liquid which constituted the reagent. Bergman reminded Wallerius that an egg is
cooked after being immersed in boiling water, although the shell prevents direct
contact with the water. He concluded by writing that
Thus, not a single circumstance of the O.C.’s accusations holds, and never the less must
solid rules, unclear concepts, false conclusions, serious mistakes about clear opinions, yes
untruth serve him when he everywhere vents his spite. [—] I happily leave to every
impartial reader to discern whether they [Wallerius’ reminders] are necessary and whether
they are well-meant. When his heart, his Theoria and Praxis of this specimen [his paper],
that now to his commemoration lays in front of the eyes of the public, is to be judged, I fear
that the verdict will not please him. I, by the way, know that man. The number of his
important discoveries, the accuracy in his results and the swiftness of his operations are also
quite well known. Some people are born to worry others.
Bergman then turned to Wallerius’ criticism of the paper on the mountains of
Västergötland and disproved all Wallerius’ points. “It is”, Bergman wrote, “human
to fail, but he who with the utmost rigour examines others works, and who cleaves
hairs in order to, with utmost bitterness impose them with errors, which they are not
guilty of, should one not of him expect perfection in every way” In fact, Wallerius’
short paper still casts long shadows over his memory, two centuries later.
In an introductory essay, called Investigation of the Truth, in the first volume of his
collected works, Opuscula Chemica et Physica published in 1779, Bergman
described his own ideas of how research should be conducted. He criticised Descartes
and priced the works of Newton, who first collected facts and then analysed them
thoroughly. Bergman then introduced a set of guidelines for a scientific approach to
chemistry. (1) On investigating a substance, conclusions should not be drawn from
slight similarities with other substances. Each substance has to be analysed and the
analysis confirmed with synthesis. (2) Chemical analysis should preferably be conducted in a solution (Chap. 23). (3) Experiments should be designed in order to reveal
the truth: it is not the number of experiments that is important, but their quality.
(4) Experiments should be made with the greatest possible accuracy. (5) Experiments
by others, “particularly the more remarkable ones.” should be reviewed critically.
(6) Investigations should start from known facts and proceed to more complex
questions. (7) A discovered phenomenon should not be trusted until it is confirmed by
other experiments. (8) The relation between the cause and the effect should be
determined quantitatively. As most chemists still worked qualitatively, this was
rather controversial. When discussing the accuracy of experiments, he wrote: “I am
almost ashamed to relate, that I knew a chemist who considered thermometers, and
such instruments, as physical subtleties, superfluous and unnecessary in a laboratory”
[106]. It is almost certainly Wallerius that Bergman is referring to [107].
Apart from Wallerius, there was one more important chemist in Sweden at the
time, Gustaf von Engeström,
21 who was born in Lund 1738, and was thus about
three years younger than Bergman. He began his studies in Lund, but continued in
Stockholm, studying under Scheffer, Cronstedt and von Swab. After spending some
time as auscultator and extraordinary assayer at the Board of Mines in Stockholm,
21
There are no known portraits of von Engeström.
138
9 Bergman Becomes a Chemist
cooked after being immersed in boiling water, although the shell prevents direct
contact with the water. He concluded by writing that
Thus, not a single circumstance of the O.C.’s accusations holds, and never the less must
solid rules, unclear concepts, false conclusions, serious mistakes about clear opinions, yes
untruth serve him when he everywhere vents his spite. [—] I happily leave to every
impartial reader to discern whether they [Wallerius’ reminders] are necessary and whether
they are well-meant. When his heart, his Theoria and Praxis of this specimen [his paper],
that now to his commemoration lays in front of the eyes of the public, is to be judged, I fear
that the verdict will not please him. I, by the way, know that man. The number of his
important discoveries, the accuracy in his results and the swiftness of his operations are also
quite well known. Some people are born to worry others.
Bergman then turned to Wallerius’ criticism of the paper on the mountains of
Västergötland and disproved all Wallerius’ points. “It is”, Bergman wrote, “human
to fail, but he who with the utmost rigour examines others works, and who cleaves
hairs in order to, with utmost bitterness impose them with errors, which they are not
guilty of, should one not of him expect perfection in every way” In fact, Wallerius’
short paper still casts long shadows over his memory, two centuries later.
In an introductory essay, called Investigation of the Truth, in the first volume of his
collected works, Opuscula Chemica et Physica published in 1779, Bergman
described his own ideas of how research should be conducted. He criticised Descartes
and priced the works of Newton, who first collected facts and then analysed them
thoroughly. Bergman then introduced a set of guidelines for a scientific approach to
chemistry. (1) On investigating a substance, conclusions should not be drawn from
slight similarities with other substances. Each substance has to be analysed and the
analysis confirmed with synthesis. (2) Chemical analysis should preferably be conducted in a solution (Chap. 23). (3) Experiments should be designed in order to reveal
the truth: it is not the number of experiments that is important, but their quality.
(4) Experiments should be made with the greatest possible accuracy. (5) Experiments
by others, “particularly the more remarkable ones.” should be reviewed critically.
(6) Investigations should start from known facts and proceed to more complex
questions. (7) A discovered phenomenon should not be trusted until it is confirmed by
other experiments. (8) The relation between the cause and the effect should be
determined quantitatively. As most chemists still worked qualitatively, this was
rather controversial. When discussing the accuracy of experiments, he wrote: “I am
almost ashamed to relate, that I knew a chemist who considered thermometers, and
such instruments, as physical subtleties, superfluous and unnecessary in a laboratory”
[106]. It is almost certainly Wallerius that Bergman is referring to [107].
Apart from Wallerius, there was one more important chemist in Sweden at the
time, Gustaf von Engeström,
21 who was born in Lund 1738, and was thus about
three years younger than Bergman. He began his studies in Lund, but continued in
Stockholm, studying under Scheffer, Cronstedt and von Swab. After spending some
time as auscultator and extraordinary assayer at the Board of Mines in Stockholm,
21
There are no known portraits of von Engeström.
138
9 Bergman Becomes a Chemist