Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Mousson nervous: “there remains the question of whether it was appropri-
ate to entrust such fine instruments to the hands of non-physicists. . . . The
three-year experiment will at best teach us which observers can definitely
be counted on and which would better be abandoned.”
28
Looking back on
the network's first year of operation, the best Mousson could say was that
no instruments had been broken. Democratic rhetoric alone did not ensure
that all citizens would participate in Swiss science on equal terms.
Earthquake observing proved a more genuinely populist enterprise than
meteorology. This was evident in the Earthquake Commission's instruc-
tions to observers, which were distributed to “all telegraphic and meteoro-
logical stations, all natural scientific societies, to physicians, pastors and
many teachers.”
29
They were written explicitly “in order to stimulate interest
and understanding for the observations in wider circles. . . . for the investi-
gation of every earthquake numerous observations from as many different
locations as possible are necessary. The scientist [
Naturforscher
] is depen-
dent here on the help of numerous friends of science. He turns not only to
his colleagues, but to everyone who takes an interest in the observation of
nature.” The author, Albert Heim, suggested that laypeople could contribute
to scientific research in many ways. The questionnaires guided the observer
through a set of questions that requested certain standardized responses,
but also prompted attention to multiple “associated phenomena” and left
ample blank space for elaboration. Moreover, observers were explicitly free
to choose to dispense with the questionnaires and write free-form letters in-
stead. Indeed, Heim instructed observers to report anything and everything:
“The observations should not be limited by our questionnaires; rather every
further observation, beyond those to which we have drawn attention, can
be valuable.”
30
This openness derived in part from the lingering uncertainty
about what constituted seismology's data, which might range from the as-
tronomical and meteorological to the electrical, magnetic, and zoological.
As Heim put it, “Nature is far more complicated in its phenomena than we
could guess.”
31
In this sense, keeping an open mind was a sensible research
strategy for seismology.
Heim made clear that the call for volunteer observers was motivated by
more than a need for data. It was meant to condition a new set of responses
to the earth's volatility. Citing Buckle, Heim acknowledged that the experi-
ence of an earthquake could impair reason, if unaided by scientific prepa-
ration: “When the most solid thing that we can perceive with our senses
wavers, and we do not know whereby and how far, then the imagination is
easily excited to a fever-pitch and clouds rational observation.” Science had
the potential to fortify human reason in the face of natural hazards: “Every
