Frankenstein's Cat.pdf - University of Cincinnati

I
The Reichenbach Affair:
Pseudoscience and 19th-Century Chemistry
1. Introduction
Before beginning this morning’s lecture, I should perhaps
warn you that it is based on preliminary research
and is therefore by no means as complete and thorough
as I would like (1). In addition, it deals with a 19thcentury
example of pseudoscience rather than with one
of the regrettably all too numerous current examples
that are the main focus of your organization. Such are
the risks of asking an historian to speak about his
research! Nevertheless, as an historian I cannot resist
the hope that you will find much of what I will tell you
today about 19th-century pseudoscience relevant (albeit
depressingly so) to its 20th-century descendants as well.
2. The Nature of Pseudoscience
20th-century chemistry has experienced its share of
pseudoscience nonsense – two of the most recent and
best known examples being, of course, the polywater
scandal of the late 1960s and early 1970s and the more
recent cold-fusion scandal of the 1990s. The first of
these has been documented in the delightful book by
Frank (2) and there have been several published accounts
of the second, the most thorough and readable being
the book by Taube (3). Alas, historians of science are
almost as interested in documenting and analyzing
these apparent breakdowns of the scientific method as
they are in documenting its greatest triumphs, as these
temporary aberrations have much to tell us, not only
about the inherent limitations of the scientific method,
but also about its ability to eventually undergo selfcorrection.
! When analyzing examples of pseudoscience, it is
helpful, whenever possible, to distinguish between the
scientific aspects of the case and the sociological
aspects. The scientific aspects may, in turn, be further
broken down into the experimental versus the theoretical.
The former refers to the reproducibility of any
claims to have detected hitherto unknown phenomena
and the reliability of the detection methods used, whereas
the latter refers to the compatibility of any postulated
theoretical rationales of the phenomena in question
with already established theoretical models.
! The sociological aspects include such factors as
the personal, disciplinary, and national status of the
Figure 1. Baron Karl von Reichenbach (1788-1869).
person advocating the discovery in question. Thus in
the case of the recent cold-fusion fiasco, the original
phenomenon was reported by two electrochemists,
both of whom had relatively high status within the
chemical community – a fact which no doubt played a
role in their being able to successfully publish their
controversial claims in an established chemical journal.
However, these claims overlapped heavily with the
field of nuclear physics, which has a higher disciplinary
status than chemistry and their primary critics
were drawn largely from the physics community,
which viewed mere chemists as having little or no
competence for work in the field in question. Likewise,
when attempts to replicate the work around the world
were evaluated, it was quickly noted that the negative
reports came primarily from countries viewed as having
a high perceived status in the field of physics,
whereas so-called confirmations were reported primarily
by workers in countries having a low perceived status.
! This morning I would like to apply some of these
criteria to an assessment of what may aptly be viewed
as 19th-century chemistry’s version of the cold-fusion
fiasco – namely the so-called discovery of the “Od”
force by the German chemist Karl von Reichenbach.
1