Phases of physics in J.D. Forbes' Dissertation Sixth for the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1856)

TL;DR

This paper examines J.D. Forbes' 1856 encyclopedic entry to understand the historical, social, and practical development of physics as a discipline during a pivotal period in the 19th century.

Contribution

It analyzes Forbes' perspective on physics' evolution, social role, and the shift from traditional natural philosophy to a modern scientific discipline.

Findings

Forbes viewed physics as a social enterprise driven by great men and intellectual spirit.

He advocated for including mechanical arts and limiting mathematics in physics.

The paper highlights tensions between discovery-based historiography and moral worth in physics.

Abstract

This paper takes James David Forbes' Encyclopaedia Britannica entry, Dissertation Sixth, as a lens to examine physics as a cognitive, practical, and social, enterprise. Forbes wrote this survey of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century mathematical and physical sciences, in 1852-6, when British "physics" was at a pivotal point in its history, situated between a discipline identified by its mathematical methods - originating in France - and one identified by its university laboratory institutions. Contemporary encyclopaedias provided a nexus for publishers, the book trade, readers, and men of science, in the formation of physics as a field. Forbes was both a witness, whose account of the progress of physics or natural philosophy can be explored at face value, and an agent, who exploited the opportunity offered by the Encyclopaedia Britannica in the mid nineteenth-century to enrol the broadly educated public, and scientific collective, illuminating the connection between the definition of physics and its forms of social practice. Forbes used the terms "physics" and "natural philosophy" interchangeably. He portrayed the field as progressed by the natural genius of great men, who curated the discipline within an associational culture that engendered true intellectual spirit. Although this societal mechanism was becoming ineffective, Forbes did not see university institutions as the way forward. Instead, running counter to his friend William Whewell, he advocated inclusion of the mechanical arts (engineering), and a strictly limited role for mathematics. He revealed tensions when the widely accepted discovery-based historiography conflicted with intellectual and moral worth, reflecting a nineteenth-century concern with spirit that cuts across twentieth-century questions about discipline and field.