Working knowledges before and after circa 1800: Practices and disciplines in the history of science, technology, and medicine

ISIS

Volumn 98, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 489-516

  Pickstone, John V ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; COMPARATIVE ANATOMY; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; HISTORY; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE; PHILOSOPHY; REVIEW; TECHNOLOGY;

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ANATOMY, COMPARATIVE; CULTURE; HISTORY, 18TH CENTURY; HISTORY, 19TH CENTURY; HUMANS; KNOWLEDGE; PHILOSOPHY, MEDICAL; TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 35548999282     PISSN: 00211753     EISSN: 15456994     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/521154     Document Type: Review

References (151)

1. One should add that the singular science model is focused on the West and treats other traditions as past contributors or colonial followers. I do not deal with these issues here, but the alternatives I suggest may be useful.
2. Michael Gibbons et al., The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies (London: Sage, 1994);
3. Helga Nowotny, Peter Scott, and Gibbons, Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty (London: Polity, 2001);
4. for a brief discussion of their contrast between postwar and more recent science see pp. 513-514 below. For their critics see Terry Shinn, "The Triple Helix and the New Production of Knowledge: Prepackaged Thinking on Science and Technology," Social Studies of Science, 2002, 34:599-614;
5. Dominique Pestre, "Regimes of Knowledge Production in Society: Towards a More Political and Social Reading," Minerva, 2003, 41:245-261;
6. and Pestre, Science, argent et politique: Un essai d'interprétation (Paris: INRA, 2003).
7. For a similar argument and on the need for alternatives see Bruno J. Strasser and Michael Burgi, "L'histoire des sciences, une histoire àpart entière?" Revue Suisse d'Histoire, 2005, 55:3-16.
8. For ruminations on the accumulation of poorly specified cases see the Focus section 'The Generalist Vision in the History of Science," Isis, 2005, 96:224-251.
9. E.g., on the argument that "science" dates only from the nineteenth century see Andrew Cunningham, "Getting the Game Right: Some Plain Words on the Identity and Invention of Science," Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 1988, 19:365-389;
10. and Cunningham and Perry Williams, "De-centring the 'Big Picture' : The Origins of Modern Science and the Modern Origins of Science," British Journal for the History of Science, 1993, 26:407-432.
11. Consider, as an example, a recent and insightful account of how Cambridge HPS met Bath. SSK at the first Anglo-American HSS-BSHS meeting in Manchester in 1988. That connection was indeed important, but the meeting also helped "import" American traditions in history of medicine and history of technology, including studies of big science, industrial science, modern hospitals, and gender. See James A. Secord, "Knowledge in Transit," Isis, 2004, 95:654-672.
12. See, e.g., Nicholas Jardine, Scenes of Inquiry: On the Reality of Questions in the Sciences, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000).
13. Ian Hacking, "The Disunities of the Sciences," in The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power, ed. Peter Galison and David J. Stump (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ. Press, 1996), pp. 37-74, esp. p. 65 (I will return to genetic and statistical styles later in this essay);
14. Hacking, "Style for Historians and Philosophers," Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci., 1992, 23:1-20;
15. and Alistair C. Crombie, Styles of Scientific Thinking in the European Tradition, 3 vols. (London: Duckworth, 1994).
16. Hacking, "Disunities of the Sciences," p. 65.
17. There are, of course, other sources for histories of styles in science, including the still useful and stimulating books of J. T. Merz and the work of Ludwik Fleck, with its stress on long-term mythic structures underlying the various routines of modern science and its comparisons between "sites"-whether bacteriological labs under different political conditions or knowledges in different periods. Fleck has the further advantage of including different discursive communities and the communications between them - e.g., between patients, general practitioners, and medical specialists. Thus he raises issues of group identity, genres, language, and translation that need to be explored in any account of STM that involves structured differences, including the present essay. See Ludwik Fleck, The Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1977). Iam indebted to the discussion at a meeting to launch the excellent French translation by Natalie Jas.
18. But the terminology may be tricky because often the whole activity takes the name of its overall goal-as when sophisticated experimentation includes both analysis and the natural histories of the materials used. As we shall see, the project of natural philosophy could sometimes be taken to include natural history and mixed mathematics, but these could also be thought of as different activities; these contested relations are crucial for the first scientific revolution. We may note here that the major elements of knowledge and practice in the Western tradition may constitute what the English, philosopher R. G. Collingwood called a "scale of forms," where the higher members presuppose the lower; see Collingwood, An Essay on Philosophical Method (Oxford: Clarendon, 1933). Such, scales are familiar to historians of science from reading Aristotle on souls.
19. See Erwin Ackerknecht, Medicine at the Paris Hospital (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1967);
20. and Nicholas Jewson, "The Disappearance of the Sick Man from Medical Cosmology, 1770-1870," Sociology, 1976, 10:225-244. But labeling by site can be misleading: for example, much bedside medicine may be performed in clinics, and there seems little difference in principle between the gross pathology customarily performed in hospital "dead rooms" and the analysis of bacteria in laboratories. But if we treat work forms as nested projects, we can then explore how certain combinations may be characteristic of certain sites, indeed facilitated by them. We may note, for example, that many analytical projects were developed in museums set up for natural history and many experimentalist projects in laboratories set up for analysis. In some ways, we may see here a (flexible) "scale of sites."
21. John V. Pickstone, "Ways of Knowing: Towards a Historical Sociology of Science, Technology, and Medicine," Brit. J. Hist. Sci., 1993, 26:433-458;
22. and Pickstone, Ways of Knowing: A New History of Science, Technology, and Medicine (Manchester: Manchester Univ. Press, 2000; Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 2001). Those who know the book may find useful a note on the developments in the present work, which include engagement with Hacking re styles and, more briefly, with Fleck and SSK on knowledge practices; a revision of my accounts of chemistry ca. 1800 and of mechanical engineering in the nineteenth century; the refinement and subdivision of "analysis" to emphasize mixed mathematics before 1800 and of substantive analysis, both observational and interventional, since 1800; the addition of mathematical modeling to the "synthetic mode" ca. 1900; and the inclusion of statistical inquiries (re Hacking), of historical natural sciences (re Rudwick), and of recent biomedicine. I have used several exemplary secondary sources to help make my arguments, and I have tried the experiment of combining "ways of knowing" and "ways of working" as "working knowledges." But the main development is the stress on the correspondence between these "working knowledges" and the major "actors' disciplines," both theoretical and practical, before 1800. This then becomes the basis for understanding the transformations of the second scientific revolution and the continued relevance of the working knowledges-outwith, across, and within the new sciences.
23. Pickstone, Ways of Knowing, pp. 71-72;
24. and John V. Pickstone, "Thinking over Wine and Blood: Craft Products, Foucault, and the Reconstruction of Enlightenment Knowledges," Social Analysis, 1997, 43:99-108.
25. On experimental systems see Hans-Jörg Rheinberger, Toward a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ. Press, 1997).
26. Eric Schatzberg, "Technik Comes to America: Changing Meanings of Technology before 1930," Technology and Culture, 2006, 46:486-512.
27. For a discussion of various uses of "technoscience" see John V. Pickstone, "On Knowing, Acting, and the Location of Technoscience: A Response to Barry Barnes," Perspectives on Science, 2005, 13:267-278.
28. See Pickstone, "On Knowing, Acting, and the Location of Technoscience."
29. It does not follow that the working knowledges and tensions that are hegemonic in any period are the most important economically or socially. For example, the recent rise of China as an economic power is mostly based on "rationalization" of a kind familiar from the first industrial revolution; and while recent medicine is increasingly experimental and synthetic, the improvement of health remains in large part Hippocratic. It is my hope that the historiographic analysis I present will also be used for the exploration of vernacular technologies and understandings, for which the historiography of medicine offers many exemplars. My thinking on such, matters owes much to the Manchester tradition in HST, begun by Donald Cardwell and colleagues at UMIST, with its stress on knowledge in action rather than just scientific change; to many discussions in CHSTM, Manchester, including ongoing dialogue with David Edgerton; and to our Manchester work in history of medicine that tries to integrate intellectual, technical, and social history, often in local contexts. See, e.g., note 78, below, and the special issues in 2007 of the Manchester Region History Review (18, Pt. 1 : on Manchester science)
30. and the John Rylands Library Bulletin (87, Pt. 1: on Manchester medicine).
31. For an attempt to apply some of these ideas in a national history see David Edgerton and John V. Pickstone, "Science, Technology, and Medicine in the United Kingdom, 1750-2000," in Modern Science in National and International Contexts, ed. David C. Livingstone and Ronald L. Numbers (Cambridge History of Science, 8) (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, forthcoming).
32. For some backing on this question see Christopher Hamlin, rev. of Pickstone, Ways of Knowing, Journal of the American Medical Association, Dec. 2001, 286:2878;
33. and John Christie, rev. of Pickstone, Ways of Knowing, Brit. J. Hist. Sci., 2006, 38:350-351.
34. Michel Foucault, Birth of the Clinic (London: Routledge, 1989);
35. and Thomas Kuhn, "Mathematical versus Experimental Traditions in the Development of Physical Science," in The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1977), pp. 31-65.
36. E.g., for a thorough analysis of homologies between various analytical sciences see Ben Marsden, '"The Progeny of These Two Fellows' : Robert Willis, William. Whewell, and the Sciences of Mechanism, Mechanics, and Machinery in Early Victorian Britain," Brit. J. Hist. Sci., 2004, 37:401-434.
37. See Christoph Meinel, "Molecules and Croquet Balls," in Models: The Third Dimension of Science, ed. Sorya de Chadevarian and Nick Hopwood (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ. Press, 2004), pp. 242-275, esp. pp. 266-269.
38. Cunningham., "Getting the Game Right" (cit. n. 4).
39. Theodore S. Porter, "The Social Sciences," in From Natural Philosophy to the Sciences: Writing the History of Nineteenth-Century Science, ed. David Cahan (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 2003), pp. 254-290, on p. 257.
40. Our previous discussion of Aristotelian series will help explain why natural philosophy could both, include mathematics and natural history and be contrasted with them. Because natural philosophy was the culmination, of the series of knowledge forms, it also encompassed the lower forms. So those who would attack that hierarchy could try to marginalize the category of natural philosophy or to replace its content and rules. See Peter Dear, "The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy: Toward a Heuristic Narrative for the Scientific Revolution," Configurations, 1998, 6:173-193.
41. Robert Westman, "The Astronomer's Role in the Sixteenth Century: A Preliminary Survey," History of Science, 1980, 13:105-147;
42. John Schuster, "The Scientific Revolution," in Companion to the History of Modern Science, ed. R. C. Olby, G. N. Cantor, J. R. R. Christie, and M. J. S. Hodge (London: Routledge, 1990), pp. 2.17242;
43. Mario Biagioli, Galileo, Courtier: The Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1993);
44. Peter Dear, Discipline and Experience: The Mathematical Way in the Scientific Revolution (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1995);
45. Dear, Revolutionizing the Sciences: European Knowledge and Its Ambitions, 1500-1700 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 2001);
46. Dear, "What Is the History of Science the History Of? Early Modern Roots of the Ideology of Modern Science," Isis, 2005, 96:390-406;
47. Rob Iliffe, "Abstract Considerations: Disciplines and the Incoherence of Newton's Natural Philosophy," Stud Hist. Phil. Sci., 2004, 35:427-454;
48. Paula Findlen, Possessing Nature: Museums, Collecting, and Scientific Culture in Early Modern Italy (Berkeley/Los Angeles: Univ. California Press, 1994);
49. Findlen, "The Two Cultures of Scholarship," Isis, 2005, 96:230-237 (part of the Focus section "The Generalist Vision in the History of Science");
50. William. B. Ashworth, Jr., "Natural History and the Emblematic World View," in Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution, ed. David C. Lindberg and Westman (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990), pp. 303-332;
51. and Harold Cook, "The New Philosophy and Medicine in Seventeenth Century England," ibid., pp. 397-436.
52. Steven Shapin and Simon Scharfer, Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1985).
53. See also Shapin, The Scientific Revolution (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1996);
54. and John Henry, The Scientific Revolution and the Origins of Modern Science (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 1997).
55. For a wider view, chronologically and intellectually, see Stephen Pumfrey, Paolo L. Rossi, and Maurice Slawinski, eds., Science, Culture, and Popular Belief in Europe (Manchester: Manchester Univ. Press, 1991).
56. I owe this suggestion to Rob Iliffe.
57. Because I want to stress the method and its range, including medicine and antiquarian studies, I am tempted to use the term "historia," which originally referred to the collection of information about men and cities. After recently encountering the excellent collection Historia: Empiricism and Erudition in Early Modern Europe, ed. Gianna Pomata and Nancy Siraisi (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2005), that temptation grows stronger, partly so that historia naturalis could be a subdivision, alongside medical cases, legal case records, and antiquarian items. But the modern meanings of "history" are so different that this move introduces its own complications for long-term history. For now I will stick with "extended natural history" as an approximation to "historia," meaning practices that we still understand as applied to natural objects and that are also used for human creations. See also my discussion below, following Rudwick, on history in and around geology.
58. Lorraine Daston and Katharine Park, Wonders and the Order of Nature, 1650-1750 (New York: Zone, 1998);
59. Barbara Shapiro, A Culture of Fact: England, 1550-1720 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univ. Press, 2000);
60. Ursula Klein, "Technoscience avant la lettre," Perspect. Sci, 2005, 13:226-266;
61. and Pickstone, Ways of Knowing (cit. n. 12), Ch 3.
62. John V. Pickstone, "Museological Science? The Place of the Analytical/Comparative in Nineteenth-Century Science, Technology, and Medicine," Hist. Sci, 1994, 32:111-138.
63. Ernst Cassirer, The Philosophy of the Enlightenment (Boston: Beacon, 1955), pp. 8-14.
64. J. L. Heilbron, "A Mathematician's Mutiny, with Morals," in World Changes: Thomas Kuhn and the Nature of Science, ed. Paul Horwich (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1993), pp. 311-341.
65. See, e.g., Andrew Hodges, Turing: A Natural Philosopher (London: Phoenix, 1997). The term, "natural philosophy" could equally apply to works by Jeans, Eddington, Hoyle, Hawkins, Bernai, J. S. Huxley, Medawar, and Dawkins-to take a few British examples.
66. This, Brockliss suggests, was the pedagogical basis of the mathematical physics of Laplace and his followers; see Laurence Brockliss, "Science, the Universities, and Other Public Spaces: Teaching Science in Europe and the Americas," in Eighteenth-Century Science, ed. Roy Porter (Cambridge History of Science, 4) (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003), pp. 44-86.
67. For experimental philosophy in "physics" see Heilbron, "Mathematician's Mutiny" (cit. n. 32); and J. L. Heilbron, "Experimental Philosophy," in The Ferment of Knowledge: Studies in the Historiography of EighteenthCentury Science, ed. G. S. Rousseau and Roy Porter (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1980), pp. 367-375.
68. For two perspectives among many on chemistry and medical sciences see Robert E. Schofield, Mechanism and Materialism: British Natural Philosophy in an Age of Reason (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1970);
69. and Elizabeth Williams, The Physical and the Moral: Anthropology, Physiology, and Philosophical Medicine in France, 1750-1850 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994).
70. Dear, Discipline and Experience (cit. n. 25), esp. p. 2.10;
71. Dear, Revolutionizing the Sciences (cit. n. 25), pp. 142-144;
72. Rob Iliffe, "Butter for Parsnips: Authorship, Audience, and Incomprehensibility," in Scientific Authorship: Credit and Intellectual Property in Science, ed. Mario Biagioli and Peter Galison (New York/London: Routledge, 2003), pp. 33-66;
73. and Iliffe, "Abstract Considerations" (cit. n. 25).
74. Iliffe, "Abstract Considerations," pp. 440-441. Iam most grateful to Simon Schaffer and Rob Iliffe for information and guidance.
75. Dear, "What Is the History of Science the History Of?" (cit. n. 25), esp. p. 393.
76. Lisa Jardine, Ingenious Pursuits: Building the Scientific. Revolution (London: Little, Brown, 1999);
77. Pamela O. Long, Openness, Secrecy, Authorship: Technical Arts and the Culture of Knowledge from Antiquity to the Renaissance (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 2001);
78. Ken Arnold, Cabinets for the Curious: Looking Back at Early English Museums (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006);
79. and P. Fontes da Costa, "The Culture of Curiosity at the Royal Society in the First Half of the Eighteenth Century," Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, 2002, 56:147-166.
80. Mario Biagioli, "The Social Status of Italian Mathematicians, 1450-1600," Hist. Sci, 1989, 27:41-95;
81. and J. A. Bennett, "The Mechanics' Philosophy and the Mechanical Philosophers," ibid., 1986, 24:1-28.
82. This would seem to be another example of flexible nesting: for some practitioners the mathematics would be primary, for others the craft; the modes of work and of self-presentation would depend on the context.
83. On distancing see Simon Schaffer, "Glassworks: Newton's Prisms and the Uses of Experiment," in The Uses of Experiment: Studies in the Natural Sciences, ed. David Gooding, Trevor Pinch, and Schaffer (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989);
84. and Schaffer, "The Consuming Flame: Electrical Showmen and Tory Mystics in the World of Goods," in Consumption and the World of Goods, ed. John Brewer and Roy Porter (London: Routledge, 1993), pp. 489-526.
85. Dear, "What Is the History of Science the History Of?" (cit. n. 25); and Andrew Cunningham, "The Pen and the Sword: Recovering the Disciplinary Identity of Physiology and Anatomy before 1800," Parts 1 and 2, Studies in History and Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 2002, 33:631-665, 2003, 34:51-76.
86. Cook, "New Philosophy and Medicine" (cit. n. 25). Galenic physic was defined by its natural philosophy, though physicians might draw on the mathematics of astrology and on the natural history, anatomy, and crafts that constituted the rest of medicine. For eighteenth-century medicine see Cunningham, "Pen and Sword"; and Pickstone, "On Knowing, Acting, and the Location of Technoscience" (cit. n. 15).
87. Ursula Klein, Experiments, Models, Paper Tools: Cultures of Organic Chemistry in the Nineteenth Century (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ. Press. 2003).
88. I am aware that my discussion of early chemistry, including alchemy and astrology, is particularly slight. For a stimulating guide see Bruce T. Moran, Distilling Knowledge: Alchemy, Chemistry, and the Scientific. Revolution (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 2005).
89. As Klein showed in Experiments, Models, Paper Tools, pp. 155-161, organic chemistry remained natural historical in spite of analysis into carbon, oxygen, etc. For organic chemistry the important "elements" turned out to be the "radicals" by which formulas could be related to properties.
90. C. C. Gillispie, "Science and Technology," in The New Cambridge Modern History, Vol. 9, ed. C. W. Crawley (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1965), pp. 118-145.
91. I have shown elsewhere how organisms in early nineteenth-century France, whether biological or sociological, could be seen as centralized or devolved systems, or as atomistic or associative: John V. Pickstone, "How Might We Map the Cultural Fields of Science? Politics and Organisms in Restoration France," Hist. Sci, 1999, 37:347-364.
92. Nicholas Jardine, James Secord, and Emma Spary, eds., Cultures of Natural History (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996).
93. I owe this suggestion to Bernard Lightman. See also Nicholas Rupke, Richard Owen: Victorian Naturalist (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, 1994);
94. and Adrian Desmond, Huxley: From Devil's Disciple to Evolution's High Priest (London: Penguin, 1999).
95. Martin J. S. Rudwick, Bursting the Limits of Time: The Reconstruction of Geohistory in the Age of Revolution (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 2005).
96. Ibid., Ch. 2, pp. 137-138 (quotation).
97. Ibid., Ch. 3.
98. Ibid., Ch. 9.
99. Ibid., pp. 355, 418-419.
100. For more on Smith, his "engineering style," and his academic nephew, see Jack Morrell, John Phillips and the Business of Victorian Science (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005).
101. In reflecting on Rudwick's anti-Jacobin masterpiece, I tentatively considered how my own arguments about the history of science might be related to developments in historical sciences ca. 1800. Much philosophy of science, SSK, and some recent HSTM is rather general in its formulations about science, though often specific in its cases; like earth physics, it might qualify as natural philosophy, as indeed I have suggested above from, a different angle. So too might sweeping narratives about the growth of knowledge (like geotheory). By contrast, much of recent historians' practice is local and period specific, stressing contingency-more like Rudwick's geohistory. We have some tools-e.g., "Kuhnian paradigms" or "research schools"-that may help us recognize "rock formations" at various levels; and, amusingly, we also have catastrophist intellectual histories, such as early Foucault; but how can these various genres be utilized together? Like Rudwick's new "geologists," I am trying to use detailed historical studies-together with accounts of process and some wider histories-not just for the specifics, or the very general, but to develop histories of STM that are analytical, structural, dynamic, and contingent-on various scales. I hope that this analysis of knowledge, like the contingent analytical geology of the early nineteenth century, will feed back both to narrative histories and to wider philosophies.
102. John V. Pickstone, "Science in Nineteenth-Century England: Plural Configurations and Singular Politics," in The Organisation of Knowledge in Victorian Britain, ed. Martin Daunton (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press for the British Academy, 2005), pp. 29-60.
103. Peter Galison, Image and Logic: A Material Culture of 'Micmphysics (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1997).
104. Andrew Warwick, "A Very Hard Nut to Crack," in Scientific Authorship, ed. Biagioli and Galison (cit. n. 36), pp. 133-164;
105. see also Warwick, Masters of Theory: Cambridge and the Rise of Mathematical Physics (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 2003).
106. Note that this deconstruction of Victorian electricity can be neatly extended: for the symbolism, natural history, and crafts of electricity see the work of Iwan Rhys Moms, e.g., Frankenstein's Children: Electricity, Exhibition, and Experiment in Early Nineteenth-Century London (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Ress).
107. Pickstone, "Science in Nineteenth-Century England" (cit. n. 57).
108. Cunningham, "Getting the Game Right" (cit. n. 4); and Jack Morrell and Arnold Thackray, Gentlemen of Science: Early Years of the British Academy of Science (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1981). In Germany, the new sciences were associated with a new definition of higher education, and this was true across the spectrum of knowledge, including the humanities. But where universities were institutionally weak, especially in Britain and the United States, and where teachers were likely to be seen as adjuncts to professional and technical education, especially in medicine and engineering, then claims to the utility and autonomy of natural science served as a common front for the science teachers as opposed to the practitioners.
109. See Pickstone, "Science in Nineteenth-Century England." I do not, however, mean to suggest that the "unity of science" was or is "merely" political. Indeed, my own account of the common features of analytical sciences, and of the dynamics they shared, including linkage, intervention, and synthesis, would provide one way of assessing unity claims. See also Hacking, "Disunities of the Sciences" (cit. n. 7).
110. Thomas Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1999).
111. Jonathan Harwood, Styles of Scientific Thought: The German Genetics Community, 1900-1933 (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1993);
112. and Robert E. Kohler, From Medical Chemistry to Biochemistry: The Making of a Biomedical Discipline (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1982).
113. Pickstone, Ways of Knowing (cit. n. 12), p. 121.
114. For insights into both creations and connections see William Bechtel, ed., Integrating Scientific Disciplines (Dordrecht: Nijhoff, 1986).
115. For more on this distinction see Ian Hacking, Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of the Natural Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983).
116. Cunningham, "Pen and Sword" (cit. n. 43). On nineteenth-century derivatives from, physiology see Joseph Ben-David, The Scientist's Role in Society: A Comparative Study (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1984).
117. On experimental psychology see Roger Smith, The Fontana History of the Human Sciences (London: Fontana, 1997).
118. On experimental pathology see Gwyn Macfarlane, Howard Florey: The Making of a Great Scientist (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1979).
119. See also Bernard Thomason, "The New Botany in Britain, 1870-1914" (Ph.D. diss., UMIST, Univ. Manchester, 1987);
120. and Steindor J. Erlingssson, "The Rise of Experimental Zoology in Britain: Hogben, Crew, and the Society for Experimental Zoology" (Ph.D. diss., Univ. Manchester, 2005).
121. David Edgerton, The Shock of the Old (London: Profile, 2007); Edgerton, "From Innovation to Use: Ten (Eclectic) Theses on the History of Technology," History of Technology, 1999, 16:1-26;
122. Edgerton, Warfare State: Britain, 1920-1970 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005);
123. Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy (London: Routledge, 1958);
124. and Jerome Ravetz, Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1971).
125. Pickstone, "Thinking over Wine and Blood" (cit. n. 13); John V. Pickstone, "Bodies, Fields, and Factories: Technologies and Understandings in the Age of Revolution," in Technological Change: Methods and Themes in the History of Technology, ed. Robert Fox (London: Routledge, 1995), pp. 51-6.1;
126. Ulrich Wegenroth, "Science, Technology, and Industry," in From Natural Philosophy to the Sciences, ed. Cahan (cit. n. 23), pp. 221-253;
127. and Michael Worboys, Spreading Germs: Disease Theories and Medical Practice in Britain, 1865-1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000).
128. Pickstone, "On Knowing, Acting, and the Location of Technoscience" (cit. n. 15). In my book I presented nineteenth-century mechanical engineering as rationalization or mechanization, but I would now wish to adjust the emphasis. Such, engineering was indeed deeply analytical, but some of it was also synthetic in a sense that should not be neglected. We might perhaps regard individual textile machines as mechanizing craft, but the textile factories whose organic (systemic) qualities so impressed the philosophers of industry probably also deserve comparison with the electrical power systems of the century's end. And to watch a James Nasmyth devise and produce a steam hammer is to see a synthesizer of components that were understood as elements and that could be produced with a facility and accuracy that allowed the building of systems. See the many works from this period on "philosophy of industry"; for Nasmyth see his Autobiography, ed. Samuel Smiles (London: John Murray, 1897).
129. Christoph. Meinel, "Molecules and Croquet Balls" (cit. n. 21);
130. Klein, Experiments, Models, Paper Tools (cit. n. 45);
131. and F. von Reuleaux, Kinematics of Machinery, trans. A. B. W. Kennedy (London, 1876).
132. For technoscience see Pickstone, Ways of Knowing (cit. n. 12), Ch. 7, esp. the argument that synthetic systems can be read in either direction, as it were-for light or for fruit.
133. Regarding interplays between substantive and mathematical constructions see Herbert Mehrtens, "Mathematical Models," in Models, ed. de Chadarevian and Hopwood (cit. n. 21), pp. 276-306.
134. On computer simulations see, e.g., Erie Francoeur and Jerome Segal, "From Model Kits to Interactive Computer Graphics," ibid., pp. 402-432.
135. On experimental systems see Rheinberger, Toward a History ofEpistemic Things (cit. n. 14).
136. For Nowotny et al. see note 2, above. For recent reconfigurations of biology see Duncan Wilson and Gael Lancelot, "Making Way for Molecular Biology: Institutionalizing and Managing Reform of Biological Sciences in a U.K. University during the 1980s and 1990s," Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences (forthcoming).
137. B. J. Strasser, "Collecting and Experimenting: The Moral Economies of Biological Research, 1960s-1980s," Preprints of the Max-Planck Institute for the History of Science, 2006, 3/0:105-123.
138. Sorya de Chadarevian, "Following Molecules: Haemoglobin between the Clinic and the Laboratory," in Molecularizing Biology and Medicine: New Practices and Alliances, 1910s-1970s, ed. de Chadarevian and Harmke Kamminga (Amsterdam: Harwood, 1998), pp. 171-202.
139. Stephen Toulmin, "How Medicine Saved the Life of Ethics," Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 1982, 25:736-750.
140. See Susan Leigh Star and James R. Griesemer, "Institutional Ecology, 'Translations,' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum, of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39," Soc. Stud. Sci., 1989, 19:387-420;
141. on translations see Galison, Image and Logic (cit. n. 58). See also note 9, above.
142. Focus section: "Generalist Vision in the History of Science" (cit. n. 3).
143. For some examples of how ways of knowing and working may be used in medical histories that are both, micro and macro see Olga Amsterdamska and Anja Hiddinga, "The Analysed Body," in Companion to Medicine in the Twentieth Century, ed. Roger Cooter and John V. Pickstone (London: Routledge, 2003), pp. 417-434;
144. liana Löwy, "The Experimental Body," ibid, pp. 435-450;
145. Stephanie Snow, Operations without Pain: The Practice and Science of Anaesthesia in Twentieth-Century Britain (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2006);
146. and Pickstone, "Contested Cumulations: Configurations of Cancer Treatments through the Twentieth Century," Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 2007, 81.-.164-196 (part of a special issue on the history of cancer edited by David Cantor).
147. For a fine biological example see Nick Hopwood, "Embryology," in The Modern Biological and Earth Sciences, ed. Peter Bowler and Pickstone (Cambridge History of Science, 6) (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, forthcoming, 2007).
148. For a recent example see Paula Findlen, "Galileo, Scientific Entrepreneur," Science, 2006, 313:46-47,
149. a review of Mario Biagioli, Galileo's Instruments of Credit: Telescopes, Images, Secrecy (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 2006).
150. See also the introduction by Steven J. Harris to Configurations, 1998, 6.
151. See also note 56, above.