The Social Transmission of Data

Like many relatively rare natural phenomena, meteorite falls were usually witnessed by persons who were not savants. Accounts of the fall, and the meteorites themselves, usually had to be transmitted to savants from persons outside the scientific community. The acquisition of data and specimens from non-scientists is not unusual in science, of course. Many natural history museums, for instance, rely to a large degree on animal collectors who in turn rely on native helpers and trappers. In some cases such relationships become so regularized that they become a major commercial enterprise. Even when there is no money involved, we frequently see flows of information about potentially interesting events in the direction of the 'experts' n1The exchange of specimens in return for expert opinions on them constitutes an interesting relationship from the point of view of the sociology of knowledge, and is worthy of a more extended discussion than space here permits.. A general study of these networks of information flow would make an interesting research topic in itself. Here, however, we must confine our attention to the way in which reports and meteorites came into the hands of savants. Attention has already been called to the role played by museums and libraries as summation points. But how did the reports and specimens arrive at these points?

Let us consider the reports first. Some of the reports were contained in books by ancient authors, in local histories and in the reports of travellers, scientific or otherwise. The overwhelming role, however, was played by scientific journals. The fact of having a report printed in a scientific journal was important for several reasons. First, it meant that the report would be widely disseminated. Second, someone else might write a reply to the first article, providing further coverage of the matter. Third, someone might be influenced to write of their own, similar observations.

Even an article which attempted to debunk the phenomenon might, as an unanticipated effect, spread information about it and cause more attention to be given to it s1See Westrum (1978), op. cit. note 3.. Lastly, scientific journal articles were frequently indexed and sometimes reprinted in other languages. The net result was that information about meteorites which went into scientific journals was not likely to be lost, nor totally ignored.

Transmission of the actual meteorites shows an equally complex pattern. Typically the witnesses of the fall were peasants, farm workers, or other rural people. Often they would bring the stone to the local priest, nobleman, or government official, who would then transmit it to a savant or higher authority. The stones used in the 1772 chemical analysis were seen to fall near Luce by several workers. A sample soon came into the hands of the Abbé Bachelay, a correspondent of the Académie des Sciences. Bachelay then transmitted the sample with a note to the Académie. In another case, the Abbe Domenico Tata heard from his friend the Prince of Tarsia about a stone that five Calabrian shepherds had seen fall in 1755 s2Tata, op. cit. note 10.. He asked the Prince to send him the stone, which arrived with a formal affidavit. Tata was very much intrigued by the stone and placed it in the public library, where it might be examined by others. It was lost after a number of years.

The importance of these transmission networks cannot be exaggerated. It is true that in some cases (very few previous to 1803) the savants did investigate the cases themselves on the spot. But most of the time they were dependent on these reports and specimens transmitted to them from non-savants. Yet savants' reactions to these transmissions were far from homogeneous. Some, like Tata, regarded them as very important; but others set a quite different value upon them. We will now explore one effect of the negative attitude, the use of ridicule, on the transmission of these data.