Museums that threw out meteorite collections in the late 1700s

[Ersby]

You're mixing up two different things. Clearly new age writers have been peddling a shaggy dog story but I think, on the broader picture, MRC_Hans' earlier response is both short and to the point.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Apparently, this story originated with Richard Milton's book Alternative Science (Fourth Estate, 1991): "Milton told me he can no longer recall the source that he got it from – which is fair enough 18 years after he wrote it." See http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/4009/meteor_man.html Obviously, Milton should have documented his source, but it's quite clear from a number of sources that meteorites were long discounted by the scientific establishment:

"Isaac Newton and other savants in the 1600s were well aware of the myriad reports throughout history of stones falling from the sky, but summarily dismissed them as folk tales and so much 'vulgar superstition'. They would not gainsay 2000 years of the wisdom of their hero Aristotle who had decreed that no small bodies exist in space beyond the Earth and her Moon, and that the Earth is at the center of the solar system." See http://www.semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php?BiotID=452

Interesting. I'd always heard that Newtons first four laws resolved the question of orbits. That sort of connotes a "belief" in heliocentricity. I think I might automatically discount the intelligence of an author who cited Newton as a geocentrist. (I know it was a while ago, but you do realize where Newton was, date-wise, in relation to Copernicus and Galileo, don't you?)

 

[Rodney]

Interesting. I'd always heard that Newtons first four laws resolved the question of orbits. That sort of connotes a "belief" in heliocentricity. I think I might automatically discount the intelligence of an author who cited Newton as a geocentrist. (I know it was a while ago, but you do realize where Newton was, date-wise, in relation to Copernicus and Galileo, don't you?)

Yes, but Newton's belief in heliocentricity is irrelevant to the issue at hand. As Ursula Marvin noted in a 1996 article titled “Ernst Florenz Friedrich Chladni (1756-1827) and the Origins of Modern Meteorite Research" (Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 1996, Volume 31, p. 551), Newton stated that "to make way for the regular and lasting Motions of the Planets and Comets, it’s necessary to empty the Heavens of all Matter, except perhaps some very thin Vapours, Steams, or Effluvia arising from the Atmospheres of the Earth, Planets, and Comets." That same article details the close-mindedness of the late 18th Century scientific community toward meteorites and notes that some people who had witnessed them were afraid to come forward for fear of ridicule.

 

[esquel]

No. Could have been sold or lost in error.

I know of at least one relatively recent meteorite to which this happened. The Palolo Valley meteorite fell in December 1946, actually punching a hole in someone's house. The potato sized rock was recovered and added to the Bishop Museum's collection in Honolulu, but at some time over the years, the museum lost track of the meteorite. At this point, its exact whereabouts are unknown. I've been trying to find a picture of the meteorite for a friend, but all documentation except for the most cursory has disappeared. Bad curating? Light fingered janitors? Who knows? I do know it would not have been thrown out as long as someone knew what it was.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Yes, but Newton's belief in heliocentricity is irrelevant to the issue at hand. As Ursula Marvin noted in a 1996 article titled “Ernst Florenz Friedrich Chladni (1756-1827) and the Origins of Modern Meteorite Research" (Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 1996, Volume 31, p. 551), Newton stated that "to make way for the regular and lasting Motions of the Planets and Comets, it’s necessary to empty the Heavens of all Matter, except perhaps some very thin Vapours, Steams, or Effluvia arising from the Atmospheres of the Earth, Planets, and Comets." That same article details the close-mindedness of the late 18th Century scientific community toward meteorites and notes that some people who had witnessed them were afraid to come forward for fear of ridicule.

If his belief is irrelevant then why did you quote that idiotic statement about his belief that Aristotle's world view was the holy of holies? I mean, you didn't quote the article at all, and the article itself offers nothing surprising.

You googled. You found what you thought was a winning and telling statement about Newton. You posted it. It was wrong, either deliberately so, or it was an error because the author of the piece knew nothing about Newton, either.

Not that you had that much credibility to begin with, but this sort of thing doesn't lend you any more.

And, as has been pointed out, some brilliant minds believed some weird stuff. I would not be at all surprised to find out the Newton was very interested in meteorites, as any un-natural(as in "not found in your backyard") minerals were believed to be of use in alchemy and he had a noted belief in alchemy. Does that make him an idiot? Or does it merely make him wrong - on that topic?

 

[Rodney]

And, as has been pointed out, some brilliant minds believed some weird stuff.

That's not the issue -- the issue is the attempt on the part of a number of scientists to try and silence debate on meteorites by ridiculing them as impossible. For example:

"After the fall of a meteorite was witnessed and described in a document notarized by the mayor and 300 citizens of Barbotan, France, in 1791, scientist Pierre Berthollet lamented:

'How sad it is that the entire municipality enters folk tales upon an official record, presenting them as something actually seen, while they cannot be explained by physics or anything reasonable.'" See http://www.amazon.com/Meteorites-their-Parent-Planets-McSween/dp/0521587514#reader_0521587514

 

[Ersby]

That's not the issue -- the issue is the attempt on the part of a number of scientists to try and silence debate on meteorites by ridiculing them as impossible.

But this happens in all walks of life. Looking at this part of history without the distractions of new-age propaganda, it's a example of how science can change and adapt. Bearing in mind the difficulties in comparing 21st and 18th century science, I'm quite sure that the debate over meteorites isn't as cut and dried as you'd like it to be.

 

[Foolmewunz]

That's not the issue -- the issue is the attempt on the part of a number of scientists to try and silence debate on meteorites by ridiculing them as impossible. For example:

"After the fall of a meteorite was witnessed and described in a document notarized by the mayor and 300 citizens of Barbotan, France, in 1791, scientist Pierre Berthollet lamented:

'How sad it is that the entire municipality enters folk tales upon an official record, presenting them as something actually seen, while they cannot be explained by physics or anything reasonable.'" See http://www.amazon.com/Meteorites-their-Parent-Planets-McSween/dp/0521587514#reader_0521587514

Meanwhile, back at the ranch....

Yet other scientists were formulating the actual theories of the true origins of meteorites. This kind of thing happens/happened all the time. Why, I've heard that there were scientists who said we'd never split the atom. Still other scientists were working on splitting that atom. There were quote end quote scientists who opposed Galileo.

There were establishment shrinks who thought Reich was a little nuts. Oh, wait..... (As Sagan pointed out... "they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.) This ridiculing is just another way of questioning, ultimately. It's the crucible in which new ideas are tested and proved.

So, the point is that the establishment always throws up roadblocks to new ideas? That's pretty obvious. That's the point of the OP, with an added sub-clause. The establishment always throws up roadblocks to new ideas, but it's no where near as draconian and deliberate as New Age mythologists are trying to make it sound.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Ersby,
While I'm getting caught up in the crossfire, I just wanted to add my kudos. Nice little pocket of researching you've done here!

 

[paximperium]

Great bit of skepticism Ersby.
It took way more work and effort than our resident woo-google "researcher".

 

[Rodney]

Ersby,
While I'm getting caught up in the crossfire, I just wanted to add my kudos. Nice little pocket of researching you've done here!

I also commend Ersby on his research, but I don't think it succeeded in uncovering all of the pertinent facts. For example, the paper I referenced by Ursula Marvin (of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics) noted that Ernst Chladni "wrote when he finished his book he hesitated to publish it because of the hostile reactions to be expected." (“Ernst Florenz Friedrich Chladni (1756-1827) and the Origins of Modern Meteorite Research" at p. 552.) And Domenico Tata, Professor of Physics and Mathematics at Naples, "was convinced of the authenticity of this (June 1794 Siena meteorite) fall, and said he had intended to publish a full description of it but was dissuaded by friends who warned him that he would be ridiculed by 'Savants' and, worse yet, by 'Half-Savants who are the more to be feared." (Same source at p. 560).

So, one researcher was reluctant to publish his findings, but ultimately summoned the courage to do so; the other did not publish his findings. Not exactly the best type of atmosphere for academic research.

 

[Ersby]

I'd imagine it's almost impossible to uncover all of the pertinent facts, since it all happened so long ago. For example, why were the French in particular so hostile towards the idea? Probably due to political pressures from the newly established French Republic, from what I've read, but I'll admit I'm not going to research that in too much depth.

As for the fall at Siena, the same article you reference gives details of three others who did publish reports suggesting the rocks fell from the sky, which you must've read because they're listed before the person who didn't, so why didn't you mention them? Aren't you interested in all the pertinent facts? And remember the Siena fall was before Chladni's work was published.

The article is very good, and I should thank Rodney because if he hadn't mentioned it I wouldn't have found it. You can read it here:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1996M&PS...31..545M

 

[Rodney]

Aren't you interested in all the pertinent facts?

I think it's fair to say that we each approached this subject with a different perspective. Mine was that the scientific establishment of the late 18th Century was not interested in a fair and balanced debate about the existence of meteorites, and so my posts have addressed that point.

The article is very good, and I should thank Rodney because if he hadn't mentioned it I wouldn't have found it.

Hmmm, we agree, and so readers beware.

 

[Ersby]

I think it's fair to say that we each approached this subject with a different perspective. Mine was that the scientific establishment of the late 18th Century was not interested in a fair and balanced debate about the existence of meteorites, and so my posts have addressed that point.

Whereas my point was that new age writers are not interested in a fair and balanced debate on the history of science, which this post...

So, one researcher was reluctant to publish his findings, but ultimately summoned the courage to do so; the other did not publish his findings. Not exactly the best type of atmosphere for academic research.

... demonstrates.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Rodney,
Please find me one (just one) major scientific breakthrough where the entire scientific commuity just threw all of their old texts in the fire. Every major advance has a more conservative group of scientists or scholars or researchers who decry it as nonsense.
Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Pasteur, Darwin, Einstein....

Ersby is not agreeing with you. You cite one who refused to publish and one who reluctantly published as part of your proof, but the article points out three others who did publish. So four published. Yeah, sounds like the scientific community was shutting down experimental and radical theories to me.

Or - it sounds like you're cherry picking.

 

[Rodney]

Yeah, sounds like the scientific community was shutting down experimental and radical theories to me.

Fortunately, it did not have the power to do that, but who knows how long it would have been for meteorites to have been accepted if it were not for a fortuitous series of falls in the late 18th and early 19th Century? Do you think it was okay in that era that "witnesses to actual falls were withholding their evidence for fear of ridicule"? (Marvin at p. 585).

 

[tsig]

Yes, but Newton's belief in heliocentricity is irrelevant to the issue at hand. As Ursula Marvin noted in a 1996 article titled “Ernst Florenz Friedrich Chladni (1756-1827) and the Origins of Modern Meteorite Research" (Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 1996, Volume 31, p. 551), Newton stated that "to make way for the regular and lasting Motions of the Planets and Comets, it’s necessary to empty the Heavens of all Matter, except perhaps some very thin Vapours, Steams, or Effluvia arising from the Atmospheres of the Earth, Planets, and Comets." That same article details the close-mindedness of the late 18th Century scientific community toward meteorites and notes that some people who had witnessed them were afraid to come forward for fear of ridicule.

Of course the difference is that there really are meteorites.

Things seen in the sky with no physical evidence will never cut it.

 

[Ersby]

Do you think it was okay in that era that "witnesses to actual falls were withholding their evidence for fear of ridicule"? (Marvin at p. 585).

No, it's not okay. Suppressing information just because it offends you personally is a Bad Thing. And you should stop doing it.