The visual culture of the sciences has become a focus for increasing attention in recent literature. This is partly a result of the concern with examining the material culture of the sciences that has developed over the last few decades. Increasing attention has also been devoted to understanding science as spectacle and to trying to understand the spaces where scientific performances, variously understood, take place. This essay surveys some aspects of the visual culture of the sciences in the long nineteenth (...) century. I examine the way visual scientific performances---such as magic lantern shows, optical illusions, and public experiments---were put together. I suggest in particular that if we want to understand the ways in which nineteenth‐century sciences appealed to their audiences we need to pay close attention to these kinds of performances, their performers, and the material and social resources that were deployed in their staging. (shrink)

The increased popularity of the label "cultural" within science studies, especially in relation to "cultural studies, " invites consideration of how it is and can be used in historical work. A lot more seems now to be invested in the notion of "cultural history. " This article examines some recent historiography of science as a means of considering what counts as cultural history in that domain and attempts to coordinate it with the sociologically informed studies of the past ten orfifteen (...) years. The label "sociocultural" seems a more useful term by which to capture recent developments. (shrink)

The focus of this paper is one of James Prescott Joule’s scientific contributions: the laws of heat production by electric currents in conductors. In 1841, the 22 years old Joule published a paper with the title “On the heat evolved by metallic conductors of electricity, and in the cells of a battery during electrolysis” where he presented an experimental study of that phenomenon and proposed two laws that were allegedly supported by his trials. On closer inspection, both his laboratory work (...) and his inferences can be challenged. The emphasis of this article is an attempt to understand Joule’s experimental undertaking, its highpoints and shortcomings, by a detailed analysis of this specific episode and by studying the precedents of his work and subsequent advancements. It is possible to point out several serious deficiencies of that investigation, and Joule’s contemporaries, such as Edmond Becquerel and Heinrich Lenz, did criticize some of his flaws and undertook new experiments to provide a sound basis for those laws. Besides providing a historical examination of that specific episode, this article uses this case study to tackle some features of the nature of science that may contribute to scientific education. (shrink)