Loading summary
Transcript64 lines
- [00:00]
Dr. Marty Billman
Foreign.
- [00:06]
Scott Bertram
From the historic campus of Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan, where the good, the true and the beautiful are taught, nurtured and honored, this is the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour, bringing the activity and education of the college to listeners across the country.
- [00:25]
Dr. Kathleen O'Toole
That's something that parents can do for their children to really take the time to to understand what they think and why they think it and then really talk to them and teach them through conversation.
- [00:37]
Scott Bertram
This is your host, Scott Bertram. Welcome to the Radio Free Hillsdale hour. That was Dr. Kathleen O', Toole, Associate Vice President for K12 Education at Hillsdale College. We'll talk with her today about how citizenship starts in the classroom. And later in today's program, Dr. Marty Billman from Hillsdale's chemistry department will tell us all about the discovery of fire. First, we're joined by Dr. Kathleen O'. Toole. She's Associate Vice President for K12 Education here at Hillsdale College. Dr. O', Toole, thanks for joining us.
- [01:11]
Dr. Kathleen O'Toole
Great to be here, Scott. Thank you.
- [01:12]
Scott Bertram
You've also written an essay over at the American Mind recently. Citizenship starts in the Classroom. Why is it necessary to proactively teach our youth how to be good citizens?
- [01:26]
Dr. Kathleen O'Toole
They're going to be citizens. They are citizens, and they are going to be voting citizens. But more than that, they're citizens of the United States of America. And the thing about the United States of America is the sovereignty lies with the people. And the people are charged fundamentally, therefore, with the success or failure of the country. It is in their hands, it is in our hands to ensure that this place prospers and continues. And that's a heavy burden that you have to get ready for.
- [01:56]
Scott Bertram
You mention that many students today are trained in what's called Action Civics, and it's a phrase that a handful of guests have talked about on the show in recent months. And this is the idea that protest is the highest form of civic participation. Why do you think that Action Civics actually is perhaps a disservice to the students themselves?
- [02:19]
Dr. Kathleen O'Toole
Yeah, when I think about Action Civics, I think about I used to be a headmaster of a classical school and we used to go to the it was in Austin, Texas, and we used to go to the Texas State Capitol on School Choice Day. There were a whole bunch of other charter schools there, too. And you could tell a lot about the schools by what they did at the Capitol. On School Choice Day. Some schools would go in and like, learn about the history of Texas and observe the architecture of the building and then go start to their talk to their state rep or something, and some of them would just march around with signs. Yeah, that's action civics. Yeah. It's the idea that there's a kind of an assertion, a sort of angry assertion of your rights, of your opinion that's central to civic participation, although perhaps that is necessary at some points. You wouldn't really start there. You would start probably by seeking to understand. And with America, there's a lot to understand. You know, there's. It's a. It's a big, complex country with. With a history that is worth knowing. And then it was designed in a particular way. And you have to understand both of those things, the history of America and the. The architecture of the Constitution, in order to kind of get what makes the place go, how are decisions made. And so I suggest in the piece, you know, a better way to prepare students for civic participation would be, number one, teach them about the nature and history of the American regime, and then two, give them the habits of healthy civic participation and disagreement. And I think that the action civics approach kind of assumes that the other side is A, your enemy, and B, can't be reasoned with. And we don't want to start there.
- [04:08]
Scott Bertram
Yeah. I want to come back to the idea about disagreement in a moment, but in the essay, citizenship Starts in the classroom, Dr. Kathleen O', Toole, you observe that many students in arguments lack any evidence to support their confidence in an opinion that they state they can't necessarily defend a position as our education system generally replaced in ways how to learn or how to think with learning, what to feel.
- [04:40]
Dr. Kathleen O'Toole
Yeah, I think that's a very good question. I've been teaching this year, and in the past, I've been a teacher primarily of, like, 11th, 10th, 11th, and 12th graders. And people that age love to debate. They. They're. They're at a phase in life where they're, you know, more capable than they've ever been before. They're starting to feel really attached to their opinions, and they would really just like to have an argument, even with friends.
- [05:07]
Scott Bertram
Right. I mean, yeah, that's the neat thing. I remember back when I was that age long ago, you'd fight with friends, you'd argue with friends about anything.
- [05:14]
Dr. Kathleen O'Toole
Yeah, yeah, they've. I remember being this age, and you kind of think you've got. You've got it all figured out and you do more than you ever have before, but. Yeah, so they want to debate. And one of the things that we do in classical schools is teach students. How do you know, first of all, what's the difference between having an opinion and really knowing. How do you know that your opinion is true? And in order to really debate effectively, you have to know what you're talking about. And often when you take a 16, 17 or 18 year old, through the process of understanding why they believe what they believe, trying to ground it in actual knowledge and reality, you discover that they're representing someone else's opinion or they've always thought this and never really thought to question it. And that's a really, really important thing to do as a teacher. And it's a really important thing for people that age to go through so that they understand when to, when to fight with conviction, when to defend their beliefs with conviction, and when to allow themselves to be persuaded of an alternative.
- [06:21]
Scott Bertram
Now, you write in this essay that for many teenagers, they're actually now afraid to disagree with each other. Why has that disagreement become so hard?
- [06:32]
Dr. Kathleen O'Toole
Yeah, it's a funny, it's a funny thing with that age because at the same, they can be very certain of their opinions on the one hand, and also take it very personally with when they're disagreed with. And sometimes they, sometimes they're even hesitant to be the disagreeer because they think that disagreeing with someone's opinion means indicting their character or impugning their intelligence or something. And so it's really important in the classroom, and we do this through seminar discussion to create a place where disagreement is healthy and teach them kind of explicitly how you disagree with someone without calling them a liar, calling them a terrible person. But that is not, it's usually not natural to students that age.
- [07:18]
Scott Bertram
Dr. Kathleen O' Toole is with us, Associate Vice President for K12 Education at Hillsdale College. Also writing Citizenship Starts in the Classroom. Over at the American Mind. You mentioned that you're in the classroom teaching a philosophy course now to 11th graders. In a good seminar, a Socratic seminar, the teacher will step back, allow students to lead the conversation. What skills do students start to develop when that happens in the classroom?
- [07:47]
Dr. Kathleen O'Toole
It's really fun to watch. It's. Yeah, in a good seminar. And we've started to have them now we're in the spring. And so we've been doing this for a while and so we're getting good at it. Initially, we were not very good at it because we wanted to have debates. The students wanted to have debates and they would very easily get off track. And, you know, at first seminar seems like it's kind of a free for all. You don't have to sit and be quiet. While the teacher talks, you get to say what you think. And so they can be a little wild and crazy to start, but if you, if you lead it right, and we've, we've worked on this all year, and so it's going well, they can learn to, they can learn to really figure things out for themselves without the assistance of the teacher. So there are two rules in seminar. One is speak to the person who just spoke, and the second is speak only about the text. And then to guide the discussion, there's a seminar question. The seminar question is always based on a specific reading. This is a philosophy class, but it works really well in literature class. Sometimes it can work in history, too, or other subjects. And the first person who speaks in seminar is in charge of restating the seminar question and then venturing an answer to it. And you can participate in seminar as a student in a variety of ways. Sometimes you might have an answer based on the text, but sometimes it's a complicated question and it takes a lot of interpretation and you might not have an answer right away, and that's okay. You can contribute to the discussion by asking a question that follows from the original question. You can contribute to seminar by pointing to a specific passage in the text and offering kind of a provisional interpretation of it. And if the students start behaving that way, then what happens over the course of the conversation, which usually lasts a class period, is you sort of build the students themselves with the teacher on the side, build a kind of robust answer to something complicated and they do it together. The first step is teaching them that we're trying to build something together. It's not, you know, assert your position and let others come after you and try to defend it. It's no. Contribute to the common understanding of, of whatever this question is.
- [09:55]
Scott Bertram
Dr. Kathleen O' Toole is with us. More with her in just a moment about how citizenship starts in the classroom. First, I want to make sure you're aware that you know about a brand new podcast here from Hillsdale College. It's called Hillsdale on the Hill. We are approaching, as you well know, the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. This series, Hillsdale on the Hill, has helps you celebrate America's 250th anniversary with Hillsdale and D.C. professors. It's co hosted with Larry O' Connor of WMAL Radio in Washington, D.C. together, you'll discover the historical and philosophical underpinnings of the Declaration, the American Revolution, American culture, and so much more. New episodes every other week. You'll be better informed as America celebrates its 250th birthday. Do it with Hillsdale on the Hill. Find it at podcast hillsdale.edu or wherever you get your audio. We continue with Dr. Kathleen O', Toole, Assistant Provost for K12 Education here at Hillsdale College. Her piece at the American Citizenship starts in the classroom. Dr. O', Toole it's hard to change one's mind. It's hard to admit that you are wrong or even that you're seeing something in a different way when you do encounter new facts or different arguments. Is there a way to make that process easier to handle?
- [11:23]
Dr. Kathleen O'Toole
Well, I try to do it as I try to show them that I do it. And I do it all the time. We're reading Aristotle right now. We're finishing Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics today in class, actually. So our recent seminars have been about friendship and justice, and those are complicated and important things to figure out. And some of the students in the class are really strong and they've actually pointed to, pointed to passages and offered interpretations of them that I didn't initially see. And I'll say, oh my gosh, great point. I didn't realize that. And once the first time you do that, they're like, oh my gosh, who was this teacher who didn't understand? But if you do it enough and if you basically know what you're doing, then they start learning. Intelligent people are still trying to figure things out, especially something like Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. And so you just sort of make it, you model it. If a student does it in class, if a student says, oh, I've changed my mind about this, I make sure to call that out and compliment them for doing that in a natural way. I mean, there's a way to do it that actually makes it awkward. But if you do it in a natural way and if you sort of praise them and comment, comment on it when they have learned something in public, then it becomes, with consistency and time, it becomes natural to them.
- [12:43]
Scott Bertram
I will not forget in class when a student taught me a better way of teaching something and I of course said it at the time, but I've said it to future classes. We were talking about the newly important equal time provisions of the FCC in my journalism classes, and one of the car bounces for a bonafide news interview. And I was talking about and trying to explain. Students said, well, bonafide means good faith. Well, yeah, well, that makes perfect sense. That's even better than the way I was explaining it, because that's exactly the way the FCC sort of interprets that. It has to be a good faith interview. And that's perfect. So I have to give credit now in the future that that student helped me teach that particular point in class.
- [13:23]
Dr. Kathleen O'Toole
Yeah, yeah. There are a few of them. There are a few of them in 11th grade that teach me stuff weekly. And I mean, that's cool. That's like the most delightful thing ever as a teacher.
- [13:34]
Scott Bertram
Dr. Kathleen O' Toole with us for a few more minutes, associate vice president for K12 education here at Hillsdale College. You describe these classroom discussions as a training ground for citizenship. How does debating Plato or Shakespeare prepare someone for civic life?
- [13:51]
Dr. Kathleen O'Toole
Well, it teaches you two things. It teaches you to really mean what you say. That's something you learn in classical schools. Before you speak, you should think about what you're going to say. You should make a plan about how to say it, and you should confirm in your own mind that it's really a representation of what you think. And that doesn't happen only in seminar. It happens through the entirety of your education, really. So that's the first thing. Mean what you say and say it in a way that captures what you truly believe or truly think, and then allow yourself to be persuaded of something that is true, even though it may not be what you initially thought. And I think as a citizen, if you can do those two things, articulate your own thoughts well, and then allow yourself to be persuaded by the truth, even if the truth comes from someone on the other side, that's pretty much all you can ask for. That's the best preparation for citizenship. There's the best preparation for the habits of citizenship. I will say you also, as we said previously, need to know a lot as an American citizen. But the habits, the habits of debate, of disagreement, of persuasion, and of just sort of simply stating things clearly and accurately, those are all really formed well in a good seminar.
- [15:13]
Scott Bertram
If we had more students who were comfortable with disagreement grounded in ideas, what might that change about our larger political culture?
- [15:24]
Dr. Kathleen O'Toole
Well, it's not rocket science to say that things escalate really quickly. And when it comes to politics these days, and I mean, that's true of politics in general, things escalate really quickly. But the people in our history who have been able to see us through a crisis have not been the people who escalate quickly. They've been the people who can think deeply and persuade effectively and see where we ought to go. And so as a citizen or as a leader, you want to be that kind of person, you want to be someone who can see what's going on. And that means remaining lucid, remaining calm, not jumping into the fray in battle mode right away. As I say, sometimes maybe that is going to be necessary. But you wouldn't start there. You would start by trying to understand and trying to persuade.
- [16:19]
Scott Bertram
For our listeners who might not have children in the classroom anymore, are there particular ways that perhaps we can help model this in our everyday life and interactions?
- [16:29]
Dr. Kathleen O'Toole
I think parents can do the same thing that we do as teachers. Cultivate the habit of saying exactly what you mean, thinking about what you want to say before you say it. Asking questions is really a very important part of classical teaching, and it's just more important as a parent, I think, and then taking the time to explain yourself. When my daughter was born, she was just a tiny baby and my father said to me, you must take her seriously. And what he meant by that is she's gonna have ideas. And she's, her ideas will be kind of silly, you know, when she's little and she does have ideas and sometimes they are kind of silly. But it's really important to listen to her and really talk to her and not dismiss her baby talk, you know. And so that's something that parents can do for their children to really take the time to understand what they think and why they think it and then really talk to them and teach them through conversation.
- [17:32]
Scott Bertram
Dr. Kathleen O' Toole is Associate Vice President for K12 Education at Hillsdale College, also the writer, author of Citizenship Starts in the Classroom at essay over at the American mind. Dr. Kathleen O', Toole, thanks so much for joining us here on the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour.
- [17:49]
Dr. Kathleen O'Toole
Thank you, Scott.
- [17:50]
Scott Bertram
Up next, Dr. Marty Billman is back on the program in her drama in Scientific Discovery series. Wouldn't you like to know about the discovery of fire? Dr. Billman fills us in next. I'm Scott Bertram. This is the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour. You know the Robertson family from the hit TV show Duck Dynasty. Now Hillsdale College offers you the unique opportunity to learn alongside the Robertsons as they dive deep into Hillsdale's online course, the Genesis Story. Every Friday on the Unashamed podcast, the Robertsons will share their insights and perspectives. Learning from Hillsdale. Professor of English Justin Jackson. Take a trip down south to Louisiana for this one of a kind learning experience we call Unashamed Academy. Visit unashamedforhillsdale.com and enroll today. That's Unashamed. F O R Hill hillsdale.com to experience the genesis story alongside the Robertsons.
- [19:11]
Bill Gray
Hi there. It's Bill Gray from Hillsdale College. Before you skip ahead, can I ask you a question or two? If you could teach 50 million Americans one thing, what would it be? Would you teach our great American story that this nation is unique, founded on self government and individual liberty? Maybe you would teach the truth about free enterprise, how hard work and opportunity allow anyone to rise? Or would you teach the gospel and the Christian faith that helps us live good and meaningful lives? At Hillsdale College, we're doing exactly that. Teaching the best that's been thought and said. Through our free online courses, K12 programs, Imprimis, podcasts and more, we reach and teach millions every year with the principles of liberty that make America free. And with your help, we can reach even more. Your tax deductible gift today will help us teach millions more people to pursue truth and defend liberty. Just text the word give to 7 1844. You'll get a secure link to make your donation in seconds. That's give to 718 44. Thank you for standing with us. Now back to the show.
- [20:29]
Scott Bertram
Welcome back to the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour. I'm Scott Bertram. Be sure to follow us on X for updated show and guest information. We're Hillsdale Radio and the podcast network C Podcasts. We're joined by Dr. Marty Billman. She is associate professor of chemistry here at Hillsdale College. Dr. Billman, thanks for joining us.
- [20:50]
Dr. Marty Billman
Thank you for having me, Scott. Happy to be back.
- [20:52]
Scott Bertram
It is good to have you back. And we continue in this series we call Drama in Scientific Discovery. And today, the discovery of fire is going to be explosive definitions. First, what is fire?
- [21:08]
Dr. Marty Billman
Yes. So fire, right? One of those great mysteries of our youth. And we're like, what is it? What's it made of? And the actual answer. And I always frame it from like, sadly, it's kind of disappointing. We want it to be more magical than what it is, but it really is just heat and light that's a byproduct of a chemical reaction. I know, I know. It would be great if it was like, oh, this right, the great gift from Prometheus given to us or some type of, like, metaphysical alchemical element. But it is kind of just a byproduct of a chemical reaction. And that doesn't mean it's less beautiful. Obviously, it still is. You know, as someone who's been studying combustion for a while, it's. It's one of my favorite reactions. And even to this day, when folks are like, oh, I'm sure you got into chemistry because you love explosions and fire. I'm like that. You're not wrong, you know, but that really is kind of all it is. As long as you have a fuel and oxygen gas and some kind of spark to get them going, the reaction will progress. You end up creating water, creating carbon dioxide, and of course, that lovely fire as a byproduct.
- [22:12]
Scott Bertram
Yes. All right, so who discovered that?
- [22:16]
Dr. Marty Billman
Okay, that's a hard question to pin down because unlike some scientific discoveries where there's one gentleman or lady who had this eureka moment, the discovery of fire, kind of like what it truly is, this combustion reaction kind of spans, you know, around 200, 100 to 200 ish years, which that's kind of also what I want to come in and talk about the folks who made this discovery through the era. So we're going to start with like Robert Boyle, Robert Hook, aforementioned scientists from the last time that I came in. Then we're going to move into Johann Becker and George Stahl, namely their, let's say, confusing and since debunked theory of how combustion worked. And then we're going to reel the meat of like our part two conversation is going to be kind of the culmination of. Okay, but now we're actually going to figure out what fire is. We're going to have two competing theories, two competing scientists who are spearheading these theories, and we're going to walk through the drama. There's.
- [23:11]
Scott Bertram
All right, so let's start at the top. Who were Robert Boyle and Hook?
- [23:15]
Dr. Marty Billman
Okay, so previously we had discussed that Robert Boyle, Robert Hook had invented the vacuum pump. They had discovered what's known as Boyle's Law. So pressure and volume of gases are kind of inversely related in terms of their magnitude. But the real kicker was that as the vacuum pump was a new invention, Robert Boyle as well as his assistant Hook. I say assistant. They really were more like peers. But yeah, yeah, Boyle had the money. He commissioned Hook to make the pump. Hook was more of the engineer of the two of them, but still they wanted to figure out what the elements were made of. One of their experiments was putting, you know, something like a candle inside of the vacuum pump. And as a reminder, their original hypothesis was that the fire should get larger. Yeah. Since there was less space or less stuff competing in the space, let's say. And instead the fire went out and they were like, well, that's weird. The discovery of that was definitely in opposition to what alchemy had predicted at the time. As a reminder, also, Alchemy was kind of the forefront of all chemical theory and understanding. And so they were like, well, turns out alchemy's not real and we have to figure out what's going on with
- [24:21]
Scott Bertram
all of this, so why bring them up now?
- [24:25]
Dr. Marty Billman
Ah, yes. So of course, their experimentation did not end with the discovery that fire gets snuffed out in a vacuum. They were like, well, let's continue poking at this. So what they kind of, one of the things that they tried next was, well, can we ignite something in the vacuum? Maybe the vacuum just puts something out, but we could still light it in the vacuum. We're going to try and ignite something. The way that they did this was quite ingenious. Right. Because if you're in a vacuum, it's not like you can stick your hand inside the container. So he, being Robert Boyle, had designed this sort of mechanism where there was sort of a platform up on top in this, like, glass bell jar that would hold some type of wood chips or pieces of paper, some type of really easily tinder combustible material. And at the base of the vacuum chamber would be like a red hot piece of iron, like something that, you know, we know outside of the vacuum chamber, if you were to place the, like, paper on top of it, it would ignite immediately. Yeah. And what he found was inside of the vacuum chamber, when the little platform was jostled and the combustible material was dropped onto the red hot iron, again in vacuo, nothing ignited. It just kind of sat there, didn't even smolder. Right. So that's, I'm sure it would be weird to look at. He also then found, okay, well, if it's not igniting in the vacuum, what if we open, you know, the little. We call it a stopcock to let the air, like, flow back in. And as soon as the air came back into the chamber, the whole thing ignited.
- [25:52]
Dr. Kathleen O'Toole
Right.
- [25:53]
Dr. Marty Billman
So big conclusion was not only is fire not a distinct element, which they had discovered previously, but also it seems that in order for fire to happen, you need air. Right. So it's not even right that fire is an. Fire is not an independent element, but it seems that it is directly dependent on a different alchemic element, air, in order for fire to even happen.
- [26:16]
Scott Bertram
So what about Robert Hooke's role?
- [26:18]
Dr. Marty Billman
All right, so Robert Hooke, again, was the one who designed the vacuum pump in the first place and was a man of his own genius. And so he decided to set up his own kind of separate experiments outside of the vacuum pump. Since you know, Robert Boyle had commissioned the vacuum pump and that was his little toy. Robert Hook could have made his own, but he wanted to test something else. So one of his notable experiments is that he set up like an iron box, not in vacuum, just a regular old big iron box. And inside of this box, he placed a bunch of smoldering charcoal kind of on a bed of sand and then sealed up the box. It wasn't completely sealed, though. There was a hole for an old bellows, like old fireplace bellows. And on occasion he would like pump the bellows to keep the air moving inside of this box and kept this experiment going in the sealed kind of container up until the charcoal embers kind of went out. Now, I did say the box was not like sealed. It wasn't technically like a closed, closed system, but it was as close as they could get back in the 1600s when these gentlemen were working. And so his kind of conclusions from this, eventually the charcoals did smother, they did eventually go out. But what he found was that the weight of the box did not change. So what this told him again, because it was as closed of an environment as he could get, right? So in his brain it was like, ah, it's a closed system. He was like, since the weight didn't change, not only was air required for fire to happen, but it seemed that that air that was being used up was being replaced as the reaction kept going forward. So he said he's okay. Okay. So fire is not only the byproduct of some type of chemical reaction. So actually in publishing he didn't use the term chemic chemical reaction, but kind of the old 1600s equivalent of that kind of so close to it. And he's like, ah, not only that is air required, but some kind of air is also released. So we have now reactants and products and actual like before and after, and the fire itself is just a byproduct. So this is the first record, at least in, you know, Western academia of the theory of combustion.
- [28:19]
Scott Bertram
So the Roberts, these guys, they figured it out, right? That's it, problem solved.
- [28:23]
Dr. Marty Billman
Wouldn't that be great? So, yes, we did have a theory of combustion. And I, of course, did just say a couple of minutes ago that, oh, cool. We have demonstrated through Robert Boyle's experiments with the vacuum pump that fire is not an independent element, therefore alchemy is wrong. But as we also know, not only now, but as was true then, it takes a long time for people to change their mind on things. So unfortunately, those who practiced alchemy continued to practice alchemy, either despite the new information, or we kind of have to remember this is the mid-1600s and it takes a lot more time for information, like actual solid scientific information to get around.
- [29:02]
Scott Bertram
Right.
- [29:02]
Dr. Marty Billman
And not only that, but if you know, you can imagine you're a member of the educated aristocracy, you are more likely to hear this information versus the uneducated lower classes had no idea. So we have essentially in the upper echelons of those who are educated this better understanding of what's happening. But even amongst them there's contention because people don't let ideas die, even bad ideas. So we're now at this stage of history where there are a bunch of competing theories and sadly, the Roberts theories of combustion is just kind of one of them. Now, of course, because it had scientific evidence in support of it, like empirical, repeatable evidence, it did start picking up traction. But unfortunately there of all of the other incorrect theories, was kind of one that spearheaded or was like, you know, the chosen theory of the competing alchemists. And it kind of stuck around for another 250 years, I guess, like, technically we're 50 years into this theory already having existed, but it would stick around for another 200 after this.
- [29:58]
Scott Bertram
Talking with Dr. Marty Billman in our Drama in Scientific Discovery series on the discovery of fire. So what is this alternative theory that's sticking around?
- [30:08]
Dr. Marty Billman
All right, so kind of keep in the back of your mind that what I'm about to talk about is going to sound maybe far fetched and out there and inconsistent. And that's because it is, again, this is a defunct theory. This is not true. This theory is known as the phlogiston theory. Now, phlogiston was a piece of alchemic understanding again, that kind of predated the Roberts discoveries with fire. So essentially what the alchemists had done was kind of picked this older theory and kind of like zhuzhed it up, kind of reframed it around. What is combustion and what is fire? So this phlogiston theory, again, dating back in its earliest forms to 1606, refers to the material kind of being burned away and in the process releasing what is known as phlogiston. So essentially the alchemist or this competing theory said, well, the answer to what is fire? Fire is phlogiston. What does that mean? It kind of depends on who you asked. It was not a very consistent theory. And the phlogiston itself, which would oftentimes be represented by Greek letter phi, was. Some folks said it was the fire, some people said it was the Essence of fire. So kind of the property of flammability. The one kind of reason why this though theory of all of the kind of competing, since debunked theories reigned supreme, is it did work, quote unquote work to explain another type of chemistry which back in the day they called calcination. Now we call this like oxidation, kind of the rusting process. So like iron turns to rust. Well, the phlogiston theory folks explained that process also with phlogiston. Yay. Because it seemed as though, I know, it seemed as though like in order to get fire, you would take a, you know, combustible material like a piece of wood, heat it up and then fire comes out and it's like, ah, that fire is the flugistan. In order to get iron to rust, heat would sometimes also be employed. And it's not just iron to rust. Right. But we can think also zinc turning to like zinc oxide or tin going to tin. There are many reasons why you would actually want some of these like oxide materials. And again, they didn't know they were oxide materials. They would call them the calcified versions of these metals. But if you would heat it up, like heat up this type of metal and then you would see it corrode. Ah, well, what must be leaving the iron is the phlogiston and what's left behind is the calcified version. So they're like, ah, this esoteric property of if you heat it up and there's a change, the change happens because phlogiston's released.
- [32:33]
Scott Bertram
So did this Robert Eglin come up with phlogiston theory?
- [32:38]
Dr. Marty Billman
Right, yes. So Robert Eglin being the one who had originally written phlogiston theory in early 1600s, kind of again picked this kind of concept of phlogiston from early alchemy and was like, oh, we can use it to explain a whole bunch of stuff. But as the 1600s continued to progress, especially once we get to around the point when Roberts, Boyle and Hooke were working so mid-1600s, there were two additional gentlemen. First, Johann Becker published his text, known as the physici subterraneae in 1669. They loved their Latin back then. I mean, we still do, but we tried to not publish our textbooks using Latin anymore so people can understand what it is. So in this book though, Johann Becker defined the five alchemical elements aligned with the newest observation. So fire was out, Right? It's like, oh, it's not that alchemy is wrong. It's that we just learned that fire is not an independent element. So we have to define what the elements actually are based on what our current understanding is. So the five new elements were air, as that seemed to be required for fire. Air must be independent water, its own thing. And then there were three different types of Earth that they named. I'm just going to stick with the translated names. I'm not going to go into the original Latin. But we have the inflammable earths. So this would be, you know, like your woods or tinder, things that can burn. We have the mercurial earth, which is actually just the element of mercury. It was a weird little guy, right? Maybe I should come back and talk about, like the weirdness of mercury at some point, as well as vitreous or life. So the elements of life, kind of like there was their way of understanding, like whatever made up you and me clearly must be different than what makes up the inorganic or the inflammable types of things.
- [34:19]
Scott Bertram
Talking with Marty Billman from Hillsdale's chemistry department about the discovery of fire, Dr. Billman, now there are responses to interactions with Becker's theory of five elements. Tell us more about that.
- [34:31]
Dr. Marty Billman
So now we're kind of picking up with, okay, well, now we have this combustion theory from the Robertses. Johann Becker being the one who's like, no, alchemy is still real, guys, we just have to adjust our thinking and we will kind of progress through the timeline a little bit. George Stahl also wanted to prove this kind of new perspective from Becker that there are five elements, and these are the five elements. And so first, I'm not going to go into a ton of detail on these experiments, but essentially what he wanted to do was start with what he assumed to be pure phlogiston. And so of course, I'm just going to, out of the gate, say he was using a lot of circular reasoning here because he's like, we're going to assume that pure charcoal is phlogiston, and we're going to use this understanding to derive each of these other five elements. And look, guys, we did it just in theory, right? So since air was required to burn charcoal, they're like, ah, so that's why air is an independent element, because water could put the fire out and stop the reaction. It was like, oh, that's a separate element. The inflammable earths, like charcoal. Or I should say again, charcoal was being defined as phlogiston. So charcoal is a bad example, like wood, you know, and then of course, like, once the wood is burned, you have like, essentially charcoal left over. So it's like, ah, yes, there's the phlogiston. And then you know, the, the other elements as well. So it's like you tried to connect each one of these things to a specific type of chemical reaction to charcoal and was like, all right, look, we figured it out. These are the five elements. Here are five reactions that prove it. And phlogiston is real. And it's like, okay, but phlogiston is real because you said it was charcoal, which it's not, and also didn't agree with a bunch of the other pro flagiston folks anyway. But regardless, he ended up publishing some results. And you know, because anytime something's published it's like, oh, it must be real. If it's published, it's real. Which of course is not necessarily true. And that's why we have at least the best kind of fail safe we have nowadays is like peer review. Right. So this would not be peer reviewed today.
- [36:26]
Scott Bertram
Not likely.
- [36:27]
Dr. Marty Billman
No. But yeah, so we've got again, Robert Eglin kind of coming up with phlogiston theory. And just like any other scientific theory, it's kind of being modified throughout time in order to fit with the data that was being gathered.
- [36:40]
Scott Bertram
So could phlogiston theory be considered as a theory of combustion today? In other words, were all these scientists saying the same thing and didn't realize it? No, almost.
- [36:53]
Dr. Marty Billman
Almost, but no. So their big flaw really, I'm going to say this with kind of historical perspective now looking back, were their egos, because phlogiston theory had started from the alchemic perspective. And the theory of combustion as presented by Roberts, Boyle and Hooke was anti alchemy was almost as though those who originated in the alchemical field could not see how these things overlapped. They were almost like staunchly opposed to the idea of their phlogiston theory having anything to do with the combustion theory. So there were multiple points in history, one of which will be one that we talk about where it's like they're so close, they're so close to actually just getting to the theory of combustion. But because ultimately the phlogiston theory was founded or predicated right on, on the notion that phlogiston had to exist. That's really where everything ends up falling apart because phlogiston doesn't exist. And even amongst their own camp, the scholars, philosophers, whatever, who thought that phlogiston was real, they couldn't agree on what it was. They all just said it had to exist. And so as long as they agreed that it existed, phlogiston theory could stick around in whatever shape or form it took, but it never actually got to what combustion theory is. And the biggest kind of reason why is ultimately, if phlogiston exists, then air is not actually like a required component for chemical reaction or for the combustion reaction, which we know it is. Right, Right. So one could almost say, well, if they just said, well, what if the phlogiston was the oxygen? Right? Then it, then it works. And it's like, well, some phlogiston folks said, like, well, the phlogiston is produced by the chemical reaction. Right. It's the fire. And some then would say, oh, well, it's the heat and the light then. Right. And it's like, no, no, no, it's not actually a thing. It's like the essence. Right. So as soon as you tried to pin them down or bridge that gap, they essentially, like on the historic record would say, no, you're misunderstanding me, you're not understanding what this phlogiston theory is. Again, some claimed it was the fire itself. Some said it wasn't the fire because all of these inconsistencies, they just consistently hand waved away. It was a real muck of a hundred years.
- [39:04]
Scott Bertram
Yeah. And I think that pretty much gets to the question of, you know, well, just in theory's bad theory, why were people believing it? That's pretty much why. Right?
- [39:13]
Dr. Marty Billman
Yeah, right. People are stubborn. And I've already said this, got into it a little bit, that it takes a long time for folks to change their mind. And essentially what we've kind of found through history, for better or for worse, is that it's not even really that a person individually needs to change their mind so much as a generation comes up with just new ideas. And so as, yes, the years are progressing, more folks are learning about this combustion theory. More folks are kind of seeing the problems with phlogiston theory, which then really gets to the second reason why so many people believed in phlogiston theory for so long is that again, this is an era of just really poor and slow information being able to be communicated. Right. It took a long time. And so until like not only the upper educated classes, but the lower classes as well, kind of like hear what this is and learn what this is through time. We're just kind of stuck.
- [40:04]
Scott Bertram
Yeah, we're going to pause here and when we pick up next time, there'll be another big discovery that helps us down the path a bit. Dr. Marty Billman, Associate professor of chemistry here at Hillsdale College. Drama in scientific discovery. We talk about the discovery of fire. Dr. Billman, thanks for joining us.
- [40:23]
Dr. Marty Billman
Yes. Thank you so much. And I hope to well be listened to in part two.
- [40:27]
Scott Bertram
That will wrap up this edition of the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour are thanks to Dr. Kathleen O' Toole and also Dr. Marty Billman from here at Hillsdale College. Remember, you can hear new episodes every week on this station. You also can find extended versions of some of our interviews or listen anytime to the podcast. Find it at Podcast Hillsdale. Edu or wherever you get your audio. Until next week, I'm still Scott Bertram, and this has been the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour.