1986 sarton medal citation
TRANSCRIPT
1986 Sarton Medal CitationAuthor(s): William ColemanSource: Isis, Vol. 78, No. 2 (Jun., 1987), pp. 239-241Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/231525 .
Accessed: 08/05/2014 20:42
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Isis.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 20:42:58 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NEWS OF THE PROFESSION-ISIS, 78: 2: 292 (1987) NEWS OF THE PROFESSION-ISIS, 78: 2: 292 (1987)
University in Jerusalem for her article "Matrix Theory before Schrodinger: Phi- losophy, Problems, Consequences" (Isis, 1983, 74:469-491). Praising Beller's article for its meticulous scholarship, Timothy Lenoir remarked that Beller had con- structed an impressive re-evaluation of the accepted view of the development of the new quantum mechanics of the 1920s:
"According to that standard scenario quantum mechanics was first developed in the form of 'matrix mechanics' by Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, Pascual Jordan and Wolfgang Pauli in 1925. An alternative ver- sion, known as 'wave mechanics' was pub- lished a few months later by Erwin Schro- dinger. Although Schrodinger and Pauli soon demonstrated the two theories to be equivalent, the radical difference in their fundamental concepts and mathematical formalisms raised the problem of physical interpretation. Schrodinger attempted to give his theory a classical continuous wave interpretation, but the physical interpreta- tion that prevailed was based on the "inde- terminism" of Heisenberg, Born, and Neils Bohr.
"Beller argues that this account is a ret- rospective reading constructed by the 'win- ners' and that it obscures the significant transformation that took place in some of the fundamental concepts of the matrix theory during the several months between its original formulation by Heisenberg and the equivalence proof of the Gottingen Co- penhagen approach.
"Certainly every historian and philoso- pher of science concerned with these ques- tions will either have to accept Beller's substantial reinterpretation or rebut it with convincing evidence."
William E. Newman of Harvard Univer- sity was the winner of the 1986 Schuman
University in Jerusalem for her article "Matrix Theory before Schrodinger: Phi- losophy, Problems, Consequences" (Isis, 1983, 74:469-491). Praising Beller's article for its meticulous scholarship, Timothy Lenoir remarked that Beller had con- structed an impressive re-evaluation of the accepted view of the development of the new quantum mechanics of the 1920s:
"According to that standard scenario quantum mechanics was first developed in the form of 'matrix mechanics' by Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, Pascual Jordan and Wolfgang Pauli in 1925. An alternative ver- sion, known as 'wave mechanics' was pub- lished a few months later by Erwin Schro- dinger. Although Schrodinger and Pauli soon demonstrated the two theories to be equivalent, the radical difference in their fundamental concepts and mathematical formalisms raised the problem of physical interpretation. Schrodinger attempted to give his theory a classical continuous wave interpretation, but the physical interpreta- tion that prevailed was based on the "inde- terminism" of Heisenberg, Born, and Neils Bohr.
"Beller argues that this account is a ret- rospective reading constructed by the 'win- ners' and that it obscures the significant transformation that took place in some of the fundamental concepts of the matrix theory during the several months between its original formulation by Heisenberg and the equivalence proof of the Gottingen Co- penhagen approach.
"Certainly every historian and philoso- pher of science concerned with these ques- tions will either have to accept Beller's substantial reinterpretation or rebut it with convincing evidence."
William E. Newman of Harvard Univer- sity was the winner of the 1986 Schuman
Prize for his paper "The Defense of Tech- nology: Alchemical Debate in the Late Middle Ages." Of the winning essay Shir- ley Roe, the 1986 Chair of the Schuman Prize Committee, noted:
"In his thorough and insightful examina- tion of the literary remains of thirteen-cen- tury alchemy, William Newman has dis- cerned a pattern of arguments defending 'the doctrine that art can equal or outdo the products of nature, and that man can even change the order of the natural world by altering the species of those products.' Newman claims that these alchemical writ- ings contain a clearly articulated philoso- phy of nature, in which human technology is raised to a level of appreciation difficult to find in other writings until the Renais- sance. The study is based on a considerable body of texts, many of which lie unpub- lished in European manuscript collections. Throughout, the handling of the texts and their interpretation bears witness to a se- cure and sophisticated control of the many tools required by medieval intellectual his- tory.
"The Committee found this paper admi- rable for its elegant use of original sources, for its carefully stated objectives and thesis, and for its historiographical sensitiv- ity. William Newman's paper represents a high level of student work in the history of science, of which both he and the Society can be proud."
By action of the Council, the 1987 prize competition will contain, in addition to the above awards, a new prize for a book on the History of Women in Science. The award carries a $500 stipend.
FREDERICK GREGORY FOR THE COMMITTEE ON
HONORS AND PRIZES
Prize for his paper "The Defense of Tech- nology: Alchemical Debate in the Late Middle Ages." Of the winning essay Shir- ley Roe, the 1986 Chair of the Schuman Prize Committee, noted:
"In his thorough and insightful examina- tion of the literary remains of thirteen-cen- tury alchemy, William Newman has dis- cerned a pattern of arguments defending 'the doctrine that art can equal or outdo the products of nature, and that man can even change the order of the natural world by altering the species of those products.' Newman claims that these alchemical writ- ings contain a clearly articulated philoso- phy of nature, in which human technology is raised to a level of appreciation difficult to find in other writings until the Renais- sance. The study is based on a considerable body of texts, many of which lie unpub- lished in European manuscript collections. Throughout, the handling of the texts and their interpretation bears witness to a se- cure and sophisticated control of the many tools required by medieval intellectual his- tory.
"The Committee found this paper admi- rable for its elegant use of original sources, for its carefully stated objectives and thesis, and for its historiographical sensitiv- ity. William Newman's paper represents a high level of student work in the history of science, of which both he and the Society can be proud."
By action of the Council, the 1987 prize competition will contain, in addition to the above awards, a new prize for a book on the History of Women in Science. The award carries a $500 stipend.
FREDERICK GREGORY FOR THE COMMITTEE ON
HONORS AND PRIZES
1986 SARTON MEDAL CITATION 1986 SARTON MEDAL CITATION
The Sarton Medal is given in recognition of sustained and innovative contributions to the history of science. This medal is our Society's highest award and over the years has served to mark our recognition of the accomplishments of scholars from many nations and in a wide variety of fields. It is with great pleasure that we present the Sar- ton Medal in 1986 to Ernst Mayr of Har- vard University.
Ernst Mayr belongs to a distinguished
The Sarton Medal is given in recognition of sustained and innovative contributions to the history of science. This medal is our Society's highest award and over the years has served to mark our recognition of the accomplishments of scholars from many nations and in a wide variety of fields. It is with great pleasure that we present the Sar- ton Medal in 1986 to Ernst Mayr of Har- vard University.
Ernst Mayr belongs to a distinguished
subset of Sarton Medalists, namely, active scientists who have pursued a second ca- reer and thereby helped create the world of history of science. He joins the earlier Sar- ton Medalists John F. Fulton, J. R. Par- tington and Joseph Needham in this group; this year's medalist is a welcome sign of the continuing interest of the scientist in our work.
Ernst Mayr is a native of southern Ger- many. He studied first at the University of
subset of Sarton Medalists, namely, active scientists who have pursued a second ca- reer and thereby helped create the world of history of science. He joins the earlier Sar- ton Medalists John F. Fulton, J. R. Par- tington and Joseph Needham in this group; this year's medalist is a welcome sign of the continuing interest of the scientist in our work.
Ernst Mayr is a native of southern Ger- many. He studied first at the University of
239 239
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 20:42:58 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NEWS OF THE PROFESSION-ISIS, 78: 2: 292 (1987)
Greifswald-good bird country, he later re- called- and then took his doctorate in zo- ology at Berlin. Here he studied with Erwin Stresemann, Germany's foremost student of birds and himself an accomplished histo- rian of science. The career of one of our century's foremost ornithologists and evo- lutionists had begun. Soon Ernst Mayr was in the field, working in New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. Then, in 1931, he went to the American Museum of Natural History, there to remain until his appointment as Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard in 1953. Ernst Mayr has also spent a scientist's lifetime associated with great museums: after study in Berlin and curator- ial work in New York, he served as Direc- tor of Harvard's Museum of Comparative Zoology from 1961 to 1970.
Between 1930 and 1955, Ernst Mayr's in- terests focused on the problems of the geo- graphical distribution and speciation of ani- mals. A taxonomist and an evolutionist, he played a major role in articulating the popu- lationist view of the biological species and in reaffirming and analyzing the Darwin- ian interpretation of evolutionary change. Ernst Mayr's name stands with those of his fellow zoologists G. G. Simpson, E. B. Ford, S. S. Chetverikov and Theodosius Dobzhanski and of the geneticists R. A. Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and Sewall Wright, in the creation of the celebrated evolutionary "modern synthesis," a syn- thesis which, while open to development, criticism and emendation, restored in dra- matic manner the role of small variations and natural selection in our understanding of evolutionary change, and which, from its announcement in the late 1930s, has re- mained a central theme in biological re- search and discussion.
But, beginning in the 1950s, as his great work, Animal Species and Evolution, was taking form, Ernst Mayr began a second course of study, that of the history of evo- lutionary thought and of related areas of bi- ology. His evolutionary studies had always been informed by a mastery of earlier sci- entific literature, and it was evidently a tempting and obvious step to attend more systematically to what had long been a sub- merged theme in his biological publica- tions.
From a remarkable essay on the syste- matist Karl Jordan, published in 1955, to the magisterial The Growth of Biological Thought, issued in 1982, Ernst Mayr's re- gard has moved across the entire face of
natural history and zoology. Ernst Mayr has no hidden agenda: he writes history not only with vigor and enviable clarity but with a well-defined and very evident pur- pose. His perspective is a double one: how particular individuals or groups of investi- gators have dealt with the phenomena fac- ing them, and how our awareness of their work can enrich our understanding of past and, particularly, present evolutionary theories, of which there have been and re- main many.
Ernst Mayr has insisted that the historian of science pay due attention to the specific problems that define scientific activity in any given period. This has meant that his research and writing have, of course, at- tended to the theoretical structures of his protagonists. But even more it has meant that the empirical evidence upon which those theories were erected, and the con- temporary scientific status of the issues to be assayed, must be subjected to close in- vestigation. Ernst Mayr's historical work, like his contributions to biology, has thus maintained close connection with the phenomena. Especially is this true in his several splendid studies of the history of animal classification, a domain where theoretical presuppositions abound but are rarely overt and where domination of a massive and startlingly diverse fund of in- formation is indispensable.
Historians of science and the general public know Ernst Mayr best through two major books, Evolution and the Diversity of Life, a collection of essays, historical, phil- osophical and biological, published in 1976, and The Growth of Biological Thought. The latter is a bold exercise in the history of ideas. Drawing upon his own experience as an evolutionary biologist, Ernst Mayr has written a history of what is, in biology, ulti- mate causation, that is, the processes of evolutionary change. He reaches widely, reads the primary texts in a fresh manner and, above all, provides an integral view of the interaction of the several biological dis- ciplines that would, in time, contribute sig- nificantly to the modern synthesis. Ernst Mayr has due respect for genetics, includ- ing population genetics, but he is insistent that the historical roles of systematics, bio- geography and general zoology be thor- oughly appreciated and their part in twen- tieth-century developments be understood. The Growth of Biological Thought is thus no mere narrative account: it is a sustained and powerful argument founded upon as-
240
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 20:42:58 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NEWS OF THE PROFESSION-ISIS, 78: 2: 292 (1987) NEWS OF THE PROFESSION-ISIS, 78: 2: 292 (1987)
siduous historical inquiry and enlivened throughout by the far-reaching biological knowledge of its author.
Ernst Mayr's influence in the history of science extends well beyond his written contributions. Beginning in the middle 1950s and continuing until his retirement, he was an active associate of Harvard's Committee on the History of Science and Learning, later Department of the History of Science, and in this position trained nu- merous future historians of biology. Others outside his university have also profited greatly from his assistance and constant support. Ernst Mayr, too, was a founder and, in its early years, coeditor of the Jour- nal of the History of Biology. His hand and his views have made a decisive mark on virtually all that has been written on the history of evolutionary biology over the past quarter century. Those who have worked with Ernst Mayr, no less than those who have engaged him in public dis- cussion, know well that he expresses his views with utmost incisiveness and that he does not retreat from delivering necessary if unwelcome news or hesitate to point out shortcomings in argument or exposition. But how wrong the casual observer would be to confuse Ernst Mayr's natural enthusi-
siduous historical inquiry and enlivened throughout by the far-reaching biological knowledge of its author.
Ernst Mayr's influence in the history of science extends well beyond his written contributions. Beginning in the middle 1950s and continuing until his retirement, he was an active associate of Harvard's Committee on the History of Science and Learning, later Department of the History of Science, and in this position trained nu- merous future historians of biology. Others outside his university have also profited greatly from his assistance and constant support. Ernst Mayr, too, was a founder and, in its early years, coeditor of the Jour- nal of the History of Biology. His hand and his views have made a decisive mark on virtually all that has been written on the history of evolutionary biology over the past quarter century. Those who have worked with Ernst Mayr, no less than those who have engaged him in public dis- cussion, know well that he expresses his views with utmost incisiveness and that he does not retreat from delivering necessary if unwelcome news or hesitate to point out shortcomings in argument or exposition. But how wrong the casual observer would be to confuse Ernst Mayr's natural enthusi-
asm and forthrightness with intolerance. Two generations of historians of biology have discovered that his spirited involve- ment signifies a commitment to a deeper understanding rather than to self-assertion: no teacher has ever read a dissertation or manuscript more thoroughly or with greater dispatch, no scholar has given greater guid- ance and suggestion through argumenta- tion.
All of this, as noted, is the fruit of a sec- ond career. We in the History of Science Society are pleased this evening to wel- come Ernst among us. We recognize on this occasion his original contribution to our scholarly endeavor, his leadership among his students and his associates and, perhaps most important of all, his enthusi- asm for his work and the inspiration that this has given all who have worked with him or received his ever-generous encour- agement. Both on a personal level, Ernst- as a former student and long-time friend, a happy circumstance that I share with many others in this audience-and on behalf of our Society at large, it is my great pleasure to present you with the Sarton Medal for 1986.
WILLIAM COLEMAN
asm and forthrightness with intolerance. Two generations of historians of biology have discovered that his spirited involve- ment signifies a commitment to a deeper understanding rather than to self-assertion: no teacher has ever read a dissertation or manuscript more thoroughly or with greater dispatch, no scholar has given greater guid- ance and suggestion through argumenta- tion.
All of this, as noted, is the fruit of a sec- ond career. We in the History of Science Society are pleased this evening to wel- come Ernst among us. We recognize on this occasion his original contribution to our scholarly endeavor, his leadership among his students and his associates and, perhaps most important of all, his enthusi- asm for his work and the inspiration that this has given all who have worked with him or received his ever-generous encour- agement. Both on a personal level, Ernst- as a former student and long-time friend, a happy circumstance that I share with many others in this audience-and on behalf of our Society at large, it is my great pleasure to present you with the Sarton Medal for 1986.
WILLIAM COLEMAN
DONORS TO AND SUPPORTERS OF THE FUND DRIVE DONORS TO AND SUPPORTERS OF THE FUND DRIVE
As the History of Science Society moves to the end of its first major Fund Drive, we can report a gratifying response to Dr. Bern Dibner's generous second Challenge Grant, announced in November 1986. Contribu- tions to the Endowment Fund received over the years 1987-1989 will be matched from the Dibner Challenge Grant.
Listed below are the Major Donors, Life Members, and Foundations and Corpora- tion Donors from the start of the Fund Drive in 1983. Major Donors have contrib- uted $2,000 or more. Life Members have contributed $1,000 or more.
As the History of Science Society moves to the end of its first major Fund Drive, we can report a gratifying response to Dr. Bern Dibner's generous second Challenge Grant, announced in November 1986. Contribu- tions to the Endowment Fund received over the years 1987-1989 will be matched from the Dibner Challenge Grant.
Listed below are the Major Donors, Life Members, and Foundations and Corpora- tion Donors from the start of the Fund Drive in 1983. Major Donors have contrib- uted $2,000 or more. Life Members have contributed $1,000 or more.
Also listed are those Sustaining Members and Other Donors who contributed to the Fund Drive for all of 1986 and through 30 April 1987. Earlier lists of donors in these categories may be found in Isis, 1984, 75:358; 1985, 76:219-221; and 1986, 77:308- 309. Sustaining Members have contributed $100 or more.
The History of Science Society extends its thanks to all those who are helping to make the Fund Drive a success and have thereby provided much-needed financial security for our growing organization.
Also listed are those Sustaining Members and Other Donors who contributed to the Fund Drive for all of 1986 and through 30 April 1987. Earlier lists of donors in these categories may be found in Isis, 1984, 75:358; 1985, 76:219-221; and 1986, 77:308- 309. Sustaining Members have contributed $100 or more.
The History of Science Society extends its thanks to all those who are helping to make the Fund Drive a success and have thereby provided much-needed financial security for our growing organization.
Major Donors Michele Aldrich Leo L. Beranek Landon Clay Miles and Audrey Davis Bern Dibner J. Robert Douglas Sidney M. Edelstein William T. Golden
Major Donors Michele Aldrich Leo L. Beranek Landon Clay Miles and Audrey Davis Bern Dibner J. Robert Douglas Sidney M. Edelstein William T. Golden
Joseph H. Hazen Gerald Holton Thomas S. Kuhn Morton Pepper David Rockefeller Charles Scribner, Jr. Lynn White, jr., and
Maude White
Joseph H. Hazen Gerald Holton Thomas S. Kuhn Morton Pepper David Rockefeller Charles Scribner, Jr. Lynn White, jr., and
Maude White
Eugene P. Wigner Robert R. Wilson Jacob and Josephine
Ver Brugge Zeitlin Anonymous
Honorary Life Member May Sarton
Eugene P. Wigner Robert R. Wilson Jacob and Josephine
Ver Brugge Zeitlin Anonymous
Honorary Life Member May Sarton
241 241
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 20:42:58 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions