[meteorite-list] Weston meteorite fall 1807 .... Silliman andWoodhouse, RIVALRY or BAD SCIENCE????

Tue Feb 22 18:39:00 EST 2011

Hi Shawn,

I suppose Cathryn Prince could have written whatever she wanted to on my 
blog, but what she wrote is what is there.

What amazes me is how what started out as an academic discussion between two 
people off list has been blown to such proportions by you because you feel 
you can't handle the discussion one on one with me.  So you decide to bring 
it out to the list.  Fine for me - increases traffic on the blog.

So again, I'll stand by what is written in my blog.

Oh, and do tell me when you have read Prince's book - I believe when we 
spoke last night you hadn't read it yet.  Perhaps you should.

Last I'm going to say on the matter.  For eveyone else, my position is 
clearly stated on my blog.

Now off to the movies for me!

Mark

Er, Shawn, when you emailed Prince, did you tell her you hadn't read her 
book yet?   :-)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Shawn Alan" <photophlow at yahoo.com>
To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Cc: <markig at westnet.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 6:28 PM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Weston meteorite fall 1807 .... Silliman 
andWoodhouse, RIVALRY or BAD SCIENCE????

Hello Mark Listers,

My I add that I contact Prince and this is what she had to say about the 
matter of your review and Silliman and Woodhouse.....

Hi Shawn,
I'm so happy you introduced yourself.
Well, I do feel that ..................... missed the point of my book, 
which is, as you seem to understand, a book that examines Silliman's role in 
the meteorite and shaping American science as a discipline.
I feel the rivalry between Woodhouse and Silliman has its roots in a few 
things. One, Woodhouse, the teacher had difficulty in a student surpassing 
him. You will see that Silliman, on the contrary, celebrated those students 
who excelled and moved the field forward.
As for others whose work came before Silliman: I address that point as well 
in the book. I discussed the role of others, such as Chladni, Kant, who 
examined certain theories. In fact, I make no bones about telling the reader 
that Silliman studied these works and studied the accounts of past meteorite 
falls. All that helped him shape his theory, and he did give those men and 
their work credit.
I think Woodhouse served his purpose initially as far as Silliman was 
concerned, but Woodhouse seemed to 'smell' a good story and through his 
exchanges with Bronson and Silliman, one does get the sense that he wanted 
'in' on this historic fall.

On a side note, I am quite taken with the degree of interest in past falls 
and the meteorites themselves. It is really a whole new world I discovered 
while working on this book!

I look forward to hearing from you soon,
Cathryn

   Now you see Mark, my original post was of Silliman and Woodhouses 
rivalry and had nothing to do with you till you interjected and said look at 
my scholarly discussion about Princes book review. Now after reviewing your 
"scholarly discussion I find it odd how you down play Sillimans role with 
the Weston meteorite fall and up play Woodhouse role, lack thereof. However, 
you fail to mention how other scholars felt Woodhouses work to be loose and 
no to be trusted with the Weston meteroite fall. You also fail to mention 
when, where, and the date that Woodhouse supposable published an analysis 
and still fail to provide that information of an exacted date; only a link 
to your website that cites other people, but no first hand accounts, which I 
have provided with Sillimans role with the Weston meteroite. And lastly 
this is what I said about the rivalry between Silliman and Woodhouse....

Over the course of a few days I had done some research on the Weston 
meteorite fall and read up on Silliman's role and it could be summed up to 
these few quotes....

"His scientific work, which was extensive, began with the examination in 
1807 of the meteor that fell near Weston, Conn. He procured fragments, of 
which he made a chemical analysis, and he wrote the earliest and best 
authenticated account' of the fall of a meteor in America."

Cited from:  APPLETONS' CYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN BIOGRAPHY
VOL V. PICKERING-SUMTER 1888

Source
http://books.google.com/books?id=K6koAAAAYAAJ&dq=weston%20meteorite%201807%20woodhouse&pg=PA528#v=onepage&q&f=false

"SILLIMAN, Benjamin, scientist, was born in North Stratford, Conn., Aug. 8, 
1779 : son of Gold Selleck Silliman (q.v.) and Mary Fish (Noyes) Silliman. 
He was graduated at Yale, A.B., 1796, A.M., 1799.... In 1805, he went abroad 
to study a year at Edinburgh and to buy books and apparatus. On his return, 
he studied the geology of New Haven, and in 1807 he examined the meteor that 
fell near Weston, Conn., making a chemical analysis of fragments, this 
report being the first scientific account of any American meteor."

Cited from: THE TWENTIETH CENTURY BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF NOTABLE 
AMERICANS I904

And lastly, a quote taken from James Woodhouse biography written by Edgar 
Fahs Smith stating Silliman's account of the Weston meteorite fall to 
be......

"An elaborate account of this meteor has been published by Messrs. Silliman 
and Kingsley, of Yale College, Connecticut."

Source
http://books.google.com/books?id=4JMEAAAAYAAJ&dq=weston%20meteorite%201807%20woodhouse&pg=PA274#v=onepage&q&f=false

   But what caught my interest was the dynamic roles that played with 
Silliman and Woodhouse and that some believed Woodhouse role with the Weston 
meteorite fall to be "loose and not depended on". Take a look at the link 
below and start at the top of the page. From what I can gather, Silliman and 
Woodhouse seemed to have a rivalry and few scholars felt the same way about 
Woodhouse work with the Weston meteorite being bad science.

Source
http://books.google.com/books?id=BUsLAAAAIAAJ&lpg=PA285&dq=Philadelphia%20Medical%20Museum%2C%205%2C%202%20(1808)%20woodhouse&pg=PA285#v=onepage&q=Philadelphia%20Medical%20Museum,%205,%202%20(1808)%20woodhouse&f=false

   Now from my understanding Silliman and Kingsley arrived in Weston 
December 21 1807, a week after the Weston meteorite fall. During those few 
days Silliman and Kingsley interviewed witnesses and acquired fragments from 
various sites in Weston. Here is an excerpt from a letter detailing their 
accounts in Weston....

"Yale College, December 26, 1807.

Messrs. Steele, & Co.,

As imperfect and erroneous accounts of the late phenomenon at Weston are 
finding their way into the public prints, we take the 1U berty of enclosing 
for your paper the result of an investigation into the circumstances and 
evidence of the event referred to, which we have made on the ground where it 
happened. That we may not interrupt our narration by repeating the 
observation wherever it is applicable, we may remark, once for all, that we 
visited and carefully examined every spot where the stones had been 
ascertained to have fallen, and several places where they had beeu only 
suspected, without any discovery; that we obtained specimens of every stone; 
conversed with all the principal original witnesses ; spent several days in 
the investigation, and were, at the time, the only persons who had explored 
the whole ground.

We are, gentlemen, your obedient servants,

BENJAMIN SILLIMAN.
JAMES L. KINGSLEY.

Cited from: THE AMERICAN REGISTER OR GENERAL REPOSITORY OF
HISTORY, POLITICS, AND SCIENCE. PART II FOR 1807.

Source
http://books.google.com/books?id=SlrQAAAAMAAJ&dq=weston%20meteorite%201807%20woodhouse&pg=PA267#v=onepage&q&f=false

   After Sillimans and Kingsley return from Weston, on December 29, 1807 
Silliman and Kingsley sent a preliminary description of the fall phenomena 
and the stones to The Connecticut Herald, in New Haven, making the report 
one of the first published report on the Weston meteorite fall.( Marvin B47 
2007, The origins of modern meteorite research) A day later, December 30, 
1807 Dr Benjamin Rush handed over some specimens from the Weston meteorite 
to James Woodhouse for analysis.

Cited from:
http://books.google.com/books?id=SlrQAAAAMAAJ&dq=weston%20meteorite%201807%20woodhouse&pg=PA267#v=onepage&q&f=false

   And now this is where the dilemma lays with Silliman and Woodhouse and 
the rivalry between the two could have started. Stated earlier, in January 
1808 Silliman's manuscript accounts the analysis of the Weston fall and at 
that time Woodhouse's analysis had been unpublished and to some felt his 
work to be unsound and loose.

"On 1808 March 4, the memoir by Silliman and Kingsley
was read to the American Philosophical Society and assigned
to referees Woodhouse, Hare, and Cloud, who were so
favorably impressed that they recommended publication in
the forthcoming volume of the society’s Transactions
(Marvin 1979), which, however, would not appear until the
following year. Meanwhile, their work became widely known
in Europe when Silliman submitted their paper to various
European editors with high hopes of reaching a readership
knowledgeable about meteorites and their chemistry. His
hopes were quickly fulfilled. During 1808, excerpts or
abstracts appeared in several well-known European journals,
including the Philosophical Magazine, Bibliothèque
Britannique, Annalen der Physik, Journal de Physique, de
Chemie, et d’Histoire Naturelle, and Journal des Mines. A
copy was read to the Royal Society in London, and a
newspaper article on it had been translated into French and
read to the National Institute in Paris before a rapt audience
including Fourcroy, Vauquelin, Berthollet, Laplace,
Lagrange, and Biot (Brown 1989:236). All of this attention
served not only to raise Silliman, who was at the very
beginning of his career, into the ranks of internationally
known scientists, but also to elevate the status of Yale
University and, indeed, of American science, itself—even
before the publication of the memoir in the Transactions of
the American Philosophical Society in 1809."

(Marvin B47 2007, The origins of modern meteorite research)

   Now is the rivalry between Silliman and Woodhouse on who published the 
analysis first or is it seeded deeper between the two individauls on the 
greatest meteorite fall in American HISTORY? One can conclude that Silliman 
and Kingsley went to Weston. Stilliman's preliminary description of the 
meteorite fall was published on December 29th 1807. In March 1808 Silliman 
and Kingsley read their memoir of the Weston meteorite fall and analysis in 
front of the American Philosophical Society and to further their analysis 
and research had numerous excerpts and abstractions published in Europe in 
1808. In addition, many sources had concluded that "Silliman's scientific 
work, which was extensive, began with the examination in 1807 of the meteor 
that fell near Weston, Conn. He procured fragments, of which he made a 
chemical analysis, and he wrote the earliest and best authenticated account' 
of the fall of a meteor in America."

   As for Woodhouse is concerned, his reputation as a chemist and 
mineralogist was not high and to some, seen as being loose and not being 
dependable with analysis of stones. Now does the rivalry lay in the lack of 
evidence that one might present in an argument of why Woodhouse deserves 
accreditation or is the rivalry a mere conflict between student/teacher, a 
dilemma that presented its self at the time of meteoritic science was at the 
for front in America, the race for notoriety of the first American to have a 
well-documented account with the first American meteorite fall, THE WESTON 
meteorite.

Thank you
Shawn Alan
IMCA 1633
eBaystore
http://shop.ebay.com/photophlow/m.html

[meteorite-list] Weston meteorite fall 1807 .... Silliman andWoodhouse, 
RIVALRY or BAD SCIENCE????
Shawn Alan photophlow at yahoo.com
Tue Feb 22 17:36:32 EST 2011

Previous message: [meteorite-list] Open Court
Next message: [meteorite-list] Weston meteorite fall 1807 .... Silliman 
andWoodhouse, RIVALRY or BAD SCIENCE????
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Mark and Listers,

Mark I did take a look at your review and your stance on Silliman's work on 
the Weston meteorite to say the least is summed up by these statements " 
Silliman’s face must be red with embarrassment....Silliman’s accomplishments 
in capturing the imagination of the public versus the quality of his 
scientific work on the fragments, which was professional but certainly not 
exceptional"

You go further by saying that Woodhouse on the other hand didn’t receive 
enough credit with the Weston meteorite fall. But I find it odd that these 
two gentlemen had a rivalry. At one point Woodhouse's work on analysis of 
meteorite stones could be summed up to be "loose and not to be depended on" 
quoted from the Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, which in 
March 1808 Silliman and Kingsley read a memoir to the American Philosophical 
Society about the Weston meteorite fall.

Source
http://books.google.com/books?id=BUsLAAAAIAAJ&lpg=PA285&dq=Philadelphia%20Medical%20Museum%2C%205%2C%202%20(1808)%20woodhouse&pg=PA285#v=onepage&q=Philadelphia%20Medical%20Museum,%205,%202%20(1808)%20woodhouse&f=false

You have suggested that Woodhouse's role could be deemed just as important 
as Sillimans and that Prince did not express that in her work. But my 
question is why do you feel that Woodhouses role was just as important if 
not even more? I see that the first publication of any account of the Weston 
meteorite fall was done on December 29, 1807 by Silliman and Kingsley sent a 
preliminary description of the fall phenomena and the stones to The 
Connecticut Herald, in New Haven, making the report one of the first 
published report on the Weston meteorite fall.( Marvin B47 2007, The origins 
of modern meteorite research) A few days later a letter written by Bronson a 
merchant describe his observation and was published January 2, 1808 in The 
New York Spector.

As for publications go Silliman was one of the first to do so and not to 
mention his first-hand accounts in the field as opposed to Woodhouse lack of 
engagement in the field, and second hand sources. You say that Woodhouse 
published his analysis of the Weston meteorite; may I ask what the date was 
when he published his findings and where?

In January 1808 Silliman's manuscript accounts the analysis of the Weston 
fall and at that time Woodhouse's analysis had been unpublished and to some 
felt his work to be unsound and loose. In March 1808 Silliman and Kingsley 
read their memoir of the Weston meteorite fall and analysis in front of the 
American Philosophical Society and to further their analysis and research 
had numerous excerpts and abstractions published in Europe in 1808.

Now I find this statement from your review to be odd which you state....

"Silliman’s Weston study owes a great debt to the chemical work of Edward 
Howard and other analysts, such as Vauquelin, Fourcroy (1755-1809) and 
Klaproth, as well as to scientist Jean Baptiste Biot (1774-1862), who 
interviewed scores of eyewitnesses to the 1803 L’Aigle meteorite shower and 
documented their reports"

But what is interesting is you failed to express that Sillimans and Kingsley 
excerpts and abstractions from the Weston meteorite fall were read to the 
Royal Society in London in 1808, and a
newspaper article on it had been translated into French and
read to the National Institute in Paris before a rapt audience
including Fourcroy, Vauquelin, Berthollet, Laplace,
Lagrange, and Biot (Brown 1989:236) (Marvin B47 2007, The origins of modern 
meteorite research)

Its interesting how this comes full circle and how student learners from 
instructor and instructor learns from student. I feel that the placement of 
Sillimans role in American meteoritic science science can be summed up to 
this....

"His scientific work, which was extensive, began with the examination in 
1807 of the meteor that fell near Weston, Conn. He procured fragments, of 
which he made a chemical analysis, and he wrote the earliest and best 
authenticated account' of the fall of a meteor in America."

Cited from: APPLETONS' CYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN BIOGRAPHY
VOL V. PICKERING-SUMTER 1888

On the other hand Mark, Woodhouses role is concerned, his reputation as a 
chemist and mineralogist was not high and to some, seen as being loose and 
not being dependable with analysis of stones. Now does the rivalry lay in 
the lack of evidence that one might present in an argument of why Woodhouse 
deserves accreditation or is the rivalry a mere conflict between 
student/teacher, a dilemma that presented its self at the time of meteoritic 
science was at the for front in America, the race for notoriety of the first 
American to have a well-documented account with the first American meteorite 
fall, THE WESTON meteorite. I feel that Silliman's role was one of the best 
first hand accounts of a meteroite fall/analysis in America and Woodhouse 
falling short and seen as loose in his work and not to be depended on.

Thank you
Shawn Alan
IMCA 1633
eBaystore
http://shop.ebay.com/photophlow/m.html

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Shawn Alan" <photophlow at yahoo.com>
To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 12:48 PM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Weston meteorite fall 1807 .... Silliman
andWoodhouse, RIVALRY or BAD SCIENCE????