To understand why the scientific community reacted as it did to meteorite reports, we have to examine the scientific context in which meteorites appeared. The position of science in Western Europe in 1794 was an ambiguous one n1For an overview, see J. Ben-David, The Scientist's Role in Society: A Comparative Study (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1971), 75-87.. On the one hand, science had been institutionalized in a number of learned societies, some of them enjoying royal support s1D. McKie, 'Scientific Societies to the End of the Eighteenth Century', in A. Ferguson (ed.), Natural Philosophy Through the Eighteenth Century and Allied Topics (Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1972), 133-43.. A goodly number of books written by scientists were published annually, and were reinforced by more timely publication of results, theories, and criticisms in scientific journals s2 D. M. Knight, Natural Science Books in English 1600-1900 (New York: Praeger, 1972), especially 63-106; J. -L. and M. Flandrin, 'La Circulation du Livre dans la Société du 18e Siècle', in F. Furet (ed.), Livre et Société dans la France du XVIIIe Siècle, Vol. 2 (Paris: Mouton, 1970), 39-72; D. McKie, 'The Scientific Periodical from 1665 to 1798', in Ferguson (ed.), op. cit. note 28, 122-32; D. A. Kronick, A History of Scientific and Technical Periodicals, 2nd edn. (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1976).. Within the scientific community itself, the norm of experimental verification was widely accepted, and disputes about reality were frequently resolved by recourse to observation and experiment. On the other hand, scientists were few, they were seldom supported directly for their work as researchers, and public acceptance was far from assured. It was hard to make a career in science and in fact the exact nature of the scientific role itself was unclear n2See for instance R. Hahn, 'Scientific Research as an Occupation in Eighteenth-Century Paris', Minerva, Vol. 13 (1975), 501-13; M. Crosland, 'Development of a Professional Career in Science in France', ibid., 38-57; and D. Stimson, Scientists and Amateurs: A History of the Royal Society (New York: Greenwood Press, 1968), 161-96.. Recognition by other scientists was often more important to membership in the scientific community than formal training or the holding of an official position. There is no question that a scientific community existed in 1794, but it was one considerably looser and more fragmented than the scientific community of the twentieth century.
The intellectual and social boundaries of this community were accordingly more difficult to defend. Amateurs existed within scientific societies who did not possess any real scientific ability; experts frequently held no important positions; and many scientists were churchmen, who thus had double loyalties. In such a situation it is not surprising that there should be stiff resistance to any attempt to widen the arena of scientific discourse. Everything that went against current notions had to be carefully examined, and if it could not be made to fit, it was consigned to the intellectual rubbish-heap; otherwise the disorganization might become worse.
Particularly suspect were ideas from two sources: ancient authors and the common people. The fascination of the Renaissance with older authors and popular lore had been replaced in the course of scientific development with a deep suspicion of anything that could not be subjected to experiment or observation n3 The changing fashions in scientific interests are indicated in the course of the eight volumes of L. Thorndike's History of Magic and Experimental Science (New York: Columbia University Press, 1923-58); also R. F. Jones, Ancients and Moderns, A Study of the Rise of the Scientific Movement in Seventeenth Century England (St. Louis, Mo.: Washington University Press, 1961), 119-47.. This distrust served not only the practical purpose of protecting science from 'superstition' or unfounded accounts, but it provided a most important mechanism for science in protecting its vulnerable boundaries. The insistence that all data used by scientists originate with them or be checked by them not only provided a rudimentary quality control of data, but it kept the processes of science firmly in the hands of scientists. To admit data from outside was not only thought to be dangerous to the integrity of scientific ideas, but it meant a substantial loss of control. Necessarily this meant that any potential threat to the data control system had to be minimized.
It is thus no accident that when meteorites, supported by old accounts and the experiences of the common people, presented themselves at the door of science, they were for a considerable time rudely turned away; for scientists were only too aware of how many other 'superstitions' were also trying to gain admittance.