[meteorite-list] Weston 1807 meteorite fall - Analysis report bySilliman and Kingsley
From: Shawn Alan <photophlow_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 17:27:17 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <878233.69230.qm_at_web35402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hello Mark and Listers, Mark this is what your said?? ?"Mark as for bringing up the Silliman/Woodhouse topic that is your call" Did I miss something here? Wasn't the first sentence of your post yesterday as follows: "A couple weeks ago I made a post about the Weston fall and the rivalry between Silliman and Woodhouse." No Shawn, you brought it up again after I thought the issue was closed for several weeks, and I just responded to what you initiated - again - yesterday.? You are leaving some stuff out. Lets go back a day ago and see what I posted and this is what I said?.. Shawn said this ?A couple weeks ago I made a post about the Weston fall and the rivalry between Silliman and Woodhouse. What I didn't post is the analysis/ field study report that was done by Silliman and Kingsley published in Transactions in 1809 and read in front of the American Philosophical Society on March 4, 1808. This report at the time catapulted American into the international lime light of the meteoritic science scene and has been hauled to be "no scientific paper had before appeared in the United States which excited so much attention and comment as this." (THE American Chemist,Volume V.?July, 1874, To June, 1875.) Ok so please tell me where I am talking about the rivalry about Silliman and Woodhouse all I said was what happened in the past and the post is about Silliman?s and Kingsley report not about a rivalry which in a past post you said this Mark?. Mark Said this ?Since you brought up the Silliman/Woodhouse topic again today,, I want to be sure you understand that I am not trying to inflate the work of Woodhouse at the expense of Silliman. I am trying to present a balanced perspective of what both Woodhouse and Silliman accomplished.? I am sorry Mark but there is nowhere in my first post about ?Weston 1807 meteorite fall - Analysis report by Silliman and Kingsley? that I bring up the rivalry which you try to say I did, I only state what was covered in the past and you say this? Mark said this ?No Shawn, you brought it up again after I thought the issue was closed for several weeks, and I just responded to what you initiated - again - yesterday? It is fun, I like how you take stuff out of context and re contextualize it to support your arguments when there is no validity. Now you keep asking me what did Silliman discover and I keep telling you this?? Please remind me what happened on December 14 1807 around Weston, Connecticut? O yeah, a meteorite fall. And who were the only scientists that went to the meteorite fall, o yeah Silliman and Kingsley. What did they discover, mmm that the stones that people found were actually meteorites from space which confirmed with other meteorite falls in Europe from Silliman?s and Kingsley?s analysis and field study report to further prove the theory with meteorites and where they come from. I do believe that Silliman?s work on the Weston meteorite fall was a scientific discovery for science and meteoritic science and that the Weston meteorite was first of its kind in the New World. Now Mark, I don?t know why you?re comparing Silliman to Edward Howard or Benjamin Franklin?s scientific accomplishments. Each accomplishment is in their own right and own scientific field. Did Howard or Franklin become the first scientists to the Weston meteorite fall no, Silliman and Kingsley were the first and from their analysis and field study they discovered that these stone were meteorites which proves from other meteorite falls in Europe that stones come from space and the fact of the matter is that this was the first time it had happened in the NEW WORLD. So yes I can say Silliman had a large impact in meteoritical science for America. Again I can flip it and say did Silliman discover electricity, no or did Howard, no. Each has their own right in the scientific community and Silliman?s right is his role with Weston meteorite fall. Now lets go to the topic about Prince and the Hittites people quote I used and this is what you had to say about it?. Mark said this "Enough said on my part. And as far as quoting Prince and the Hittites, see what Cathryn Prince had to say about my thoughts on Silliman at the end of the book review post on Meteorite Manuscripts (see websites below, click on the link to the left of the pencil icon at the end of the book review for comments)". How does that pull into this post? And speaking of what Prince said , Ill post it now :) ?Dear Mr. Goodman, Thank you for reading my recently published book so closely and for offering scholarly critique of the subject matter. You are clearly quite knowledgeable about this subject and I would love to learn more from you, I will be subscribing to your blog! Your points are well taken. As you noted, I admire Benjamin Silliman, a historical figure who has been largely overlooked in the general population. I feel that Silliman successfully brought science into the American academy and perhaps even more importantly helped build science as a discipline in the young nation. Moreover, he made science accessible to the public in a way no one had before. Cathryn Prince www.cathrynprince.com I like the part where she says as you noted, I admire Benjamin Silliman, a historical figure who has been largely overlooked in the general population. What I cant understand is why you made a comment back to her on your blog and this is what you said? Mark said this Hi Cathryn, Thank you for the nice comments. I too admire Benjamin Silliman - my very first blog post involved a CDV signed by Silliman that I added to my collection. His work on the Weston meteorite was professional -- not exceptional. I believe Franklin and Hare had more to do with the birth of science in America than Silliman, although the latter certainly helped popularize and grow science in the young nation. Thanks again! Mark Did we read the same books I am on page 130 and I find it odd that you keep bringing up Franklin and Hare had more to do with the birth of science. Correct me if I am wrong but isn?t the book about AMERCA and science in and around Weston/ Philadelphia at the beginning of of 1800?s which Prince focuses on the Weston meteorite fall and chemistry? Now I could see some of her statements being overly imaginative if the book was about general science in America, but it is not. The book focuses on key events and issues about chemistry and meteoritical science in America and how these events, Weston meteorite fall, political, science, daily life and Silliman?s role help push America into the spot light in meteroitical and chemistry science on an international level in the 1800's. Now that is history and I only states what history says. "no scientific paper had before appeared in the United States which excited so much attention and comment as this." (THE American Chemist,Volume V.?July, 1874, To June, 1875.) "the earliest and best authenticated account' of the fall of a meteor in America."( APPLETONS' CYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN BIOGRAPHY VOL V. PICKERING-SUMTER 1888 pg. 528 "SILLIMAN, Benjamin, scientist, was born in North Stratford, Conn., Aug. 8, 1779 : son of Gold Selleck Silliman (q.v.) and Mary Fish (Noyes) Silliman. He was graduated at Yale, A.B., 1796, A.M., 1799.... In 1805, he went abroad to study a year at Edinburgh and to buy books and apparatus. On his return, he studied the geology of New Haven, and in 1807 he examined the meteor that fell near Weston, Conn., making a chemical analysis of fragments, this report being the first scientific account of any American meteor." Cited from: THE TWENTIETH CENTURY BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF NOTABLE AMERICANS I904 "An elaborate account of this meteor has been published by Messrs. Silliman and Kingsley, of Yale College, Connecticut." Source http://books.google.com/books?id=4JMEAAAAYAAJ&dq=weston%20meteorite%201807%20woodhouse&pg=PA274#v=onepage&q&f=false Silliman?s successes, his role, his education from Yale, to Philadelphia and studying abroad in London and Europe transformed the presence America had on the international meterotical science/ chemistry level at the turn of the century from the Weston meteorite fall. Thank you Shawn Alan IMCA 1633 eBaystore http://shop.ebay.com/photophlow/m.html --- On Fri, 3/11/11, Mark Grossman <markig at westnet.com> wrote: From: Mark Grossman <markig at westnet.com> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Weston 1807 meteorite fall - Analysis report bySilliman and Kingsley To: "Shawn Alan" <photophlow at yahoo.com> Cc: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com Date: Friday, March 11, 2011, 3:13 PM Shawn, "Mark as for bringing up the Silliman/Woodhouse topic that is your call" Did I miss something here?? Wasn't the first sentence of your post yesterday as follows: "A couple weeks ago I made a post about the Weston fall and the rivalry between Silliman and Woodhouse." No Shawn, you brought it up again after I thought the issue was closed for several weeks, and I just responded to what you initiated - again - yesterday. Now if you can't sort out who brought up what, how the heck are you going to be able to sort out the accomplishments of Woodhouse and Silliman? "I do believe that Silliman?s work on the Weston meteorite fall was a scientific discovery for science" So tell me - specifically - what did Silliman discover when he analyzed the Weston meteorite - that wasn't already discovered?? Tell me - specifically. Chrome?? No, he said it wasn't present after performing an analysis, and then it was discovered in Weston the following year by someone else. So, you ask, what happened on Dec 14, 1807? - a meteorite practically fell in Silliman's lap, and he was professional enough to analyze it, and brilliant to promote it.? But his analysis was nothing special scientifically.? And he believed that comets circled the Earth!? And yes, Woodhouse didn't accomplish much after the Weston fall like Silliman - too bad he died in 1809. You stated: "Now if you stand by your statement which I believe you do, then wouldn?t you have to agree that Chladni?s work is not a particularly impressive analytical work on meteoritical science? You have to admit that Chladni never step foot in the field and nor did he examine meteorites in his earlier publications on meteorite falls. All he did was reiterate past events, folklore, and stories about meteorite falls and retell the events, nothing more nothing less." Don't put words in my mouth.???Einstein never did any field work either, and he did his experiments in his head!? Howard also never did any field work, but we still remember his great analytical work, which was groundbreaking, unlike Silliman's. Chladni thought out of the box as far as his contemporaries go.? Silliman did professional but not exceptional science.? Silliman is not in the same league as Chladni. If Weston wasn't the first meteorite to fall and be recovered in the US, and if the Thomas Jefferson issue regarding Silliman never existed, do you really think that Silliman would still have such a reputation as far as meteoritics?? Or would he be remembered more like Woodhouse as far as the meteorite goes? The event and his persona caught the public's attention.? He was in the right place at the right time and took advantage of it.???What if the meteorite had fallen near Philadelphia in Woodhouse's territory and Silliman was trying to obtain a sample for analysis?? What would you think then? Would we be talking about Silliman and the meteorite at all?? Silliman was one lucky guy. Can you honestly look anyone in the eye and say that Silliman ranks with the likes of Edward Howard or Benjamin Franklin regarding scientific accomplishment?? He is simply not on the same level. Enough said on my part.? And as far as quoting Prince and the Hittites, see what Cathryn Prince had to say about my thoughts on Silliman at the end of the book review post on Meteorite Manuscripts (see websites below, click on the link to the left of the pencil icon at the end of the book review for comments). Mark Mark Grossman Meteorite Manuscripts http://meteoritemanuscripts.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/MetManuscripts http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Meteorite-Manuscripts/152949358073543?v=wall ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shawn Alan" <photophlow at yahoo.com> To: <markig at westnet.com> Cc: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 3:25 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Weston 1807 meteorite fall - Analysis report bySilliman and Kingsley Hello Mark and Listers, Mark as for bringing up the Silliman/Woodhouse topic that is your call, all I posted was the analysis and field report done by Silliman and Kingsley on the Weston meteorite fall in 1807. Mark you said ?There is a difference between scientific discovery vs. scientific promotion/education - - Sillimans work on the Weston meteorite falls into the latter category.? Please remind me what happened on December 14 1807 around Weston, Connecticut? O yeah, a meteorite fall. And who were the only scientists that went to the meteorite fall, o yeah Silliman and Kingsley. What did they discover, mmm that the stones that people found were actually meteorites from space which comfirmed with other meteorite falls in Europe from Silliman?s and Kingsley?s anyalasis and field study report.? I do believe that Silliman?s work on the Weston meteorite fall was a scientific discovery for science and meteoritic science and that the Weston meteorite was first of its kind in the New World. Mark you said ?It may have brought Silliman, as well as the U.S., a lot of publicity and fame, but as far as science goes, it was not a particularly impressive piece of analytical work, considering that Silliman himself admitted that he followed in the footsteps of Howard and others.? Now if you stand by your statement which I believe you do, then wouldn?t you have to agree that Chladni?s work is not a particularly impressive analytical work on meteoritical science? You have to admit that Chladni never step foot in the field and nor did he examine meteorites in his earlier publications on meteorite falls. All he did was reiterate past events, folklore, and stories about meteorite falls and retell the events, nothing more nothing less. In Princes book, A Professor, A President,? And a Meteor,? she explains that the Hittites people from 3200 years ago understood that meteors came from space. ?The Hittites realized the stones yield iron, naming iron kuan. Some scientists consider this the earliest known name for meteoritic iron.) (Prince pg121) Chladni hypothesized that masses of stone and iron do, in fact fall from the sky.( Marvin, 2007 The origins of modern meteorite research) But from your statements? above this would put Chladni in the category of not having? particularly impressive work cause people before him hypothesized rocks came from space. But as for meteoritical science goes, Chladni is a GODFATHER and as for Silliman goes, he transformed meteoritcal science in the New World with his discovery with the first meteorite fall in the Americas. Here is a link to his analysis report down below. http://books.google.com/books?id=DbkAAAAAYAAJ&dq=silliman%20%20meteorite%20transactions%20Transactions%201809&pg=PA323#v=onepage&q&f=false Shawn Alan IMCA 1633 eBaystore http://shop.ebay.com/photophlow/m.html [meteorite-list] Weston 1807 meteorite fall - Analysis report bySilliman and Kingsley Mark Grossman markig at westnet.com Thu Mar 10 23:04:26 EST 2011 Previous message: [meteorite-list] Transfer of geological, marine artefacts illegal: MECA | Oman Observer Next message: [meteorite-list] All Shook Up! Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shawn, Since you brought up the Silliman/Woodhouse topic again today,, I want to be sure you understand that I am not trying to inflate the work of Woodhouse at the expense of Silliman. I am trying to present a balanced perspective of what both Woodhouse and Silliman accomplished. If you really want to learn about Woodhouse, see J. J. Beer, "The chemistry of the founding fathers", Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 53, no. 7 (1976), pp. 405-408. It's available at the following link: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/ed053p405 Regarding Silliman's low opinion of Woodhouse, Beer, who taught at the University of Delaware, states: "the long-run evaluation of Woodhouse by his colleagues and subsequent historians is different." He then goes on to outline Woodhouse's accomplishments. See page 407 of the article. There is a difference between scientific discovery vs. scientific promotion/education - - Sillimans work on the Weston meteorite falls into the latter category. It may have brought Silliman, as well as the U.S., a lot of publicity and fame, but as far as science goes, it was not a particularly impressive piece of analytical work, considering that Silliman himself admitted that he followed in the footsteps of Howard and others. Again, everything is on the Meteorite Manuscripts post on Prince's book, which can be viewed at the links below. Mark Mark Grossman Meteorite Manuscripts Briarcliff Manor, NY http://meteoritemanuscripts.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/MetManuscripts http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Meteorite-Manuscripts/152949358073543?v=wall -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Previous message: [meteorite-list] Transfer of geological, marine artefacts illegal: MECA | Oman Observer Next message: [meteorite-list] All Shook Up! Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- More information about the Meteorite-list mailing list Received on Fri 11 Mar 2011 08:27:17 PM PST |
 StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit Yahoo MyWeb
|