Leviathan and the Air-Pump facts for kids
Cover of the first edition
|
|
| Author | Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer |
|---|---|
| Country | United States |
| Language | English |
| Publisher | Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey |
|
Publication date
|
1985 |
| Media type | |
| Pages | 440 |
| ISBN | 0-691-08393-2 |
| OCLC | 21974013 |
| 533/.5 19 | |
| LC Class | QC166 .S47 1985 |
| Identifiers refer to the 1989 First Princeton Paperback Edition unless otherwise noted | |
Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life is a book by Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer. It was published in 1985. The book looks at a big argument between two famous thinkers, Robert Boyle and Thomas Hobbes. This argument happened in the 1660s. It was all about Boyle's experiments with his air-pump.
In 2005, Shapin and Schaffer won the Erasmus Prize for writing this book. The book explores how people decided what was true knowledge back then. It also shows how society played a part in these different ideas. "Leviathan" in the title refers to Hobbes's book about how society should work. The "Air-Pump" is the machine Robert Boyle used for his experiments.
Contents
Why This Book Was Written
Shapin and Schaffer wanted to answer a key question. They asked, "Why do we do experiments to find scientific truth?" They used the historical debate between Boyle and Hobbes to explore this. Their goal was to find out why we trust facts from experiments so much today.
They wanted to avoid judging the past by today's standards. In the 1660s, both Boyle's and Hobbes's ways of finding knowledge were respected. It wasn't clear back then which method would win out.
Historically, people often thought Hobbes just "misunderstood" Boyle. But Shapin and Schaffer wanted to be fair. They looked at both sides of the argument equally. They also noted that England was a bit unstable after 1660. They aimed to show that this debate wasn't just about science. It also had political and social meanings. Choosing Boyle's or Hobbes's method meant choosing a way of life for society too.
Boyle's Way of Finding Facts
This part of the book explains how Robert Boyle thought we should find knowledge. He focused on creating "matters of fact." These were pieces of knowledge found through experiments. They were separate from big, universal theories. Boyle believed these facts were based on what was likely, not on absolute certainty.
This was different from Hobbes's view. Hobbes wanted "absolute certainty" based on logic and math. Boyle and his friends saw giving up "absolute certainty" as a good thing. It meant they didn't need everyone to agree perfectly to create knowledge.
Boyle used three main "technologies" to make knowledge:
- Material technology: This was the air-pump itself. It was built and operated carefully.
- Literary technology: This was how Boyle wrote about his experiments. He made sure people who weren't there could imagine the experiments.
- Social technology: These were the rules for how scientists should act. They guided how scientists shared and judged knowledge.
The air-pump was a special machine. It was like a suction pump with a glass bulb. When the pump worked, it pulled air out of the bulb. This created what we now call a vacuum. But back then, whether a vacuum truly existed was a big debate. The pump wasn't perfect and often leaked. This leaking became important in the arguments.
Boyle's experiments led to arguments about how facts were made. One experiment involved a Torricellian apparatus inside the air-pump's bulb. This apparatus showed liquid falling when air was removed. Boyle said this happened because the air's pressure was gone. The liquid didn't fall completely, which Boyle blamed on air leaks. He didn't say a vacuum existed, just that the liquid fell when air was removed. This was his "matter of fact."
Another experiment involved two smooth discs stuck together. Boyle thought they would separate in a vacuum. They didn't. He again blamed leaks. He said he couldn't get enough air out. Hobbes later pointed out that Boyle's ideas of "pressure" and "spring" of air were not very clear.
The air-pump allowed for many new experiments. But it was expensive and hard to build. So, only a few people could use one. The places where pumps were used were somewhat public, but still limited. These labs were controlled spaces. Scientists had to follow rules. They could discuss things, but they couldn't argue about the "matters of fact" themselves. They also couldn't argue about the rules for making these facts.
Boyle believed that experiments needed to be seen by many people to be trusted. To reach more people, he encouraged others to repeat his experiments. But he knew it would be hard. So, he used "virtual witnessing." This meant writing very detailed descriptions of experiments. Readers could then imagine the experiment happening. Boyle wanted scientists to write honestly. He wanted them to share failures as well as successes. He also said that physical causes should only be called "probable."
In short, Boyle's way of finding knowledge was about getting people to agree. His three "technologies" helped as many people as possible agree on a "matter of fact."
Hobbes's Way of Thinking
This chapter explains Thomas Hobbes's ideas about how to find knowledge. Unlike Boyle, Hobbes believed that science could not be separated from politics and religion. Boyle wanted to keep his "matters of fact" objective and separate. But Hobbes thought Boyle's separation would cause more problems, not solve them.
Hobbes also wanted very clear language. He didn't like Boyle's vagueness about a vacuum or air "pressure." Hobbes attacked Boyle for several reasons:
- He wanted to protect his own reputation as a thinker.
- He wanted a system for knowledge that brought order. He wanted exactness, not just probability.
- He wanted to help society become stable again after a period of conflict.
Hobbes did not believe in a vacuum. This idea was linked to his wish for political stability. He thought that if a space without matter could exist, it might support the idea of a "spirit" or "soul." He worried that priests could use this idea to gain power over people. This would split people's loyalty between the Church and the King. For Hobbes, this could lead to social unrest and even civil war. He believed that all power should belong to the King. He thought that everything should be explained by matter.
Hobbes's famous book, Leviathan, taught that good theories come from clear definitions. He believed in a world made only of matter. He thought that understanding what knowledge is would lead to social order. Hobbes used geometry as his model. He wanted science to be as precise as geometry. That's why clear definitions were so important to him.
Hobbes also didn't trust the senses to give true facts. He said that what we see or feel could be a dream or just from rubbing our eyes. Instead, he thought true knowledge came from human reasoning, like in geometry. For example, knowing that a straight line through the center of a circle divides it into two equal parts is true knowledge. For Hobbes, belief had no part in a fact. This was different from Boyle, whose "matters of fact" needed a group of witnesses to believe the same thing.
Hobbes believed that rejecting the idea of a vacuum would remove a space where disagreements could start.
The Argument: Hobbes vs. Boyle
This chapter describes the arguments between Hobbes and Boyle. Hobbes had several criticisms of Boyle's work:
- He doubted that experiments were truly public or could create agreement.
- He thought systematic experiments were pointless. If you could find causes, one experiment should be enough.
- He said Boyle's findings weren't "philosophy." For Hobbes, philosophy meant showing how effects came from causes.
- He didn't believe scientists could separate observing facts from finding their causes.
- He treated Boyle's "hypotheses" as if they were statements about real causes.
- He argued that he could always offer a better explanation than Boyle's. Hobbes believed in a world full of matter, not vacuums.
- He said experimental systems and their knowledge were unreliable.
Hobbes criticized Boyle's experimental space as being private. He said it was only for Boyle's group. He also said that the space had a "master," which went against Boyle's idea of free discussion. Hobbes also argued that for a "matter of fact" to be true, everyone in the experimental group had to see the same thing at the same time. This was impossible. He asked, "If they weren't seen together, how was judging experimental evidence different from judging any other story?"
Hobbes also criticized the air-pump itself. He said its physical structure was flawed. He argued that you couldn't understand the experiments without first knowing what air was. He believed air was a fluid that couldn't be perfectly sealed. He also said that since Boyle couldn't explain the cause of the air's "spring," he wasn't a good scientist. Hobbes found it unacceptable that Boyle suggested ignoring causes. He didn't object to experiments themselves, just to trusting senses too much. He gave the example of blood moving in the body. You don't feel it moving unless it spills out. This showed the senses weren't always reliable.
For Hobbes, a scientist's job was to be as precise as a mathematician. Boyle, however, allowed for some differences of opinion. He believed that managed disagreement within the scientific community was safe. Uncontrolled arguments, he thought, could lead to civil unrest.
Boyle Defends His Experiments
This chapter looks at how Boyle responded to his critics. His main opponents were Hobbes, Linus, and More. Boyle's responses showed what he thought was most important about his ideas. Linus accepted the experimental method but disagreed with Boyle's explanations. Hobbes and More attacked the experimental method itself.
Linus argued there was no vacuum in Boyle's experiments. He said you could see through the space, and if it were a vacuum, you shouldn't be able to. Linus offered his own non-mechanical explanation for why liquid stayed up in the Torricellian apparatus. He also said that in the marble disc experiment, the problem was with Boyle's theory, not the pump. Linus followed the rules of experimentation. Boyle approved of Linus's way of criticizing him. Boyle wanted to show how scientific arguments should be handled. He repeated that he didn't claim a vacuum existed. He said that question was about metaphysics, which was outside the scope of experiments.
Hobbes, on the other hand, attacked the entire experimental program. Boyle's response to Hobbes was mainly a defense of his experimental practices. Boyle explained the changes he made to the pump. He repeated the rules for scientific discussion. He also rejected Hobbes's ideas about nature. Boyle defended his method by saying the argument was about interpreting facts, not the facts themselves. This kept the experimental way of life safe from attack. When Hobbes said air had a subtle part that leaked through the pump, Boyle replied that this "aether" needed to be proven by experiment, or it was just a metaphysical idea.
Henry More had three main arguments against Boyle:
- Matter itself was passive and unmoving.
- Its movement was guided by an "Immaterial Being."
- Machines alone couldn't explain Boyle's findings.
More believed science could be used to support religious ideas. Boyle wanted to keep science separate from religion. So, Boyle defended the independence of his scientific community. He said that More's "spirit" wasn't a physical idea. Therefore, it couldn't be part of scientific language.
This chapter shows that Boyle's main goal was to defend his experimental method. He wanted to keep it separate from other areas of knowledge. His personal claims about the "spring of the air" were less important to him than protecting the method itself.
Repeating Experiments: Challenges in the 1660s
This chapter looks at how well Boyle's "technologies" worked when others tried to repeat his experiments. It focuses on how the air-pump spread among scientists.
The air-pump was first developed in Oxford and London around 1659. Robert Moray wrote to Christiaan Huygens in Holland about Boyle's pump changes. Huygens decided to make his own pump. He was the only scientist in the 1660s to build an air-pump without Boyle's direct help. Huygens later claimed his pump was better than Boyle's.
Huygens also found a new phenomenon. He called it "anomalous suspension." This was when water stayed suspended in a Torricellian apparatus if the water was air-free. But if a bubble was added, the water fell. This effect was only seen in good pumps. For over 18 months, no one in England accepted Huygens's findings. This showed the problems with "virtual witnessing." People needed to see the experiment themselves. So, Huygens traveled to London. He joined the Royal Society and successfully repeated his experiment there.
Another problem was that pumps were always being rebuilt. So, results could change with each new version.
Shapin and Schaffer found two main problems with repeating experiments in the 1660s:
- Repeating an experiment depended on people's judgment. There was no clear rule for when an experiment was truly "replicated."
- For experiments to turn belief into knowledge, it wasn't just about sharing ideas. It was also about how scientists and their machines were managed.
This meant that solving the problem of knowledge depended on solving the problem of social order.
Science and Society in the Restoration Era
Hobbes and Boyle offered different ways to do science. This chapter shows how society in England after 1660 supported these different ideas. The experience of civil war showed that disagreements about knowledge could lead to conflict. Boyle's methods needed a safe social space for experiments to work. Hobbes attacked this space because he saw it as another example of divided power.
Boyle's and Hobbes's ideas both tried to solve the same problem: what to do when people can't agree on the truth. Boyle's supporters, like Wilkins and Ward, argued for tolerance. They believed that allowing some disagreement was better than forcing everyone to agree. They thought that a community where debate was safe was important.
Critics of the experimental method had two main complaints. First, they made fun of experimental work. They called it childish play. Second, they argued that separating science from the Church would weaken the Church. Boyle said that experimental work was separate from the Church. But he also said it could be useful for religious people. This relationship between science and the clergy was a problem for Hobbes. He believed it weakened the King's power and caused social instability.
What We Learn
In the final chapter of Leviathan and the Air-Pump, Shapin and Schaffer summarize their ideas. They connect how society worked with how science developed. They make three main points:
- Scientists create their own rules and ways of working.
- The knowledge they create then becomes part of politics and the government.
- There's a link between how the scientific community is organized and how the wider society is organized.
They showed that solving problems in science is linked to politics. They also showed that the knowledge created becomes part of political actions. Finally, they argued that different ways of life and their scientific ideas succeed based on how well they get support from other groups. The side with the most powerful friends wins. This is different from saying that one scientific method won because it was simply "better."
The authors end by connecting their study of the 1600s to their own time. They suggest that when we realize our ways of knowing are created by humans, we see that we are responsible for what we know. Knowledge, like the government, is made by people. Hobbes, they conclude, was right about this.
Publication History
Translations
