Coping with Error in the History of Mechanics

Abstract

My subject is error, failure, mis-step and/or the ``incorrect{''} in the history of science, in particular in the history of mechanics. Focusing on the works of Clifford Truesdell, The Rational Mechanics of Flexible or Elastic Bodies 1081788, and of Edoardo Benvenuto, An Introduction to the History of Structural Mechanics, I explore how historians cope when confronted with developments crafted by the renowned that prove ill-fitted to what subsequently becomes the canonical form of theory, of concept, of ways of perceiving and analyzing the behavior of solids and structures. Taking error seriously moves the historian of science beyond the customary bounds on rational thought. Attempts at explaining the incorrect engenders speculation and conjecture about the influence of precedent and too strongly held ideologies - consideration of what an economist might call externalities or exogenous factors. It may lead to a fuller appraisal of empirical evidence and usually requires attempts to make reasonable patterns of thought now deemed irrational. Underlying my exploration is a tentative hypothesis - that the path to error, failure, mis-step and/or the incorrect in the history of science can not be, indeed is not, explained in the same way that we explain a correctly-formed concept, a successful extension of theory, or a competent experiment.