Benjamin O’Connor
STS-003 Paper assignment #2
“Simultaneous Discovery” of Energy Conservation
In T.S.
Kuhn’s paper, “Energy Conservation as an Example of Simultaneous Discovery” he
gives his analysis of the “simultaneous discovery” of energy conservation. He claims that the “simultaneous discovery”
of energy conservation in the 19th century was simply an emergence
of all of the necessary elements for the inevitable discovery. He goes so far as to actually name some of
the elements that he thought formed the foundation for this particular
“simultaneous discovery.” Kuhn’s paper
tends towards an oversimplified view of this particular scientific
discovery. Any “simultaneous discovery”
must be the result of many causes and many elements interacting in an unpredictable
manner. Picking out a few of these
elements as “important” certainly is not going to capture the complete
environment of a “simultaneous discovery” such as the discovery of energy
conservation. While I agree with Kuhn’s
general theory about elements leading to an almost inevitable development of
energy conservation, I feel he should not have given special emphasis to
certain factors and discounted others.
T.S. Kuhn’s
general theory, exemplified by the “simultaneous discovery” of energy conservation
in the 19th century, is that numerous factors lead to the almost
inevitable conversion of theories into a new development. Thus, the discovery appears to be
simultaneously come upon by different scientists at around the same time. “What we see in their works is not really the
simultaneous discovery of energy conservation, Rather it is the rapid and often
disorderly emergence of the experimental and conceptual elements from which
that theory was shortly to be compounded.”(Kuhn 323) Kuhn lists a few factors, or elements, in
existence at the time, which led to the “simultaneous discovery” of energy
conservation. One particular element
noted was the availability of examples for energy conversion.
The
availability of conversion methods and processes at the time was a result of
many earlier discoveries. Electric
current could be converted into magnetism, as shown by Oersted, as well as into
heat. Faraday discovered that current
could be induced, further creating an emergence of conversion processes. Static and current electricity could be used
to induce chemical reactions and dissociation.
These reactions, in turn, could produce light and heat. The steam engine was an elegant and timely
example of a conversion mechanism in the 19th century. “Harnessed by the steam engine, heat could
produce motion, and motion, in turn, engendered heat through friction and
percussion.” (Kuhn 324) Scientists
experimenting with these effects were really performing investigations on
energy relations. Joule, from his work
with electric motors and batteries, was able to put together most of the
previous discoveries’ potentials. C.F.
Mohr, another discoverer of energy conservation, used these plentiful
conversion processes to elucidate his theory of energy, which he called force,
and its conservation. Michael Faraday
gave experimental demonstrations of the conversion of energy, supporting his
ideas that the powers were “connected.”
This concept of the convertibility of natural force and energy was the
beginning of a theory of conservation of energy. If natural forces could be transformed from
one state to another, then they must all be converted with equal
efficiency. If an efficiency difference
existed, then a clever arrangement of energy conversions would create a perpetual
motion machine, and this was accepted to be impossible. The availability of these examples of energy
conversion provided scientists with examples from which to base theories, as
well as proof that theories were correct.
Another interesting factor that Kuhn
notes in the development of a theory of energy conservation was a subtle
undercurrent of Naturphilosophie and
assumptions of some metaphysical properties.
Preconceived notions of a single, all-encompassing “force” in many ways
led scientists to the discovery of conservation of energy. The statement that there is only really one
force in existence and that it is unchanged in quantity certainly has a
philosophical, if not theological, ring to it.
The unlikely occurrences of otherwise seemingly nonsensical leaps of
logic lead us to believe that the scientists may have been predisposed to the
idea of energy unity and conservation.
For example, Meyer’s leap of logic from the blood color of tropical
peoples to heat loss in the human body as well as work performed by the human
body is particularly impressive. Many of
the scientists of this time were predisposed to the idea of a single
indestructible force as the root of all forces.
This predisposition goes back to the original theories of vis viva by Leibniz and his followers in
the 18th century.
Naturphilosophie,
a popular school of thought during the 19th century was another
source of these metaphysical predispositions toward a “single force”
theory. Many scientists of the time
persisted towards their goals of energy conservation and convertibility because
of deep beliefs in the principles of Naturphilosophie. “…Oersted – a Naturphilosoph as well as a scientist – persisted in his long
search for a relation between electricity and magnetism largely because of his
prior philosophical conviction that one must exist.”(Kuhn 338) Through strong convictions and beliefs such
at this, Naturphilosophie formed a
necessary philosophical backdrop for the discovery of energy conservation. Those who did not hold strong and detailed
beliefs in philosophies such as Naturphilosophie
at least had knowledge of the general Naturphilosophie
movement.
On the other hand, a particular
weakness in Kuhn’s paper is the inclusion of the “proliferation of engines” with
the two above-mentioned factors as a separate, important factor in the
development of the energy conservation theory.
The “proliferation of engines” is, in reality, just another example of
conversion processes readily available at the time. The commonality of conversion engines, like
the steam engine, for example, is basically another opportunity to observe the
convertibility of energy. The steam
engine in particular is noted in Kuhn’s paper, because of its societal
significance in creating industry and the industrial revolution.
The steam engine is simply an
example of the conversion of one form of energy to another:
“The production of motion in the steam engine is
always accompanied by a circumstance which we should particularly notice. This circumstance is the re-establishment of
equilibrium in the caloric – that is, its passage from one body where the
temperature is more or less elevated to another where it is lower.” (Carnot
396)
The steam engine, in theory, is just another example of the conversion of energy between two forms. In this case, heat energy is transferred into motion. The steam engine is just another conversion process.
A general weakness in Kuhn’s paper is that he tends to take an oversimplified view of the scientific discovery of the conservation of energy. Kuhn analyzes the “simultaneous discovery” almost scientifically, as a clear cause and effect relationship. He basically states that the proper causes were all in place, so a theory of energy conservation was an inevitable outgrowth of the scientific climate of the 19th century. He even goes so far as to list various elements and causes present at the time and emphasize those he believes are most important. I think that, although the scientific climate at the time played a major role in its development, the “simultaneous discovery” of the theory of conservation of energy can not be reduced to a simple “effect” of the conditions of the 19th century. Many, many elements, factors and causes gave rise to the theories developed by scientists. It is certainly not right to choose a select group and call them the “most important” elements, as Kuhn does.
As the “most important” elements present in 19th century science that caused the “simultaneous discovery” of the theory of conservation of energy, Kuhn lists the availability of conversion examples, the proliferation of engines, and the popularity of Naturphilosophie promoting pre-conceived notions about a single, all-encompassing force. I believe that all possible causes -- or at least more than three of them -- should have been considered and analyzed equally. The role of the scientific communities’ belief in the absolute non-existence of a perpetual motion machine was underplayed, I believe. Without this foundation of thought present in 19th century science, most of the theories surrounding engines, energy conversion and energy conservation would never have become scientific fact. For example, Kuhn states:
“…the concept of the universal
convertibility of natural powers … is not, let us be clear, the same as the
notion of conservation. But most of the
remaining steps proved to be small and rather obvious. All but one … can be taken by applying to the
concept of universal convertibility the perennially serviceable philosophic
tags about the equality of cause and effect or the impossibility of perpetual
motion.” (Kuhn 329)
He goes on to describe how scientists logically concluded that since there is no possibility of perpetual motion, and energy is infinitely convertible, energy must also be conserved. However, Kuhn did not list the acceptance of the impossibility of perpetual motion as a central element of 19th century science.
T. S. Kuhn’s paper puts forth a general theory, stating that the “simultaneous discovery” of the theory of conservation of energy in the 19th century was an effect of a convergent climate of various factors. He goes on, however, to pick and choose which factors he thinks are the most important. I think that the convergent climate consisted of an uncountable number of factors. A small number of these factors should not be isolated as the “most important.” The “simultaneous discovery” could not have taken place without most of the rest of the factors and the entire “convergent climate” in place at the right time.