- Newsweek, 2000 The Power of Invention, Newsweek Extra insert, Winter 1997-98.
- Part of a retrospective series. This issue has four main sections: How We Work, How We Live, How
We Fight, and How We Heal, plus some summary material. Before you read through, ask yourself what
you would have put down in your list of most famous inventions and discoveries of the 20th
century. <1-36>
- Scientific American, Lives in Science. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1958.
- This book is an old collection of very short biographies of famous people. They are no longer
current by scholarly standards, but nevertheless give great thumbnail sketches of some principal
participants in the development of modern science. We will be reading: You should know who these
people are, what their major contributions were, and about when that happened (within 25 years at
least!). <37-63>
- Bell, Alexander Graham. List of patents held, note about patents, and patents nos: 161,739 (with notes); 174,465; 178,399; 181,553; 186,787
- The bold patents are the key ones for the telephone, especially 174,465. Read at least this one. Pay attention
to what exactly is being patented. Is it a "mere principle" or a device? You should realize at least that this is a
very broad patent. However, it withstood a number of serious challenges. Note the dates, and using Bell's
notebooks and other sources, decide what Bell knew at the time of the patent. If you're pressed for time just
skim the others and look at the diagrams. <64-76>
- Bradshaw, Gary F. (1992). "The Airplane and the Logic of Invention." Cognitive Models of Science. Ronald N.
Giere. Univ. of Minnesota Press: 239-250
- The main point of this article is to contrast design-space search with function-space search. Bradshaw thinks
that the second is far more efficient, and that this heuristic largely explains the Wright-Brother's success in a
field littered with failed attempts. <77-80>
- Carlson, W. B. (1994). "Entrepreneurship in the Early Development of the Telephone: How Did William Orton and
Gardiner Hubbard Conceptualize this New Technology?" Business and Economic History 23(2): 161-192.
[Excerpt: 161-163, 174-178]
- Carlson argues against the assumption that "the 'end use' of a new technology is embedded in the technology
itself." In this paper he concentrates on the role of "businessmen or nontechnical leaders." It employs the
notion of a business-technological mindset to explain decision-making by different business leaders. Second,
Carlson wants to "suggest that there is a need and opportunity to study once again the entrepreneur" because
"it is the entrepreneur as much as the technologist who shapes the deployment of a new technology."
Regarding the telephone, Carlson argues that the intense business pressures surrounding Western Union's
dominance of the telegraph lines meant that any inventor working in the telegraph domain was "not working
in 'normal' business environment but rather a 'hothouse' environment that favored a breakthrough." Indeed, it
was no secret that a breakthrough in the form of a multiplex telegraph was actively pursued by Orton,
Hubbard, and others. <81-83>
- Crouch, Tom D. (1992). "Why Wilbur and Orville? Some Thoughts on the Wright Brothers and the Process of Invention," in Weber, R. and D. Perkins (eds), Inventive Minds: Creativity in Technology. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Compare Crouch to Bradshaw. What is Crouch's answer? How does he back that up? What does he
mean by "a genius for visualizing the abstract"? Note: packet is missing the final 2
pages. I will hand out supplements. <84-87>
- Culley, Richard Spelman. (1871). A Handbook of Practical Telegraphy, 5th ed. London: Longmans, Green, Reader,
and Dyer. [excerpts]
- Bell used this volume to help teach himself about electricity. It contains a good clear introduction to practical
electricity. Good basic definitions, and Ohm's law comes in a little later. If you desire a more modern
approach I've put a physics text on reserve. With luck some of this will be online too. <88-92>
- Delear, Frank. (1996). "First Flight Controversy," Aviation History March 1996, pp.46-52, 69-72. Plus editorial introduction to the issue.
- Note: Some pages copied out of order. Pay attention! Delear examines the claims
that Gustave Whitehead was the first to fly. What are the criteria and definitions? What is the
evidence? If Whitehead was first, what should be done? Is there an injustice? How could you check
on the story? <93-98>
- Gardner, Martin (1977) Mathematical Games. Scientific American. 237 October: 18-25.
- The rules and description for the game New Eleusis, which we will use in class as a model of
scientific discovery. Included for anyone wanting to spread the game to unsuspecting victims...
<99-100>
- Gorman, M. E. and W. B. Carlson (1993). "Mapping Invention & Design:The invention of the telephone gives
insight on the process of technological creativity." Chemtech: 585-591.
- The authors provide a brief introduction to their idea of mental maps and to the dual
inventions of the telephone by Bell and Gray. A good introduction to their work: pay attention
to the whole idea of comparing inventors and paths to invention. In addition, note the role
of other inventors working at the same time as Bell. <101-104>
- Heyn, Ernest V. (1976). Fire of Genius: Inventors of the Past Century. New York: Doubleday.
- Popular heroic histories. Good anecdotes and lots of biographical info.
- ch.3: Alexander Graham Bell. <105-114>
- ch.5: Thomas Alva Edison. <115-127>
- ch.7: The Wright Brothers. <128-138>
- Hounshell, D. A. (1981). "Two Paths to the Telephone." Scientific American. 244: 156-163.
- A quick introduction to the multiple inventions of the telephone(s?). Also a look at why most people only
know about Bell. <139-142>
- Kelly, Jim. (1995). "How to Get Ahead in Science? Simple," in Anton & McCourt (eds), The New Science Journalists. Ballantine. pp.52-67.
- Phenomenal science writing. An account of the discovery (invention?) of Buckminsterfullerene,
a soccer-ball-shaped form of carbon. What are we being told when the editors say, "Kelly
captures the strange link of intense competition and capacity for loopy and indirect thought&em;
using his son's soccer ball&em;that makes for a great inventor."? How was bucky invented? How
does this compare to Bell's invention of the telephone? The invention of the airplane? The
discovery of the structure of DNA? Puzzle-solving in general? Creative writing? <143-146>
- de Kruif, P. (1954). Microbe Hunters. New York, Harcourt, Brace & World. pp.149-154
- In this short selection we get a familiar account of scientific discovery, in this case Pasteur's discovery of
vaccination/immunization. If this particular story is not familiar to you, the style should be. It is the heroic
depiction of the scientist (set apart from his "servants," see p.153) who, by his own individual greatness can
take advantage of serendipity. This and other books by the same author (including: Hunger Fighters, Men
Against Death, and A Man Against Insanity) were inspirational stories for children. Would they work as well
today? <147-149>
- Norman, D. A. (1993). Things That Make Us Smart: Defending Human Attributes in the Age of the Machine. New
York, Addison-Wesley. 40, 52-55, 84-90, 131-138, 145, 185-203, 224, 232-237, 243-253
- Author of Turn Signals are the Facial Expressions of Automobiles. Good intro quotations and chart on p.40. In
the Representation section, pay close attention to how puzzles get easier or harder depending on how you
present them. Next, think about the role of "Tunnel Vision" in invention and discovery. Page 145 is included
just because i think it's a really good warning. The section on "Predicting the future" should highlight how
difficult it really is to see how a new technology will be used. Skim if you're pressed for time, but note the
section on the telephone (of course). Pages 224-225 are stuck in there: think about the table; skim the text.
Following is the section "Soft vs. Hard Technology," highlighting the telephone system. Norman is very good at
asking why systems are the way they are, and on speculating how else they might have been. Last, because this
is in part a philosophy of technology course, I have included his Chapter 10, "Technology is not neutral." You
may not agree with this thesis, but you should understand it and be able to discuss it competently. (hint,
hint...) <150-167>
- Poincare´, H. Chapter III: Mathematical Discovery. Science and Method, Dover: 46-63.
- Poincare´ discusses the nature of mathematical discovery using his famous examples of flashes of insights in
moments disconnected from his prior work. Mathematical discovery is "discernment, selection." He gives a
strong role to unconscious work that takes place after one has prepared one's mind by intense (but
unsuccessful) work on a problem. <168-172>
- Polya, G. Part III: Short Dictionary of Heuristic. How to Solve It. Princeton, Princeton Univ. Press: 37-46,172.
- An exploration of analogy and how to use it in problem solving, plus a brief comment on "Rules of Discovery." <173-176>
- Ruse, Michael. (1980). "Ought Philosophers Consider Scientific Discovery? A Darwinian Case Study," in Nickles, T. (ed.) Scientific Discovery: Case Studies, pp.131-149. D. Reidel Publishing Co.
- We may or may not get to this in class. Ruse explores the standard assumption that how a
scientist gets a theory doesn't really matter to the final theory. So: does Ruse think
that it does matter, or that it doesn't? Recall the old distinction between justification
and discovery. What is Ruse's thesis on that issue? Article also provides some nice
insight into the history of this discovery. Michale Ruse is a very well-known historian
of biology, especially of Darwin and natural selection. Warning: This is in part
a philosophy article. Read it twice: skim once, then take it slow, preferably in a group. <177-181>
- Tweney, R. D. and S. T. Chitwood (1995). Chapter eleven: Scientific Reasoning. Perspectives on Thinking and
Reasoning: Essays in Honour of Peter Wason. S. E. Newstead and J. S. B. T. Evans. Hillsdale, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates: 241-260.
- Tweney provides an introductory survey of "Traditions in the Cognitive Psychology of Science" from Kuhn to
Piaget to Simon and then of course to Wason. He then provides an overview to the work in the Wason
tradition (including his own) and the increasing emphasis on cognitive-historical case studies. <182-187>
- Wartofsky, M. W. (1980). Scientific Judgment: Creativity and Discovery in Scientific Thought," in Scientific
Discovery: Case Studies," pp.1-20. T. Nickles. Boston, D. Reidel Publishing Co.
- Traditional philosophies of science have evaded or ignored the question of creativity in science. Since
Reichenbach (1938) standard philosophers of science have cordoned off discovery in favor of justification.
Thus, the field that tries to understand science has refused to consider one of its most important aspects. The
paper discusses how and why this happened. Then it considers three alternative theories of discovery and
invention (empiricist/inductivist, rationalist/hypothetico-deductivist, and intuitionist). He then moves on to
discuss creativity as a phenomenon and how it can be considered in epistemology. He does not give a theory
of discovery, but instead claims that the only way to give an account of discovery is to recount "actual
exercises in judgment given specific boundary conditions, or problem situations, or a reconstruction of
historical cases." Discussion follows. Warning: could be tough going. Make a vocab sheet, email me with
questions, do this one in group. Read the discussion. Maybe even start there. <188-193>
- Wrightsman, B. (1980). The legitimation of scientific belief: theory justification by Copernicus, in Scientific
Discovery: Case Studies. T. Nickles. Boston, D. Reidel Publishing Co.: 51-66.
- First, a very good historical summary of Copernicus' motivations for his theory: indeed most of the article is a
detailed case study of Copernicus' lines of thought. What ties it to the issue of discovery is Wrightsman's
emphasis on the theological and philosophical reasons which guided Copernicus. Hang with Wrightsman
through the history and he rewards you in the conclusion with a nice argument about what is a reason and
why tracing motivations and discovery are necessary to understand even finished scientific products. <194-198>
|