Philosophy and science compared

The book The Neural Basis of Free Will by Michael Tse gives an interesting comparison of philosophy and science in the Introduction.

Why has philosophy been unable to make substantial progress in solving the mind-body problem? The root of philosophy’s impasse is that its main tools – logical argumentation, “thought experiments,” “intuition pumps,” and persuasion – are inadequate to the task. By themselves, these tools are incapable of settling basic debates between scholars with conflicting views rooted in incompatible starting assumptions. Logic can derive conclusions for axioms, but it cannot derive axioms, or, for that matter, the assumptions, biases, hunches, or intuitions that seem to underlie so much philosophical argumentation. With no objective way to settle a conflict, it is rare to find a philosopher who has written, “I was wrong and my rivals were right.” Without an objective arbiter of truth such as that imposed by falsifiability, why would a philosopher ever concede, especially when doing so might diminish career standing? A field cannot move forward to the next stage of a problem, and acknowledge that what was once a problem has now been solved, unless those on the wrong side of the debate are forced to concede they were wrong. Science, in contrast, has nature to falsify theories and models, and the scientific method of experimentation and model-correction/abandonment that forces scientists to stand on the shoulders of giants. Whether or not scientists concede they were wrong does not matter in the long run. Nature forces their concessions. Scientists who dogmatically maintain a position despite concrete evidence to the contrary are left behind. Whereas philosophers receive acclaim for occupying a position and defending it persuasively, scientists receive acclaim for making new discoveries that push the field to modify existing models of reality. Science makes astonishing progress year after year, whereas philosophy makes slow progress over centuries – at least concerning mental causation, free will and the mind-body problem – because debates can be objectively settled in science but cannot be objectively settled in philosophy.

One could quibble with some of this, but I believe it is largely accurate. Some might take this to discredit philosophy, but such a critic has to rely on some philosophy when science has no good answer to some questions.

Transistors and the history of hearing aids

A book I am reading about the invention of transistors -- Crystal Fire -- includes the following about hearing aids. As a preface, Alexander Graham Bell was the founder of the Bell Telephone Company, and AT&T was initially a subsidiary of Bell Telephone (link).

In keeping with Alexander Graham Bell's devotion to helping the deaf and hearing-impaired, AT&T and its Bell Labs, where the transistor was invented, extended royalty-free licenses to hearing aid manufacturers. In 1952 Sonotone began selling hearing aids in which one of the three vacuum tubes was replaced by a transistor. A few days later the Maico Company came out with a model with three transistors and no vacuum tubes. A few months later Acousticon came out with a model with only one transistor and no vacuum tubes.

The principal limitation on vacuum tube hearing aids was the expense and encumbrance of the batteries needed to power the amplifying unit, generally worn around the waist. With the progress of miniaturization, solid-state circuits eventually allowed making hearing aids that could be worn entirely within the ear (p. 205).

The military was by far the biggest customer for transistors in the early 1950's. Their military use was in radar and guided missiles. Hearing aid manufacturers were probably the second largest customers. They were soon surpassed by the makers of transistor radios, which were introduced in October, 1954 by Texas Instruments, partnered with another company (Regency TR-1 radio).

For a little more on the history of hearing aids, Wikipedia has an article about it. Of course, hearing aids have become smaller along with microprocessors becoming smaller in the last 60 or so years

A Life of Discovery #4

Starting in late 1839 Michael Faraday gradually sank into a chronic depression, with physical effects such as vertigo and headaches. His writing letters and in his diary, which had been prolific, slowed. He made no diary entries for 20 months in 1840-42. Managers of the Royal Institution relieved him of his duties there. In 1844, his outlook improved, and he resumed lecturing often. In the 1850’s his health declined again. He had bouts with giddiness, headaches and memory loss, and this took a toll on his quickness of mind. He also had run-ins with church authorities.

The last 10 years of his active professional life were marked by his work as expert adviser to committees and his own interjections into public life, as much as by his scientific ideas. His scientific imagination was sometimes speculative, such as a field theory of magnetism and “gravelectricity”, a relation between gravity and electricity. He wrote a letter to The Times in 1855 to bring attention to the foul state of the River Thames in London. A cause of this was the widespread introduction of the water closet, which resulted in sewage being delivered down a drainage system and emptied into the river. He commented on the poor state of public education in the sciences.

His wife’s health deteriorated, too. Never wealthy and both sickly, Queen Victoria gave them an elegant house in 1858. The couple used it as a respite from the London smoke, but they continued living mainly at the Royal Institute. In 1865 he retired from the Institute. He died in 1867.

This is my last post on this biography of Faraday. To end on a positive note: 1. His was a fascinating and very productive life. 2. The 9th episode of the television series Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, “The Electric Boy” is about Michael Faraday.

A Life of Discovery #3

Faraday did many of the lectures at the Royal Institute on a wide variety of topics. Among them were rubber, a condensing gas engine, pens from quill and steel, ancient vases, and wood engraving. “One of the secrets of their success was that they gave explanations for many of the technological advances, the applications of science, that were becoming everywhere visible: the railway, tarmacadam roads, gas lighting and macintoshes” (A Life of Discovery 196-7, 205-6).

In the second half of the 1820’s Faraday was gradually released from the influence and interference of Sir Humphrey Davy. The last surviving letter from Davy came in 1823, and since then the two men had a repprochement, coming together to cooperate on a practical application of the electro-chemistry of copper and zinc, to protect the bottoms of ships from corrosion from sea water. That wasn’t very successful due to unexpected consequences (216).

Faraday also spent much time on experiments on optical glass for the Admiralty, which was criticized for a lack of results and frustrated Faraday. Faraday did extensive experiments with “crispations” – vibrations formed in one body being struck by another, e.g. a bow on a violin.

The discoveries that Faraday made in science in the 1830’s had electricity as their vibrant center. In this decade Faraday transformed the public’s perception of electricity from a novelty with limited uses to a power which would light cities or drive ships. From 1831-1855 he recorded the core of his electrical researches in a series of papers, numbering forty-five, under the general title Experimental Researches in Electricity. An 1831 discovery was the principle of electromagnetic induction. His discoveries and inventions led to a wide variety of achievements, for example, railways, steel production, spinning and weaving machinery, microscopes and telescopes, and printing and image-reproduction (245-272).

A Life of Discovery #2

Electrical phenomena attracted the attention of many scientists – called natural philosophers until the late 19^th century. For example, Galvani discovered in 1780 that the muscles of dead frogs' legs twitched when struck by an electrical spark. Especially, many were interested in the connections between electricity and magnets. Faraday was asked to write a paper summing up the research to date. He did and wanted to learn more, so he experimented in his lab. He used batteries, magnets, wire, glass rods, a compass, and more, especially his curiosity. It led to his inventing the first ever electric motor – observable physical motion derived from only electric power and magnetism. His apparatus was “alive with electrical movement and power, unseen and silent, but as real as the sap rising through a blade of grass in the spring” (A Life of Discovery 162-3).

Several days later he completed an article ‘On some new Electro-Magnetic Motions, and on the Theory of Magnetism’ and submitted it to the Quarterly Journal of Science. Within days of publication, he was heavily criticized by other scientific men – for not giving enough credit to others who “paved the way” to his discovery and invention. This was far from uniform – much praise came from others – but the criticism was quite a shock to Faraday. Even “Humphrey Davy did nothing to ease Faraday’s torment,” and Davy pressed Faraday with tasks that went with his being his valet (166).

Explosions echoed regularly at the Royal Institution when Faraday was working. A series of them occurred following Davy’s suggestion to Faraday to try certain experiments, injuring Faraday, including fragments of glass in his eyes (186-7). Davy even refused to support Faraday’s nomination to membership in the Royal Society. Regardless, after several membership meetings, Faraday was elected with only one no vote. Voting was secret, so who dissented is unknown (190).

A Life of Discovery #1

I have been reading A Life of Discovery, a biography of Michael Faraday by James Hamilton.

Born in 1791, Faraday was a blacksmith's son with a modest education, yet he had a rare intelligence and intuition. He was a devout member of a small Christian sect that believed in the literal truth of the Bible, yet was keenly interested in knowledge of the natural world as well. He was an insightful experimenter, ambitious, and savvy about spreading news of his work, yet he patented nothing and didn't try to commercialize his work.

At age 14 he began an apprenticeship as a bookbinder for George Riebau, a bookbinder and bookseller. He became quite skilled at it, learning the practical, technical side of it. He took advantage of it to do a lot of reading as well, including Lavoisier's Elements of Chemistry. He took long walks around London to observe machinery, steam engines, and construction. Many of Riebau's customers were artists, and he learned a lot about making art, too. Meanwhile, encouraged by Riebau, he attended lectures by John Tatum about electricity, optics, chemistry, and more. Believing his memory was sub-par, Faraday took copious notes.

After seven years as an apprentice, he knew he didn't want to be a bookbinder for the rest of his life. On the other hand, he needed income, and sought such a position. That didn't succeed, and he also looked for a job in science. He fortunately became an assistant and valet to Humphrey Davy, the foremost chemist in the world at the time. Davy was a great experimenter and a lecturer who dazzled his audiences with his discoveries, demonstrations, and delivery at the Royal Institution. Faraday assisted, keenly observed and absorbed. He helped Davy with the invention of the Davy lamp that could be used in coal mines with much greater safety for the miners. Faraday began lecturing and dazzling audiences, too.

Together they experimented with a wide variety of things --  metals, iodine, diamond, light, gases, electricity, magnets, lenses, and more. Faraday became a much sought after chemical analyst and forensic scientist for court cases on such matters. For example, he testified on behalf of an insurance company that denied a claim to a sugar refiner due to a factory fire. The insurer denied the claim because the refiner began using whale oil in a new process without telling the insurer. Faraday explained why the whale oil was much more dangerous and the steps that led to the explosion and fire. His client lost anyway, because the refiner did not intend to defraud the insurer.

Marconi #11

I end this series of posts with some of the author's (Marc Raboy) reflections on Marconi and his legacy.

"Marconi was without a doubt the dominant – as well as most enigmatic and controversial – figure in the pioneering stage of the information age. After a certain point, it does not really matter who did what; it is impossible to speak about the history of modern communication – from the wireless telegraph to radar, the cellphone, GPS, and the Internet – without paying close attention to Marconi and his career" (Marconi 673)

Quoting a historian: "Marconi's inventions, modifications, and improvements fit into a small box, at that time dubbed Marconi's 'secret-box' or 'black-box.' When Marconi 'opened' this 'black-box' by publicizing his first patent in 1897, people were amazed and intrigued by its simplicity. The solutions appeared so simple and obvious that many began to wonder why no one else had come up with them" (673).

"Marconi thus personifies the paradox of communication. His ambivalence is ours. How does a technology that promotes and facilitates contact, openess, and human potential become an instrument for domination, manipulation, and control?" (677).

Thank you, Mr. Raboy.

Marconi #9

In 1922 Marconi began experimenting with short waves. "Using a transmitter described as a "baby wireless set," he awed his audience by demonstrating "how a flying shaft [beam] of radio waves may be hurled in a desired direction, straight at a receiving station intended to receive it." This was the new directional "beam" system he had been developing with his associate Charles Franklin since 2016" (Marconi 472).

In a talk Marconi said he thought it possible to design an apparatus by which a ship could send a beam of rays in a desired direction and the rays coming across a metallic object such as another ship could be reflected back to the sender, thus revealing the presence and bearing of the other ship. Marconi was describing a process that would come to be known as radar. Successful use of radar was one of the keys to allied superiority in WW II, and now is essential to air traffic control (473-4).

Others were developing broadcasting. Marconi did not see what the fuss was about. He thought radio was about communication, not the one-way delivery of light entertainment, what he thought broadcasting was doing (486). Broadcasting used continuous waves as opposed to Marconi's spark waves.

Largely due to the efforts of other people the radio boom was well under way by 1922. In 1922, the first year when numbers were available, 100,000 radio sets were sold in the USA. It was 5 times that a year later. Such enormous growth continued for several years afterwards. The proliferation of broadcasting attracted the powers that be, too. Vatican Radio was established with Marconi's help. In February 1931 millions of listeners around the world heard the Pope speak. Inspired by the example of the Vatican, totalitarian dictators and Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill were soon using radio to "inspire, cajole, mobilize, or terrify" (568).

In a May 1931 broadcast the pope called for "the reconstruction of the social order, describing the dangers of both unrestrained capitalism and totalitarian communism, as well as the ethical implications of reconstruction. It was one of the most important political interventions of the 1930's, approving the triparate corporatism of government, industry, and labor [ ] favored by Italian fascism ... [I]t was also couched in a tone that could invite the praise of a liberal politician like FDR" (568-9). FDR later met with Marconi, and FDR was interested in Italy's domestic policies (591).

Marconi #8

In 1915 Marconi traveled to Schenectady, New York to visit the General Electric plant where Ernst Alexanderson developed and patented a high-frequency alternator capable of generating continuous waves (Marconi 393). Marconi wanted to buy it. Marconi and GE's chief counsel arrived at the verge of an agreement whereby GE would manufacture the alternator, while Marconi would have exclusive rights to use it. The agreement didn't materialize (439).

"The proposal was intensely political and essential to Marconi's global strategy. Marconi's UK base was constricted by British wartime restrictions, but the war also presented opportunities for technological development and the company was still determined to build a global network anchored by a British imperial wireless chain. At the same time, the US domestic market and likely emergence of the United States as the dominant world power after the war foreshadowed an increased role for Marconi's American operations. A deal with GE would palliate American nationalist concerns and reduce Marconi's exposure to the British public sector, with which he had such a fraught relationship. At the same time, the company was anxious to position itself once and for all against the anticipated postwar resurgence of Telefunken.
     The United States' entry to the war in April, 1917 put a major crimp in Marconi's plans. The US Navy took over all wireless operations on April 7, and as the war proceeded it was not entirely clear what would happen to them once the conflict ended" (439-40).

Telefunken was a German wireless company and Marconi's chief competitor.

In 1919 Marconi reopened his negotiations with GE, proposing purchase of 24 alternators. GE's chief counsel conferred with the US Navy. The response requested that GE not sell the alternators to Marconi. Even President Wilson wanted to dissuade GE from doing the deal. The president was convinced that world pre-eminence would be determined by three factors: oil, transportation, and communication. Wireless, however, was still up for grabs, and if the United States could achieve dominance there, the result would be a standoff between the USA and Britain (441).

As the situation evolved, almost the opposite of Marconi's plan occurred. GE bought Marconi's American operations. It resulted in the birth of the Radio Corporation of America (RCA), incorporating the assets of the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of America (MWTCA) into a new public company in which GE owned a controlling interest. RCA replaced MWTCA as the major US domestic wireless company and gave the US a solid foothold in global communication (443).

Marconi #7

The Marconi biography includes the following. I will be brief.

Marconi wins the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1909. He was nominated a few times before. He was the first entrepreneur to win the prize. He shared it with a German, Karl Ferdinand Braun, who contributed significantly to the development of radio and television technology.

In 1909 two ships collided, one with 1200 passengers. Marconi's wireless system aided a quick rescue response. Only six lives were lost, demonstrating the benefit to mankind made possible by wireless.

After H. Cuthbert Hall was ousted, Marconi took on much of what Hall had done. In 1910, though, Godfrey Isaacs joined the firm, which gave Marconi more time to devote to research and experiments.

In 1911 Italy declared war on the Ottoman Empire in defense of Italians in northern Africa. Then Italians started building wireless stations on Africa's northern coast. This was the third time wireless was used in war.

On 10 April 1912 the passenger ship Titanic left Ireland headed west to New York, with 2,208 (estimated) passengers and crew. The ship had the then-best wireless equipment aboard. On 14 April, four days into the crossing and about 375 miles (600 km) south of Newfoundland, she hit an iceberg at 11:40 p.m. ship's time. The wireless operator sent distress signals while the ship was sinking. Unfortunately, the closest ship to receive the signal, the Carpathia wasn't very close. Almost two hours after the collision the Carpathia arrived and rescued an estimated 705 survivors. Many people gave Marconi a lot of credit for saving the survivors.

In 2012 the British Postal Office's not yet signed agreement with a British Marconi Company made the news. The agreement drew criticism for the terms being too favorable to Marconi's business and political insiders who made investment gains from holding stock in Marconi companies (ref. Marconi scandal).

Marconi #6

In my opinion Marconi's scientific achievement was more spectacular than John Galt's motor in Atlas Shrugged. Firstly, Marconi's was real and Galt's was fictional. One might say that's an example of "truth is stranger than fiction" (Mark Twain quote; Lord Byron quote). Galt's motor was designed to harness static electricity from the air for power generation. Secondly, unlike radio waves, static electricity can be seen, felt and heard. The electromagnetic waves -- originally called "Hertzian waves" -- used by Marconi for wireless telegraphy cannot be directly perceived. They can only be indirectly perceived via instruments -- radio, television, antenna, cell phone, computer. Thirdly, Marconi's achievement made possible Galt's hijacking a radio broadcast in order to make his speech. 😉

Marconi and John Galt (really Ayn Rand) did have very different ideas about politics. Marconi courted governments to commercialize his wireless telegraphy. They wanted it mainly for military use. Marconi also relied on government-backed patent protection. Conversely, Galt's motor was targeted for the private sector.

H. Cuthbert Hall was second in command to Marconi in Marconi's business from 1901 to 1908. Hall's political views were far closer to those of Ayn Rand than were Marconi's. Hall had led the company's fight against the Berlin Convention (see #5). Hall had an aggressive attitude toward the British government, Marconi's biggest client. "Hall was an ideological free enterpriser, to whom government interference of any kind was anathema. If dealing with the government could bring benefits to the company, then fine. But there was nothing intrinsically beneficial to the relationship. Marconi, though not at all ideological, felt intuitively close to political power of every stripe. In his mind, nothing could be more powerful than a partnership with government -- any government" (Marconi 285).

In 1907 Marconi became increasingly dissatisfied with Hall. Marconi thought his companies'  business dealing were impaired by Hall and depended upon its relation to governments. So Marconi, with the support of board members other than Hall, ousted Hall.

A future post will contain some more about Marconi's relationship to Mussolini and fascism many years later.

Marconi #4

By 1905 Marconi's sytem was pervasive. "On ships it was sometimes suggested that wireless had ruined 'the delights of complete repose which have hitherto ... been associated with the idea of being on a long ocean voyage,' but this notion was discounted by the benefits it brought for minimizing danger at sea. It was also good for business travelers who could for the first time remain in touch with their offices as they crossed the Atlantic. With cheap long-distance telegraphy within reach, emigration took on a less onerous meaning; it would be easier for members of disporic communities to keep in touch with their families back home. At the same time, ambitious corporations and military establishments everywhere vied for ways to use the new technology as an instrument for their grand designs. Indeed, the sentiments for and against Marconi's invention were not unlike those we hear today about the good and evil of the constant connectedness that comes with modern communication technology. There was full agreement, however, on the basic point: wireless communication had changed people's relationship with time, distance, and mobility" (Marconi 247-8).

Reginald Fessenden was "soon known in the United States as a sharp critic of Marconi's system. Fessenden realized that if Marconi's spark transmitter could be replaced by one that gave off a continuous wave, it would be possible to transmit voice by wireless. This was the technical breakthrough that enabled what would eventually be known as broadcasting, and for this reason, Fessenden is often claimed to be the inventor of radio. The spark-reliant intermittent wave transmission that Marconi pioneered could transmit dots and dashes but not speech and music (hence the distinction between "wireless telegraphy" and "broadcasting"). However, both methods relied on the medium of elecromagnetic waves, and Marconi was unquestionably the first to use the wave spectrum for communication" (250).

Dots and dashes, of course, refer to Morse code. By the way, Thomas Edison's first two children were nicknamed Dot and Dash (link). 😊

Marconi #3

G. Marconi secretly worked on a project he referred to as "the great thing" -- an attempt to signal across the Atlantic Ocean. Theoretical physicists said it couldn't be done because they claimed electromagnetic waves radiated in a straight line into space and would not follow the curvature of the earth. Holders of this view included the great French mathematician and physicist Henri Poincare, who understood the properties of Hertzian waves. But Marconi was convinced that the theoreticians were wrong; he believed electromagnetic waves would bend to follow the curvature of the earth (Marconi, 148).

In December, 1901 Marconi experimented with signals sent from a station in England across the Atlantic Ocean to a station in Newfoundland. At the receiving end he did indeed hear signals "serenely ignoring the curvature of the earth which so many doubters considered would be a fatal obstacle" (174).

Prompted to explain how Marconi had been able to receive a Hertzian wave signal nearly two thousand miles away, two theoretical physicists later hypothesized that there might exist an ionized layer in the upper atmosphere capable of reflecting or refracting radio waves of certain frequencies back to earth (176).

The biography doesn't address the varying range of radio wave lengths/frequencies. However, Wikipedia shows the whole range of radio waves (link1) and includes the following (link2).

"Lower frequency (between 30 and 3,000 kHz) vertically polarized radio waves can travel as surface waves following the contour of the Earth; this is called groundwave propagation."

"In this mode the radio wave propagates by interacting with the conductive surface of the Earth. The wave "clings" to the surface and thus follows the curvature of the Earth, so groundwaves can travel over mountains and beyond the horizon."

"Early long distance radio communication (wireless telegraphy) before the mid-1920s used low frequencies in the longwave bands and relied exclusively on ground-wave propagation. Frequencies above 3 MHz were regarded as useless and were given to hobbyists (radio amateurs). The discovery around 1920 of the ionospheric reflection or skywave mechanism made the medium wave and short wave frequencies useful for long distance communication and they were allocated to commercial and military users."

So it seems both Marconi and Poincare were partly correct and partly incorrect. Marconi's experiment used lower or medium frequency (longer or medium length) radio waves.

Marconi #2

Radio waves were first predicted by mathematical work done in 1867 by Scottish mathematical physicist James Clerk Maxwell. Maxwell noticed wavelike properties of light and similarities in electrical and magnetic observations. His mathematical theory, now called Maxwell's equations, described light waves, and waves of less or more length, as waves of electromagnetism that travel in space, radiated by a charged particle. In 1887, Heinrich Hertz demonstrated the reality of Maxwell's electromagnetic waves by experimentally generating radio waves in his laboratory, showing that they exhibited the same wave properties as light: standing waves, refraction, diffraction, and polarization. The waves were first called "Hertzian waves." The modern term "radio wave" replaced the original name around 1912. (Link).

"Hertz's breakthrough had attracted worldwide excitement when he published his results in 1888, but no one had yet found a practical application for the discovery" (Marconi 27). Hertz's interest in the waves was theoretical, and he died in 1894 (age 36). Marconi was strongly interested in their practicality and/or commercial use.

Besides developing the technology, much of his early career was devoted to obtaining patents in different countries and defending his patents from infringement. He sought exclusive contracts. A big part of advancing the technology was increasing the useful range of radio waves for communication. A big step was succeeding in transmitting radio waves over the Atlantic Ocean. That would allow wireless communication with ships very far from land and between continents. The greater part of practical interest in Marconi's wireless telegraphy was by governments for military use. A private sector exception was Lloyd's of London. "The first major firm to recognize the commercial potential of Marconi's invention was Lloyd's, the world's leading provider of marine insurance and, hence, dealer in shipping information" (88).

P.S. You might wonder how G. Marconi and wireless communication relate to a blog named Correspondence and Coherence. The relationships aren't strong, but there are some. 1. One definiens of correspondent is 'a journalist employed to provide news stories for newspapers or broadcast media.' Such correspondents nowadays often communicate using wireless technology with a cell phone or computer. 2. A coherer "was a primitive form of radio signal detector used in the first radio receivers during the wireless telegraphy era at the beginning of the 20th century" (Wikipedia).  😊

Marconi #1

I'm reading Marconi by Mark Laboy (link). It's a biography of Guglielmo Marconi, who invented wireless communication. He is often credited with inventing the radio. His invention made the radio possible, but the claim is only partly true.

Pages 34-9 describe the technology of communication and its effects prior to Marconi's invention of wireless communication.

"Gutenburg's invention of movable type, in the mid-fifteenth century, was arguably the most important single development in communication technology of the past thousand years, in terms of its impact on the struggles for unhindered human expression and the corresponding attempts to exercise social and political control over it. Coupled with the spread of literacy, the printing press enabled the Protestant Revolution, among many other revolutions of modernity. But the thing about literacy, British cultural theorist Raymond Williams once wrote, is that you cannot teach someone to read the Bible without also, simultaneously and unintentionally, empowering them to read less holy tracts" (34).

"The "press" ... was by its very nature oppositional and mobilizational, encouraging and enfranchising individuals, and their publishers, to act more effectively as political citizens. Governments became more obsessed with a sense that they needed to control the press and,  not surprisingly, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted in 1788, stated that Congress shall make no law interfering with freedom of the press. ... By the early nineteenth century, the press was a toll not only for democrats but for all sorts of propagandists as well" (35).

"[T]he introduction of the most important communication technology since the Gutenburg printing press [was] electrical wired telegraphy. By the 1830's, large commercial press interests as well as a new type of company, the national news agency, started to emerge. Press technology could operate as well on a very small scale as on a large one. Getting one's hands on a small printing press and using it to go into business or politics was not beyond the reach of entrepreneurs or activists. Telegraphy was another matter. Telegraphy was a complex technology, requiring huge capital investment; therefore access to it was regulated either by companies or governments, or, more typically, both. With the telegraph, for the first time, there was a separation of means and message, and the emergence of a belief that the tremendous power bestowed by ownership and control over the means of communication had to be offset by responsibilities.
    Another new feature of telegraphy was that messages sent along telegraph lines did not recognize national borders. (Neither did carrier pigeons, which is one reason it took some time for telegraphy to catch on.) ...
    The mail had to physically cross a border. Not so with the telegraph. ...
    Wired telegraphy had some significant limitations, however. It did not reach everywhere, and often needed to be combined with another, usually more primitive, form of communication. To send someone a "telegram," or "wire," one needed, first, to get the message to a local office. Then, at the other end, someone had to deliver it by hand to the intended receiver. There were issues of security and confidentiality" (35-37).

Wired telegraphy's language was Morse code.

"After the first international underwater cable was laid between Dover, England, and Calais, France, in 1850, the idea of a transatlantic cable started to take shape. ...
    The cable-based global communication infrastructure expanded ten-fold between 1870 and 1900, and double again in the next decade" (37-38).

Scientific Revolutions #7

In The Rationality of Science W. H. Newton-Smith calls Thomas Kuhn a non-realist (ref. #6) because Kuhn's model of science makes problem solving the goal rather than the pursuit of truth. He says Kuhn doesn't make truthfulness the main goal of science because it cannot be given a rational justification. In other words, there is no algorithm for choosing which of two competing theories is better in all such comparisons. His exact words follow.

"Thus the use of models for the explanation of change is not the exclusive prerogative of the rationalist. Kuhn, for example, has a model of science which makes the goal problem solving and in which the principles of comparison are the five ways [ref. #5]. What makes Kuhn a non-rationalist is his thesis that these cannot be given an objective justification. This in no way precludes his using his model in generating minirat [*] accounts, a good example of which is found in his recent study of Planck. In this work, in which, interestingly, Kuhn does not make any use of his own theoretical framework of gestalt shifts between incommensurable paradigms, he explains why Planck opted for his distribution law for the radiation given off by a black body through a reconstruction of Plank's beliefs and reasoning processes. One example of a general methodological belief would cite as explaining the scientific community's acceptance of Planck's theory is the belief in the importance of theoretical unification. This, in part, motivated the community to prefer to use Planck's single formula which covers all temperatures instead of Wien's formula for low temperatures and the Rawleigh-Jeans law for high temperatures. ... This means that a rational representation of science should consist not of a single model but an evolving series of models " (p. 224-5). 

* minimal rational account -- an explanation of theory choice which does not include a normative assessment of the goal, or an evaluation of the truth or falsity, or the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the beliefs. 

I see no sharp difference between Newton-Smith's use of real and rational (and their conjugates).

Scientific Revolutions #6

Regardless of how one evaluates Thomas Kuhn's ideas about scientific revolutions, his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was a huge impetus in discussions of their nature. Commentary on the nature of science and scientific entities and methods preceded Kuhn's book, but the book spurred revisiting said nature, entities, methods, and scientific instruments.

Broadly speaking, scientific realism is the view that science is about reality. But there are significant nuances pertaining to truthfulness, aims versus achievements, mind-independence, what is or isn't knowledge, and more, including claims about unobservables (atoms, radio waves, etc.). This article Scientific Realism sketches the major nuances.

Antirealism is the term used for various arguments against, or foils for, scientific realism. One of these is instrumentalism, which holds that claims about unobservable things have no literal meaning. While the linked article doesn't mention Galileo and his religious detractors, it reminded me of them. Said detractors didn't object to some of Galileo's claims when viewed as instrumental, as mathematically useful. However, they did object to saying said claims were true when they conflicted with Biblical text.

Scientific Revolutions #5

In The Essential Tension Thomas Kuhn posits five characteristics of a good scientific theory to guide theory choice.

1. It should be accurate within its domain, that is, consequences deducible from a theory should be in demonstrated agreement with the results of existing experiments and observations.
2. It should be consistent, not only internally or with itself, but also with other currently accepted theories applicable to related aspects of nature.
3. It should have broad scope. Its consequences should extend far beyond the particular observations, laws, or sub-theories it was initially designed to explain.
4. It should be simple, bringing order to phenomena that in its absence would be individually isolated and, as a set, confused.
5. It should be fruitful of new research findings. That is, it should disclose new phenomena or relationships among those already known.

Kuhn adds: "Nevertheless, two sorts of difficulties are regularly encountered by the men who must use these criteria in choosing, say, between Ptolemy's astronomical theory and Copernicus's, between the oxygen and phlogiston theories of combustion, or between Newtonian mechanics and the quantum theory. Individually the criteria are imprecise: individuals may legitimately differ about their application to concrete cases. In addition, when deployed together, they repeatedly prove to conflict with one another; accuracy may, for example, dictate the choice of one theory or the choice of its competitor" (324).

In The Rationality of Science W. H. Newton-Smith presents his good-making features of theories as follows.

1. Observational nesting. A theory ought to preserve the observational successes of its predecessors. This is the primary indicator of increasing verisimilitude.
2. Fertility. A theory ought to provide scope for future development.
3. Track record. This fertility looking back. The longer the theory exists, the most important its track record.
4. Inter-theory support. That is, it supports other good theory and doesn't clashing with it.
5. Smoothness. Successful fine-tuning or corrections can be achieved in the face of failure.
6. Internal consistency.
7. Compatibility with well-grounded metaphysical beliefs.

He says many scientists and philosophers include simplicity as a good feature, but he discounts it because relative simplicity to a large extent lies in in the eyes of the theoretician and not in the theory. Quantum mechanics surely does not meet this criteria (226-31).

Scientific Revolutions #4

In addition to theories persisting -- by being modified but not eliminated -- some ideas persist even with revolutionary theory change. A good example is atoms. 

Realists have a simple explanation for this. The advocates were on the right track. They did not have the whole truth, but they had some of it. The idea that the physical world is comprised of atoms has persisted for centuries, even though ideas about the nature of those atoms has varied much with time. Even some prominent scientists in the 19th century thought atoms were only a useful fiction because they could not be directly measured. But more discoveries about atoms overcome the dissent. There must really be atoms, and we must really know something about them. Realists don't expect science always takes the direct road to truth and never deviates. But some ideas survive in spite of what develops. Indeed, these persistent ideas emerge stronger than before. Successful revolutions, though changing concepts in many ways, still have to accommodate those persistent ideas. (It Started With Copernicus, 186). 

On the other hand, some ideas are abandoned and support Kuhn's ideas of a theory meeting a crisis and being abandoned. A famous example is phlogiston. This was a substance thought to be released during combustion. There was considerable evidence to support the hypothesis, so it was a widely accepted chemical theory in the late 17th and much of the 18th century. So false theories can have true consequences, and go against the idea that science always converges toward truth.  The phlogiston theory was superseded by the oxygen theory of combustion.

Scientific Revolutions #3

The histories of science portrayed by Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper -- according to their critics -- diverge from actual history. Parsons' counter-story follows.

"The history of science is not one of steady cumulative progress, but neither is it a succession of mutually exclusive paradigms where each new theory wipes the slate clean and starts all over again. If we regard all past theories as totally false, then the pessimistic metainduction probably should make us doubt our present theories, however empirically successful they are. But the history of science is not like the famous Peter Arno cartoon from the New Yorker: A test flight has just ended in a horrendous crash. The aircraft designer turns his back on the ensuing chaos, [and blithely says], "Well, back to the old drawing board." Science does not have to go back to the old drawing board with every superseded theory. Rather, when we look at the history of any field of science, a few theories will stand out as major breakthroughs. Once these breakthroughs occur, they are retained, in one form or another, through all subsequent theory changes, even through major conceptual revolutions. For instance, the mathematician and physicist James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) formulated a small set of simple equations that explained all the diverse phenomena of electricity and magnetism. He concluded that electricity and magnetism were different aspects of the same force, electromagnetism, and that light is actually a form of electromagnetic radiation. Maxwell's Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism was published in 1873, well before the two major revolutions in twentieth-century physics, relativity and quantum mechanics.
     The revolutions of twentieth-century physics overthrew some of Maxwell's ideas. For instance, he thought that since light was a wave, it had to be carried by some medium, the "luminiferous ether," an idea rejected by subsequent theory. However, light is still regarded as electromagnetic radiation, and Maxwell's equations, in modified form, are still regarded as valid for a given range of electrical and magnetic phenomena. Likewise, Newton's famous law of universal gravitation is retained in physics as correctly applying to things not moving too fast and to gravitational forces that are not too strong. So, many of Maxwell's ideas, like Newton's, have survived the enormous conceptual upheavals of the relativity and quantum revolutions, revolutions that overthrew so many of the ideas of "classical" physics. Within limited contexts, Maxwell's and Newton's theories are just as valid as they ever were. Other breakthrough theories have shown similar staying power in other fields of science" (p. 183-4).