Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Science in the 1890s: The Rise of Scientific Naturalism

by David L.

During the end of the 19th century western scientific development had reached a crescendo of unprecedented proportions. New fields such as biology and genetics had developed explanations for some of life’s most elusive mysteries, while the older subjects such as physics and chemistry had evolved to a level where almost all relevant phenomenon could be explained by simple mathematical models. At this point in History, a philosophy by the name of Scientific Naturalism became popular among both scientists and lay persons in America. Scientific Naturalism (also known as Scientific Materialism of Pragmatism) is philosophy or world view that asserts that all actions events and objects can be fully explained through the application of known scientific concepts. During the late 19th Century this view of science came to dominate the scientific community as well as many other American intellectual circles. The concept of Scientific Naturalism represented the apex of American confidence in Science and during the 1890s its effects could be seen throughout scientific thought of the time. (4)

More than any other development during this period, it was new discoveries in physics that led many 19th Century intellectuals to believe that formalized science could applied universally through all fields. Due to discoveries throughout the 19th century by geniuses such as Boltzman, Rutherford, and Gibbs (the only prominent American among the great 19th century physics), by the early 1890s the scientific community had managed to unify the concepts of chemistry, thermodynamics and classical physics, giving way to an process for describing almost all observable events on Earth (5). With the advent of these achievements, many prominent scientists at the time were ready to declare a grand ‘Theory of Everything’ under which all physical phenomenon in the entire universe could be described within the confines of several basic scientific concepts. The existence of a nearly unified concept of physics formed the basis for peoples belief in Scientific Naturalism and led scientists in other fields to seek unifying principles that could explain reality within the confines of a formal scientific approach. To many prominent thinkers during the 1890s, it seemed that if a unified scientific theory could be used to describe lightning striking it was likely that science could similarly be used to describe and solve elusive social and psychological problems. (4)

Outside of the realm of physics, the role of scientific naturalism could already be seen in the ways American intellectuals viewed Darwinism. Although opposition to evolution was strong, it was increasingly making headways within the American academic elite. Most notable among the early proponents of evolution, was Herbert Spencer, best known for the his advocacy of Social Darwinism Although Social Darwinism is often times portrayed as simply an excuse for capitalist inequity, it is important to examine the fact that the motivations (but not the methods or conclusions) of early advocates of social Darwinism were at their base scientific (2). Spencer saw Darwinism, and eventually Social Darwinism, as an extension of scientific reason. Just as Newton laid down the basic laws of motion, Spencer felt that Darwinism was part of the same unbending physical laws that mankind could ignore only at its own risk. (3) Since science had seen such great success in the fields of chemistry and physics, it seemed impossible to Spencer, that a theory as lucid as Darwinism could not be cross-applied to the social organization of humans. To the Social Darwinists of the 1890s evolution was not a vague historical mechanism, but a scientific principle that could be applied strictly at every level of society (4)

However, evolution was hardly the only field to be influenced by the ideals of Scientific Naturalism. During the 1890s the field of psychology also came into being with similar philosophical motives. The most prominent figure behind the development of psychology was a man by the name of William James who worked throughout the 1890s to develop psychology from a vague field of interest to an accepted science. Perhaps the most important person in American psychology during the 19th century, James was most famous for his controversial theory of emotion. Under James’s theory, emotions, rather than being independent and spontaneous, were described as simply manifestations of measurable body conditions. James postulated that with close observation, a link between observable body functions and emotion could be detected and formalized.(1) As seen from his theory of emotion, William James was a firm believer of the idea that with enough rigor, even a system as complex as the human mind could be reduced to a simplified scientific understanding. James was heavily influenced by the philosophy of scientific naturalism, and he was not alone in the field; the late 19th century saw an explosion of interest in the scientific measurement of human mental capacity and functioning, eventually culminating in the creation of American Psychological Association in 1892. (6)

The subject of Scientific Naturalism might seem overly abstract, but in many ways 19th Century ideas on science reveal much about America in the 1890s. The 1890s was a decade in which an incredible optimism could be seen about technology and science. Many ordinary citizens, with no formal knowledge of science, looked towards scientists and engineers to find the solutions to literally all of society’s problems. Arguably, it was this attitude that led to both the decades great achievements and its darkest legacies. Looking back at the 1890s, it is easy to contrast the optimism of the late 19th Century with modern day views. For better or for worse, Americans today seem to regard answers based solely on scientific approaches with an enormous amount of skepticism. For evidence of this one should look no further than the debates over intelligent design. Not only is entire concept if intelligent design a reaction against Scientific Naturalism, one of the main accusations leveled at the proponents of classical Darwinism is that they irrationally subscribe to an “Naturalist world view” that inherently precludes the existence of forces not already found in existing scientific theories. Though this is a potent attack in today’s intellectual environment, ironically, this same label would probably not be seen as negative in the scientific community of the 1890s.

Sources Cited

1.) Psychology and Evolutionary Naturalism in American Thought, 1890-1940
Hamilton Cravens; John C. Burnham
American Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 5. (Dec., 1971), pp. 635-657.

2.) Evolution, Social or Cultural
A. R. Radcliffe-Brown
American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 49, No. 1. (Jan. - Mar., 1947), pp. 78-83.

3.) Evolution and the Rise of the Scientific Spirit in America
Sidney Ratner
Philosophy of Science, Vol. 3, No. 1. (Jan., 1936), pp. 104-122.

4.) Modernity and the Spirit of Naturalism (in The Fifth Annual Patrick Romanell Lecture on Philosophic Naturalism)
Thelma Z. Lavine; Clarence J. Robinson Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, Vol. 65, No. 3. (Nov., 1991), pp. 73-83.

5.) Revolutions in Physics and Crises in Mathematics
Salomon Bochner
Science, New Series, Vol. 141, No. 3579. (Aug. 2, 1963), pp. 408-411.

6.) Struick, Dirk J. Yankee Science in the Making. Boston, Little Borown and Company 1948

12 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very interesting post, especially since I am a psych major and I have heard of James before as the father of psychology... I wonder how fast was it from the time when these concepts were concieved of and until htey were taught to others like students and people entering scientific professons? How widely was it accepted worldwide? Was it one of those things that people come up with and it takes awhile to gain acceptance or did people in their scientific minds readily accept it?

8:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This relates back to our talk about ppl striving to be the fittest etc. science clearly plays a part in that today, and played a part in that then as well.
-ashley b

8:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting post. So many different "scientific" fields were practiced at the time (that have since lost favor, have become pseudo-scientific), it would be interesting to consider how each of these fields played off of one another. How, for example, did physics, biology, psychology support (through their methods and underlying premises) eugenics and social darwinism? How did all of these fields of science reflect the desire for order in the 1890s? How do they still?

9:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To answer Keren’s and Carolyn’s comments: I think that acceptance on a scientific level takes many different routes within different academic communities. Inside the field of physics for instance, the acceptance of the Newtonian Physics as being the basis for a ‘Theory of everything’ had more than a few critics during the 1890s. However, even though major problems in Newtonian physics were very evident at the time, people still believed that these were ‘minor’ since the Newtonian view of the universe had triumphed many times in the past. Given the fact that Newtonian theory did (and still does) explain 90% of what we see within the universe, I can’t particularly blame 19th century scientists for their faith in it.
For the fields of psychology and biology, the examination is a little more difficult because these fields tend not to carry the rigor associated with a field like physics. In my own view it is very hard to understand how William James is considered by contemporary psychologists to be ‘outdated’, while another 19th century psychological figure, Sigmund Freud, still enjoys an enormous amount of popularity. While it is obvious that Spencer made a large amount of errors in his theory of human selection, Social Darwinism is a hard issue to discuss with comparison to modern times because a modern counterpart does not exist. Although many have proposed studying how modern society affects the human genome, due to past failures and modern stigma, the field of contemporary human evolution is undeveloped at best. It is therefore very hard to predict how contemporary society would answer the same questions that Spencer did in the 1890s.

1:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find this post interesting. It appears up until this point, America in the 1890s has been that of a Christian America. In regards to society, most values of the American people we learn about in this time reflect their belief in God. Were there any conflicts between the scientists themselves and religion? Was there anyone who opposed Scientific Naturalism? How did they debate Evolution vs. Creation?

7:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of the most prominent critics of Naturalism from a religious perspective was William Jennings Bryan who assailed human evolution, Social Darwinism, and Eugenics on the basis that each of these perspectives undermined the intrinsic dignity of humanity. Although Bryan was a very high profile critic I failed to mention him in this article because he was not per-say part of the scientific community.

11:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was a little bit confused as to how it could be argued that Social Darwinism was used by some solely for scientific means. I think that while it may be the case that people though they were doing something scientific, they were still rank ordering people like as if they were things, animals in a long hierarchical succession. You don't think that it's at all possible that even the seemingly "innocent" advocates for Social Darwinism had an agenda all their own?

The turn of the century was marked by a need for order and solidarity, and I would say that Social Darwinism had such appeal because of the time in which it was introduced.

3:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was a little bit confused as to how it could be argued that Social Darwinism was used by some solely for scientific means. I think that while it may be the case that people though they were doing something scientific, they were still rank ordering people like as if they were things, animals in a long hierarchical succession. You don't think that it's at all possible that even the seemingly "innocent" advocates for Social Darwinism had an agenda all their own?

The turn of the century was marked by a need for order and solidarity, and I would say that Social Darwinism had such appeal because of the time in which it was introduced.

3:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good Post. It seems that the ideas from James' emotion theory still applies today. One of the most prescribed drugs is Ritalin which is used to control biological emotions. Although studies have shown that the side effects of using such drugs can be fatal, it seems that today the necessity to control emotions is more important than physical health. Granted that their is a tradeoff between emotional and physical health, i'm just found it interesting that this issue was being dealt in the 1890s.

In response to Nina's question, the ideology of naturalism along with social darwinism spurred the necessity to create schools. But these schools were not built, in the sense that they are to 'advance' society. Instead, schools served to assimilate immigrant children, control and break the Native American, and to train the African American for small jobs. And due to the social darwinism ideology, new classes were made for 'special' children who were not able to keep up with the more elite during the learning process so that those who were brighter were separated and were well taken care of. This concept goes on today.

9:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

While I think you gave a great overview of how this movement affected many aspects of the academic world, I, too, think it would be interesting to see the interactions with religous groups.

I am actually surprised that this movement comes from the 1890s. While it does seem to have some roots in the Enlightenment, it is a very bold and powerful assertion. Considering all the wacky science practices, this one seems ahead of its time.

3:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great post. I'm a little suprised that traditionalist views didn't supercede science in era such as the 1890's. More specifically, the element of traditionalism seemed to have dominated every other aspect of life in the late 19th century. From race relations to gender conventions, people lived their lives according to 'the way it always has been and always will be'. I'd imagined, or assumed that christianity and traditionalism together would have offered a significant opposition to naturalims and darwinism, given how the status quo of the country and it's loyal to traditional ideology.

12:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's funny how little this view has changed since the Gilded Age. While the public has basically accepted psychology and related fields as valid branch of science we still hear reports on the news about how your negative feelings for your mother can be caused by vitamin deficiencies or some other scientifically perverted report like that. And while it may be that there is some basis of science in unrelated worlds of politics, society and government,I think people will continue to believe that somehow science is the be all end all answer to everything primarily because of the fact that people absolutely love science and technology and yet know next to nothing about it.

6:26 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home