Samuel Damren
The approach of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence provides an opportunity to compare perspectives of the Founding Fathers with present-day perspectives.
The subject of comparison in this series will be “thinking like a scientist.”
In the century preceding the American Revolution, science was a newly emerging discipline. Nevertheless, its influence on the creation and ideals of American democracy was significant.
An excellent introduction to the topic is contained in Tom Shachtman’s 2014 book “Gentlemen Scientists and Revolutionaries: The Founding Fathers in the Age of Enlightenment.”
The story begins with the young Benjamin Franklin’s “Leather Apron Club” formed after he moved to Philadelphia from Boston in 1723. The members were apprentice artisans or young tradesman. None was college educated. Access to learning at that level was beyond their station. The members sought to educate themselves outside their trade through debate and discussion of books and pamphlets available to the general population.
At the start of every meeting, members were asked to affirmatively answer the following question: “Do you love truth for truth’s sake and will you endeavor impartially to find it and freely communicate it with others?” Franklin’s future fame as a self-taught Natural Philosopher found gestation in the Leather Apron Club.
In the 1600s, Issac Newton’s discovery of gravity and “the system of the world” explained through calculus marked the beginning of the Enlightenment. Based on mathematical proofs drawn from empirical evidence and contradicting biblical teaching, Newton provided a definitive explanation of the grand workings of the planetary and natural world.
As a new and independent source to further human understanding, science-based explanation displaced the grip of religion as sole authority in such matters. “Thinking like a scientist” would forever alter humanity’s perspective of itself and of the natural world.
Franklin’s exposure to scientific thinking first occurred during his apprenticeship with his older brother James in Boston who published newspapers. The apprenticeship began when Benjamin was 12 years old and extended from 1718 to 1723.
Boston had suffered smallpox epidemics in 1677, 1690 and 1702 killing 10 percent of the population each year. The epidemic returned in 1721. In this crisis, and to attract readers, James Franklin featured debate and discussion in his newspaper on the controversy of vaccinations as an appropriate means to lessen the impact of the epidemic.
The controversy became public knowledge when Cotton Mather circulated a letter to 12 physicians in Boston asking that they consider inoculating a limited number of their patients – who were not ill – with a mild dose of smallpox as a preventative measure. And yes, this was the same Cotton Mather infamous from the Salem Witch Trials. This time Mather would be on the right side of history.
Eleven of the 12 doctors refused. They did so for both religious and practical reasons believing that exposing healthy patients to smallpox, in any measure, was not worth the risk and might only spread the disease.
Dr. Zabdiel Boylston, who had secured his medical license through apprenticeship instead of formal degree, accepted the risk. He initially “artificially infected” his family and members of Mather’s family. None became seriously ill. With that success, he began inoculating more patients.
Of the 280 individuals Boylston ultimately inoculated in and around Boston, the fatality rate was 2.2 percent. According to Shachtman, “During the epidemic, 5,889 of Boston’s 10,700 people contracted smallpox and of these 844 died, a fatality rate for the uninoculated of 14.1 percent.”
Mather and Boylston’s opponents in the medical community were “too much the scientist not to yield to facts … What Mather and Boylston accomplished was a triumph for American medicine and for scientific boldness and experimentation.”
None of this was lost on young Benjamin Franklin. In later life, he would repeatedly demonstrate that he did not fear the risks of experimentation where benefits might outweigh the risks. He kept an open mind in times of crisis and preferred facts over conventional dogma in decision making.
These are good characteristics for a scientist and, as it would be, necessary qualities for a Founding Father’s role in leading the American Revolution.
As a result of a quarrel in 1723, Franklin broke the bonds of his apprenticeship with his brother. At age 17, he moved to Philadelphia to start his own printing business.
The next commentary in this series will examine scientific lessons Franklin learned through his experiments with the properties of electricity. His success in advancing new theories in this field would lead to international fame and recognition as “America’s First Man of Science.” They would also add to his toolbox as a Founding Father.
The subject of comparison in this series will be “thinking like a scientist.”
In the century preceding the American Revolution, science was a newly emerging discipline. Nevertheless, its influence on the creation and ideals of American democracy was significant.
An excellent introduction to the topic is contained in Tom Shachtman’s 2014 book “Gentlemen Scientists and Revolutionaries: The Founding Fathers in the Age of Enlightenment.”
The story begins with the young Benjamin Franklin’s “Leather Apron Club” formed after he moved to Philadelphia from Boston in 1723. The members were apprentice artisans or young tradesman. None was college educated. Access to learning at that level was beyond their station. The members sought to educate themselves outside their trade through debate and discussion of books and pamphlets available to the general population.
At the start of every meeting, members were asked to affirmatively answer the following question: “Do you love truth for truth’s sake and will you endeavor impartially to find it and freely communicate it with others?” Franklin’s future fame as a self-taught Natural Philosopher found gestation in the Leather Apron Club.
In the 1600s, Issac Newton’s discovery of gravity and “the system of the world” explained through calculus marked the beginning of the Enlightenment. Based on mathematical proofs drawn from empirical evidence and contradicting biblical teaching, Newton provided a definitive explanation of the grand workings of the planetary and natural world.
As a new and independent source to further human understanding, science-based explanation displaced the grip of religion as sole authority in such matters. “Thinking like a scientist” would forever alter humanity’s perspective of itself and of the natural world.
Franklin’s exposure to scientific thinking first occurred during his apprenticeship with his older brother James in Boston who published newspapers. The apprenticeship began when Benjamin was 12 years old and extended from 1718 to 1723.
Boston had suffered smallpox epidemics in 1677, 1690 and 1702 killing 10 percent of the population each year. The epidemic returned in 1721. In this crisis, and to attract readers, James Franklin featured debate and discussion in his newspaper on the controversy of vaccinations as an appropriate means to lessen the impact of the epidemic.
The controversy became public knowledge when Cotton Mather circulated a letter to 12 physicians in Boston asking that they consider inoculating a limited number of their patients – who were not ill – with a mild dose of smallpox as a preventative measure. And yes, this was the same Cotton Mather infamous from the Salem Witch Trials. This time Mather would be on the right side of history.
Eleven of the 12 doctors refused. They did so for both religious and practical reasons believing that exposing healthy patients to smallpox, in any measure, was not worth the risk and might only spread the disease.
Dr. Zabdiel Boylston, who had secured his medical license through apprenticeship instead of formal degree, accepted the risk. He initially “artificially infected” his family and members of Mather’s family. None became seriously ill. With that success, he began inoculating more patients.
Of the 280 individuals Boylston ultimately inoculated in and around Boston, the fatality rate was 2.2 percent. According to Shachtman, “During the epidemic, 5,889 of Boston’s 10,700 people contracted smallpox and of these 844 died, a fatality rate for the uninoculated of 14.1 percent.”
Mather and Boylston’s opponents in the medical community were “too much the scientist not to yield to facts … What Mather and Boylston accomplished was a triumph for American medicine and for scientific boldness and experimentation.”
None of this was lost on young Benjamin Franklin. In later life, he would repeatedly demonstrate that he did not fear the risks of experimentation where benefits might outweigh the risks. He kept an open mind in times of crisis and preferred facts over conventional dogma in decision making.
These are good characteristics for a scientist and, as it would be, necessary qualities for a Founding Father’s role in leading the American Revolution.
As a result of a quarrel in 1723, Franklin broke the bonds of his apprenticeship with his brother. At age 17, he moved to Philadelphia to start his own printing business.
The next commentary in this series will examine scientific lessons Franklin learned through his experiments with the properties of electricity. His success in advancing new theories in this field would lead to international fame and recognition as “America’s First Man of Science.” They would also add to his toolbox as a Founding Father.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
