Science, medicine and dissent : Joseph Priestley (1733-1804) ; papers celebrating the 250th anniversary of the birth of Joseph Priestley together with a catalogue of an exhibition held at the Royal Society and the Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine / edited by R.G.W. Anderson and Christopher Lawrence.

Date:
1986
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)

Credit: Science, medicine and dissent : Joseph Priestley (1733-1804) ; papers celebrating the 250th anniversary of the birth of Joseph Priestley together with a catalogue of an exhibition held at the Royal Society and the Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine / edited by R.G.W. Anderson and Christopher Lawrence. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    39/124 (page 25)
    Priestley! On the Wednesday morning of the York meeting, Priestley made his phantom appearance. An essay by William Henry was read, having as its title An estimate of the philosophical character of Dr. Priestley. It was an estimate that rehabilitated him, that took the sting out of his radical reputation. Expatiating on Priestley's discoveries, Henry surmised that their author must have been furnished by nature with intellectual endowments, far surpassing the com mon average of human endowments 166 - an estimate perfectly out of key with Priestley's egalitarian induc- tivism. The rehabilitation was not without its critical observations or without a critical reception. Luke Howard protested that one should not so readily whitewash Priestley's political and religious inten tions. 167 Nevertheless, in Henry's account, Priestley emerged as a comfortable hero: Even in these few examples, his errors may be traced to causes connected with the actual condition of science at the time .. but never to carelessness of inquiry or negligence of truth. 168 In Priestley's life, Henry proclaimed, the purest morals had been connected with the highest philosophy. The rehabilitation was then nicely sealed with the stamp of natural theology: He has enforced, with warm and impressive eloquence, the considerations that flow from the contemplation of those arrangements ... which are not only perfect in themselves but are essen tial parts of one grand and harmonious design. 169 Whewell and this new, anodyne Priestley were con temporaries after all. Notes and References 1 Gary A. Abraham, 'Misunderstanding the Merton thesis: a boundary dispute between history and sociology', ¡sis, 1983, 74: 368-387, pp. 368 and 372. 2 Robert K. Merton, Technology and society in seventeenth-century England, New York, Harper, 1970, p.xxii. 3 Ibid., p. 136. 4 Christopher Hill, Intellectual origins of the English Revolution, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1965, pp.289-290. 5 Merton, op.cit., note 2 above, p.119. 6 Donald S.L. Cardwell, The organisation of science in England: a retrospect, London, Heinemann, 1957, p.30. 7 Cited by Arnold Thackray, 'Natural knowledge in cultural con text: the Manchester model', American Historical Review, 1974, 79: 672-709, p.676. 8 Derek Orange, 'Rational dissent and provincial science: William Turner and the Newcastle Literary and Philosophical Society', in Ian Inkster and Jack Morrell (eds.), Metropolis and province: science in British culture 1780-1850, London, Hutchinson, 1983, pp.205-230. 9 Michael Neve, 'Science in a commercial city: Bristol 1820-60', in Ibid., pp.179-204. 10 Orange, op.cit., note 8 above, p.221. 11 Ibid., p.215. 12 Ibid., p.225. 13 Neve, op.cit., note 9 above, p. 197. 14 Abraham, op.cit., note 1 above, p.379. 15 Merton, op.cit., note 2 above, p.112. 16 Abraham, op.cit., note 1 above, p.372. 17 Merton, op.cit., note 2 above, p.xxvii. 18 For Priestley's integration of scientific and religious beliefs, see JohnG. McEvoy and J.E. McGuire, 'God and nature: Priestley's way of rational dissent', in Rüssel McCormmach (ed.), Hist. Stud. Phy. Sci., 1975, 6: 325-404; John G. McEvoy, 'Joseph Priestley, Aerial Philosopher: metaphysics and methodology in Priestley's chemical thought from 1772-1781', Ambix, 1978, 25:1-55, 93-116, 153-75; Ambix, 1979, 26:16-38; Erwin N. Hiebert, 'The integration of revealed religion and scientific materialism in the thought of Joseph Priestley', in Lester Kieft and Bennett R. Willeford, Jr., Joseph Priestley: scientist, theologian and metaphysician, Lewisburg, Bucknell University Press, 1980, pp.27-61; Robert E. Schofield, 'Joseph Priestley: theology, physics and metaphysics', Enlightenment and Dissent, 1983, 2: 69-81; John H. Brooke, 'A sower went forth': Joseph Priestley and the ministry of reform', Oxygen and the conversion of future feedstocks, Proceedings of the Third BOC Conference, London, Royal Society of Chemistry, 1984, pp.432-460. See also John McEvoy's contribution to this volume. On the mutual relevance of Whewell's theology and his philosophy of science, see Andrew Belsey, 'Interpreting Whewell', Stud. Hist, and Phil. Sci., 1974-5, 5: 49-58; Robert E. Butts, 'Necessary truth in Whewell's theory of science', Am. Phil. Quart., 1965,2:161-181; Richard Yeo, 'William Whewell, natural theology and the philosophy of science in mid-nineteenth century Britain', Annals of Science, 1979, 36: 493-516; John H. Brooke, 'Natural theology and the plurality of worlds: observations on the Brewster-Whewell debate', Annals of Science, 1977, 34: 221-286. 19 Harold J. Abrahams, 'Priestley answers the proponents of abiogenesis', Ambix, 1964, 12: 44-71. 20 John H. Brooke, 'Richard Owen, William Whewell and the Vestiges ', Brit. J. Hist. Sci., 1977, 10: 132-145. 21 Priestley to B. Lynde Oliver, 3 April 1800, in Robert E. Schofield, A scientific autobiography of Joseph Priestley (1733-1804), Cambridge Mass. and London, M.I.T. Press, 1966, pp. 303-304. 22 William Whewell, 'A few words on the Edinburgh Review article on the plurality of worlds', October 1855, bound with reviews of Whewell's Essay on the plurality of worlds, Whewell papers Trinity College Cambridge. 23 Priestley to Sir Joseph Banks, 10 December 1771, in Schofield, op.cit., note 21 above, p.98. 24 Maurice Crosland, 'Priestley Memorial Lecture: a practical perspective on Joseph Priestley as a pneumatic chemist', Brit. J. Hist. Sci., 1983, 16: 223-238, p.226. 25 Whewell to Sir Roderick Murchison, 18 September 1840, in Isaac Todhunter (ed.), William Whewell, D.D.. An account of his writings with selections from his literary and scientific correspondence, London Macmillan, 1876, vol. 2, pp.286-287. 26 John G. McEvoy, 'Electricity, knowledge, and the nature of progress in Priestley's thought', Brit. ]. Hist. Sci., 1979,12:1-30, pp. 13 and 17. 27 Priestley to Caleb Rotherham, 31 May 1774, in Schofield, op.cit., note 21 above, p.146. On 'facts' in Priestley's thought, see Schaffer, this volume. 28 Schofield, ibid., p.78. 29 William Whewell, On the philosophy of discovery, London, 1860, p. 186; Richard Yeo, 'Scientific method and the rhetoric of sci ence in Britain, 1831-1917', in Yeo (co-ed.), The politics and rhetoric of scientific method: historical studies, Reidel, forthcoming. 30 William Whewell, History of the Inductive Sciences, London, Parker, 3rd. edn., 1857, vol.3, p.119. 31 William Whewell, The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, Lon don, Parker, 2nd. edn., 1847, vol.1, pp.360-361; 370-371. On Priestley on the randomness of scientific discovery see Fitzpatrick, this volume. 32 Whewell to Rev. W. Vernon Harcourt, 1 September 1831, in Todhunter, op. cit., note 25 above, vol. 2, p.129; Roy MacLeod, 'On the advancement of science', in Roy MacLeod and Peter Collins (eds.), The parliament of science, NorthwoodMiddx., Sci ence Reviews Ltd., 1981, p.22. 33 Quoted by Schofield, op. cit., note 21 above, p.77. 34 Quoted by McEvoy, op. cit., note 26 above, p.76. 35 Sheldon Rothblatt, Tradition and change in English liberal educa tion, London, Faber and Faber, 1976, pp. 161-162. 36 Ibid., p.164. 37 Quoted by McEvoy, op. cit., note 26 above, p.6.