Pessimism, Positivism, and Relativism:. Aerodynamic Knowledge in Context

Menschen haben geurteilt, ein Konig konne Regen machen; wir sagen dies widersprache aller Erfahrung. Heute urteilt man, Aeroplan, Radio, etc. seien Mittel zur Annaherung der Volker und Ausbreiting von Kultur.

Men have judged that a king can make rain; we say this contradicts all experience. Today they judge that aeroplanes and the radio etc. are means for the closer contact of peoples and the spread of culture.

ludwig Wittgenstein, Uber Gewifiheit, On Certainty (1969)1

The British resistance to the circulatory theory of lift casts light on a number of wider themes, some methodological, some cultural, and some philosophi­cal. Here I take the opportunity afforded by the case study to pose and answer some of the questions of this kind that have been raised. The first thing is to make explicit the methodological principles that have informed my own inquiry. The present study is not only an exercise in the history of science and technology; it is also a contribution to the sociology of knowledge. My approach has been that of the Strong Program in the sociology of knowl­edge, and so I start this chapter with a brief account and defense of the main features of the program and the perspective it is designed to encourage. It is a perspective very different from the naive, philosophical narratives I identi­fied at the end of the last chapter and that I mentioned in the introduction.2 I then address two broader questions. First, was the resistance to the circula­tory theory of lift an all-too-typical example of British failings in the field of technological innovation? I argue against this pessimistic reading. Second, what about the controversial topic of “relativism”? Aviation, as a successful and impressive technology, is often cited as a quick and decisive refutation of relativism. I believe this line of antirelativist argument is groundless and obscures the most striking characteristics of aerodynamic knowledge.

In this chapter I make use of the writings of the Viennese physicist Philipp Frank. Frank was a specialist in modern physics, but he wrote some half dozen papers on fluid dynamics and aeronautical topics.3 He knew many of the leading experts in these fields and was a lifelong friend of Richard von Mises. Frank is relevant to my discussion for two reasons. First, he compared the

way a scientific theory is assessed to the way the performance of an aircraft is assessed. I follow Frank in this aeronautical comparison and then close the circle by applying his comparison directly to theories in aerodynamics. Sec­ond, Frank’s work provides a valuable resource when discussing relativism. I use Frank’s simple and forthright definition of the word “relativism” to struc­ture my own discussion.