A curious instance occurred at the turn of the nineteenth century when English scientists were called upon to apply their knowledge to industry. The Port of London determined that another bridge across the Thames was required to serve the growing metropolis. Proposals were solicited, and among them Thomas Telford (who later became the first president of the Institution of Civil Engineers) submitted a spectacular design in the form of a single cast-iron arch with a span of 600 feet. Since cast-iron bridges were still a novelty, with only three or four having been built, no established tradition or rules of thumb existed to guide the design. The parliamentary committee considering plans for improvement of the port recognized the difficulty and proposed to consult "the Persons most eminent in Great Britain for their Theoretic as well as Practical Knowledge of such Subjects." Parliament created two committees, one of mathematicians and natural scientists and the other of practicing builders. Each was asked to respond to a questionnaire about Telford's design in the hope that useful points would somehow emerge from the combined answers. Among the answers provided by the "practitioners" a few sensible suggestions emerged. But the inability to bring contemporary scientific knowledge to bear on the solution of practical problems was especially evident in the replies of the "theoreticians," who included the Astronomer Royal and the Professor of Geometry at Oxford. The Astronomer Royal's views on mechanical engineering were ridiculed not long afterwards as "a sentence from the lofty tribunal of refined science, which the simplest workman must feel to be erroneous." The astronomer's incompetent testimony was enriched only by his knowledge of heavenly phenomena: he suggested that "the Bridge be painted White, as it will thereby be least affected by the Rays of the Sun" and that "it be secured against Lightening." The contribution of the Savilian Professor of Geometry was equally silly: he calculated the length of the bridge to ten-millionths of an inch and its weight to thousandths of an ounce. O The resulting failure points conclusively to the features of applied science that were still lacking. Nor was there any theoretical science that could be brought to bear on the project, or any professorships of what would nowadays be called engineering science at universities. O The resulting failure shows the poor quality of university curricula in training mathematicians and engineers in a period before the rise of Humboldtian universities. After the establishment of the first technical university in Germany by Alexander von Humboldt mathematicians were encouraged to learn the foundations of engineering. O Since such knowledge, theoretical and practical, was not combined in any individuals in 1800, practitioners did not know about the theoretical aspects of the project, and theoreticians did not about the engineering aspects of the project. O The resulting failure points conclusively the lack of trust between engineers and scientists in the early 1800s. This situation was the result of a harsh competition between practitioners and theoreticians to get a lion share of giant projects during the rapid industrialization of England.
A curious instance occurred at the turn of the nineteenth century when English scientists were called upon to apply their knowledge to industry. The Port of London determined that another bridge across the Thames was required to serve the growing metropolis. Proposals were solicited, and among them Thomas Telford (who later became the first president of the Institution of Civil Engineers) submitted a spectacular design in the form of a single cast-iron arch with a span of 600 feet. Since cast-iron bridges were still a novelty, with only three or four having been built, no established tradition or rules of thumb existed to guide the design. The parliamentary committee considering plans for improvement of the port recognized the difficulty and proposed to consult "the Persons most eminent in Great Britain for their Theoretic as well as Practical Knowledge of such Subjects." Parliament created two committees, one of mathematicians and natural scientists and the other of practicing builders. Each was asked to respond to a questionnaire about Telford's design in the hope that useful points would somehow emerge from the combined answers. Among the answers provided by the "practitioners" a few sensible suggestions emerged. But the inability to bring contemporary scientific knowledge to bear on the solution of practical problems was especially evident in the replies of the "theoreticians," who included the Astronomer Royal and the Professor of Geometry at Oxford. The Astronomer Royal's views on mechanical engineering were ridiculed not long afterwards as "a sentence from the lofty tribunal of refined science, which the simplest workman must feel to be erroneous." The astronomer's incompetent testimony was enriched only by his knowledge of heavenly phenomena: he suggested that "the Bridge be painted White, as it will thereby be least affected by the Rays of the Sun" and that "it be secured against Lightening." The contribution of the Savilian Professor of Geometry was equally silly: he calculated the length of the bridge to ten-millionths of an inch and its weight to thousandths of an ounce. O The resulting failure points conclusively to the features of applied science that were still lacking. Nor was there any theoretical science that could be brought to bear on the project, or any professorships of what would nowadays be called engineering science at universities. O The resulting failure shows the poor quality of university curricula in training mathematicians and engineers in a period before the rise of Humboldtian universities. After the establishment of the first technical university in Germany by Alexander von Humboldt mathematicians were encouraged to learn the foundations of engineering. O Since such knowledge, theoretical and practical, was not combined in any individuals in 1800, practitioners did not know about the theoretical aspects of the project, and theoreticians did not about the engineering aspects of the project. O The resulting failure points conclusively the lack of trust between engineers and scientists in the early 1800s. This situation was the result of a harsh competition between practitioners and theoreticians to get a lion share of giant projects during the rapid industrialization of England.
Related questions
Question
Transcribed Image Text:A curious instance occurred at the turn of the nineteenth century when English scientists were called upon to apply their knowledge to industry. The Port of
London determined that another bridge across the Thames was required to serve the growing metropolis. Proposals were solicited, and among them Thomas
Telford (who later became the first president of the Institution of Civil Engineers) submitted a spectacular design in the form of a single cast-iron arch with a span
of 600 feet. Since cast-iron bridges were still a novelty, with only three or four having been built, no established tradition or rules of thumb existed to guide the
design. The parliamentary committee considering plans for improvement of the port recognized the difficulty and proposed to consult "the Persons most eminent
in Great Britain for their Theoretic as well as Practical Knowledge of such Subjects." Parliament created two committees, one of mathematicians and natural
scientists and the other of practicing builders. Each was asked to respond to a questionnaire about Telford's design in the hope that useful points would somehow
emerge from the combined answers. Among the answers provided by the "practitioners" a few sensible suggestions emerged. But the inability to bring
contemporary scientific knowledge to bear on the solution of practical problems was especially evident in the replies of the "theoreticians," who included the
Astronomer Royal and the Professor of Geometry at Oxford. The Astronomer Royal's views on mechanical engineering were ridiculed not long afterwards as "a
sentence from the lofty tribunal of refined science, which the simplest workman must feel to be erroneous." The astronomer's incompetent testimony was
enriched only by his knowledge of heavenly phenomena: he suggested that "the Bridge be painted White, as it will thereby be least affected by the Rays of the
Sun" and that "it be secured against Lightening." The contribution of the Savilian Professor of Geometry was equally silly: he calculated the length of the bridge to
ten-millionths of an inch and its weight to thousandths of an ounce.
O The resulting failure points conclusively to the features of applied science that were still lacking. Nor was there any theoretical science that could be brought to bear on the project,
or any professorships of what would nowadays be called engineering science at universities.
O The resulting failure shows the poor quality of university curricula in training mathematicians and engineers in a period before the rise of Humboldtian universities. After the
establishment of the first technical university in Germany by Alexander von Humboldt mathematicians were encouraged to learn the foundations of engineering.
O Since such knowledge, theoretical and practical, was not combined in any individuals in 1800, practitioners did not know about the theoretical aspects of the project, and
theoreticians did not about the engineering aspects of the project.
O The resulting failure points conclusively the lack of trust between engineers and scientists in the early 1800s. This situation was the result of a harsh competition between
practitioners and theoreticians to get a lion share of giant projects during the rapid industrialization of England.
Expert Solution
This question has been solved!
Explore an expertly crafted, step-by-step solution for a thorough understanding of key concepts.
This is a popular solution!
Trending now
This is a popular solution!
Step by step
Solved in 2 steps
