Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Thursday October 22 2015, @03:18AM   Printer-friendly
from the he-was-making-gunpowder dept.

History and science collided at the University of Virginia on Friday, when the school announced the discovery of a hidden chemistry lab amid ongoing renovations of its historic Rotunda building.

The room offers a glimpse into the way science was taught in the mid-19th century, as well as to the role of Thomas Jefferson – who founded the university in 1819 – in facilitating the shift from religion to science as a central principle of higher education in the United States.

"It really is the beginning of the teaching of science" as fundamental, said Jody Lahendro, a supervisory historic preservation architect for UVA. "The Enlightenment, changing the viewpoint of the world."

[...] "This may be the oldest intact example of early chemical education in this country," said Brian Hogg, senior historic preservation planner in the Office of the Architect for the University.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by AnonymousCowardNoMore on Thursday October 22 2015, @04:59PM

    by AnonymousCowardNoMore (5416) on Thursday October 22 2015, @04:59PM (#253288)

    Of course think I did stress that I was talking about who formulated an idea rather than who found a way to test it. We credit, after all, Einstein for the things he came up with* based on prior observations even though there was no way to test them at the time. I'm sure you can think of other examples. Experiment is the ultimate measure of physical theory but without the theoreticians we would not have theories to test.

    And those I mentioned did give reasons for their conclusions, which were thus founded in observation even though they could not be fully tested. Dalton similarly had (better) reasons for his conclusions but could not prove them definitively. Some other philosophers (*cough*Pyrrhon*cough*) were indeed just running an intellectual circus.

    I'm not the best guy to ask, I should add. My understanding of philosophy is shamefully shallow.

    * As well as things Lorentz and Poincaré came up with. This whole "Great Man" textbook view of history leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2