Normality, Abnormality, and Scientists

Abstract

This chapter introduces three subjects: the psychology of science, the use of psychology in biography, and the problem faced by a Cavendish biographer. Certain personality traits appear more often in scientists than in nonscientists. According to a number of psychological studies, scientists are, for example, more dominant, self-confident, autonomous, and ambitious than nonscientists. They are also less social, preferring to be left alone or to interact in small groups. Most important, they are open to new experiences, curious about the world, and ready to admit error. Psychological insights find a place in biographies, and they are usually accepted without objection. However the systematic use of psychological theory in biographies meets with resistance in some quarters, thought to be narrow, reductionist, and destructive of character; it need not be, but there is that danger. The first book-length biography of Cavendish appeared in 1751, written by a chemist, George Wilson, to vindicate Cavendish in the “water controversy,” a dispute over the discovery of the composition of water. Because of his purpose in writing it, Wilson’s biography is peculiarly put together: Cavendish’s “life” in the usual sense of the word is confined to two chapters, occupying only 50 pages; the rest of the book of nearly 500 pages is about the controversy. What Wilson says about Cavendish is insightful and generous, but the imbalance of the biography conveys an incorrect idea of what Cavendish’s life was about. Any subsequent biography of Cavendish must deal with this legacy. It must also, and more fundamentally, deal with the limited nature of the historical record, the restricted range of Cavendish’s activities, and his strange ways. Wilson says that a “more eventless life, according to the ordinary judgment of mankind, than that of Cavendish, could scarcely be conceived.” Another chemist says that Cavendish was “shy and bashful to a degree bordering on disease.” Cavendish’s personality being one of the most baffling in the history of science, the possibility of a psychological approach is suggested by the biographical facts in the next two chapters.