Kekulé and Frankland: A Psychological Puzzle?

Le résumé fourni par la source

Historians of science have habitually, and rightly, concentrated much attention on communication between scientists, whether through correspondence, by published papers in established journals, or by personal contact in the context of scientific of other institutions. Comparatively little attention has hitherto been paid, at least in a systematic way, to the inverse problem, that of scientific non-communication . Only where scientific progress has been obviously impeded by isolationism has much interest been shown in the phenomenon. A classic case is that of Berzelius, unable to make contact with English chemists during the Napoleonic Wars for political as well as linguistic reasons, and at a later stage isolated from his contemporaries by virtue of his rigid and unpopular doctrines ( 1 ). In the case of Kekulé there was one contemporary whose apparent failure to make or maintain any kind of contact is a major historical mystery. This was the English chemist [Sir] Edward Frankland [1825–1899]( 2 ) whose interests so overlapped with those of Kekulé that their failure to communicate raises several important questions not only about the individuals concerned [or rather not concerned] but also about the intellectual and social structures of the 19th century chemistry. One observer who knew both men well, H. E. Armstrong, went so far to comment: Kekulé was in London in 1854 and consorted with Williamson, who like himself was under the enthralling influence of Gerhardt. Had he consorted with Frankland, a man infinitely in advance of himself and most other chemists as a worker, his attitude would not have been so independent. I have not been able to discover that Kekulé made the least attempt to exchange views with Frankland, having joined another camp. We are in face of a psychological puzzle ( 3 ).

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.