1978 00 00 Social Studies of Science, V 8, I 4 - The Case of Meteorites - Westrum

Magazine Overview

This document is an article from the journal 'Social Studies of Science', Volume 8, Issue 4, published in November 1978 by Sage Publications, Ltd. The article, titled "Science and Social Intelligence about Anomalies: The Case of Meteorites," is authored by Ron Westrum. It examines the historical process by which the scientific community came to accept the reality of meteorites in the eighteenth century, using it as a case study for understanding how science deals with anomalous reports from non-scientists.

Abstract

The abstract states that scientists weigh the plausibility and credibility of anomalous event reports. The paper examines the reporting processes that led to the scientific recognition of meteorites in the eighteenth century, showing how scientists' failure to make realistic assumptions about anomaly reporting affects their decisions. The recognition of meteorites occurred only when scientists could evaluate reports, devise a theory, and receive unimpeachable eyewitness testimony.

Science and Social Intelligence about Anomalies: The Case of Meteorites

Ron Westrum's article delves into the sociology of science, focusing on how data from outside the scientific community is accepted. He uses the meteorite controversy of the eighteenth century as an extreme example to explore the scientific community's response to reports of hypothetical anomalies from non-scientists. This case is compared to controversies surrounding Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) and sea-serpents, suggesting parallels in how scientific communities handle such reports. The author notes that the meteorite controversy is often cited by anomaly advocates to argue against scientific resistance to new ideas, but that secondary sources on the topic are frequently inaccurate.

The controversy primarily took place in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. It began with a formal rejection of meteoritic stones by the French Academy of Sciences in 1772. However, the main debate started in 1794 with the publication of a book by German physicist Chladni, advocating for the reality of meteorites. In the same year, a notable meteorite fall occurred in Siena, Italy. Both events were met with general negativity, and Chladni faced attacks for challenging established views.

By the turn of the century, with more falls reported, attitudes shifted from denial to uncertainty, and by 1803, meteorites were generally accepted. The article aims to explore the broader issues in the sociology of knowledge relevant to this controversy. It posits that a major factor in rejecting anomalies is not just a priori implausibility but also the quantity and quality of reports received. Understanding the social intelligence system that transmits these reports and how scientists perceive it is crucial to comprehending their opinions on anomalies.

A Missed Connection

The article begins by discussing two memoirs submitted to the French Académie Royale des Sciences in 1771 and 1772. The first concerned a fireball meteor, and the second, a chemical analysis of a stone alleged to have fallen from the sky. Although both dealt with phenomena related to extraterrestrial bodies, the Académiciens failed to connect them. The report on the meteor treated it as real, while the meteorite was dismissed as fiction. This failure was significant because the explanation of meteors was hindered without the evidence from meteorites. Savants like LeRoy and Edmund Halley struggled to explain meteors, and LeRoy was unaware of reports of falling stones. The chemical analysis of a stone in 1772, submitted by Fougeroux, Cadet, and Lavoisier, concluded it had not fallen from the sky, reinforcing the skepticism of 'true physicists' and contributing to the rejection of similar stones for years.

The acceptance of meteors but rejection of meteorites stemmed from unequal observation opportunities. Meteors were visible over vast areas, attracting many witnesses, including those with scientific training. Meteorite falls, however, were visible in much smaller areas, with fewer witnesses, and rarely included trained scientists. This disparity meant that while meteor sightings were readily accepted, meteorite falls were often rejected. For instance, a meteor sighting in Barbotan in 1790 was accepted, but the associated meteorite fall was rejected by savants.

The Shift Towards Acceptance

Towards the end of the eighteenth century, attitudes began to change. Chladni's 1794 book connected meteors and meteorites, suggesting extraterrestrial origins. Following notable falls, chemists like Howard and mineralogists like de Bournon analyzed meteoric stones, finding similarities and identifying nickel in iron meteorites, a composition known to be from extraterrestrial sources. These analyses convinced many savants. By 1803, De Drée noted the increased attention to these phenomena. On the same day, a massive stone fall occurred near l'Aigle, France, prompting the Institut de France to send Jean-Baptiste Biot to investigate. Biot's thorough investigation confirmed the reality of meteorites, dispelling remaining doubts.

The Scientific Context

To understand the scientific community's reaction, the article examines the scientific context of 1794. Science in Western Europe was institutionalized in learned societies, with increasing publication of research. Experimental verification was a norm, but scientists were few, often lacked direct support, and public acceptance was not guaranteed. Recognition from peers was crucial for scientific standing. The scientific community of 1794 was looser and more fragmented than in the twentieth century, with less clear boundaries. Amateurs without scientific ability, experts without important positions, and churchmen with dual loyalties were common. This made the community resistant to new ideas that challenged current notions. Ideas from ancient authors and common people were particularly suspect, viewed as 'superstition' or unfounded accounts. This distrust served to protect science from external interference and maintain control over data quality and scientific processes.

Lightning-Stones

In the eighteenth century, a belief persisted that stones fell with lightning, referred to by various names like 'ombriae,' 'brontiae,' and 'cerauniae.' These stones were often attributed supernatural powers. Bishop Pontoppidan noted Norwegian peasants believed these stones aided childbirth. In Prussia, Helwing had to use secular authority to combat beliefs in their supernatural powers. Savants worked to disprove the idea that these stones fell with lightning. Some 'figured stones' were identified as fossils or tools of primitive man. A third type, a pyrite or marcasite with a black crust, was harder to explain. While the first two types were linked to lightning due to their pointed shape, the connection for the third type was unclear. Scientists were indifferent to demonstrating its origin, suggesting chemists should handle it. The naming of all three types as 'lightning-stones' was unfortunate, as it confused genuine meteorites with erroneous ones, leading to prejudice against accepting them.

Eighteenth-century savants were aware of ancient reports of stones raining from the sky, often dismissing them as credulity. However, some, like historian Fréret, suggested these reports might be real natural events misinterpreted. Geologist Guettard also believed stones could rain from the sky, possibly due to hurricanes or volcanic explosions. The three stones sent to the Académie des Sciences in 1769 were not the only contemporary falls analyzed. However, the 1772 analysis, which concluded a stone had not fallen from the sky, was the first by a scientific academy and published in a journal. This negative assessment by a prestigious body significantly influenced other scientific bodies' reactions.

The reaction of the Académie created an environment where information transfer about meteorites was slow and imperfect, as its verdict was seen as the official scientific viewpoint. To explain the change in this verdict three decades later, the article examines how individual savants made decisions and the role of the social intelligence system.

The Mechanism of Conviction

To understand how savants came to believe in meteorites, the concept of 'summation' from neurophysiology is introduced. This concept describes how signals are transmitted across nerve synapses; often, a single impulse is insufficient for transmission unless another impulse arrives shortly after. The synapse integrates or 'sums' these signals. Westrum argues that anomalous events are subject to similar 'summation effects,' where the reaction to reports is a function of the quantity and quality of reports received. Two or more independent reports can produce a sense of conviction or interest that a single report would not. This concept helps explain the behavior of savants in the meteorite controversy for whom multiple independent reports indicated meteorites were worth studying. This principle of concurrent evidence having greater probative value is important in courts and military intelligence, and especially so when the information is one that the receiver would tend to doubt, as is often the case with anomalous events reported to scientists.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The article consistently emphasizes the sociological factors influencing scientific acceptance of anomalous data. It highlights the importance of the scientific community's internal processes, its boundaries, and the social intelligence system in shaping its response to new information. The editorial stance appears to be one of critical analysis of scientific practice, suggesting that resistance to new ideas can be rooted in social and institutional dynamics as much as in scientific evidence. The journal 'Social Studies of Science' itself focuses on the social, cultural, and political aspects of scientific research and knowledge.

This document, from 'Social Studies of Science', pages 470-479, focuses on the historical controversy surrounding meteorite falls and their acceptance by the scientific community. The article, titled 'Westrum:Anomalies: The Case of Meteorites', delves into the social and psychological factors that influenced the study of these phenomena.

The Effect of Multiple Independent Reports

The article begins by explaining that a single report of an anomalous event is typically met with skepticism. However, as reports of similar events multiply and share common features, they may begin to receive attention. This 'summation effect' works in two ways: it makes scientists view the events as worthy of interest, potentially leading to further investigation and evidence gathering, and it cross-validates the reports, giving them more probative value. This process can move scientists from doubt to curiosity.

Historical Cases and Skepticism

Several historical instances are presented to illustrate this phenomenon. In 1790, a fall of stones in La Grange de la Juliac, France, witnessed by hundreds, was initially met with amusement and disbelief by Professor Saint-Amand, who sent a deposition to physicist Bertholon. Bertholon famously scorned the witnesses, highlighting the prevailing skepticism towards popular sensations that defied physical understanding.

Later, Saint-Amand was struck by the similarity between stones he received and those described in an article about Howard's investigations in England. This led him to remark on the remarkable consistency of stones attributed to the same origin, suggesting that judgment should be suspended even for seemingly absurd facts.

The 'summation effect' is also seen in the work of Abbé A. X. Stütz, who connected reports of meteorites from different locations (Eichstedt, Yugoslavia, and a mass found by Pallas) despite his initial predisposition against such accounts. Similarly, Sir Joseph Banks noticed the resemblance between a stone exhibited in London (supposedly from Wold Cottage, Yorkshire, 1795) and others from Siena, Italy (1794), which spurred Howard's chemical analysis.

The Role of Museums and Libraries

Museums are described as natural points for the summation of anomalous objects. However, many specimens were lost or discarded. Fortunately, the frequency of falls and the survival of specimens in collections allowed for comparison.

Active Search and the Social Transmission of Data

Beyond passive acquisition, active search also produces summation effects. Chladni, an independent researcher, actively sought information about meteors. His conversation with physicist G. C. Lichtenberg in Göttingen in 1792, where Lichtenberg suggested meteors might be bodies from beyond Earth, greatly intrigued Chladni. Chladni spent three weeks in Göttingen's library, collecting reports of fireballs and discovering that stone and iron masses often fell following such events. He was particularly influenced by Stütz's memoir and the Pallas iron mass, forming his conclusions based solely on reports, demonstrating how a library can serve as a summation point for anomaly reports.

Chladni's research not only established the reality of meteorite reports but also the connection between meteors and meteorites, presenting them as pieces of a puzzle. While others had made speculative connections, Chladni's conviction was based on the variety of data.

Networks of Information Flow

The article discusses the 'social intelligence system' through which information about anomalies travels to savants. This involves transmission from non-scientists to experts, often through intermediaries like local officials, priests, or noblemen. Scientific journals played an overwhelming role in disseminating these reports, ensuring they were indexed, reprinted, and potentially led to further research or similar observations.

Even articles debunking phenomena could inadvertently spread information. The transmission of actual meteorites followed a similar complex pattern, with witnesses often being peasants or rural workers who passed stones to local authorities or savants. The Académie des Sciences and private collections were important nodes in this network.

The Effect of Ridicule and Skepticism

The acceptance of such data was hindered by several factors. The low status of many witnesses led to their accounts being dismissed. Physicist Patrin noted that the actual witnesses were often not named, making their evidence seem less probable. The geologist DeLuc believed that some witnesses mistook lightning striking rocks for falling stones, suggesting that such accounts should not be taken seriously to avoid forming baseless systems.

Accepting such data would bypass the scientific quality control system, which was protected by rejecting difficult-to-check information. The intrinsic implausibility of stones falling from the sky was a major hurdle. Explanations like volcanoes or whirlwinds were suggested, but Chladni's cosmic origin hypothesis was not much better for the scientific community. Even when presented with evidence, some physicists refused to believe it until explanations like lunar volcanoes were proposed by Laplace and Biot.

Freud's analogy of the 'jam theory' is used to illustrate how the focus shifted from examining the hypothesis to questioning the character of the person proposing it. Meteorite witnesses and their champions were treated similarly, with attention focused on potential errors rather than the hypothesis itself. Ridicule was a powerful tool against 'superstition', causing hesitation in reporting and slowing scientific progress.

Social Intelligence and Resistance

The article frames the meteorite controversy as an instance of resistance to 'social intelligence' about anomalies, rather than just resistance to scientific discovery. Events falling within accepted models are less likely to face resistance. The article quotes Hume's sentiment that he would rather believe in the knavery and folly of men than admit a violation of the laws of nature.

Polanyi's argument that it might be better to reject anomalous experimental data outright than refute them is mentioned, as it's often more efficient than wasting effort on potentially erroneous data. However, the article questions whether this applies equally to uncontrolled experiences of non-scientists.

Scientists' distrust of the social intelligence system is selective. While they may disregard non-scientist reports, they also expect 'genuine' anomalous events to be successfully transmitted. A lack of reports is thus seen as evidence that the anomaly does not exist. John Pringle's belief in 1759 that meteors never fell to the ground, despite an observation by Henry Barham in Jamaica that appeared in the Philosophical Transactions, illustrates this.

The argument against controversial anomalies is partly sociological, relying on the assumption that if such a thing existed, the scientist would have heard of it. This 'fallacy of complete reporting' is an error, as evidenced by the underestimation of meteorite falls in the twentieth century, with some estimates revised upwards by twenty-two fold. Furthermore, some finds were not reported to avoid ridicule and embarrassment.

Another related problem is the 'fallacy of centrality', where scientists believe they would personally know of any significant reports. DeLuc's belief that alleged meteorite falls were optical illusions led him to suggest they didn't occur in areas without stones, like the Amazon region.

Control of Data

Finally, the article touches upon the problem of controlling data for anomalies like UFOs and sea-serpents, which are intangible and often implausible. The difficulty in checking data and making independent observations is a significant challenge.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this document are the nature of scientific evidence, the role of witness testimony, the social construction of scientific knowledge, the impact of skepticism and ridicule on scientific progress, and the mechanisms of information transmission within the scientific community. The editorial stance appears to be critical of the uncritical dismissal of anomalous phenomena and highlights how social factors, rather than purely scientific ones, can impede the acceptance of new ideas and evidence. The article advocates for a more open-minded approach to investigating unusual events, acknowledging the limitations of current scientific models and the importance of robust social intelligence systems.

This document, a section from the journal "Social Studies of Science," focuses on the historical controversy surrounding meteorite falls and their eventual acceptance into the scientific corpus. The article, titled "Westrum:Anomalies: The Case of Meteorites," by R. Westrum, analyzes the social and scientific factors that influenced the scientific community's response to reports of stones falling from the sky.

The Meteorite Controversy: Testimony vs. Scientific Control The article begins by contrasting the acceptance of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) with that of meteorites, noting that both initially relied heavily on eyewitness testimony. However, unlike UFOs, meteorites eventually provided physical evidence (the stones themselves) that could be subjected to scientific analysis.

Historically, scientists in the eighteenth century were skeptical of eyewitness accounts of meteorite falls, attributing them to optical illusions or superstitious beliefs. The core problem was the lack of independent proof to verify these accounts. The author argues that accepting such 'facts' without personal confirmation would set a dangerous precedent, potentially allowing non-scientists to influence the scientific enterprise. Therefore, the scientific community maintained a strict control over data, requiring evidence to be submitted to scientific scrutiny.

The meteoric stones themselves offered the possibility for such control. While early chemical analysis failed to confirm their extraterrestrial origin, later advancements in chemistry, nearly three decades later, proved instrumental. Improved techniques revealed peculiarities in the composition and appearance of meteorites, establishing their common origin and providing proof that spoke for itself, albeit requiring interpretation.

This shift allowed meteorites to be accepted into the corpus of science, freeing research from doubts and ridicule. The author emphasizes that the evidence in 1772 and 1801 differed mainly in quantity, but the effective use of chemical analysis in 1801 as a method of data control was crucial.

'External' Influences on the Meteorite Controversy The article then explores 'external' influences beyond the internal logic of scientific discovery. Reports of meteorite falls often originated outside the scientific community, with public belief preceding scientific acceptance. The author questions whether social interests, particularly during the French Revolution, played a role. The revolution brought significant changes to the French scientific community, including the humiliation of the Académie des Sciences. The idea of 'Jacobin science' potentially upholding common people's beliefs against theoretical science is considered, with Chladni, a scientist without a university post or academy membership, being cited as a 'marginal man'.

However, this hypothesis is found to be insufficient. The controversy was not confined to France; the Royal Society of London, Genevan journals, and German publications were involved. Important falls occurred across Europe (France, Italy, England) and India. Chladni was not institutionally marginal, being intellectually respected. His opponents, the DeLuc brothers, were Swiss, and E.-M.-L. Patrin, though disputing theories, acted as an individual savant.

The events leading to Biot's investigation of the l'Aigle fall in 1803 are examined. News of the fall spread rapidly, with 'stones from the moon' being displayed and sold publicly. While Chaptal, the Minister of the Interior, may have ordered an investigation to quell public clamor, it's uncertain if he believed in the event. This public influence was transient.

The author dismisses the idea that the Revolution directly led Academicians to accept the stones, suggesting that Biot's investigation would likely have occurred regardless of his prior views and the controversy's proximity to Paris.

Further indications against the 'external causation' hypothesis include the lack of emphasis on the intelligence of the common people in Academicians' writings. For instance, Biot's memoir treated the rural population's 'peu de lumieres' (little light) neutrally. Patrin, however, dismissed testimonies as 'hearsay from individuals who are not named' and 'insignificant'. Thus, the hypothesis of external causation fails for lack of evidence in the Academicians' writings.

The Autonomy of Science and Anomalies When viewed from a broader perspective of Western Europe, the meteorite controversy is intimately linked to the problem of the autonomy of science. The scientific community had a vested interest in not admitting data it could not check, as this would compromise its institutional autonomy. The controversy is seen less as an effect of external forces on scientific content and more as the scientific community's defense against such external pressures. This defense was successful when science established criteria for data acceptance and regained scientific control over data acquisition.

Meteorites and Other Anomalies: Lessons for the Scientific Community The article draws several lessons from the meteorite controversy regarding the scientific community's reaction to other anomalies:

1. Social Intelligence Dependence: Decisions about anomalous events can depend on social intelligence. Information must reach the relevant people, often crossing the boundary between the scientific community and the public. This communication is fraught with difficulties, including mistrust, ridicule, indifference, and ignorance.
2. Paradoxical Attitude of Scientists: Scientists are extremely skeptical of anomalous reports from the social intelligence system, a natural reaction grounded in history and experiences of fraud. Yet, they often assume that real anomalous events will be successfully transmitted, underestimating the difficulties.
3. Scientific Acceptance and Data Control: Scientific acceptance is linked to scientists' ability to control data. Where control is difficult (e.g., ball lightning), skepticism persists. However, control itself depends on scientists' willingness to attend to signals from the social intelligence system. The cursory examination of the Lucé stone was insufficient, while important chemical analyses required strong intellectual commitments.
4. Importance of Theory in Validating Data: The article briefly touches upon the importance of theory. Initially, aspects of meteorite phenomena were inexplicable, leading to confusion with terms like 'thunderstone' and 'lightning-stone'. The 'lunar volcano' theory, proposed by Laplace and Biot, provided a possible explanation, even though Chladni's correct explanation came earlier. LaCroix's quote highlights that if no physical agent can explain a phenomenon, it's deemed impossible. Conversely, if a cause establishes probability, doubt, not negation, should follow, with efforts to confirm the fact.

The author concludes that if a phenomenon cannot be explained, reports from non-scientists should be rejected. This principle of 'what is unexplainable is impossible' is often applied to anomalous events.

Conclusion The sociology of knowledge must demonstrate social influences on beliefs. The meteorite controversy shows how the social environment of the scientific community was crucial for scientific discovery, but it also highlights the perspective of social influences. The public knew of meteorite falls but did not understand them; scientists needed persuasion, but only they could provide insight. The case demonstrates the importance of social intelligence but also its potential dangers, as indicated by the existence of non-meteoric 'thunderstones'.

The article questions how generalizable the meteorite case is to other anomalies like UFOs and sea-serpents. It emphasizes the need for understanding the workings of social intelligence, as scientists' assumptions about how anomaly reports reach them are often erroneous. The suppression of reports through ridicule is a significant problem, but scientists can also utilize organizations dedicated to researching anomalies and their literature.

The author's basic argument is that individuals experience events that contradict current scientific doctrine. Some of these may be phenomena scientists would study, but information transmission is unreliable. Therefore, the absence of reports does not imply the absence of experiences. For 'stones falling from the sky,' the opportunity to study a large number of reports proved effective, suggesting this approach might be valuable in other cases.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance The recurring themes in this article are the sociology of scientific knowledge, the process of scientific acceptance of anomalous phenomena, the role of evidence (testimony vs. physical data), the autonomy of science, and the complex interplay between scientific communities and social intelligence systems. The editorial stance appears to be analytical and critical, examining historical events through the lens of sociological theory to understand how scientific consensus is formed and challenged, particularly concerning phenomena that lie outside established scientific paradigms.

This document consists of pages 490-493 from the journal 'Social Studies of Science'. The content primarily comprises a detailed bibliography and discussion related to the historical study of meteorites, presented as an article titled 'Westrum:Anomalies: The Case of Meteorites'. The author, Ron Westrum, is identified as an Associate Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University, specializing in social reactions to anomalous events.

Historical Accounts and Scientific Reception of Meteorites

The text delves into the historical literature concerning objects falling from the sky, often referred to as 'pierres de foudre' (stones of lightning) or 'fiery meteors'. It cites numerous historical texts and scientific papers, spanning from the 18th century to the late 20th century, detailing early observations and scientific investigations. References include works by authors such as E. Pontoppidan, A. de Jussieu, G.-L. L. De Buffon, Mahudel, N. Frérét, Pliny the Elder, and later scientists like Chladni, DeLuc, and Nininger.

The bibliography highlights the evolution of scientific thought regarding these phenomena. It points to the challenges faced by early researchers in having their findings accepted, particularly when they deviated from established scientific paradigms. The text mentions the role of scientific institutions, such as the Paris Academy of Sciences, in the process of validating or rejecting evidence for anomalous events.

Key Figures and Publications

Several individuals and their contributions are noted:

• Chladni: Frequently cited for his work on meteorites (op. cit. note 12).
• DeLuc (G. A. DeLuc, J. A. DeLuc): Contributed observations on meteorites and atmospheric lithology.
• Bertholon: Mentioned in relation to the Barbotan fall.
• Nininger (H. N. Nininger): Author of 'Out of the Sky' and 'Find a Falling Star', contributing to the study of meteorites.
• R. V. Jones: Suggested that reports of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) ought to be rejected due to the lack of a common factor.
• Dr James Ritchie: Keeper of the Royal Scottish Museum, whose quote emphasizes the unreliability of casual observations, especially when compared to physical evidence.

The document also lists various societies involved in the study of anomalous phenomena, including The International Fortean Organization and The Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained.

Sociological Aspects of Scientific Discovery

The article touches upon the sociology of knowledge and scientific discovery. It references works by B. Barber on 'Resistance by Scientists to Scientific Discovery' and D. Hume on human understanding. The exchange of specimens for expert opinions is noted as an interesting aspect from the sociology of knowledge perspective.

Author's Research

Ron Westrum's current work is focused on 'Anomaly and Society: Social Reactions to Impossible Events', indicating a broader interest in how society and science interact with phenomena that challenge conventional understanding.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes revolve around the historical investigation of meteorites, the scientific process of accepting or rejecting evidence for anomalous phenomena, and the sociological factors influencing scientific discovery. The document itself is a scholarly compilation and analysis of historical scientific literature, suggesting an academic stance that values rigorous examination of evidence and historical context in understanding scientific progress and challenges.