientific revolution.

This sea change in belief is likely to be disruptive.The acceptance of entirely new ideas almost always entails a rethinking of fundamental issues—time and space, simultaneity, the stability of species, the indivisibility of atoms, the incompatibility of particles and waves, causality, predictability.Moreover, new ideas always cast aside widely accepted beliefs of the past with entirely different ideas.It is no wonder that scientists use phrases such as "have seen the light" or "converted their beliefs", consciously or unconsciously comparing their own experience with the classical religious experience.

In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), Kuhn used two phrases to reveal this phenomenon: the irreversible "gestalt shift" and the "conversion experience".He explicitly discusses moving from one paradigm of allegiance to another, an act akin to a religious conversion.Although this is not a major element of his syllabus, it still features prominently, although Kuhn does not cite examples.One has only to read this famous book about the scientific revolution without being impressed by the ubiquitous words of transformation.Scientists sometimes use the word transformation for no more than figurative or literal considerations, e.g. in 1796 Joseph Priestley (1796; 1929, 1920) described "Dr. Blake of Edinburgh and all the Scots I know are How claims to have switched to "the new Lavoisier chemistry.Two centuries later, the physicist A.Pace (1982, 150) used the same vocabulary to describe the new physics.As we saw in the previous chapter, the same was true for Wilson, one of the founders of the theory of plate tectonics and an early proponent of the theory of continental drift.

Almost a hundred years ago, Huxley wrote: "One of the consequences of a conversion to scientific faith is the recognition of the universal and absolute validity of the laws of causality at all times and in all circumstances".This argument is advanced by Huxenley in response to the accusation that Darwin "attempted to restore the ancient pagan goddess—chance."In Huxley's view, Darwin's detractors believed that Darwin "conceived that variation was caused by chance, and that the fittest survived the chance of the struggle for existence." Thus, they pointed out that in Darwin's theory, "chance superseded God's Design." In response to the Darwinian criticism of conservatives, Huxley noted that those who regard "chance" in this way are "heirs of ancient superstition and ignorance . . . whose minds have never been illuminated by the light of scientific thought Pass".They are stubborn and have not turned to science so far; they deny the law of causality.The acknowledgment "is an act of faith," Huxley explained.The reason is that "in essence, the truth of this proposition is unverifiable".And the difference between this kind of belief and other beliefs is that it is "not blind, but reasonable".It is "irrefutably confirmed by experience, and it is the only trustworthy foundation of all action".Huxley not only used a lot of space to refute Darwin's opponents, but also used the method of analogy with religion that we think is a bit too much today in order to achieve his goal.He goes even further than I have pointed out when he speaks of "the worship of chance of our remote ancestors which still has a place among men" (Darwin, 1887, 2: pp. 199-200).

The idea of ​​conversion featured prominently in Darwin's correspondence, and here are excerpts from several of his letters from 1858 to 1859: [To AR Wallace, Jan. 25, 1859] You asked me about Ryle's state of mind.I think he faltered a bit, but didn't give in.He used to tell me with disgust how annoying it would be if he was "misunderstood" and how uninteresting the reprinting of "Principles" would be.He is the most upright and honest, I think it is inevitable that he will be "misunderstood" in the end.Dr. Hooker is almost as heretic as you and I, and I think Hooker is by far the most competent commentator in Europe.

[September 20, 1859 to C.Ryle] Your previous doubts about the immutability of species may have had a greater impact on your conversion (if you have converted) than my writings ... I cannot express my conviction in your doctrine too much, God knows I never run away from difficulties.I am foolishly longing for your judgment, not that I should be disappointed if you do not convert; for I remember it took me a long time to convert; but I should be exceedingly glad if you should, especially If I have a share of the credit for the transformation. [September 23, 1859 to W. D．Fox" I'm not stupid enough to try to convert you.

[October 15, 1859 to J. D．Hookerer was about to re-read my work, and I still had hope for his conversion, or, as he said, his apostasy. [October 15, 1859 to T. H．Huxley] I never want you to convert to my many fallacies. [To A. Gray, November 11, 1859: "Ryle . . . is coming to my point of view. [To AR. November 13, 1859.Wallace Hooker thinks [Ryle] has completely converted. Ryle later discussed this issue in a letter to Hooke (1887, 2:193): "I have found that I have not been able to make much of the attitude of those who opposed Darwin in the past and even Huxley now. Transformation. They had to give up "the ancient and long-cherished views which inspired my early interest in scientific theories, when I became convinced of what Pascal, Hallam, called the destruction of the archangels." In these excerpts In , we not only note the use of "conversion" and other religious terms, but we also see that Darwin's own conversion took a long time. This is a common topic among scientists. J.J. Thomson in his autobiography describes how difficult it was for him to accept the divisibility of atoms.

Darwin's correspondence also allows us to see the actual experience of transformation. H． C．Watson, who called Darwin "the greatest revolutionist in natural history," wrote on November 21, 1859, that "natural selection" contains "the character of all the great truths of nature" and that it clarifies "the obscure ", simplifies "complex things" and greatly complements "previous knowledge" (Darwin 1887, 2:226).Huxley explained the role of the new theory of evolution in explaining its acceptance (1888): it was like "a flash of lightning, which suddenly illuminates a way for those who are lost in the dark, whether or not it leads directly to home, but Definitely a bright path."Later, he used a religious metaphor, saying: "Darwin and Wallace dispelled the darkness, and the beacon of the origin guides the people in the darkness."

Chemist Rosa Meyer's explanation of scientific conversion is compelling.Years later, Meyer recalled the shocking events at the conclusion of the Karlsruhe Conference in 1860.The conference was called by the great organic chemist Kekule and was "one of the most important in the history of chemistry" (van Spronsen 1969, 42).This is the first international scientific congress convened to address pressing issues within science.At the center of the discussion was the confusion created by several competing and vastly different systems of atomic weights.So much uncertainty has led many chemists to turn to compound quantities for a way out.The difference in the atomic weight system comes from the ambiguity of the concepts of atom and molecule.For example, can atoms of the same chemical element combine to form molecules (problem of the Italian chemist Avogadro)?Are chemical bonds only formed between atoms of different elements (question of Dalton, founder of modern atomism)?This meeting attempted to settle once and for all the thorny problem upon which the structural forms of all organic chemistry depend (see de Myert 1948).

Not surprisingly, chemists from all over the world ended their meetings with simple and generally acceptable solutions.But the meeting did have positive conclusions: towards the end of the meeting, Professor of Chemistry at the University of Genoa, S.Cannizzaro distributed a pamphlet in which he provided an answer to the central theme of the conference that is generally accepted today.Cannizzaro drew mainly on the work of Avogadro, but also from C. F．Gerauer, who has been teaching his students the solution to this conundrum that plagues the scientific community.As soon as Meyer read this pamphlet, he immediately turned to the Cannizzaro system, and he became the discoverer of the periodic law (or system) of elements together with several scientists from different countries.Two years after this meeting, Cannizzaro published an analysis in the Annual Report of Advances in Chemistry, and decades later Meyer wrote a preface to its reprint, describing his own transformation.Since this statement is so classic, it is worth citing it in full here: Readers may notice Meyer's reference to Saul of Tareus because he uses the language of "opening... my eyes" and other religious experiences.Clearly Meyer must have recognized that there are considerable parallels between scientific conversion and religious conversion. When studying revolutions historically, one must be clear that in classical times "conversion" meant a revolution in the old circular sense, and even in religion "conversion" still retains some of the ancient spiritual regeneration means, otherwise it would be impossible to discuss conversion.But the modern usage of the term, especially in science, refers to radical conversion and acceptance of an entirely different point of view.Therefore, the transformation of concept makes us embark on the road of circulation.Although scientific analysis does not permit the use of religious terms such as "conversion" to discuss scientific change, the main task of the historian in the study of "conversion" - as in the study of "revolution" - is not to adjudicate past words and deeds, but is to record and analyze them.