The central figure in this thesis is Robert Jameson (1774-1854), geologist,
mineralogist and Professor of Natural History at the University of Edinburgh.
Jameson's geological work is examined in relation to the social and intellectual
interests of contemporary civil society, and in particular, in terms of the debates in
Edinburgh between Huttonians and Wernerians (of which group Jameson was
one) concerning the nature of geological evidence and of theory in geological
explanation.
This thesis is also concerned to bring into sharper focus the state of, and
public interest in, the earth sciences in Scotland in the first two decades of the
nineteenth century. In this regard, analysis centres upon the conceptual basis and
scientific methods behind Jameson's work and upon the making of natural
knowledge as a situated intellectual and social concern. The thesis has eight
chapters. Following an introduction and literature review they are, respectively,
concerned with showing that in societies, teaching, museology, fieldwork,
laboratories and through publications, Jameson's scientific 'methodology'
conformed in large part to the Baconian taxonomic and descriptive elements of
Wernerianism.
This thesis also suggests that scholars have hitherto misrepresented and
overplayed the 'theoretical' nature of Jameson's work, and in so doing, have only
characterised the debate between Huttonians and Wemerians as a conflict
between rival theories. In re-examining the several activities and the conduct of
Huttonians and Wernerians (in this case Jameson) in a variety of settings, a rather
different understanding of the nature of debate is here advanced. Specifically, it is
shown that rivalry between Huttonians and Wernerians in the sites stated above
might be better understood not in terms of two opposing theories, but, rather, as
a rivalry between a vigorously held theory on the one hand (proponents of
Huttonianism) and, on the other, a conviction about the prematurity of theory
and importance of a Baconian empirical approach. The thesis also suggests that
understanding the intellectual contexts to such geological enquiry depends
importantly upon knowing something of the social and civic nature of scientific
'ownership', institutional authority, personal reputation and the proprietorial
control of local scientific knowledge