From Phenomenology to Field Theory: Faradays Visual Reasoning

David C. Gooding

University of Bath, U. K.

Faraday is often described as an experimentalist, but his work is a dialectical interplay of concrete objects, visual images, abstract, theoretically-informed visual models and metaphysical precepts. From phenomena described in terms of patterns formed by lines of force he created a general explanation of space-lling systems of force which obey both empirical laws and principles of conservation and economy. I argue that Faradays articulation of situated experience via visual models into a theory capable of verbal expression owed much to his strategy of movingvia conjectural visual modelsbetween the phenomenology of particulars (often displayed as patterns) and the general features of dynamical phenomena which he depicted as structures. Everyday human reasoning combines visual, auditory and other sensory experience with non-sensory information and of course, with verbal and symbolic modes of expression. Scientic reasoning is no different. Scientists use a variety of images that visualize phenomena, visual representations of theories about phenomena and models that display structure and connectivity. Such objects always combine visual and non-visual elements because scientic work requires representations that are hybrid (that combine verbal or symbolic expressions with visual and other sensory modalities) and plastic, enabling the meaning of an image, word or symbol to be negotiated and xed (Gooding 2004a, 2004b). A diagrammatic rendering of a photograph of a fossil, X-ray, fMRI scan or bubble chamber track moves the eye and the mind from a barely interpreted visual source to a meaningful construct. This move is motivated by the desire to underThis work has been supported by grants from the Royal Society, London and by a Leverhulme Research Fellowship. I thank Frank James and Ryan Tweney for many stimulating discussions, and staff of the Royal Institution and the Institution of Electrical Engineers for help with archive material and apparatus.
Perspectives on Science 2006, vol. 14, no. 1 2006 by The Massachusetts Institute of Technology 40

Perspectives on Science

41

stand and communicate understanding. It is informed by expert (often tacit) knowledge about indicative features that need to be preserved or highlighted in the diagram abstracted from the source. Labelled dataplots, block diagrams and process models use labels, legends, index numbers and other annotations to integrate different kinds of knowledge. In the nal stages of model-based theorising complex structural models are reduced to diagrammatic abstractions that include just those features essential to a theoretical explanation. For example, Watson and Cricks rst published diagram of DNA is a schematic abstraction of their more complex structural DNA model (Watson and Crick 1953). Recent work in psychology and science studies shows that these features of representations remain as important to industrial-scale, technology-based science as they were to the more personal, bench-top science of Faradays time (Galison 1997, Goodwin 1995, Gorman 1997, Henderson 1999, Hutchins 1995). Most philosophical discussion selects just one element of this activitystatements about facts, entities, laws and formulaeas if these verbalized, public forms of expression are the only generators and carriers of meaning. The advantage of verbal formulations is that they can conform to semantic or logical rules, but a preoccupation with syntactical features of representation means that we still lack an understanding of how visual thinking works in conjunction with language-based reasoning (Giere 1999, p. 119). A further limitation of standard views is due to the assumption that science is a search for regularities, preferably expressed as laws that relate measurable quantities. This quantitative-empirical model of science prioritizes concepts, theories, experiments and explanations in which causes are only allowed to act singly, and effects can only be observed in one dimension at a time (Ziman 1968, p. 47). Experiments that demonstrate a regularity or isolate a dependent variable do have an important epistemic role. But new knowledge is rarely produced by methods as linear or one-dimensional as this model assumes. As the physicist John Ziman points out: A photograph, a tape-recording, an electronic device, can react to many causes simultaneously, and yet record the consequences as a complex pattern, accurately and reproducibly. It thus permits us to entertain theories and explanations whose workings and consequences cannot be represented by symbols placed in order on the page (1968, p. 48.). This is why scientists design surrogate sensors that can present information in a formusually visualthat lends itself to human interpretation. This aspect of science draws on two features of human cognition neglected by traditional theories of science. The rst is our ability to recog-

42

From Phenomenology to Field Theory

nize regularities as visual or auditory patternsnot just as Humean conjunctions of events. Most representations of facts are static, momentary glimpses into a complex and dynamic world of change. To focus on descriptions and ignore their role in the search for process is to miss much of what science is about. The second is our ability to integrate different kinds of sensory information into a single representationnot just consider one variable at a time. These abilities underlie the use of patterns and the construction of phenomenal and explanatory models (Gregory 1981, Ball 1999). The search for objects and laws is motivated by the search for a general, intellectual understanding of processes that produce our sensory experience. Visualizationmaking and manipulating imagesis central to this intellectual objective in most areas of science. Images convey directly features of experience that humans are biologically disposed to recognize as patterns (Clark 1997, Giere 2003). Regular arrangement or symmetry may appear to direct inspection, but be inherent in the images. Scientists rarely just look at patterns. They infer the existence of more complex regularities and causal mechanisms. Scientists manipulate what they are looking at to induce changes that generate new information about hidden structures and processes. In this way science extends knowledge by playing to human cognitive strengths and limitations, as well as by using cultural resources, social conventions and techno-scientic systems. For example, W. L. Bragg manipulated the geometry of his X-ray diffraction setup to deform patterns, generating new insights about how to solve the problem of crystal structure (Bragg 1913, Gooding 2004a). To integrate cognitive processes into the emerging view of techno-science as networks of culturally situated practices we need to locate visualization in the context of other sensory practices without which it is blind. Faradays work is particularly relevant to this problem. Creative thinking involves a dialectical play of mental representations and material artefacts. The latter are not simply externalised representations of the former, they are as essential a part of the world in which Faraday thought and worked as a partially crafted lump of stone is to a sculptor. This endorses an early insight of Herbert Simon, that much of the interesting complexity of the inner environment of human thought and behaviour is located not within the mind, but in the environment that we transform in order to understand (Simon 1969, pp. 15759). The feature of Faradays many discoveries most important to philosophy and psychology is the fact that he recorded them in such detail and over a long period of time. Alongside his many discussions in letters, these record his many transformations of images and objects. They are a valuable source of information about how new knowledge was envisioned and verbalized by an embodied, tech-

Perspectives on Science

43

nically sophisticated, socially networked investigator. They provide glimpses of the close interplay of the senses (sight, hearing and proprioception), the hands, imagination, systematic and critical reasoning and also at times the institutions and politics of science. The need for ne-grained accounts of the interplay of mental images, material artefacts and procedural knowledge is further highlighted by a recent critique of the semantic conception of theories. This recognizes the importance of non-verbal, procedural and material aspects of scientic practice argued in many sociological and historical studies (Galison and Stump 1996, Pickering, ed. 1992). The working content of scientic knowledge consists not of universal truths but rather in the sets of modelling practices and methods of approximation that scientists use to relate general and abstract theoretical claims to real observational situations (Baird 2004, de Chadarevian and Hopwood 2004, Morgan and Morrison 1999). These are always particular and concrete. The more abstract and general the statement of a theory, the less it actually applies to the world as engaged by practicable methods of observation and measurement. The converse is also true: a low level representation of the phenomenology of a domain can achieve representational adequacy or a good t to data, but it lacks generality. There is always a trade-off between abstraction and generality, on the one hand, and the concrete achievement of empirical adequacy, on the other (Gooding 2003). So how is local knowledge generalized? Sociologists and historians of science argue that it is made transferable via human expertise and technological implementation (Latour 1987) and is made communicable via abstractions such as the models which mediate between theories and the phenomenal world and material embodiments of discoveries (Gooding, Pinch and Schaffer 1989, Pickering 1992). Scientic knowledge resides as much in material techniques and technologies as it does in intellectual understanding (Baird 2004, Ihde 1991). Analysis of work such as Faradays also helps clarify the notion of science as distributed cognition (Giere and Moffat 2003). Since the mid 20thC most science has been conducted by teams and networks of practitioners. Established knowledge is viewed as a distributed property of networks of humans, institutions, machines, representation systems, etc. However, one of sciences most distinctive features is that established views embodied in its practices and institutions can nevertheless be challenged and replaced. While established knowledge is readily explained as a distributed property of networks, the production of new knowledge cannot be assimilated entirely to what is known by a distributed system. This model requires a way of explaining those innovations that challenge the assumptions and empirical methods of a scientic tradition (Kuhn 1962, p. 142) by changing the representational conventions, procedures

44

From Phenomenology to Field Theory

and technical standards that sustain these methods (Galison 1997, Rasmussen 1997). These arguments underline several connected reasons for Faradays importance. First, Faradays records provide a rich, closely observed record of the knowledge-producing activity that managed the tension between abstraction (in his aspiration for a general, synthetic theory of forces) and the practicalities of obtaining robust empirical results in experimental terrain that often lacked precursors or guides. Thus he prefaced the rst edition of his rst book with Trevouxs slogan Cest nest pas assez de savoir le principes, il faut savoir MANIPULER (Faraday 1827).1 Second, Faraday produced a powerful, general new approach to understanding electricity, magnetism and other powers of matter using visual methods that Maxwell later described as mathematics of a very high order (Maxwell 1890, vol. 2, p. 360). These visual aspects of Faradays work offer insights into an important feature of scientic thinking. His visual reasoning strategies are typical of those used by many scientists before and since (Gooding 2004a, 2005), making his records a valuable source of information about the wider cognitive function of visual imagination and of external representations such as sketches, diagrams, physical models, simulations and experiments. Third, the survival of many of his instruments has made it possible to trace, depict and even quantify aspects of the intertwined processes of theoretical articulation and technological implementation (Gooding 1990a, 1990b). It is often possible to trace the development of his apparatus from exploratory, error-probing prototypes into reliable, visually compelling demonstrations (Gooding 1985, 1990a). Reconstruction of experiments can also recover un-recorded practicalities of using certain materials and instruments and knowledge that is implicit in procedures (Tweney (2004), Tweney (this volume), Tweney and Gooding (1991). When viewed through these means of accessing it Faradays work recapitulates a central point of C. S. Peirces semiotics, in which the world is a dynamical object invoked by science through mediating objects which are manifested as signs (Gooding 1990b, pp. 17788).2 The detail of Faradays records allows us to investigate mental processes in relation to the
1. The published researches develop this agenda by describing the practical details of his experiments so as to disseminate the procedures that generate new knowledge. 2. Cartwright and others have abandoned the semantic distinction between theories (as representations) and the world (as what is represented) in favor of models as mediating representations. Cartwright argues that theories are true not of real phenomena but only of the models abstracted from them (Cartwright 1999a, p. 241242 ; 1999b, p. 34). Since many pragmatic decisions are involved, the epistemic value of a theory cannot be determined in isolation either from its use in the laboratory or in communicating and evaluating results (De Regt 2004).

Perspectives on Science

45

actions and objects that engender them and which they are about. His work provides many examples of the art of eliciting, manipulating and interpreting complex phenomena in the search for simple explanations that unied different sensory domains. This work produced representations, artefacts and procedures whose cognitive (generative) and social (communicative and critical) functions combine to produce knowledge that can be networked. New empirical evidence emerges from the interaction of visual, tactile, kinaesthetic and auditory modes of perception together with existing interpretative concepts that integrate different types of knowledge and experience. Mental models that develop purely in the minds eye (without physically engaging the world) would lack this power to integrate (Tallis 2004). Visualisation works with other senses and capacities and with deliberative experimental manipulation to produce a phenomenology of interpretative images, objects and utterances.3 Thus we can identify some of the cognitive strategies that Faraday is using over a long span of nearly four decades. Rather than chronicle a particular discovery (for examples see: James 1985, Gooding 1990a, Steinle 2002 and Tweney (this issue) I will show how his use of visual representations identies some local- and long-term strategies. This account will locate one of Faradays most famous images the lines of magnetic force, Figure 1by showing how they express relationships between manipulated objects, sensory experience and knowledge gained from different phenomenal domains.
Modeling Phenomenology

When investigating electrical and magnetic phenomena Faraday could have adopted the established method based on forces that act in straight lines between bodies that have electrical, magnetic, gravitational or other properties. This approach was taken by Ampre, Biot, Savart and others schooled in the Newton-Laplace tradition and by some of Faradays English contemporaries (Caneva 1980; Steinle 2003). Ampre argued that the true phenomenon or fait primitif is determined jointly by physical assumptions and the requirements of mathematical analysis. Nearly all his electromagnetic experiments were designed to establish and quantify laws of interaction, not to analyse phenomena. By contrast Faraday embraced phenomenal complexity as a source of information about processes. So he explored the phenomenological possibilities afforded by experiment in minute detail. He developed instruments and techniques to tame, dissect

3. I call these experiential hypotheses construals (Gooding 1990b, chapters 13), Magnani describes them as manipulative abductions (Magnani 2001, pp 5359).

46

From Phenomenology to Field Theory

Figure 1. A. Patterns formed by magnetism in iron filings, engraving made for an encyclopaedia article by John Barlow (Barlow 1824, plate 7 figs. 68-69). B. Faradays earliest published image of magnetic lines around a cylinder magnet (1832). Note the attempt to render this in three dimensions (from Faraday 183855, vol. 1, plate I, fig 25).

and order aspects of phenomena that Ampre and others rejected as too complex to handle with the existing mathematical methods. Faradays methods of generating and investigating patterns show that to him, a pattern can indicate either an arrested process, a structure that is being transformed by some process or the structuring effects of a process. He analysed motile phenomena by methods that slowed or xed the underlying process, so as to expose patterns. He then modelled these as consequences of processes that can be held in abeyance. Conversely, where a static pattern could be seen or made visible by manipulation, he devised methods to explore the phenomenology of its motile form. In this way Faraday devised procedures that could maximize the capacities of ordinary modes of perception and also transcend their limitations. As Tweney puts it, Faraday placed a relatively slow acting perceptual system, the eye, in a position to see what might be (and turned out in fact to be) fast acting events. (Tweney 1992, p. 164). Faraday was just as concerned to show how and why unaided perception can be deceived. This shows that the goals of his experiments were complex, motivated by larger concerns, ambitions and values (Cantor, Gooding and James 1996). Aware that human expectations regularly and easily mislead perception Faradays visual method was designed not to copy apparent features of the world, but to analyse and replicate them.4 Consider the way that Faraday deprived aquatic rotifers of their wheels. When seen through the regular
4. This goal remained constant from the early concern with optical illusions in his 1831 paper to the argument of his 1855 essay on mental education, that since expectations

Perspectives on Science

47

Figure 2. Optical illusions. A. Leeuwenhoeks aquatic animalculae. Each apparently bears two rotors (Leeuwenhoek 1705, figs. 1, 5). B. Faradays simulation, designed to produce and transform patterns. C. Sample patterns reproduced by the simulator (Faraday 1831a, plate III).

vertical bars of an iron fence, carriage wheels display a variety of patterns which often take the form of elegant curves. Though static, these curves are clearly produced by rapid motion. Developing methods used by Roget (1825) and by Wheatstone (1823) Faraday created many versions of these phenomenon to determine the conditions in which they appear to the eye. He then devised a physical simulation that could reproduce the phenomena (Figure 2B). This device made it possible to vary continuously the relative frequency of the occlusion of slits in one rotating disc by those in another, anticipating the cinematic technology that has made such phenomena commonplace. He was able to simulate every feature of the various phenomena, concluding that the appearance of both static and moving patterns is a side-effect of a previously unrecognized parameter: the frequency at which constituent, overlapping parts of two lamented surfaces intersect (Figure 3A), Faraday 1831a). He then applied this method of analysis to a long-standing problem. In 1705 Leeuwenhoek, the great pioneer of microscopy, had described the movement of the appendages of microscopic aquatic rotifers as a wheel-like rotation (Leeuwenhoek 1705, see Figure 2A). For over a century Leeuwenhoeks anomaoften mislead perception, scientic methods require a disciplined application of judgement (Faraday 1855, pp. 465469).

48

From Phenomenology to Field Theory

Figure 3. Application of the simulation to the rotifer phenomenon. A. Simulation based analysis (top) of a stable pattern (bottom) produced by the relative motion of rotors. B. Faradays proposed structure for the rotifer ciliae. C. Faradays re-drawing of a rotifer, showing rings of fixed ciliae (Faraday 1831a, plate III).

lous image of rotating wheels had been tolerated for lack of a biologically plausible explanation. Faradays pattern-simulator explained the phenomenon, removing the need for the anatomically implausible rotating propellor.5 His argument consists of a thought experiment informed by the earlier simulation ndings. In it he imagines a physical analogue model of the arrangement, xing and elasticity of the ciliae of the rotifer, shown in Figure 3B. Together with the known illusion reproduced by the simulator this explains the phenomenon without requiring any powers beyond those which are within the understood laws of Nature, and known to exist in the animal structure (1831a, p. 309). There are no wheels, and his own drawing (Figure 3C) shows xed ciliae rather than a rotating structure implied by Leeuwenhoeks. The image of motile patterns produced by the simulator provided the crucial link between phenomenon and explanation. The method of analysing phenomena by simulation is a variation on techniques he had used earlier with Humphry Davy. Like Leeuwenhoeks rotifers, electrical and magnetic effects are mixed in a way that the eye simply cannot see. Davy and Faradays method of accumulation combined temporally discrete images into a single geometrical structure and conversely, it could assemble spatially distributed effects into a single image. They devised experimental methods that integrate discrete experimental eventsor more preciselythat integrate the images that depict
5. Biologists now believe that about half of known bacteria have at least one rotating agellum, a means of locomotion driven by a protein-based induction motor.

Perspectives on Science

49

Figure 4. Analysing complex phenomena. A. An excerpt from Faradays notes of his May 1821 electric arc experiment with Davy. This is a typical illustration of the integration of sketches from different viewpoints, symbols and verbal description in Faradays laboratory notes. The bell jar is drawn at left. The luminous current is shown in section above the two horseshoe magnets. Arrows indicate the action exerted when the polarity of the current is reversed (Courtesy of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, Faraday MS). B. Magnetised needles used in 1821 to explore the magnetism of a constant current (from Gooding 1990b, p. 49). C. Part of the phenomenology of electromagnetism: demonstration device based on needles arranged to capture the pattern of magnetism of electricity discharged through the wire (from Faraday 1821-22, fig. 11).

discrete events. For example, they passed a current through a vacuum to produce a luminous glow discharge. In May 1821 they observed the distributed and lamented character of this electric arc, showing that it possessed magnetic properties (see Figure 4A). Faradays notes show that he attempted to describe the relationship between the orientation and direction of the current and its magnetic effects (Figure 4B). In order to x a magnetic image of the current, Davy and Faraday discharged a current through a cardboard disc on which they arranged steel needles (Gooding 1990b, pp. 4658). This displayed the magnetising effects of the current as a pattern (Figure 4C), analogous to the arrangement of iron lings near a bar magnet (as in Figure 1), but on a much larger scale (Faraday 1821a). The disc displays an ephemeral structure as a xed pattern. By September of 1821 Faraday had shown how this structure yields a process. He explored the motive properties of the magnetic eld of a constant current, showing in a series of increasingly abstract images (Figure 5A) that these properties can be arranged to produce motion in a circle around the wire (see Figure 5B). He then designed a device to produce continuous mechanical effect from electricity and magnetism (Figure 6A, Faraday 1821b). The new process was shown by an apparatus that exploited a

50

From Phenomenology to Field Theory

Figure 5. A. Faradays sketches recording how he moved from discrete observations with needles and currents (top two rows) to images that integrates his observations of the needles tendencies to motion near a wire (next two rows) to the circle heuristic (bottom image). Each row of images accumulates information contained in those above it. B. The circle heuristic applied to possible designs; from Faradays Diary (Martin 1932-36), vol. 1, pp. 49-50.

Figure 6. A. Sketch of a possible electromagnetic rotation device. Faradays first sketch of the design of the prototype rotation motor. The letters c and z denote contacts to the copper and zinc plates of the battery. From Faradays Diary (Martin 1932-36), p. 50. B. A compact demonstration version Faraday mailed to a number of European scientists in 1821. To us this is a protean electric motor; to Faraday it was a kinaesthetic demonstration of the phenomenon Faraday wanted to disseminate. From Faraday 1838-55, vol. 2, plate IV, fig. 5.

Perspectives on Science

51

Figure 7. A. Powdered material transferring from a fixed surface (top) to a surface made to vibrate by the application of a bow at X, from Faraday 1831b, p. 320. B. Sketch of the air currents created by vibrations of the plane, which he made visible using smoke. The currents act on particles to produce patterns. From Faradays Diary (Martin 1932-36), vol. 1, p. 331, para. 45. C. Patterns whose form (see top Fig. 6) is affected when vertical blocks are introduced (indicated as the dark line left of centre in the middle figure (Fig. 7) and at top right in Fig. 8. From Faraday 1831b, p.321.

structural property of the magnetic eld of a currentthe rst electric motor (Figure 6B, Faraday 1821c). In 1831 Faraday investigated the phenomenon of acoustical Figures (or Chliadni patterns). These form in granular material distributed over a glass or metal plate which is made to vibrate, e.g. by a violin bow (Faraday 1831b, Tweney 1992, Ippolito and Tweney 1995). Patterns form at resonance nodes and are characteristic of particular frequencies. The size of the particles and the density of the ambient medium also affect the patterns. Faraday doubted that these distinctive patterns are produced by direct action of the vibrating surface on the particles (as Felix Savart had argued), suspecting instead that they are caused by the vibration imparted to the ambient medium in which the particles become suspended (Faraday 1831b, p. 318). He made the behaviour of this medium visible by using much ner powders. To test Savarts hypothesis of direct mechanical ac-

52

From Phenomenology to Field Theory

tion he placed powdered silica on a xed, solid surface (see Figure 7A). He found that it migrates onto an adjacent vibrating plate as if in the midst of all the agitation of the air in the neighbourhood of the two edges, there was still a current towards the centre of vibration, even from bodies not themselves vibrating (ibid., p. 320). Having dismissed the alternative explanation his experiments were [g]uided by the idea of what ought to happen, supposing the cause now assigned were the true one (ibid., p. 319). These experiments were also guided by the need to determine empirically the effect of varying each parameter of a sophisticated process model that relates frequency and amplitude of vibration, density of the ambient medium, and particle size. As with many of his investigations Faraday arrived at this model by imaging the process from different viewpoints (see Figure 7B and note similar changes of viewpoint in Figures 4A and 5A). The model relates patterns and variations in patterns to the interaction of the acoustical vibrations of the plate, the induced vibration of the medium and its interaction with the particles. He then tested his air-current model (Figure 7B) by inventing ways of obstructing the formation of air currents. These experiments showed that obstructing the currents alters the form of nodal lines produced on an elongated plate (see Figure 7C). This use of instruments to manipulate invisible, high-frequency processes shaped Faradays experimental approach to electromagnetism when he returned to it in 1831. There too he construed patterns elicited by experimental manipulations as spatio-temporal snapshots of complex, high-frequency processes.
Structural Models that Integrate Pattern and Process

These three examples display the same underlying visual logic. Faraday inferred from patterns the processes that produce them, by modelling or simulating the structures by which they are arranged. This pattern of inference could start from different phenomena. Given patterns, he created a structure used to analyse and simulate the process that produces the patterns (Figures 2B, 3A). Given a pattern produced directly by a force (e.g. magnetism, in Figures 1 and 4C), a pattern whose direct cause was in dispute (Figure 7), or a pattern elicited by analysis of a process (electromagnetism, Figures 4B, 5A) he produced a new structural model that reproduced or simulated a process (Figure 3C, Figure 6B). In some cases it is evident that patterns involve process (Figures 2A, 4A, 7A). The result is a process-explanation of a known phenomenon (often a pattern), or a new phenomenon-producing device (Figures 2B, 6B). With suitable manipulation and analysis via apparatus he could show sometimes that what is seen is misleading as to its cause (Figures 2A and 3C) or has an unambiguous

Perspectives on Science

53

Figure 8. Dynamical model of the interaction of electricity, magnetism and motion, March 1832. A. This image integrates felt (proprioceptive) experiences of how magnets and currents interact with visual observation of the behaviour of iron filing patterns. B. Faradays memo explaining how to animate the diagram (from Faradays Diary (Martin 1932-36), vol. 1, p. 425).

explanation (Figure 7A). The simulation explanation (Figure 2B), the demonstration device (Figure 6B) and experiments (such as Figure 7C) show more than the eye could ever see. They produce images that visualize features of phenomena. This visual logic has a second feature already noted in connection with his explanation of acoustical patterns (Figure 7B). To work out structures Faraday sketched phenomena both from the side (e.g. in Figure 4A, to indicate lamentation and conduction in the electric brush) and as viewed from above (to indicate the forces acting between current and magnet). These views feature different aspects of a phenomenon. He had used this method of rendering a phenomenon from different points of view to establish the geometry of electromagnetism that led to the rst electric motor (Figures 5A, 5B, 6A). This method of observation involves integrating sensory information from vision with the kinaesthetic feel of currentmagnet interactions. Hearing was also an important source for understanding the acoustical patterns and the electric brush (see below). Faradays method integrates sensory information into a few simple but powerful images. This has four related aspects: integrating many observations into a few images (as in Figure 5A), envisaging or making observations from different viewpoints (Figures 4A, 5A, 7A-B), combining observations made in different sensory modalities and by different methods (Figure 2B, 4) and fourth, to reach a unied theory, integrating the infor-

54

From Phenomenology to Field Theory

mation-bearing images into a single visuo-temporal model which can explain most of the phenomena. Two examples of theorising with visualizations of phenomena reveal the development of his electromagnetic theory. The rst is a 3-D process model of March 1832, sketched in Figure 8. On paper the 1832 sketch looks like a 3-D structural model such as Faradays well known image of lines of magnetic force (Figure 1). However when animated by his verbal instructions (see Figure 8) this image becomes a visual theory that integrates and generalises what he had learned from many experiments about the interactions of electricity, magnetism and motion. This image represents experiential knowledge obtained through the modalities of sight, touch and proprioception yet it is more abstract and general than the better-known visualization of lines of force (Figure 1). By 1832 the image of a bundle of lines had come to represent both the magnetic lines and the physical independence of a system of lines from a magnet or the circuit in which current is induced. Faraday demonstrated this independence in an experiment designed via a thought experiment in which he imagined the system of magnetic lines to rotate around a cylinder magnet (Martin 193236, vol. 1, pp. 402404). He soon realized this thought experiment by making a cylinder magnet rotate within a conducting circuit of which it formed a part, producing the new phenomenon of unipolar induction (Faraday 1832b). The second example is an image of interlocking rings. This generalizes from his visual models of electromagnetism and from experiments specically designed to operationalise models (Figure 11a, see Gooding 1990b). The image (Figure 11b) enables expression of the law that the sum of power contained in any one section of a given portion of [magnetic] lines is exactly equal to the sum of power in any other section of the same lines . . . (Faraday 1851a, reproduced in Faraday 183855, vol. 3, p. 329, para. 3073). He expressed this quantitative law visually in June 1852. In all these discoveries setups and procedures support visual inferences by producing and organizing phenomena into phenomenological models. These models are complexes of material things, active manipulation, effects and visualized interpretations of the outcomes. They generated new phenomena which Faraday inspected for features which in turn offer clues about process. As visual hypotheses they showed the dynamical or process equivalent of the static structure implied by images of ling patterns (Figure 1), electromagnetic interactions (Figure 5A) and retrospectively, the manipulation of objects, forces and images in May 1821 (Figure 4A) and September 1821 (Figure 5A). As I show below, they also support the analogical transfer of learned properties of phenomena from one domain to another.

Perspectives on Science

55

Figure 9. The lines in the right-hand image denote surfaces of equal electrostatic induction (equipotential surfaces) near a copper boiler. This 2-D pattern accumulates in a single image many discrete observations (denoted by dots, left) made in the space around the boiler, from Faradays Diary (Martin 1932-36), vol. 2, pages 412-14.
Visual Analogical Models

Analogical conjectures may be expressed by new images which guide exploration of structures hidden from ordinary vision. An example is the explanation of several interconnected phenomena observed in the electric arc experiment of May 1821 (see Figure 4A). Where Davy construed the lamentation as indicating a structure for conduction Faraday went further. This feature suggested a relationship between electricity, magnetism and motive action, as indicated by the arrows in Faradays sketches in Figure 4A. By March of 1832, following his discovery of electromagnetic induction, he expressed this as the unifying model shown in Figure 8b. This denes the relationship between the four variables he had shown to be involved in electromagnetic induction: magnetism (e.g. of an iron bar), electro-magnetism (of a current), magnetically induced current, and motive effects. It provides the basis for his explanation of the rotating effect of a magnet on the electric arc (1821) and the dragging effect of a nonmagnetic conducting disc (discovered by Arago in 1825). Another example is Faradays application in 183536 of another aspect of this phenomenon to the analysis of electrical discharge. Here visualization assists the analogical transfer of ideas between what others still regarded as distinct phenomenal domains. Faraday attempted to reproduce in the electric brush the same structuring or striation rst seen in the luminous electric arc observed with Davy in May 1821. The work with strobes in 183031 to analyse patterns and movement enabled him to approach electrical phenomena in the same way. In 1836 Faraday mapped the structure of electrostatic potential around large conductors. Recording and plotting many discrete observations made with an electroscope (these are the dots in Fig-

56

From Phenomenology to Field Theory

ure 9) he built up a picture of lines of equal potential. These at images (Figure 9) represent a structured set of phenomena produced by exploration of a 3-D electried space. Like so many scientists before and since, Faraday construed the 2-D patterns as sections through a 3-D structure. Again, like every other scientist Faraday was not satised with the static image. The structure is electrostatically charged so it must have the potential to produce a current and, therefore, magnetism as well. He analysed luminous discharge in air, using process-freezing strobe devices to produce the images in Figure 10 (Faraday 1831a, Wheatstone 1834). These show how variations in parameters such as conductivity, electric intensity, density of the medium and the positioning of terminals produce distinct, repeatable variations in the form and distribution of electric lines (Figure 10). Just as important was the fact that these variations correlate to changes in the pitch of an electric brush: pitch rises or falls as conductivity increases or decreases. Changing frequency indicated the vibration of a medium, suggesting a possible application of the same model Faraday had developed to explain acoustical patterns such as those in Figure 7. It also hinted at a way of dealing with the paradox that electricity appears both as discontinuous (as static charge on discrete bodies and the electrochemical combining force of atoms and molecules) and as continuous current.6 The dynamic patterns imaged in Figure 10 extend to electrostatics the same dynamical geometry Faraday had already worked out for acoustical patterns (Figure 7), electromagnetic motions (Figures 5 and 6) and for electromagnetic induction (Figure 8). Much later, encouraged by William Thomsons campaign of displaying imprints of iron ling patterns at the British Association (Gooding 1990b, pp. 25152), he adopted the same demonstrative approach with these patterns (see Figure 12).
Images that Integrate

An important feature of creative processes is the ability to maintain several lines of inquiry and transfer ideas and methods between them (Gruber and Davis 1988). In many cases the transfer involves analogies achieved in several ways and at different levels of abstraction. The most concrete and intuitive would be direct recognition of a similarity at the perceptual level. This would rely on fast cognitive processing that is closely coupled to evolved neural structures. At a more abstract, conceptual level are similarities whose signicance derives from being features implied by a model that links different phenomenal domains. Images of lines making struc6. Since discovering the effect of freezing on the conductivity of an electrolyte in 1833, Faraday had been perplexed by the need to understand this transition, via the conditions that can be varied to make a continuous transition between static and current electricity.

Perspectives on Science

57

Figure 10. Making electric lines visible. A. Sketch of Faradays mental image of static tension prior to luminous electric discharge, from Faradays Diary (Martin 1932-36), vol. 2, paras. 3435-3436. B. an engraving of the variable form of the electric brush as viewed via a stroboscope, from Faraday 1838-55, vol.2, plate X, figures 119-121.

Figure 11. An instrumental definition of a quantitative relationship between electricity and magnetism (left) and its visual statement (right). A. Apparatus of 1851 designed to measure the quantity of electricity induced by a conducting loop (labelled L) that cuts a defined quantity of magnetic lines as the crank is turned (from Faraday 1851a, reproduced in Faraday 1838-55, vol. 3, p. 333). Faraday wanted to establish that the sum of power contained in any one section of a given portion of [magnetic] lines is exactly equal to the sum of power in any other section of the same lines . . . (from Faraday 1851a, reproduced in Faraday 183855, vol. 3, p. 329, para 3073). B. This quantitative law of electromagnetic induction is expressed visually in June 1852. This image integrates and quantifies most of the phenomenal properties of electricity and magnetism known to Faraday. It construes forces as fluxes (quantities of action measured across a unit area or section). A change in the area of one circle (magnetic flux) implies a contrary and equal change in the area of the other (electromotive force); from Faraday 1852, reproduced in Faraday 1838-1855, vol. 3, p. 418, para. 3265 and plate IV.

58

From Phenomenology to Field Theory

tures that are involved in processes enabled Faraday to compare features of the phenomena he observed and to make analogies at the highest level of generality that his skills of material and mental manipulation could support. Examples include his recognition of the signicance of relationships between the behaviour of electric laments (Figures 4A and 10B), electrostatic lines (Figures 9 and 10A) and magnetic lines (Figures 1 and 12). The sketch of March 1832 (see Figure 8) expressed what Faraday had learned by active manipulation of magnets and currents. Its nal, most articulate and general statement appeared in June 1852 (Figure 11B, Faraday 1852). This animated image of the interactions of electricity, magnetism and motion captures the ndings of prolonged and systematic experiments to establish a quantitative relationship between the sectional density of magnetic lines, the rate of cutting of lines by a conductor, and the quantity of electricity produced. Faraday established this using the apparatus in Figure 11A. Like his sketch of 1832, it is a unifying visual statement that generalizes over the larger set of phenomena that it brings together (Faraday 1851a, 1851b). This visual-verbal formulation (Figure 11B) formed a starting point for Thomson and Maxwells mathematical theory of the eld (Wise 1979). The image expresses the relationship between electric and magnetic action as vector quantities by construing them as uxes (quantities of action measured across an area; Faraday 1852, pp. 41719). At a similar level of abstraction is his recognition of the signicance of changes in the appearance of high frequency processes such as the rotifer phenomenon (Figure 2A) and acoustical patterns (Figure 7) with changes such as frequency and the density of the ambient medium (e.g. pitch of the sound made by the electric brush, Figure 10B). The ability to see the signicance of similarities that are perceived directly and with different senses depended on reasoning with and about visual-verbal models of inferred processes, guided by experimental trials.
Visualization as Situated Cognition

Faraday accomplished this process of theorizing as much through his manipulation of images as by the many words that he wrote. We can now see Faradays well known magnetic lines (Figures 1 and 12) not only as depicting phenomena but also as generative elements of the experiential knowledge that produced them. The examples discussed here show that, far from working in isolation from other modes of perception or from other persons as sources of experience, visualization integrates different types of knowledge and experience. Much of the cognitive power of images resides in this integrative capability, which is central to inference in many sciences. It follows that the use of any particular image cannot be

Perspectives on Science

59

Figure 12. Iron filing patterns made by ferro-magnets (figure 12A), diamagnets (figure 12B, left) and paramagnets (figure 12B, right). These images are produced by laying a sheet coated with gum or shellac over the iron filings. This fixes the pattern and makes it transportable. It is then reproduced by an engraver. From Faraday 1851b, reproduced in Faraday 1838-55, vol. 3, plate III.

understood independently of the way it is generated from and used with other images. Verbalization is but one part of this context. We have seen that many of Faradays sketches are far more than depictions of observations, they are tools for reasoning with and about phenomena. Visualized phenomena are attempts to image complex 3-D phenomena which cannot be seen directly, are produced by active manipulation and sometimes by a simulation model or other imaging technique. Thus, many of his sketches represent something that is dynamic and emergent. This is because he is trying to visualize a set of changing relationships. The sketches are early manifestations of a process of establishing an epistemic basis in shared experience and for communication about that experience. The more familiar, depictive role of a set of images or their verbal counterparts is developed during many days or weeks work. Some images are more abstract and general than others, standing for an accumulation of perceptual, practical and theoretical knowledge.7 The meaning and function of an image varies, depending upon how it is used in relation to others that represent earlier and later work. Some of his images represent particulars such as the details of an experimental apparatus or the structure of a process while others state generalizations about phenomena, often observed through more than one sensory mode. Use of an image in one context implies a particular cognitive mechanism is at work while the same image in another context may imply that a different underlying cognitive process has been invoked. For example, Faradays initial sketches of
7. On sketches as short-hand for accumulated experiential knowledge see Gorman 1992, pp. 21317.

60

From Phenomenology to Field Theory

magnet-needle interactions (Figures 4A and 5A) owe more to embodied perceptual interaction with objects and forces and less to rational deliberation about physical meaning than the electromagnetic disk (Figure 4C) which is used both evidentially and to enable others to interpret the phenomenon. Function also varies for images that are entirely in the social domain of published representations. The magnetization patterns (Figure 12) and intensity plots (Figure 9) were at rst a cognitive resource for interpretation and modelling. These were crafted into an epistemic resource that could provide pictorial evidence for the visual theory constructed from them, and aid intellectual comprehension of it. We have seen that Faradays constructive method involved moving from 2-D patterns to 3-D structures which could then be animated either as thought-experiments in time or as material, bench-top simulations of the invisible processes. Images of lines making up structures involved in processes also enabled Faraday to compare and make analogies between features of phenomena in different domains. These multiple functions are essential to the process of discovery which requires many moves between what makes sense and what can be demonstrated, both for innovators and their audiences.
Visual Reasoning

The received view of scientic inference is that it is accomplished in language capable of preserving consistency, both in the use of signs and in relationships between propositions. Does this mean that Faradays visual and material manipulations were not really reasoning, or that what these produced was not knowledge? On the contrary, while successful science does require a stable linguistic formulation, creative research cannot be conducted solely with well-formed linguistic representations.8 There are nonvisual ways of forging an isomorphism of words, images or symbols to what they denote, but images are particularly conducive to the essential, dialectical movement between the creative stages of discovery and the deliberative, rational stages in which rules and evaluative criteria are introduced to x meanings and turn images from interpretations into evidence. Visual perception is an established metaphor for intellectual understanding (Kemp 2000). Faradays work allows us to show in some detail why this should be. The co-evolution of his powerful physical concepts and his experimental procedures shows him creating a cognitive landscape in which, by getting things to work experimentally and locally, aspects of the world are made accessible to the senses and subsequently to verbal ex8. Word-pictures emerge alongside drawn images in the development of Faradays magnetic eld theory between 1845 and 1852, (Gooding 1981).

Perspectives on Science

61

pression, generalization and intellectual understanding. Similar examples of the dialectical play of phenomenology, mental imagery, models and theories can be found throughout the sciences (see Ball 1999, Ziman 2000).9 Far from being mere illustrations of reasoning that had been accomplished verbally, Faradays sketches and engravings are integral to his process of investigation. He did not rst produce new knowledge and then verbalize or image it. Words and images emerged in a context which they jointly helped to generate. Faradays sensual images express his theoretical aspirations and intentions just as much as the many words that he wrote.
References

Baigrie, B. ed., 1996. Picturing Knowledge: Historical and Philosophical Problems Concerning the Use of Art in Science. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Baird, D. 2004. Thing Knowledge: A Philosophy of Scientic Instruments. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Ball, P., 1999. The self-made tapestry: Pattern Formation in Nature. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. Bragg, W. L., 1913. The Diffraction of short electromagnetic Waves by a Crystal. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc., 17: 4357. Caneva, K. L. 1980. Ampere, the Etherians and the Oersted connexion, British Journal for the History of Science, 13: 12138. Cantor, G., Gooding, D. and James, F, 1996, Faraday, Atlantic Highlands, N.J: Humanities Press. Cartwright, N. 1999a. Models and the limits of theory: quantum Hamiltonians and the BCS model of superconductivity, In Morrison, M. S. and Morgan, M., eds., Models as Mediators: Perspectives on Natural and Social Science, Cambridge, Cambridge U.P., pp. 241281. .1999b. The Dappled World: a study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P. Clark, A. 1997. Being There: putting brain body and world together again, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. de Chadarevian, S. and Hopwood, N., eds., 2004. Models. The Third Dimension of Science. Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press. De Regt, H. W. 2004, Making Sense of Understanding, Philosophy of Science 71: 98109. Faraday, M.F. 1821a. On some new Electro-Magnetical Motions, and on

9. On non-verbal practices in science see: Baigrie 1996, Field and James, 1998, Mazzolini 1993, Lynch and Woolgar 1990, and for Faraday, see Gooding (1990b, 2005) and Tweney (1996).

62

From Phenomenology to Field Theory

the Theory of Magnetism. Quarterly Journal of Science, 12: 7496, reprinted in Faraday (183955), vol. 2, pp. 12747. .1821b. Electro-magnetic Rotation Apparatus. Quarterly Journal of Science, 12:18687, reprinted in Faraday (183955), vol. 2, pp. 147 48. .18211822. Historical Sketch of electro-magnetism. Annals of Philosophy, 18: 195200, 27490; 19: 10721. .1827. Chemical Manipulation. London. .1831a. On a Peculiar Class of Optical Deceptions. Quarterly Journal of Science, 1: 205223, reprinted in Faraday 1859, pp. 291311 .1831b. On a Peculiar Class of Acoustical Figures . . . . Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 299340, reprinted in Faraday 1859, pp. 314358. .1832a. On the Induction of Electric Currents. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 122: 12562, reprinted in Faraday (183955), vol. 1, pp. 141. .1832b. The Bakerian Lecture. Terrestrial Magneto-electric Induction. Force and Direction of Magneto-electric Induction Generally. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 122: 16394, reprinted in Faraday (183955), vol. 1, pp. 4275. .1833. On a new Law of Electric Conduction. On Conducting Power Generally. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 123, reprinted in Faraday (183955), vol. 1, pp. 11026. .183955. Experimental Researches in Electricity. 3 vols. (1839, 1844, 1855). London. 1851a. On lines of Magnetic Force; their denite character; and their distribution within a Magnet and through space. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 142: 2556, reprinted in Faraday (183955), vol. 3, pp. 328370. .1851b. On the employment of the Induced Magneto-electric Current as a test and mesure of Magnetic Forces. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 143: 13750, reprinted in Faraday (183955), vol. 3, pp. 371401. .1852. On the Physical Character of the Lines of Magnetic Force. Philosophical Magazine, 3: 40128, reprinted in Faraday (1839 55), vol. 3, pp. 40737. .1855. Observations on Mental Education. In Lankester, R. ed., Lectures on Education, London 1855, reprinted in Faraday (1859), pp. 463491. .1859. Experimental Researches in Chemistry and Physics. London: Taylor and Francis.

Perspectives on Science

63

Field J. V. and James F.A.J.L. eds. 1998. Science and the Visual, a special issue of the British Journal for the History of Science, 31. Galison, P. 1997. Image and Logic. A material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago: Chicago U.P. Galison, P. and Stump, D. 1996. The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power, Stanford: Stanford University Press. Giere, R. & Moffat, B. 2003. Distributed cognition: where the cognitive and social merge, Social Studies of Science, 33, 301310. Giere, R. 1999. Science without Laws, Chicago: Chicago U.P. .2003. The role of computation in scientic cognition, Jour. Expt. Theor. Artif. Intell. 15: 195202. Gooding, D. C. 1981. Final steps to the eld theory: Faradays study of magnetic phenomena. 18451850, Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 11: 23175. .1990a. Mapping experiment as a learning process. Science, Technology and Human Values, 15, 165201. .1990b, Experiment and the Making of Meaning. Dordrecht & Boston: Kluwer. .2003. Varying the Cognitive Span: experimentation, visualisation and digitalization, in H. Radder, ed., The Philosophy of Scientic Experiment. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 255283. .2004a. Envisioning Explanations. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews (special issue on Scientic Illustration), 29: 278294. .2004b. Cognition, Construction and Culture: Visual Theories in the Sciences, Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4:551593. .2005. Seeing the Forest for the Trees: Visualization, Cognition and Scientic Inference, chapter in Gorman, M., Gooding, D., Tweney, R., and Kincannon, A. editors, Scientic and Technological Thinking, Mahwah N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, pp. 173217. Gooding, D. C. and James, F., eds. 1985. Faraday Rediscovered, London: Macmillan/New York: American Institute of Physics. Gooding, D., Pinch, T. J. and Schaffer, S. 1989. The Uses of Experiment, Cambridge: Cambridge U.P. Goodwin, C. 1995. Seeing in depth. Social Studies of Science, 25: 237274. Gorman, M. E. 1997. Mind in the World: Cognition and Practice in the Invention of the Telephone, Social Studies of Science, vol. 27, pp. 583 624. Gregory, R. L. 1981. Mind in Science, New York: Penguin. Gruber, H. E. and Davis, S. N. 1988. Inching our Way up Mount Olympus: the Evolving-systems Approach to creative Thinking, in Sternberg, R., ed., The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspectives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 243270.

64

From Phenomenology to Field Theory

Henderson, K. 1999. On Line and On Paper: Visual Representations, Visual Culture, and Computer Graphics in Design Engineering. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hutchins, E. 1995. Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, M.A.: MIT Press. Ihde, D. 1991. Instrumental Realism. Bloomington and Indianapolis, Indiana University Press. Ippolito, M.F. & Tweney, R.D. 1995. The inception of insight. In R.J. Sternberg & J.E. Davidson (eds.) The Nature of Insight, pp. 433462, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. James, F.A.J.L. 1985. The Optical Mode of Investigation: Light and Matter in Faradays Natural Philosophy. In Gooding and James, eds., pp. 137161. Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The Structure of Scientic Revolutions. Chicago: Chicago U.P. Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action. Cambridge, MA., Harvard U.P. Leeuwenhoek, A. 1705. A Letter to the Royal Society, from Mr. Antony van Leeuwenhoek, F.R.S., concerning Animalcula on the Roots of Duckweed. . . . Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 24: 17841793. Lynch, M. & Woolgar, S. eds. 1990. Representation in Scientic Practice, Cambridge, MA.: MIT. Magnani, L. 2001. Abduction, Reason and Science, Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer Academic. Martin, T. ed. 193236. Faradays Diary. 7 vols. Index, London: Bell. Maxwell, J.C. 1890. The Scientic Papers of James Clerk Maxwell, edited by W. D. Niven, 2 vols., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mazzolini, R. ed. 1993. Non-verbal Communication in Science prior to 1900, Florence: L. S. Olschki. Pickering, A. ed. 1992. Science as Practice and Culture, Chicago: Chicago University Press. Pickering, A. 1995. The Mangle of Practice. Time, Agency and Science. Chicago: Chicago U.P. Rasmussen, N. 1997. Picture Control. The Electron Microscope and the Transformation of Biology in America, 19401960. Stanford, CA. Stanford University Press. Roget, P. M. 1825. Explanation of an optical deception in the appearance of the spokes of a wheel seen through vertical apertures. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 115: 131140. Shelley, C. 1996. Visual abductive reasoning in archaeology. Philosophy of Science, 63: 278301. Shepard, R. N. 1978. Externalization of mental images and the act of creation. In Ranhawa, B.S. & Coffmann, W. E., Eds., Visual Learning,

Perspectives on Science

65

Thinking and Communication. New York / London: Academic Press, pp. 133189. Simon, H. A. 1969. The Sciences of the Articial, 2nd ed., Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press. Steinle, F. 2002. Experiments in History and Philosophy of Science. Perspectives in Science, 10, 408432. .2003. The Practice of Studying Practice: Analyzing research records of Ampere and Faraday. In F.L. Holmes, J.Renn, J., & H-J. Rheinberger (Eds.) (2003), Reworking the bench: Research notebooks in the history of science, pp. 93118 (Published as Archimedes, Vol. 7), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Tallis, R. 2004. The Hand: A Philosophical Inquiry into Human Being, Edinburgh: Edinburgh U.P. Tversky, B. 1998. Three dimensions of spatial cognition. In Conway, M., Gathercole, S. and Coroldi, C., eds., Theories of Memory, 2 vols., London: Taylor and Francis, vol. II, pp. 259275. Tweney, R. D. 1992. Stopping Time: Faraday and the Scientic Creation of Perceptual Order. Physis 29: 149164. .1996. Presymbolic processes in scientic creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 9, 163172. .2004. Replication and the Experimental Ethnography of Science. Journal of Cognition & Culture, 4: 731758. Tweney, R.D. & Gooding, D., Eds. 1991. Faradays 1822 Chemical Notes, Hints, Suggestions, and Objects of Pursuit. Edited with an introduction and notes by R. D. Tweney & D. Gooding. London: The Science Museum & Peter Peregrinus, Ltd. Watson, J. and Crick, F. 1953. Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids. Nature, 25 April, 737739. Wheatstone, C. 1823. New Experiments on Sound, Annals of Philosophy, 6: 8190. .1834. An account of some experiments to measure the velocity of electricity and the duration of electric light. Philosophical Transactions, 124: 58391. Wise, M. N. 1979. The mutual embrace of electricity and magnetism. Science, 203: 131018. Ziman, J. M. 1968. Public Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. .2000. Real Science; What it is, and what it means. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.