Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
1
Chemistry
C1-alchemy. Study only to the extent that it’s important for the rest of the story (don’t worry about
dates and names). Key points: alchemical tradition in Europe coming from Arab/Muslim tradition
(itself a mix of Greco-Egyptian and Chinese traditions), transmutation, philosopher’s stone,
mystifying language (example: Michael Maier’s ‘grey wolf’).
Alchemy Narrowly construed: attempts at transmutation, turning lesser or base metals into gold
[metallurgical practices] But also a spiritual dimension: elixir of life, quest for immortality
Earth, Air, Water and Fire. made up of four properties: cold, hot, wet and dry. Influenced alchemy.
Goal was to change cheap metal to gold.
Transmutations conceived of as speeding up natural processes leading to perfection (gold for
inanimate matter, immortality for human beings)
Heavily influenced by Taoism (Lao Tzu [ca. 600 BC], Tao Te Ching [The Way of Life]). Conceive
of the world in terms of opposites:
o Emphasis of elixir of life (substance rich in yang) [connection to medicine]. Takes different
forms: ☙ Wai Tan: consumption of potable ‘gold’ (4th century AD) ☙ Nai Tan: ‘inner elixir’
(6th century AD): breathing exercises, gymnastics, sexual exercises, experimentation with
bodily fluids
Hermeticism: blend of Egyptian religion, Babylonian astrology, and Greek philosophy
Arabic tradition (transmitted to Europe in 11th century) Mixes hellenistic ideas (which traveled east
ca. 500 AD) and Chinese ideas (elixir of life, potable gold)
Phrase ‘philosopher’s stone’ first occurs (notion of stone as key to transmutation is older
Alchemists developed deliberately mystifying language to protect ‘trade secrets’
o alloy of gold (= king), antimony (= grey wolf)
Decline of Alchemy - Mid-18th century. Alchemy almost universally seen as pseudo-science.
19th century. Hostile to idea of transmutation. John Dalton’s fixed elements.
o John Dalton's theory. All matter consists of tiny particles that are indestructible and
unchangeable: atoms. Concluded that there was a unique atom for every element.
Presented the accepted scientific view of material existence.
C2-greekphil. Study only to the extent that it’s important for the rest of the story (don’t worry
about dates). Key points: Pre-Socratics (no individual names), Pythagoreans, Atomists (no
individual names), Plato, Aristotle, Stoics (Galen), pneuma, four roots/elements.
Matter Theory in Greek Philosophy. Central problem: what is the permanent basis behind the
variety and flux of experience?
o 1. Pre-Socratics
o • Ionian natural philosophers (6th century BC)
Thales of Miletos. Basic stuff: water Problem: truly universal stuff must be stripped of
all individual properties
Anaximander Basic stuff: apeiron (completely feature-less); Observed substances:
separating-out of opposing qualities (hot/cold etc.)
Anaximenes Basic stuff: pneuma (breath, air) [same problem as with Thales].
Observed substances: compression/expansion of pneuma
2
Empedocles (5th century BC, Sicily) Basic stuff: four roots/elements (solid/earth,
liquid/water, fire, air) Observed substances: different mixtures of four roots Agents
controlling mixture: Love and Strife
Pythagoreans (6th century BC, Southern Italy). From ingredients to axioms. Discover
stable mathematical order behind flux of sensory experience.
Atomism: Leukippos, Demokritos (5th century BC). Further developed by Epicurus
[c. 300 BC] and Lucretius, De Rerum Natura [c. 50 BC]. Only properties of atoms:
shape and substantiality Only modes of interaction: collision and interlocking
Golden Age of Greek Philosophy (4th Century BC) Plato (c 427–c 347). Combines math of
Pythagoreans (five regular solids), atomism of Demokritos, and four elements of Empedocles.
Inanimate matter: made up of four elements identified with four regular solids (heavenly spheres
made up of fifth)
o Aristotle (384–322 BC). Comes from biology rather than math. Model of explanation for
living things extended to inanimate matter
Stoics. Founded by Zeno of Citium, 4th century BC [not to be confused with Zeno of Elea and his
paradoxes].
o Basic idea: organization of systems like the human body calls for holistic properties
(belonging to system as a whole). Such properties are carried by continuous stuff pervading
the system/body: pneuma.
o Generalize this idea from living organisms to inanimate matter: Pneuma becomes material
carrier of Aristotle’s form. Aristotle: immaterial blueprints for combinations of four elements
Stoics: fire and air carry blueprints for combination of four elements
C3-paracelsus-vanhelmont. Key names and concepts: Paracelsus, Van Helmont, iatrochemistry, tria
prima, arcana, weapon salve, willow tree experiment, one-element theory (water).
Paracelsus:
Born in Zurich, trained with his father, a physician, did practical work in mines (later identifies
silicosis and tuberculosis as occupational hazards). Studies medicine in Ferrara, Italy (unclear
whether he earned a diploma) 1527. Professor of Medicine in Basel.
1527. Cures Basel book publisher Johannes Frobenius and prevents amputation of his leg.
Forced to leave Basel. Wealthy patron refuses to pay arguing that treatment (which cured his gout)
consisted only of “three very small pills” Paracelsus starts leading a wandering life.
Iatrochemistry (iatros = Greek for physician)
Developed the Tria Prima theory. He was a medical reformer and wanted to produce things
to heal others. Influenced science with the Tria Prima and wanted to study the body as a
whole. Pioneered chemicals and minerals in medicine.
1. Sulphur (fiery principle);
2. Mercury (watery, ‘liquidy’ principle);
3. Salt (earthy, ‘solidy’ principle)
Van Helmont
He did the Willow Tree Experiment and coined the term "gas," but he thinks of it as a vapor or
active aerial entity. From the Willow Tree experiment, he developed a one element theory: water.
He overlooked air in the experiment.
Jan Baptist van Helmont's experiment. Most famous evidence for his one element theory, that all
plants stem from the element water. Placed a measured amount of soil in the pot, with a weighted
3
stem of a willow tree and only gave it water for 5 years. Developed on the concept of experimenting
and weighing/measuring.
C4-boyle. Key points: Boyle (The Sceptical Chymist, 1661), Galileo (Dialogue on the Two Chief World
Systems, 1632), Bacon (Novum Organum, 1620), Descartes (Principia Philosophiae, 1644), Hooke,
mechanical corpuscular view, Boyle on elements, peripatetic, spagyrist, Royal Society, British Civil War,
Hobbes (Leviathan, 1651), Cromwell, Glorious Revolution (1688).
Robert Boyle's criticism. He wrote about van Helmont, Aristotle and Paracelsus. With Aristotle and
Paracelsus he decomposed and picked apart their 3 and 4 element theories. With van Helmont he picked
apart his one element theory of water saying that there is no empirical evidence for the growth of minerals
or metals from water. Boyle criticizes other ideas, but he does not present any new ones.
Galileo Galilei (1564–1642), Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems (1632) inspired Boyle’s own
attempt at scientific dialogue in The Sceptical Chymist
Bacon (1561–1626), Novum Organum (1620) [a new text on scientific reasoning to replace Aristotle’s text
on reasoning, the
Bacon was the first to clearly articulate a key idea responsible for the primacy of technology in modern
society: From understanding nature to controlling and instrumentalizing nature
Mechanistic corpuscular view: Bacon Revival of atomism:
René Descartes (1596–1650), Principia Philosophiae (1644). Boyle accepted the general outline of
Descartes’ mechanistic corpuscular view, though not its details. He preferred atomists’ void over
Descartes’ plenum. He preferred Bacon’s inductive experimental method over Descartes’ deductive
mathematical method
The Sceptical Chymist (1661) vulgarly alledged to evince the four Peripatetique [= Aristotelian]
Elements or the three Chymical Principles of Mixt Bodies (1658)
Argument against Aristotle and Paracelsus (and their followers: Peripatetics and Spagyrists): pick
apart decomposition-by-fire arguments in defense of four-elements or three-principles theories
Arguments against Van Helmont: Water may be composed of more elementary particles No
empirical evidence for growth of minerals or metals from water (cf. willow tree experiment)
Boyle did open the door for others to use pragmatic definition of elements
C5-boyle-newton-phlogiston. Key points: Boyle on air, nitro-aerial theory (Hooke, Mayow), Newton
(Principia, 1687; Optics, 1704), Newton and the romantics (Blake), celestial mechanics (Laplace),
Boerhave, Becher (Physica Subterranea, 1667), Stahl, affinity table, phlogiston.
Boyle: Air is elastic fluid. Chemically active particles are floating in air. Air itself is not chemically active.
Something is absorbed from air in combustion and respiration. Turned into “nitro-aerial theory” of
combustion and respiration (Hooke, Mayow)
Following Newton’s suggestion, Boyle’s gas law (p × V = constant) was routinely explained in terms of
repulsive forces between the particles in the gas
Geoffroy - Idea behind affinity table: Consider reaction AB + C → AC + B Explanation: affinity between A
and C is stronger than affinity between A and B
Etienne Geoffrey created it to represent when substances untie that are likely to combine then a 3rd is
present that has a greater affinity with one of the original substances then those 2 will unite and drive the
other out. AB+C-> AC + B. Led to the science of affinity chemistry and the development of more affinity
tables.
4
Becher’s variation on Paracelsus’ Tria Prima (mercury, salt, and sulphur): air, water, earth. Three different
kinds of ‘earths:’ 1. terra fluida: responsible for making things fluid and volatile 2. terra lapida: responsible
for solidifying and fusing things 3. terra pinguis (‘fatty earth’): principle of inflammability. Responsible for oily
and combustible qualities
Phlogiston-theory: Georg Ernst Stahl (1660–1734)
Phlogiston theory has remarkable unifying power: combustion (burning) and calcination (rusting) and its
inverse (smelting)
It was a theory that when this substance burned/rusted it releases something. It was created by Stahl,
Cavendish and Priestley was a huge supporter. It accounts for a change in chemical composition and
release of heat. It does not pay attention to the change in state. Its' impact on science was that it was a
dominant theory until Lavoisier addresses the weight gain during the burning process.
Phlogiston theory: substance burned/rusting releases something Oxygen theory: substance burned/rusting
absorbs something
Q: Why can’t you burn things in vacuum? A: Air needed to absorb phlogiston. Q: Why does burning stop in
closed vessel? A: Air saturated with phlogiston. Q: How does phlogisticated air get dephlogisticated so that
things can burn in it again? A: Plants absorb phlogiston or dephlogisticate air (cf. photosynthesis!). Q: Why
does burning decrease the volume of air? A: phlogisticated air is less elastic than normal air
C6-pneumatic. Key points: phlogiston theory (combustion, calcination, respiration), Hales (pneumatic
trough), Black (Scottish Enlightenment, theory of heat), Cavendish (Cavendish lab: Maxwell, Watson &
Crick), Priestley (Lunar society: Watt, Erasmus Darwin, Josiah Wedgewood; dissenting or non-conformist
academies, Unitarianism, sparkling water), fixed air (carbon dioxide), foul/vitiated air (nitrogen),
dephlogisticated air (oxygen), inflammable air (hydrogen).
5
Priestley had recently heated mercury calx and collected a gas. Priestley believed his "pure air"
enhanced respiration and caused candles to burn longer because it was free of phlogiston. For this
reason, he called the gas that he obtained from decomposing mercury calx "dephlogisticated air."
Priestley discovered the pneumatic trough and it led to the discovery of 20 new gases. This was
where Priestley developed a "nitrous air test" to determine the "goodness of air".
C7-lavoisier1. Key points: Enlightenment (age of reason), Lavoisier, Marie Paulze (Mme. Lavoisier), tax
farmers, jardin du roi, nitrous air test, red calx of Mercury, Easter Memoir (1775/1778), eminently respirable
air, acidifying principle, muriatic acid, Lavoisier’s Elements of Chemistry (1789).
Text: Prefaces to book by Kirwan (discussion section, week 3).
He had extremely expensive equipment for his experiments and it was also very precise and
accurate. This allowed his experiments to be done with precision, but nobody else could afford
these types of equipment to redo his experiments exactly like he did.
Adding heat to fluid state gives expansion to aerial state.
Removing heat from aerial state gives collapse to fluid state.
Marie-Anne Lavoisier- She collaborated in scientific matters with there husband. She was a women
of status and she forged her own career. She learned English and translated important documents
for Lavoisier. Lavoisier might not have been able to accomplish as much if it had not been for her
help.
February: Pierre Bayen shows that red calx of mercury can be turned into metal by heating without
using charcoal. Casts doubt on Lavoisier’s conclusion that a metal absorbs ‘fixed air’ in calcination
October: Priestley visits Lavoisier and tells Mme. Lavoisier about the air given off when heating red
calx of mercury. This air supports combustion better than ordinary air. Priestley tells Lavoisier it’s
‘phlogisticated nitrous air
Lavoisier’s “Easter Memoir.” Lavoisier repeats Priestley’s experiments with red calx of mercury.
Lavoisier first calls this “healthiest and purest part of air” “eminently respirable air.” Later names:
“oxygen gas” (1779); “vital air” (1784)
Lavoisier was interested first and foremost not in a theory of combustion, calcination, and
respiration but in a new theory of acids. Reflected in his terminology: oxygen = acid former
C8-lavoisier2. Key points (most key figures have been introduced before: Lavoisier, Priestley, Cavendish):
caloric (guinea pig in calorimeter), Laplace, hot air and hydrogen balloons, de Rozier, water is a compound,
anti-phlogiston campaign, Kirwan, Lavoisier on elements, central role of concept of gas in the chemical
revolution, French Revolution (1789), Reign of Terror, Robespierre, Marat, Napoleon, Waterloo (1815).
Caloric (or, until 1787, “matter of fire”). Isn’t the imponderable (=massless) caloric every bit as
objectionable as the old phlogiston?
Responses: Caloric and phlogiston play very different roles: phlogiston used to explain both chemical
change and release/absorption of heat in combustion; caloric used to explain release/absorption of heat in
phase transitions Caloric allows quantitative measurement. Experiments by Lavoisier and Laplace
6
Example of quantitative measurement of caloric (1783) Hypothesis: animals maintain body temperature by
burning carbon (charcoal). Test: guinea pig in calorimeter
1782: Montgolfier brothers: Jacques Étienne (1745–1799) and Joseph Michel (1740–1810) A sheep, a
rooster, and a duck are sent up in a hotair balloon. Montgolfier brothers acknowledge the importance of the
work of British pneumatic chemists (Black, Cavendish, Priestley)
Jean-François Pilâtre de Rozier (1756-1785) November 21, 1783. De Rozier is the first person to go on a
manned hot-air balloon flight
In his lectures on chemistry, Rozier liked to fill his lungs with hydrogen and then ignite the gas as he
exhaled through a tube.
Phlogistonists: calx heated absorbs inflammable air (= phlogiston) to turn into metal. Lavoisier: No! Calx
heated under bell glass filled with hydrogen gives off oxygen which combines with the hydrogen to form
water
Needed for the formulation of Lavoisier’s theory: 1. Air participates in chemical reaction. 2. There are
different airs/gases (British pneumatic chemists). 3. Apparatus for handling gases (Hales, pneumatic
trough). 4. Gas is a state of matter like solid and liquid state (caloric theory). 5. Gases need to be taken into
account in conservation of mass arguments
C9-dalton-mendeleev. Key points: Dalton (A New System of Chemical Philosophy [1808], color
blindness), Gay-Lussac, Avogadro, Prout, Berzelius (electrochemical theory), Cannizzaro, Dalton’s view of
elements, Dalton’s ‘rules of simplicity,’ Humphry Davy and the discovery of new elements through
electrolysis, the problem with diatomic molecules, gravimetric vs.volumetric data, how a false theory can be
good science (Thomson), Döbereiner triads, Newlands’ law of octaves, Mendeléev and the periodic table.
Text: Levere, Ch. 7 and 9.
John Dalton - He has a new system of chemical philosophy. All matter consists of tiny particles that are
indestructible and unchangeable: atoms. Concluded that there was a unique atom for every element.
Presented the accepted scientific view of material existence. He had more working assumptions with the
Atomic Theory.
Dalton: Reuniting Lavoisier’s elements with older corpuscular traditions of Boyle and Newton.
Dalton’s first theory (1801): particles only repel their own kind, each atom “supports its dignity by keeping
all the rest … at a respectful distance
Dalton’s second theory (1803, 1810): selective repulsion comes from different sizes (and hence weight) of
particles.
In summary: Dalton started thinking about the “relative weights of the ultimate particles of bodies” because
that was important for his theory of gas mixtures, which in turn was important for his meteorology. Dalton
found a way to determine these relative weights using the law of constant proportions
John Dalton, A New System of Chemical Philosophy (1808). 1. All matter consists of tiny particles. 2.
Atoms are indestructible and unchangeable … Before the days of radioactivity 3. Elements are
characterized by the mass of their atoms. All atoms of the same element have the same mass. Atoms of
different elements have different masses … Before the days of isotopes 4. When elements react, their
atoms combine in simple, whole-number ratios.
7
Application of Dalton’s rules Chemical facts: Water only known combination of oxygen and hydrogen
Oxygen and hydrogen react in mass ratio 8:1. Conclusions: Water is a binary compound, i.e., HO instead
of H2O!! Relative weight of oxygen and hydrogen atoms is 8:1 instead of 16:1
Mass (gravimetric data) and fixed proportions in volume (volumetric data)?
Avogadro's Hypothesis – This theory suggests that equal volumes of gas contain equal number of
particles. It explains both volume and mass ratios. It impacted science by allowing for Avogadro's number
which allows for stoichiometry to be present into today's chemistry calculations.
Dmitri Mendeleev - He created the periodic table. He left blanks for future elements. He predicted the
atomic mass roughly and the chemical properties of the missing elements. He allowed for exceptions by
the atomic mass.
Biology
B1-intro-biology-geology. Key points: Speculative geology (Cartesian: Burnett; Newtonian: Whiston):
compatibility with the bible (Noah’s flood), Theism vs. Deism, Leibniz complaining that Newton’s God is a
bad watchmaker, Archbishop Usher on the age of the earth, Buffon busting the biblical time scale with his
cooling earth theory, Werner, Hutton, Neptunism, Vulcanism, Wernerian Society in Edinburgh.
In old Aristotelian cosmology, questions about how the earth, the solar system, and the stars were formed
does not come up. Either created in its present form by God (Christian tradition) or has existed in its
present form forever (Aristotle)
After Copernicus (1543) question is raised how the present state of the universe came about and answers
are sought in terms of natural law rather than in terms of theology.
Example 1: Thomas Burnet (1635–1715), The Sacred Theory of the Earth (1691). Earth starts out very hot
and then cools to form a perfectly smooth shell of solid matter suspended above water: the ideal habitat for
man. But when man turned away from God, the shell collapsed and man has to live out the rest of history
in the rugged terrain we see today
Example 2: William Whiston (1667–1752) Scenario similar to that of Burnet but on the basis of Newtonian
rather than Cartesian physics. According to Whiston, the earth was created from a comet, and the deluge
resulted from the impact of or a close encounter with another comet
Religious objection to naturalistic scenarios: strips history of the earth of its moral dimension. E.g., Noah’s
flood becomes a purely physical event rather than something reflecting the wrath of God.
Whiston’s response: omniscient and omnipotent God could have arranged matters in the very beginning in
such a way that the comet causing the flood would show up just as mankind needed punishment. Common
ploy in the 18th-century Enlightenment: God is only needed at the beginning to set things in motion. He
then steps back and lets the world run its course according to the laws of nature.
This view of God is called Deism.
8
Deism. Hands-off God. God is only needed at the beginning to set things in motion. He then steps back
and lets the world run its course according to the laws of nature. Note that it’s easy to slip from deism to
atheism. Theism. Hands-on God. God is needed all the time to sustain the universe in which He can
intervene at any moment He sees fit.
Philosophes of the French Enlightenment were all deists. Deism had both an intellectual and a social
dimension: emphasis on reason and the rejection of revelation related to growing distrust of the ancien
regime, the ruling class. Enlightenment deism thus helped pave the way for the French revolution.
In the 18th century the concern about compatibility with the bible diminishes.
Buffon, Introduction to the History of Minerals (1774). Solar system came into being 73,058 BC
Neptunism all rocks in the crust of the earth are of aqueous origin (deposited from water initially covering
the whole globe). Abraham Gottlob Werner (1749–1817) Vulcanism: rocks in the crust of the earth are of
both aqueous and igneous (volcanic) origin. James Hutton (1726–1797) In early 19th century: new debate:
catastrophism (Cuvier) vs. uniformitarianism (Lyell) [next week]
B2-linnaeus-buffon. Key points: Enlightenment, Bonnet (preformation theory vs. epigenesis), Linnaeus
(sexual system of plant classification, binomial nomenclature, ‘apostles’ [no individual names]), Buffon
(jardin du roi, Natural History [1749–1788], internal molds, attacking the argument from design [toucan,
Diderot’s Letter on the Blind], why Buffon is not a precursor of Darwin), Encyclopédie of Diderot and
d’Alembert, French materialists (no individual names).
Enlightenment geology: move from biblical to naturalistic account of the earth’s history. Analogous move to
naturalism in biology (i.e., thinking about development of species governed by natural law) hampered by
two traditions:
(1) natural theology
Adaptation seen as evidence for design and not as the result of natural causes. Similarities between
species seen as reflecting God’s plan for creation and not as pointing to common ancestor. Classification
of species seen as description of God’s plan. “Great Chain of Being:” array of possible species laid down in
advance.
(2) mechanical philosophy
Issue of change of species over time secondary to issue of origin of life Descartes’ “animal machine”
Buffon (1707–1788)
Late in the 18th century, a small number of European scientists began to quietly suggest that life forms are
not fixed. The wealthy French mathematician and naturalist, George Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon click
this icon to hear the name pronounced, actually said that living things do change through time. He
speculated that this was somehow a result of influences from the environment or even chance. He
believed that the earth must be much older than 6000 years. In 1774, in fact, he speculated that the earth
must be at least 75,000 years old. He also suggested that humans and apes are related. Buffon was
careful to hide his radical views in a limited edition 44 volume natural history book series called Histoire
Naturelle (1749-1804). By doing this, he avoided broad public criticism.
Buffon was an early advocate of the Linnaean classification system. He was also a quiet pioneer in
asserting that species can change over generations. However, he publicly rejected the idea that species
could evolve into other species. One of his most significant contributions to the biological sciences was his
insistence that natural phenomena must be explained by natural laws rather than theological doctrine.
Buffon’s favorite counter-example example against intelligent design (1781): the toucan
For Linnaeus relations between different species reflect God’s plan for creation. Buffon only reluctantly
admits that species are more than a figment of the imagination in the taxonomer’s mind. He grudgingly
ends up acknowledging the existence of genera (calling those species)
According to Buffon, all genera (e.g., cats) have their own internal molds. Molds give rise to different
species (e.g., lions, tigers) depending on environment. Ancestral form “degenerates” into local species
(which according to Buffon are not really species but merely varieties). Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826)
takes exception to Buffon’s claim that large mammals in the New World are degenerate descendants of
those in the Old World (Larson, p. 15).
10
organism, that organism breeds true. They never developed any detailed biological theory. With the
backlash against the French Revolution, they end up giving transmutation of species a bad rap by
associating it with radical materialism and atheism
B3-lamarck. Key points: Erasmus Darwin (Lunar Society), Lamarck (Zoological Philosophy, 1909),
Lamarck’s two mechanisms of evolution (‘escalator’ mechanism, inheritance of acquired characteristics),
example of the giraffe.
Lamarck believed that microscopic organisms appear spontaneously from inanimate materials and then
transmute, or evolve, gradually and progressively into more complex forms through a constant striving for
perfection. The ultimate product of this goal-oriented evolution was thought by Lamarck to be humans. He
believed that evolution was mostly due to the inheritance of acquired characteristics as creatures adapted
to their environments.
Dominant mechanism: constant spontaneous generation of simplest organisms; offspring “climbs up”
preordained evolutionary ladder, progressing from simpler to more complex organism.
Secondary mechanism: branching off the main line. The mechanism for that is inheritance of acquired
characteristics
That is, he believed that evolution occurs when an organism uses a body part in such a way that it is
altered during its lifetime and this change is then inherited by its offspring. For example, Lamarck thought
that giraffes evolved their long necks by each generation stretching further to get leaves in trees and that
this change in body shape was then inherited.
While Lamarck's explanation of evolution was incorrect, it is unfair to label him a bad scientist. In fact, he
was at the cutting edge of biological research for his time. He and George Cuvier were largely responsible
for making biology a distinct branch of science.
Despite his criticism of Lamarck, Cuvier did not reject the idea that there had been earlier life forms. In
fact, he was the first scientist to document extinctions of ancient animals and was an internationally
respected expert on dinosaurs. However, he rejected the idea that their existence implied that evolution
had occurred--he dogmatically maintained the "fixity" of species.
11
B4-cuvier. Key points: Jardin du Roi becomes Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Cuvier (eulogy for Lamarck,
correlation of parts, embranchements), Geoffroy St. Hilaire (homologies), Geoffroy-Cuvier debate.
Cuvier saw organisms as integrated wholes, in which each part's form and function were
integrated into the entire body. No part could be modified without impairing this functional
integration:
Cuvier did not believe in organic evolution, for any change in an organism's anatomy would have rendered
it unable to survive. He studied the mummified cats and ibises that Geoffroy had brought back from
Napoleon's invasion of Egypt, and showed that they were no different from their living counterparts; Cuvier
used this to support his claim that lifeforms did not evolve over time. Organisms were functional wholes;
any change in one part would destroy the delicate balance. But the functional integration of organisms
meant that each part of an organism, no matter how small, bore signs of the whole. Thus it was possible to
reconstruct organisms from fragmentary remains, based on rational principles. Cuvier had a legendary
ability to reconstruct organisms from fragmentary fossils, and many of his reconstructions turned out to be
strikingly accurate.
Cuvier's insistence on the functional integration of organisms led him to classify animals into four
"branches," or embranchements: Vertebrata, Articulata (arthropods and segmented worms), Mollusca
(which at the time meant all other soft, bilaterally symmetrical invertebrates), and Radiata (cnidarians and
echinoderms). For Cuvier, these embranchements were fundamentally different from each other and could
not be connected by any evolutionary transformation. Any similarities between organisms were due to
common functions, not to common ancestry: function determines form, form does not determine function.
Cuvier's ideas led him to oppose the theories of his contemporaries, such as Buffon, Lamarck, and
Geoffroy St. Hilaire, who suggested that animal morphology might be much more changeable and be
affected by environmental conditions. They pointed to vestigial, functionless structures and to embryonic
development to show that dissimilar organisms with different functions might nonetheless share a common
structural plan. Cuvier and Geoffroy engaged in a famous public debate over their different philosophies in
1830, at the Académie Royale des Sciences in Paris.
Perhaps Cuvier's most crucial and longest-lasting contribution to biology was establishing extinction as a
fact. For over a century before Cuvier, fossils had been accepted as the remains of once-living organisms,
Classification on the basis of fundamental internal structure as opposed to Linnaean classification on the
basis of rather arbitrary external characteristics (e.g., number of stamens and pistils in the case of plants)
Most important internal structure: nervous system. Leads to basic grouping of animals into four
‘embranchements’ Principle of the correlation of parts: each organ in the body is functionally related to
every other organ, and the harmony and well-being of the organism results from the cooperation of parts.
Geoffroy St. Hilaire, Philosophie Anatomique (1818) Thesis: all vertebrate animals share the same basic
structure type (“unity of composition”) Evidence: homologies = structural similarities between parts in
different animals that serve very different functions in those animals
12
Even though the bat’s wing is for flying, the dugong’s paddle for swimming, and the mole’s paw for digging,
the structure of wing, paddle, and paw is the same down to the last little bone.
First example: sterna of birds, reptiles, mammals—number and connections of the parts are the same,
even though these parts have different functions in different species
Second example: the inner ear bones of vertebrates. For instance: the opercular plates in gill covers in fish
and the inner ear ossicles of mammals have very similar structures even though they serve radically
different purposes
B5-lyell. Key points: Cuvier (Catastrophism, migration theory), Smith (geological map of England),
Buckland (Diluvialism, hyena’s den, teaching geology [mineralogy] at Oxford), Mary Anning, Sedgwick
(Catastrophist), Lyell (Principles of Geology, 1830–1833; frontispiece with Temple of Serapis,
Uniformitarian), De la Beche’s cartoon mocking Lyell.
Migration theory: same stock of species for all time. Species (e.g., mammoth) may be displaced by another
species locally, but would still be found in unexplored regions of the globe. Objections: (i) No fossils of
modern species; (ii) stretching credulity that there might still be mammoths in the Australian outback
Catastrophism: successions of different floras and faunas wiped out by great catastrophes and replaced by
new ones. Cuvier was conveniently vague about how exactly this replenishing of the world was supposed
to take place.
"Catastrophism," as this school of thought came to be known, was attacked in 1830 by a British lawyer-
turned-geologist named Charles Lyell (1797-1875). Lyell started his career studying under the catastrophist
William Buckland at Oxford. But Lyell became disenchanted with Buckland when Buckland tried to link
catastrophism to the Bible, looking for evidence that the most recent catastrophe had actually been Noah's
flood. Lyell wanted to find a way to make geology a true science of its own, built on observation and not
susceptible to wild speculations or dependent on the supernatural.
Buckland-
Buckland finds fossil bones of tigers, deer, bears, horses, elephants, rhinos, hippos, and hyenas (lots of
hyenas). He initially assume they’ve all been killed by Noah’s flood and flushed into the cave. But how did
elephants get through the narrow entrance? Solving the riddle: the cave was a hyena’s den. Buckland still
saw this scene as evidence for the flood: ante-diluvial worlds was washed away suddenly.
Buckland helped the cause by presenting geological evidence for Noah’s flood.
Buckland was appointed Reader in Mineralogy in Oxford in 1813.
13
Charles Lyell (1797–1875)
Uniformitarianism: only appeal to causes of the same kind and the same intensity as can still be observed
today. Subtitle of Lyell’s book: being an attempt to explain the former changes of the Earth's surface, by
reference to causes now in operation
Putting training as a lawyer to good use, Lyell took cheap shots at Catastrophism and (without mentioning
his name) Cuvier:
He was a firm believer in uniformitarianism. This philosophy claims that geological and biological "causes,"
or forces, have always been working in the same way and with the same intensity. Lyell's work formed the
foundation of belief in a universe billions of years old. Though Lyell had trouble accepting some
evolutionary theories, his work heavily influenced Charles Darwin.
A perfect example to illustrate the fallacy of this self-imposed blindness is the battle between
uniformitarianism and catastrophism. Since catastrophism was associated, to some degree, with religious
beliefs, it fell quickly out of favor with scientists who preferred not to believe in Creation. Uniformitarianism
presented a view that was more compatible with a naturalistic, very old world. There was evidence for both,
yet scientists considered catastrophism "less scientific." In recent years, science has swung back towards
catastrophism somewhat, due to the inability of a uniform-cause view to explain certain geological and
biological realities.
A dinosaur that made fun of Lyell in a cartoon about dinosaurs once again roaming the Earth.
B6-paley. Key points: Ray, Paley (Natural Theology, 1802, watch metaphor [argument from design],
Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker [1986]), Bentham (utilitarianism), Adam Smith (laissez faire), Malthus
(Essay on the Principle of Population, 1797), Bridgewater treatises (no individual names), Tennyson’s In
Memoriam (1850).
Paley wrote several books on philosophy and Christianity, which proved extremely influential. His 1794
book A View of the Evidence of Christianity was required reading at Cambridge University until the 20th
century. His most influential contribution to biological thought, however, was his book Natural Theology: or,
Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature, first
published in 1802. In this book, Paley laid out a full exposition of natural theology, the belief that the nature
of God could be understood by reference to His creation, the natural world. He introduced one of the most
famous metaphors in the philosophy of science, the image of the watchmaker:
Paley's way of making an analogy that the design of creation implies a designer. Basically that since there
is a watch there must be a watchmaker.
Socio-economic background. Around 1800: industrial revolution in full swing in England. Pernicious effects
of laissez-faire Capitalism not immediately obvious
Malthus made his groundbreaking economic arguments by treating human beings in a groundbreaking
way. Rather than focusing on the individual, he looked at humans as groups of individuals, all of whom
were subject to the same basic laws of behavior. He used the same principles that an ecologist would use
studying a population of animals or plants. And indeed, Malthus pointed out that the same forces of fertility
and starvation that shaped the human race were also at work on animals and plants. If flies went
14
unchecked in their maggot-making, the world would soon be knee-deep in them. Most flies (and most
members of any species you choose) must die without having any offspring. And thus when Darwin
adapted Malthus’ ideas to his theory of evolution, it was clear to him that humans must evolve like any
other animal.
15