Royal Society, French Academy of Sciences

[PainterGuy]

Hi,

I have noticed that most of the discoveries of modern science from 17th and 18th centuries had much to do with either Royal Society or French Academy of Sciences. In my opinion, it was largely these two societies which played a pivotal role in the evolution of modern science and bringing in a scientific revolution. What bothers me is that why no other academy from another European country was able to make equally important contributions and impression as the mentioned two academies. Prussian Academy of Sciences was there but, in my opinion, it didn't produce anything which come even close to what Royal Society or French Academy did. Could you please comment on it? Thanks for your help!

 

[Astronuc]

I have noticed that most of the discoveries of modern science from 17th and 18th centuries had much to do with either Royal Society or French Academy of Sciences. In my opinion, it was largely these two societies which played a pivotal role in the evolution of modern science and bringing in a scientific revolution. What bothers me is that why no other academy from another European country was able to make equally important contributions and impression as the mentioned two academies.

What evidence does one have from which to form such an opinion.

Modern science in 17th and 18th centuries? As opposed to the beginning of the 20th century?

What about publications of science from Kungliga Vetenskapsakademien? z.B., Georg Brandt's Dissertatis de Semi Metallis (1735) published in 1739.

 

[fresh_42]

Furthermore there is a historic component. Since when and until when do you consider the existence of France, Great Britain and Prussia? Euler worked in Saint Petersburg, Gauß had been promoted by the Count of Braunschweig. There simply weren't comparable institutions at the time. It's like asking why NASA was so successful in the 60's while the Japanese were not.

 

[PainterGuy]

Thank you!

As I said in my last post, it was my personal opinion and wanted to know if it has any merit. From many of the documentaries I have seen about the evolution of modern science, i.e. physics and chemistry, and scientific thinking in general, it seems like Royal Society and French Academy played an active role.

Perhaps, the better statement would be that Royal Society and French Academy were at the forefront of scientific revolution beginning around 17th century in Europe. It might have to do with British Empire vs. French Empire. Thanks.

 

[Astronuc]

I believe Luigi Galvani (9 September 1737 – 4 December 1798) published his work in Italy, and similarly for Alessandro Giuseppe Antonio Anastasio Volta (18 February 1745 – 5 March 1827). Evangelista Torricelli (15 October 1608 – 25 October 1647) was an Italian physicist and mathematician, and a student of Galileo. He is best known for his invention of the barometer, but is also known for his advances in optics. His original manuscripts are preserved at Florence, Italy. Ostensibly, he published in Italy.

More from Sweden:

Carl Linnaeus (23 May1707 – 10 January 1778) was a Swedish botanist, zoologist, and physician who formalised binomial nomenclature, the modern system of naming organisms. He received most of his higher education at Uppsala University and began giving lectures in botany there in 1730. He lived abroad between 1735 and 1738, where he studied and also published the first edition of his Systema Naturae in the Netherlands.

Celsius, Anders (1742) "Observationer om twänne beständiga grader på en thermometer" (Observations about two stable degrees on a thermometer), Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar (Proceedings of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences), 3 : 171–180
In 1725, Anders Celsius became secretary of the Royal Society of Sciences in Uppsala, and served at this post until his death from tuberculosis in 1744.

Axel Fredrik Cronstedt presented his research on nickel to the Swedish Academy of Sciences (Kungliga Vetenskapsakademien) in 1751 and 1754.

Carl Wilhelm Scheele reported on barium (1772), manganese (1774), molybdenum (1778) and tungsten (1781)

Carl Wilhelm Scheele (1774) "Om brunsten, eller magnesia, och dess egenskaper", Kongliga Vetenskaps Academiens Handlingar, 35 : 89-116

Carl Wilhelm Scheele (1778) "Försök med Blyerts, Molybdæna", Kongliga Vetenskaps Academiens Handlingar, 39 : 247-255

Carl Wilhelm Scheele (1781) "Tungstens bestånds-delar", Kongliga Vetenskaps Academiens Nya Handlingar, 2 : 89-95

Carl Wilhelm Scheele (1784) "Anmärkning om Citron-Saft, samt sätt att crystallisera den samma", Kongliga Vetenskaps Academiens Nya Handlingar 5 : 105-109

Euler worked in Saint Petersburg,

True, but he started in Basel, Switzerland, where Johann Bernoulli, then regarded as Europe's foremost mathematician, was an important influence on Leonhard Euler. Johann Bernoulli's works were published in Lausannae & Genevae. I would expect works of Jakob and Johann Bernoulli were published in Basel (University of Basel, Switzerland's oldest university (founded in 1460)).

 

[f95toli]

As I said in my last post, it was my personal opinion and wanted to know if it has any merit. From many of the documentaries I have seen about the evolution of modern science, i.e. physics and chemistry, and scientific thinking in general, it seems like Royal Society and French Academy played an active role.

I don't think one can describe either academies as being "active". The academies were essentially clubs where you could meet other people and discuss science.
There was no formal system for funding research back then (that did not really happen until the beginning of the 20th century) and there was no way for the academies to"steer"what kind of research was being done (which is one of their functions today).

Hence, whereas the academies where important fora for discussing science and a place where you could publicise your findings; I don't think you can give them credit for the quality of science done in a certain country.

 

[epenguin]

it is generally given that the science of the 18th and early 19th centuries was scarcely done in universities which were in that aspect moribund, but centred around academies or societies, usually there would be one big one with royal patronage, at least moral, but there were other smaller ones, e.g. The Edinburgh philosophical Society, the Llunar Society of Birmingham. Yes these did not usually finance hugely finance Scientific research, but the function for discussion and publication is not nothing – this is the essential third leg of science along with experimentation and theorising. Replacing (not altogether and not immediately) private correspondence, and publication by Books which had ceased to be an adequate means.

Somewhat exceptional amongst universities seem to have been some in Italy, where there were actually chairs of natural science, w here such as Volta, Galvani, Toricelli, Malpighi, Spallanzani had jobs, but specially founded Academies e.g. in Bologna did play a role.