Abstract

Historians and sociologists of science usually discuss multiple independent inventions or multiple independent discoveries in terms of priority disputes among the inventors. But what should we make of the multiple invention of a technology that not only gave rise to very few priority disputes, but never worked and was rejected by each inventor’s contemporaries as soon as it was made public? This paper examines seven such situations in the history of botany. I devote particular attention to the inventors’ cultural and educational backgrounds, in particular, the scholastic education most of them shared, through which they would have become familiar with Llullian combinatorics and the mnemonic names used to distinguish syllogistic moods. I also examine their conceptions of the roles of nomenclature in botany, their assumptions about how memory works, their awareness of other similar efforts, and their contemporaries’ reactions to their proposals. Finally, I reflect on the impacts that a consideration of multiple independent inventions of failed technologies may have on current approaches to the history and sociology of science.

Highlights

  • Pistil number, stamen number, fruit type, inflorescence features, smell, Flower form, number of flower parts, floret type

  • I believe that multiple independent inventions dismissed as

  • That addressing the teleological aspects of successful scientific research

Read more

Summary

Spontaneous Generations

Previous
 research
 into
 multiples,
 writing,
 “The
 innovations
 became
 virtually inevitable
as
certain
kinds
of
knowledge
accumulated
in
the
cultural
heritage
and as
 social
 developments
 directed
 the
 attention
 of
 investigators
 to
 particular problems”
(Merton
1961,
 475). Merton
was
concerned
with
demonstrating
the reality,
ubiquity
and
importance
of
multiples
in
the
sociology
of
science. Unlike Brannigan, I believe that multiple independent inventions dismissed as
 failures
 by
 the
 inventors’
 peers
 reveal
 important
 things
 about
 the
 social aspects
 of
 science. Their
 existence
 testifies
 to
 an
 unequal
 distribution
 of knowledge
 among
 scientific
 practitioners,
 since
 inventors
 of
 multiple
 duds
 are not
 only
 unaware
 of
 the
 invention
 of
 previous,
 similar
 approaches,
 but
 
 of their
 failures:
 even
 those
 inspired
 by
 previous
 duds,
 or
 who
 plagiarize
 earlier duds,
misjudge
their
proposals’
potential
for
success. I
 refer
 to
 failed
 inventions
 as
 “duds”
 in
 this
 paper
 because
 the
 word
 “dud”
 is
 shorter
 and
 catchier
than
“invention
judged
to
have
been
ineffectual
by
the
inventor’s
peers,”
rather
than
to
 trivialize
 the
 efforts
 that
 each
 inventor
 put
 into
 devising
 a
 solution
 to
 the
 technical
 problems
 faced
by
botanists
of
his
time

Multiple Independent Inventions
Common Tools
The Schemes Themselves
Somewhat hard
Format uninomial uninomial uninomial
Influence of Llull
Mnemonic Names for Syllogistic Moods
Why Was This Dud Reinvented?
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.