Theory and experiment went hand in hand in the work of Lord Rayleigh, in which the quest for rigor was a ubiquitous theme. To Rayleigh’s mind, though, and in contrast to mathematicians, physicists could proceed in their investigations without seeking absolute rigor. In his experimental practice, pursuing rigor involved the application of control strategies, which pervaded his work at various levels. Moreover, experimental control had various aims, such as standardizing measurement units in determining the ohm and validating experimental results in the discovery of argon. In the former case, Rayleigh and his team varied the design of their apparatus to control the experimental conditions. Dealing with errors was the main aim of their control practices and lay at the heart of their methodology. In the latter case, control was present in every step of the discovery process: the detection of discrepancies between the densities of atmospheric and “chemical” nitrogen, the identification of argon as a constituent of the atmosphere, and the subsequent exploration of its properties. The aim of this paper is to investigate and contrast the strategies of control employed in those two cases and to clarify their various purposes.

Authored by a diverse group of contributors, Big Science in the 21st Century offers a multifaceted view of the challenges, merits, and transformations of Big Science across different disciplines and geographical boundaries. It delves into the transformative role of Big Science in shaping the world we live in, from its historical roots in the aftermath of the Second World War to its contemporary interdisciplinary and international nature. The book is organized in five parts, each offering unique insights into the impact of Big Science. The first part looks at lessons from Big Science organizations and best practices in increasing the return of benefits to society. The second part offers the voice of key economists who have worked on assessment exercises concerning the socioeconomic benefits of large-scale research infrastructures. The third part traces the development of Big Science in the aftermath of World War II. The fourth part focus on the educational and cultural impacts that Big Science has beyond the laboratory, from the art gallery to the school classroom. The last part brings a more global perspective with contributions from other continents outside North America and Western Europe. The book is aimed at professionals involved in science policy and administration, economists interested in evaluating the results of scientific research, historians of science and technology, and anyone with an interest in scientific outreach and communication. 

Contribution to Book Forum on The instrument of science: Scientific anti-realism revitalised by Darrell Rowbottom

Quantum chemistry is a firmly established branch within theoretical chemistry. However, in the late 1920s and early 1930s when the first foundational papers and books appeared, mostly written by physicists as well as by chemists or chemical physicists, the disciplinary identity of the emerging field was a contentious issue: Was it physics or was it chemistry? This question was tied to the problem of reductionism and received different answers, which led to different ways of practicing quantum chemistry and eventually stabilized its identity as an in-between/ boundary discipline. During its subsequent development the question of disciplinary identity continued to be central, as quantum chemistry established connections to other disciplines and was deeply shaped by computing technology. In this chapter we discuss the historical development of quantum chemistry, integrating several strands, conceptual, institutional, methodological, and epistemological.

The aim of this article is to make a case for the pertinence of a biographical approach to the history of scientific objects. I first lay out the rationale of that approach by revisiting and extending my earlier work on the topic. I consider the characteristics of scientific objects that motivate the biographical metaphor, and I indicate its virtues and limitations by bringing out the positive and negative analogies between biographies of scientific objects and ordinary biographies. I then point out various ways in which scientific objects may pass away and argue that their demise should be conceptualized as a process. Finally, I sketch the history of the concept of “ether” in nineteenth and early twentieth century physics and suggest that it lends itself particularly well to a biographical treatment. To that effect, I discuss the identity, heuristic character, and recalcitrance of the ether and examine the reasons that may have led to its passing.

In this paper, we employ Ian Hacking’s insight that ‘‘unity’’ has a double meaning, singleness and harmonious integration, to revisit a major episode from the recent history of CERN: the UA1 and UA2 experiments in the early 1980s, which led to the discovery of the W and Z bosons. CERN is a complex institution, where diverse groups are called upon to cooperate. We argue that this lack of unity, in the first sense of the term, is counterbalanced by specific mechanisms of integration, so that CERN achieves its standing as a unified organization. The UA1/UA2 episode highlights this interplay between unity and disunity. The UA2 experiment was designed and carried out in order to confirm the validity of the results obtained by UA1. The two experimental teams, working independently and with different mentalities, built separate detectors and refrained from systematically sharing their data. This gave rise to strong antagonisms and diametrically opposed opinions over what conclusions could legitimately be drawn from the resulting data. Our analysis focuses on the mechanisms which compensated for that disunity and eventually led to a unified consensus between UA1 and UA2.

In this paper we attempt a critical appraisal of the relation between history of science and philosophy of science in Ian Hacking’s styles of scientific reasoning project. In our analysis, we employ a distinction between “historical philosophy of science” and “philosophical history of science”: the former aims at addressing philosophical issues, while the latter aims at telling stories about the scientific past that are informed by philosophical considerations. We argue that Hacking practices historical philosophy of science; discuss how his approach is differentiated from the so-called confrontation model; and show that he opts for a strong integration between history and philosophy of science. Finally, we discuss the historiographical implications of his approach and suggest that his aim to maintain a middle position, on the one hand, between contingency and inevitabilism, and, on the other, between internalism and externalism in the explanation of the stability of scientific knowledge, is compromised by his philosophical commitments.

Review of J. Losee, The Golden Age of Philosophy of Science 1945 to 2000 (London: Bloomsbury, 2019).

In this article I discuss the nature and function of scientific concepts, what ittakes to possess them, how they can be represented, and how they can be studiedby examining the uses of the scientific terms associated with them. I then examinethe epistemological issues that arise when considering conceptual change.Furthermore, I draw a distinction between concepts referring to manifest entities(accessible to observation) and concepts referring to hidden entities (temporarilyor permanently unobservable). I argue that the function of scientific concepts isdifferent in the two cases. In the former case, their function is primarily classificatory;whereas in the latter case, their function is primarily explanatory. Finally,I suggest that the epistemological problems generated by the evolution of scientificconcepts are more severe in the latter case than in the former.

The author brings out the many faces of explanation in history of science by commenting on the contributions to a Focus section of Isis on historical explanation. The essay starts by indicating several ways in which the term “explanation” is used in historiographical discourse. It then distinguishes the object of explanation from the process of explanation and points out common themes and points of contention among the thirteen contributions. It also discusses two of those points in more detail: the problems of causal explanation in history of science and the imperative of avoiding anachronism in historical interpretation. The essay concludes by suggesting a pluralist take on explaining science historically.

I raise two challenges for scientific realists. The first is a pessimistic meta-induction (PMI), but not of the more common type, which focuses on rejected theories and abandoned entities. Rather, the PMI I have in mind departs from conceptual change, which is ubiquitous in science. Scientific concepts change over time, often to a degree that is difficult to square with the stability of their referents, a sine qua non for realists. The second challenge is to make sense of successful scientific practice that was centered on entities that have turned out to be fictitious.

In this article, I explore the value of philosophy of science for history of science. I start by introducing a distinction between two ways of integrating history and philosophy of science: historical philosophy of science (HPS) and philosophical history of science (PHS). I then offer a critical discussion of Imre Lakatos’s project to bring philosophy of science to bear on historical interpretation. I point out certain flaws in Lakatos’s project, which I consider indicative of what went wrong with PHS in the past. Finally, I put forward my own attempt to bring out the historiographical potential of philosophy of science. Starting from Norwood Russell Hanson’s insight that historical studies of science involve metascientific concepts, I argue that philosophical reflection on those concepts can be (and, indeed, has been) historiographically fruitful. I focus on four issues (epistemic values, experimentation, scientific discovery and conceptual change) and discuss their significance and utility for historiographical practice.

In this paper, we revisit the discovery of argon by Lord Rayleigh and William Ramsay. We argue that to understand historically how argon was detected, conceptualized, and accommodated into chemical knowledge we need to take into account the philosophical insight that scientific discovery is often an extended process. One of argon’s most intriguing properties was that it did not react with other elements. Reactivity, however, had been a constitutive property of elements. Thus, the discovery of argon could not have been accepted by chemists without a reconceptualization of ‘element’. Furthermore, there were difficulties with the accommodation of argon in the Periodic table, because argon appeared to undermine the conception of matter that underlay the Periodic table. The discovery of argon was complete only after those conceptual difficulties had been removed. This is why it has to be understood as an extended process, rather than as an event. Furthermore, we will suggest that some of the factors that complicated the discovery of argon were related to the legitimization of physical techniques of investigation in chemistry and the emergence of physical chemistry.

In this paper we take as our point of departure Kostas Gavroglu and Yorgos Goudaroulis’s insight that, in the process of describing and explaining novel phenomena, scientific concepts are taken “out of” their original theoretical context, acquire additional meaning, and become relatively autonomous. We first present their account of how concepts are re-contextualized and, in the process, extended and/or revised. We then situate it within its philosophical context, and discuss how it broke with a long-standing philosophical tradition about concepts. Finally, we argue that recent developments in science studies can flesh out and vindicate the “concepts out of contexts” idea. In particular, historical and philosophical studies of experimentation and cognitive-historical studies of modeling practices indicate various ways in which concepts are formed and articulated “out of context”.

In this chapter I investigate the prospects of integrated history and philosophy of science, by examining how philosophical issues raised by “hidden entities”, entities that are not accessible to unmediated observation, can enrich the historical investigation of their careers. Conversely, I suggest that the history of those entities has important lessons to teach to the philosophy of science. Hidden entities have played a crucial role in the development of the natural sciences. Despite their centrality to past scientific practice, however, several of them (e.g., phlogiston, caloric, and the ether) turned out to be fictitious. For this reason, they have figured prominently in recent debates on scientific realism. The issues I explore in this paper are entangled with those debates. I argue that our understanding of hidden entities and their role in experimental practice can be enhanced by adopting an integrated historical-cum-philosophical approach. On the one hand, philosophical reflection on the reality of those entities has a lot to gain by examining historically how they were ntroduced and investigated. On the other hand, the historical reconstruction of the careers of those entities may profit from philosophical reflection on their existence.

The historical variation of scientific knowledge has lent itself to the development of historical epistemology, which attempts to historicize the origin and establishment of knowledge claims. The questions I address in this paper revolve around the historicity of the objects of those claims: How and why do new scientific objects appear? What exactly comes into being in such cases? Do scientific objects evolve over time and in what ways? I put forward and defend two theses: First, the ontology of science is so rich and variegated that there are no universally valid answers to these questions. Second, we need a pluralist account of scientific objects, a pluralist metaphysics that can do justice to their rich diversity and their various modes of being and becoming. I then focus on hidden objects, which are supposed to be part of the permanent furniture of the universe, and I discuss their birth and historicity: They emerge when various phenomena coalesce as manifestations of a single hidden cause and their representations change over time. Finally, I examine the conditions under which an evolving representation may still refer to the same object and I illustrate my argument drawing upon the early history of electrons.

In this paper I address some of the problems that the historical development of science poses for a realist and discuss whether a realist construal of scientific activity is conducive to historiographical practice. First, I discuss, by means of historical examples, Ian Hacking's defense of entity realism. Second, I try to show, drawing on Kuhn's recent work on incommensurability, that the realism problem is relevant to historiography and that a realist position entails a particular historiographical strategy, which faces problems. Finally, I suggest that for historiographical purposes an agnostic attitude with respect to scientific theories and unobservable entities is the most appropriate.

This paper narrates the way chemists have been using the electron to account for one of the most intriguing problems, namely the bonding of two neutral atoms to form a molecule. The chemists' attempts to account for the mechanism of the homopolar bond, first in the context of the old quantum theory and after 1926 in the context of wave mechanics, brought the specter of reductionism to physics. We argue that the chemists' successful appropriation of the electron strengthened, first, the autonomy of physical chemistry and, then, of quantum chemistry with respect to physics.