Experimental scientist

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alicia M. Grubb ◽  
Steve M. Easterbrook
2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 431-451
Author(s):  
Roni Hirsch

The article asks why and how Hannah Arendt framed The Human Condition as a history of modern science. It answers that, in telling the history of instrumental rationality and the work of the experimental scientist, Arendt accomplished three main things. First, by identifying science as a form of ‘work’ she could demonstrate the significance of her threefold division of human activity into labour, work and action, highlighting the dangers of their indistinction. Second, Arendt used the form of organization typical of scientists – a professional community founded on standards of objectivity – to warn against the substitution of the appearance of publicity for true openness. Finally, she identified the transgression of the boundaries of action as the site where a political community might become visible to itself, taking the unsuccessful attempts of post-war ‘public scientists’ to reckon with their past as a cautionary tale. Her account of modern science thus allows her to define freedom through its dependence on human-made boundaries, politicizing the very act of history-writing.


2008 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 199-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen T Ziliak

In economics and other sciences, “statistical significance” is by custom, habit, and education a necessary and sufficient condition for proving an empirical result. The canonical routine is to calculate what's called a t-statistic and then to compare its estimated value against a theoretically expected value of it, which is found in “Student's” t table. A result yielding a t-value greater than or equal to about 2.0 is said to be “statistically significant at the 95 percent level.” Alternatively, a regression coefficient is said to be “statistically significantly different from the null, p < .05.” Canonically speaking, if a coefficient clears the 95 percent hurdle, it warrants additional scientific attention. If not, not. The first presentation of “Student's” test of significance came a century ago in 1908, in “The Probable Error of a Mean,” published by an anonymous “Student.” The author's commercial employer required that his identity be shielded from competitors, but we have known for some decades that the article was written by William Sealy Gosset (1876–1937), whose entire career was spent at Guinness's brewery in Dublin, where Gosset was a master brewer and experimental scientist. Perhaps surprisingly, the ingenious “Student” did not give a hoot for a single finding of “statistical” significance, even at the 95 percent level of significance as established by his own tables. Beginning in 1904, “Student,” who was a businessman besides a scientist, took an economic approach to the logic of uncertainty, arguing finally that statistical significance is “nearly valueless” in itself.


D. T. WHITESIDE, the editor of Newton’s collected mathematical works, has recently described how Newton’s creative intellect suddenly burst forth in a scarcely controlled blaze and how his mathematical spirit, till then dormant, took fire in the magical year 1664. Dr Whiteside knows Newton and his mathematics better than anybody else, but all the same we are left not a little bewildered. How could Newton in a few months acquire such mastery of mathematical tools and techniques and such insight into the relevant literature that he might compete with and even outstrip the foremost mathematicians of his time? There may be holes in our knowledge of Newton’s early mathematics. If they cannot be filled, an investigation of Newton’s other scientific pursuits seems called for. This is most easily done in optics where Newton’s own ‘historicall narration’ describes his birth as an experimental scientist, or rather it describes how Newton wished to appear to the world. To quote from the letter (2) Newton sent to Oldenburg and the Royal Society in January 1672:


Author(s):  
Graham Sandford

Richard (Dick) Chambers was one of the most creative and distinguished organofluorine chemists of his generation. He synthesized a range of perfluorinated heteroaromatic systems, including pentafluoropyridine and tetrafluoropyrimidine, by halogen exchange processes, and established their chemistry and associated reaction mechanisms. Notably, ‘mirror image’ negative Friedel–Crafts reactions led to perfluoroalkyl heteroaromatic derivatives that could be transformed into unusual valence bond isomers by irradiation. New ranges of stable, observable perfluorinated carbanions, alkenes and dienes were synthesized and their fundamental chemistry established. Dick was an excellent experimental scientist whose career was marked by his unique skill-set in being able to perform reactions at high pressure under vacuum, using γ-ray irradiation, photochemistry, continuous flow processes and a variety of fluorinating reagents. His research into the use of elemental fluorine gas, which established the key role of solvent in reaction control, established fluorine as a viable reagent for organic synthesis. Several of his new synthetic processes, including syntheses of perfluorocarbon iodides, highly fluorinated heteroaromatic derivatives and α-fluoro-β-ketoester systems, were adopted for scale-up by industry. But Dick was more than a talented and innovative scientist. He was also an outgoing and fun-loving man, who always made time to offer support, guidance and advice to all his colleagues, research group members and scores of scientific friends within the fluorine science community around the world. As a result, he forged strong personal bonds throughout his life and a legacy that has lasted through generations of chemists.


1969 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 1-38 ◽  

Frank Philip Bowden died in Cambridge after a long illness on 3 September 1968 in his 66th year. At the time of his death he was Professor of Surface Physics at the University of Cambridge and Director of Surface Physics, a sub-department of the Cavendish Laboratory. Bowden was a man of many talents and could have made his mark as a writer, as a lecturer, as an aesthete, as a politician and statesman, as an administrator and man of affairs, as a scientist. In a sense he was, in fact, all these but his deepest and most sustained interest throughout his life was his laboratory and the challenge and excitement of scientific research. He was, indeed, an experimental scientist of great originality, perception and versatility.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document