author - "Henry Smith Williams"
f making a wrong deduction from the phenomenonof the calcination of the metals, because of a very importantfactor, the action of the air, which was generally overlooked.And he urged his colleagues of the laboratories to give greaterheed to certain other phenomena that might pass unnoticed in theordinary calcinating process. In his work, The Sceptical Chemist,he showed the reasons for doubting the threefold constitution ofmatter; and in his General History of the Air advanced some noveland carefully studied theories as to the composition of theatmosphere. This was an important step, and although Boyle is notdirectly responsible for the phlogiston theory, it is probablethat his experiments on the atmosphere influenced considerablythe real founders, Becker and Stahl.
Boyle gave very definitely his idea of how he thought air mightbe composed. "I conjecture that the atmospherical air consists ofthree different kinds of corpuscles," he says; "the first, thosenumberless particles which, in the fo
833- -Confirmation of Chladni's hypothesis of 1794--The aurora borealis--Franklin's suggestion that it is of electrical origin--Its close association with terrestrial magnetism--Evaporation, cloud-formation, and dew--Dalton's demonstration that water exists in the air as an independent gas--Hutton's theory of rain--Luke Howard's paper on clouds--Observations on dew, by Professor Wilson and Mr. Six--Dr. Wells's essay on dew--His observations on several appearances connected with dew--Isotherms and ocean currents--Humboldt and the-science of comparative climatology--His studies of ocean currents-- Maury's theory that gravity is the cause of ocean currents-- Dr. Croll on Climate and Time--Cyclones and anti-cyclones, --Dove's studies in climatology--Professor Ferrel's mathematical law of the deflection of winds--Tyndall's estimate of the amount of heat given off by the liberation of a pound of vapor--Meteorological observations and weather predictions.
CHAPTER VI
. MODERN THEORIES OF HEAT AND LIGHT
was any sudden change in the level of mentality of the Roman world at the close of the classical period. We must assume, then, that the direction in which the great minds turned was for some reason changed. Newton is said to have alleged that he made his discoveries by "intending" his mind in a certain direction continuously. It is probable that the same explanation may be given of almost every great scientific discovery. Anaxagoras could not have thought out the theory of the moon's phases; Aristarchus could not have found out the true mechanism of the solar system; Eratosthenes could not have developed his plan for measuring the earth, had not each of these investigators "intended" his mind persistently towards the problems in question.
Nor can we doubt that men lived in every generation of the dark age who were capable of creative thought in the field of science, bad they chosen similarly to "intend" their minds in the right direction. The difficulty was that they did not so choose. Their minds had
ation ofgeneral ideas or principles. In the familiar definition ofHerbert Spencer, science is organized knowledge.
Now it is patent enough, at first glance, that the veriest savagemust have been an observer of the phenomena of nature. But it maynot be so obvious that he must also have been a classifier of hisobservations--an organizer of knowledge. Yet the more we considerthe case, the more clear it will become that the two methods aretoo closely linked together to be dissevered. To observe outsidephenomena is not more inherent in the nature of the mind than todraw inferences from these phenomena. A deer passing through theforest scents the ground and detects a certain odor. A sequenceof ideas is generated in the mind of the deer. Nothing in thedeer's experience can produce that odor but a wolf; therefore thescientific inference is drawn that wolves have passed that way.But it is a part of the deer's scientific knowledge, based onprevious experience, individual and racial; that wolves areda
f making a wrong deduction from the phenomenonof the calcination of the metals, because of a very importantfactor, the action of the air, which was generally overlooked.And he urged his colleagues of the laboratories to give greaterheed to certain other phenomena that might pass unnoticed in theordinary calcinating process. In his work, The Sceptical Chemist,he showed the reasons for doubting the threefold constitution ofmatter; and in his General History of the Air advanced some noveland carefully studied theories as to the composition of theatmosphere. This was an important step, and although Boyle is notdirectly responsible for the phlogiston theory, it is probablethat his experiments on the atmosphere influenced considerablythe real founders, Becker and Stahl.
Boyle gave very definitely his idea of how he thought air mightbe composed. "I conjecture that the atmospherical air consists ofthree different kinds of corpuscles," he says; "the first, thosenumberless particles which, in the fo
833- -Confirmation of Chladni's hypothesis of 1794--The aurora borealis--Franklin's suggestion that it is of electrical origin--Its close association with terrestrial magnetism--Evaporation, cloud-formation, and dew--Dalton's demonstration that water exists in the air as an independent gas--Hutton's theory of rain--Luke Howard's paper on clouds--Observations on dew, by Professor Wilson and Mr. Six--Dr. Wells's essay on dew--His observations on several appearances connected with dew--Isotherms and ocean currents--Humboldt and the-science of comparative climatology--His studies of ocean currents-- Maury's theory that gravity is the cause of ocean currents-- Dr. Croll on Climate and Time--Cyclones and anti-cyclones, --Dove's studies in climatology--Professor Ferrel's mathematical law of the deflection of winds--Tyndall's estimate of the amount of heat given off by the liberation of a pound of vapor--Meteorological observations and weather predictions.
CHAPTER VI
. MODERN THEORIES OF HEAT AND LIGHT
was any sudden change in the level of mentality of the Roman world at the close of the classical period. We must assume, then, that the direction in which the great minds turned was for some reason changed. Newton is said to have alleged that he made his discoveries by "intending" his mind in a certain direction continuously. It is probable that the same explanation may be given of almost every great scientific discovery. Anaxagoras could not have thought out the theory of the moon's phases; Aristarchus could not have found out the true mechanism of the solar system; Eratosthenes could not have developed his plan for measuring the earth, had not each of these investigators "intended" his mind persistently towards the problems in question.
Nor can we doubt that men lived in every generation of the dark age who were capable of creative thought in the field of science, bad they chosen similarly to "intend" their minds in the right direction. The difficulty was that they did not so choose. Their minds had
ation ofgeneral ideas or principles. In the familiar definition ofHerbert Spencer, science is organized knowledge.
Now it is patent enough, at first glance, that the veriest savagemust have been an observer of the phenomena of nature. But it maynot be so obvious that he must also have been a classifier of hisobservations--an organizer of knowledge. Yet the more we considerthe case, the more clear it will become that the two methods aretoo closely linked together to be dissevered. To observe outsidephenomena is not more inherent in the nature of the mind than todraw inferences from these phenomena. A deer passing through theforest scents the ground and detects a certain odor. A sequenceof ideas is generated in the mind of the deer. Nothing in thedeer's experience can produce that odor but a wolf; therefore thescientific inference is drawn that wolves have passed that way.But it is a part of the deer's scientific knowledge, based onprevious experience, individual and racial; that wolves areda