Abstract
The discussion between California astronomers Harlow Shapley of Mount Wilson Observatory and Heber Doust Curtis of Lick Observatory during the 1920 NAS meeting in Washington, DC, is now a centennial vestige of early twentieth-century scientists’ efforts to map the universe. Historians have reconstructed that evening session using surviving archives (such as the formal accounts published in the Bulletin of the National Research Council in 1921), which could have contributed to a romanticized version of the event. Nevertheless, the repercussions of the event in the press have been overlooked as a source of information. On the day following the session, newspapers from all over the country covered the news on a debate on “the size of the universe” including the question of the existence of other galaxies. They used metaphors, figures, and quotes from the lecturers and the attendees, reinforcing the rivalry between the Lick and Mount Wilson observatories, with the goal of stirring the imagination of the American public, connecting the existence of other galaxies to pluralist debates. The myth of the debate may not have been based solely on the Bulletin papers; it is a complex process, which involves the media’s coverage of the event (from journalists’ testimonies in the newspapers articles to public perception).
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
References
See Michael Hoskin, “The Great Debate: What Really Happened,” Journal for the History of Astronomy 7 (1976), 169–82.
Owen Gingerich, “The Mysterious Nebulae, 1610–1924,” Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada 81, no. 4 (1987), 113–27, on 123.
Peter van de Kamp, “The Galactocentric Revolution: a Reminiscent Narrative,” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 77, no. 458 (1965), 325–35, on 325.
Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis, “The Scale of the Universe,” Bulletin of the National Research Council 2, no. 11 (1921), 171–217. Available at https://apod.nasa.gov/debate/1920/cs_nrc.html.
According to Michael Hoskin, the argument and counterargument, that characterizes a debate, belong to the published papers and correspondence, not to the NAS session. Hoskin, “The Great Debate” (ref. 1), 169–74.
Virginia Trimble, “The 1920 Shapley-Curtis Discussion: Background, Issues and Aftermath,” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 107, no. 718 (1995), 1133–44, on 1133.
Trimble, “The 1920 Shapley-Curtis Discussion” (ref. 6), 1133, 1140–42.
Robert Nemiroff and Jerry T. Bonnel, “Great Debate’ Review and History.” Available at http://atropos.as.arizona.edu/aiz/teaching/a204/shapley_curtis.html.
Marcia Bartusiak, The Day We Found the Universe (New York: Pantheon Books, 2009), 149.
Richard Berendzen, “Geocentric to Heliocentric to Galactocentric to Acentric: The Continuing Assault to the Egocentric,” Vistas in Astronomy 17, no.1 (1975), 65–83, on 67–9, 76–7.
To attribute the authorship to Shapley, Gingerich also takes into account that the astronomer was a baseball enthusiast. See Gingerich, “Mysterious Nebulae” (ref. 2), 125.
Jodicus Wayne Prosser, “Bigger Eyes in a Wider Universe: The American Understanding of Earth in Outer Space. 1893–1941,” Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University (2009). Available at http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-2009-05-555, 60.
Nemiroff and Bonnel, “Great Debate” (ref. 8).
We consider the reception of the Curtis–Shapley debate in the popular science and science fiction American magazines, in the 1920s. See Victória Flório, “Vendedores de Estrelas: a Recepção da Existência de Outras Galáxias pela Mídia de Massa Norte-Americana, década de 20, [Salesmen of stars],” Doctoral dissertation, Federal University of Bahia (2017). See also Victória Flório and Olival Freire Júnior, “Via Láctea: Ilha Isolada? A Via Láctea e as nebulosas espirais numa reportagem da Popular Science, 1922,” Cadernos de Astronomia 2, no. 1 (2021), 79–92. Available at https://periodicos.ufes.br/astronomia/article/view/33925.
Bartusiak, The Day We Found the Universe (ref. 9), xvi.
Prosser, “Bigger Eyes” (ref. 12), 20, 21.
André Keil, “Media Discourse After the War,” International Encyclopedia of the First World War, Version 1.0, last updated December 18, 2017.
John C. Burnham, How Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularizing Science and Healt in the United States (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1987), esp. 174; Marcel C. LaFollette, Science on the Air: Popularizers and Personalities on Radio and Early Television (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008), 50.
LaFollette, Making Science Our Own: Public Images of Science, 1910–1955 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 38–9, figs. 2.1 and 2.5.
John Lankford and Ricky L. Slavings, American Astronomy: Community, Careers, and Power, 1859–1940 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), on 360.
John R. Tisdale, “Observational Reporting as Oral History: How Journalists Interpreted the Death and Destruction of Hurricane Audrey,” The Oral History Review 27, no. 2 (2000), 41–65, on 47.
Tisdale considers the journalistic coverage of Hurricane Audrey, Louisiana, 1957, to be a moment of crisis. We extend this insight about crises to apply to controversies in the scientific context. This does not imply that Shapley’s and Curtis’s experiences were traumatic.
See Mark Cave, “What Remains: Reflections on Crisis Oral History,” in The Oral History Reader, edited by Robert Perks and Alistair Thomson, 92–103 (New York: Routledge, 2016), 95.
Mark Feldstein, “Kissing Cousins: Journalism and Oral History,” The Oral History Review 31, no. 1 (2014), 1–22, on 1.
Feldstein, “Kissing Cousins” (ref. 24), 3.
The complete quote is: “Only a small part of what happened in the past was ever observed.… And only a part of what was observed in the past was remembered by those who observed it; only a part of what was remembered was recorded; only a part of what was recorded has survived; only a part of what has survived has come to historians’ attention; only a part of what has come to their attention is credible; only a part of what is credible has been grasped; and only a part of what has been grasped can be expounded or narrated by the historian,” as Louis Gottschalk explained in Understanding History, cited in Donald A. Ritchie, Doing Oral History (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1995), ix; Feldstein, “Kissing Cousins” (ref. 24), 5.
Tisdale, “Observational Reporting as Oral History” (ref. 21), 43–44.
Simon M. Bessie, The Influence of the Tabloid Taken from Jazz Journalism, the Story of the Tabloid Newspapers (New York: E. P. Dutton & Company, Inc., 1938), 229–35 The Press and Society: A Book of Readings, ed. G. L. Bird and F. E. Merwin (New York: Prentice Hall Inc., 1955), 183–84.
“Scientists Set Meeting Date—National Academy to Convene at Smithsonian April 26,” The Washington Herald, April 21, 1920), 12. Available at https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045433/1920-04-21/ed-1/seq-12/.
“Scientists Here for Convention—National Academy’s Annual Meeting Opens Tomorrow at Museum,” Washington Times, April 25, 1920. Available at https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84026749/1920-04-25/ed-1/seq-15/.
“Scientists Here for Convention,” Washington Times (ref. 30).
“The National Academy of Sciences Announces ‘The Scale of the Universe,” Evening Star, April 25, 1920, 2. Available at https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1920-04-25/ed-1/seq-2/.
“Size of Universe to be Discussed,” Evening Star, April 26, 1920, 1. Available at https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1920-04-26/ed-1/seq-1/.
“Scientists Here for Convention,” Washington Times (ref. 31).
“Size of Universe to be Discussed,” Evening Star (ref. 33), 1.
“Scientists Discuss Size of the Universe,” Capital Journal, April 26, 1920. Available at https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn90066132/1920-04-26/ed-1/seq-5/, 5.
“Scientists Discuss Size of the Universe,” Capital Journal (ref. 36), 5.
“Many Scientists Attending Meet,” Grand Forks Herald, April 26, 1920. Available at https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85042414/1920-04-26/ed-1/seq-11/.
“Scientists Assembled—Is There More than One Universe, is One Problem,” Barre Daily Times, April 26, 1920, 6. Available at https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn91066782/1920-04-26/ed-1/seq-6/.
“National Science Academy Opens Annual Convention,” Omaha Daily Bee, April 25, 1920. Available at https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn99021999/1920-04-27/ed-1/seq-1/.
Bessie mentions Silas Bent. See Bird and Merwin, The Press and Society (ref. 28), 184.
LaFollette, Making Science Our Own (ref. 19), on 38–9, figs. 2.1 and 2.5.
Daniel Kevles, The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America (New York: Vintage Books, 1979), 172, 174.
Hoskin, “The Great Debate” (ref. 1), 173.
“Scientists at Odds on the Size of the Universe,” New York Times, April 27, 1920.
See Marshall Missner, “Why Einstein Became Famous in America,” Social Studies of Science 15, no. 2 (1985), 267–91. See also Chapter 3 “November 1919: Einstein Becomes a World Figure” in Abraham Pais, Einstein Lived Here (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 145–48.
Lewis Iton, “Einstein, General Relativity, and the German Press, 1919–1920,” Isis 77, no. 1 (1986), 95–103, on 95.
Bessie mentions Silas Bent. See Bird and Merwin, Press and Society (ref. 28), 184.
“Scientists at Odds on the Size of the Universe,” New York Times (ref. 45).
Norris Hetherington, “The Shapley-Curtis Debate,” The Astronomical Society of the Pacific Leaflets 10, no. 490 (1970), 313–20, on 1.
Hoskin, “The Great Debate” (ref. 1), 172, 177.
“How Big is the Universe?,” Bridgeport Times and Evening Farmer, April 27, 1920, 6. Available at https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn92051227/1920-04-27/ed-1/seq-6/.
“All Right, Learned Gentlemen, We Bite, What’s the Answer?,” Washington Times, April 26, 1920. Available at https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84026749/1920-04-26/ed-1/seq-9/.
G. R. Agassiz, letter to A. L. Lowell, April 28, 1920, in Gingerich, “How Shapley Came to Harvard or, Snatching the Prize from the Jaws of Debate,” Journal for the History of Astronomy 19 (1988), 201–7, 204.
Gingerich, “How Shapley Came to Harvard” (ref. 54), 204.
Harlow Shapley, letter to Henry Norris Russell, March 31, 1920, Shapley Archive, Harvard University.
Gingerich, “The Misterious Nebulae” (ref. 2), 123.
Gingerich, “The Mysterious Nebulae” (ref. 2), 123–25.
“Stars, like Pants are Ofttimes Deceiving, Says Noted Scientist,” Washington Times, April 27, 1920. Available at https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84026749/1920-04-27/ed-1/seq-9/.
“Stars, Like Pants,” Washington Times (ref. 59).
Gingerich, “The Mysterious Nebulae” (ref. 2), 125.
Gingerich, “Cosmology: The Nature of the Universe Debate. A Brief History of Our View of the Universe,” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 111 (1999), 254–57, on 254.
Shapley and Curtis, “The Scale of the Universe” (ref. 4).
Prosser, “Bigger Eyes” (ref. 12), 42.
“How Big is the Universe?,” Bridgeport Times and Evening Farmer (ref. 52), 6.
Trimble, “The 1920 Shapley-Curtis Discussion” (ref. 6), 1142.
Berendzen, “Geocentric to Heliocentric” (ref. 10), 69, 76.
Prosser, “Bigger Eyes” (ref. 12), 39.
Prosser, “Bigger Eyes” (ref. 12), 29, 42.
Edward S. Holding, letter to George Ellery Hale, October 28, 1892, 2, UCYOA Director’s papers; Lankford and Slavings, American Astronomy (ref. 20), 198.
Daniel J. Kevles, “George Ellery Hale, the First World War, and the Advancement of Science in America,” Isis 59, no. 4, 427–437 (1968), on 429.
Lankford and Slavings, American Astronomy (ref. 20), 199.
“Earth One of Millions,” Los Angeles Herald, April 27, 1920, A-10. California Digital Newspaper Collection, Center for Bibliographic Studies and Research, University of California, Riverside. Available at https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=LAH19200427.2.2&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN-Los+Angeles+Herald%2c+27+april+1920+%e2%80%9cEarth+one+of+millions%e2%80%9d-------1.
“Only One in Million,” Chattanooga News, April 27, 1920, 2. Available at: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85038531/1920-04-27/ed-1/seq-2/.
“Stars, like Pants,” The Washington Times (ref. 59).
“Galaxies of Island Universes,” Washington Herald, April 27, 1920, 1, 4. Available at: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045433/1920-04-27/ed-1/seq-4/.
J. B. Zirker, An Acre of Glass: A History and Forecast of the Telescope (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005), 1; Prosser, “Bigger Eyes” (ref. 12), 22.
Prosser, “Bigger Eyes” (ref. 12), 37, 38.
Lankford and Slavings, American Astronomy (ref. 20), 198.
William Wallace Campbell, letter to Armin O. Leuschner, June 2, 1920, BLUCB, Department of Astronomy papers apud Lankford and Slavings, American Astronomy (ref. 20), 198.
Nemiroff and Bonnel, “‘Great Debate’ Review and History” (ref. 8).
See Hoskin, “The Great Debate” (ref. 1), 169, and Gingerich, “The Mysterious Nebulae” (ref. 2), 123.
Hoskin, “The Great Debate” (ref. 1), 174.
Hetherington, “The Shapley-Curtis Debate” (ref. 50).
Prosser, “Bigger Eyes” (ref. 12), 42, 43.
Hoskin, “The Great Debate” (ref. 1), 172.
Berendzen, “Geocentric to Heliocentric to Galactocentric to Acentric” (ref. 10), 68.
Shapley to Hale (February 19, 1920), (Hale microfilm) apud Hoskin, “The Great Debate” (ref. 1), 171.
“How Big is the Universe?,” Bridgeport Times and Evening Farmer (ref. 52).
“Galaxies of Island Universes,” Washington Herald (ref. 76), 1,4.
“A League of Universes,” Kansas City Star, (April 27, 1920).
“How Big is the Universe?” Bridgeport Times and Evening Farmer (ref. 52).
Nemiroff and Bonnel, “Great Debate’ Review and History” (ref. 8).
David H. Clark, Measuring the Cosmos: How Scientists Discovered the Dimensions of the Universe (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2004), 88
Prosser, “Bigger Eyes” (ref. 12), 43.
Berendzen, “Geocentric to Heliocentric to Galactocentric to Acentric” (ref. 10), 74.
Trimble, “The 1920 Shapley-Curtis Discussion” (ref.6), 1133, 1140–42.
“Telegram to Vernon Kellogg (December 1, 1920), Hale Papers, roll 65. Shapley later served as Science Service trustee and president apud LaFollette, Science on the Air (ref. 18), 252.
Prosser, Bigger Eyes in a Wider Universe (ref. 12), 22–23.
Frédérique Aït-Touati, Fictions of the Cosmos: Science and Literature in the Seventeenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), 10.
See Victória Flório, “Vendedores de Estrelas” (ref. 14).
“Only One in Million,” Chattanooga News (ref. 74), 2.
“World’s World an Island Amid Legion of Universes Says California Savant,” Great Falls Daily Tribune, April 27, 1920. Available at https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84024808/1920-04-27/ed-1/seq-1/.
“Galaxies of Island universes,” Washington Herald (ref. 76).
“How Big is the Universe?” Bridgeport Times and Evening Farmer (ref. 52), 6.
Nemirof and Bonnel, “’Great Debate’ Review and History” (ref. 8).
Tisdale, “Observational Reporting as Oral History” (ref. 21).
Cave in Perks and Thomson ed., “What Remains” (ref. 23), 95.
Acknowledgements
This paper was researched and written with the support from CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior) and from the American Institute of Physics (AIP). Grateful thanks to Professor Owen Gingerich, Teasel Muir-Harmony, and Dr. Gregory Good for having one of the authors (Victória Flório) at the AIP during her research in the AIP and Harvard archives. Special thanks to Joseph Martin for the careful reading and editing suggestions and Denise Sara Key for language editing.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Victória Flório teaches at the Federal University of Espírito Santo, Brazil. Her main research interest lies in the relationship of science and culture. Olival Freire Junior is Professor of History of Science at Federal University of Bahia. He is the author of The Quantum Dissidents (Springer, 2014) and David Bohm (Springer, 2019).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Flório, V., Freire Júnior, O. The Past Looks Like an Onion: The Centennial “Great Debate” Through Journalists’ Testimonies. Phys. Perspect. 23, 85–103 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00016-021-00275-3
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00016-021-00275-3
Keywords
- Harlow Shapley
- Heber Curtis
- great debate of astronomy
- island universes
- size of the universe
- popular science
- oral history
- scientific controversies