What Role Does Science Play in the Industrial Revolution?

Dr. Kathryn Tian

There are arguments and different opinions on the role of science inthe Industrial Revolution. Many economic historians refused to accept the ideathat science was critical to the development of IR. (1) And Neil McKendrickconcluded in his book that science “played a necessary but not sufficient rolein easing the path of industrial success and economic progress.”(2) One of themost important discussions was about the relationship between science andtechnology during the Industrial Revolution. Musson and Robinson addressed thatscience and technology were interrelated during the IR and neither science nortechnology alone can drive the IR. Actually, science and technology arecomplementary to each and cannot be separated. Technology is applied scienceand the trial-and-error-based advances in technology can trigger thedevelopments in science. (3) “The eighteenth century witnesses a closer rapprochementbetween science and technology. On the one hand, men of science took a moreactive interest in practical problems; on the other hand, practical craftsmenor technicians showed a new interest in the scientific aspects of their work.”(4)

So, the rational understanding about the role of science in IRprobably can be stated as follows: “If science played a role in the earlierstages of the Industrial Revolution, it was the indirect one of contributing toan intellectual climate which encouraged the application of scientific methodsto manufacturing ……After 1850, however, many of the most important newdevelopments – in chemicals and pharmaceuticals, in the gas and electricityindustries – were science-based, and could not have been made by men with no theoreticalknowledge of science (Hobsbawn, 1976).” (5) Generally, we accept that there arethree phases and two stages in the Industrial Revolution. The first phase wasusually dated from 1760 to 1820 and featured by proto-factories, mainly, handpowered or water powered textile machinery. The second phase, from 1820 to1880, is about the invention and application of steam engines. These two phasesare usually referred to as the First Industrial Revolution. The third phase,from about 1880 to 1945, so-called the Second Industrial Revolution, ischaracterized by science-led inventions, for example, the development ofproducts as steel, chemicals, internal combustion engines, and electric motors.Science provided the intellectual base for the First Industrial Revolution. Andfor the Second Industrial Revolution, science obviously played a decisive andcrucial role. (1)

The Industrial Revolution cannot be happening overnight. It was theresult of centuries of early modern mechanization. In 1676, Newton said: “If Ihave seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” Isaac Newton(1642-1727), the most important figure in the new science, provided thefundamental intellectual basis of the British Industrial Revolution. His work,the principia, synthesized much ofthe earlier great scientific findings into universal laws. “Not only did hegive mankind incomparable intellectual tools but he demonstrated for everyoneto see that the universe is governed by universal laws that the human mind canfind and use.”(6) Newton’s mechanics and his mathematical methods penetratedthe thinking of mankind and greatly influenced the British society. It was theNewtonian mechanics that provided the intellectual base for the FirstIndustrial Revolution which happened in Britain. If we take a look at theinvention of steam engine, we will understand even better how important thescience is for the IR. The development of steam engine was a result of theintegration of scientific knowledge and practical engineering. And the developersof the steam engine’s principles were mathematicians (Cardan and Porta),physicists (Porta and Huygens) and practical engineers (Savery and etc.).  At that time, engineers frequently made useof scientific principles to guide their inventions.

As for the Second Industrial Revolution, it is generally agreed thatthis Science-Led-Phase was heavily science based. Professors J. Mokyr and R.H.Strotz narrated the process of steel making: “The Bessemer converter used thefact that the impurities in cast iron consisted mostly of carbon, and thiscarbon could be used as a fuel if air were blown through the molten metal. Theinteraction of the air’s oxygen with the steel’s carbon created intense heat,which kept the iron liquid. Thus, by adding the correct amount of carbon or bystopping the blowing at the right time, the desired mixture of iron and carboncould be created, the high temperature and turbulence of the molten massensuring an even mixture. At first, Bessemer steel was of very poor quality, butthen a British steelmaker, Robert Mushet, discovered that the addition ofspiegeleisen, and alloy of carbon, manganese, and iron, into the molten iron asa recarburizer solved the problem.” The process of steel making very clearlyindicated the importance of science in the Second IR. Without the discovery ofscientific knowledge, steel-making was impossible. Furthermore, famous Germanchemists in the mid nineteenth century “created modern organic chemistry,without which the chemical industry of the second half of the nineteenthcentury would not have been possible. It was one of the most prominent examplesof how formal scientific knowledge came to affect production techniques.” (7)

Now we can make the conclusion that the development of science was anecessary precondition of the Industrial Revolution.

References:

(1)     Bekar, C.; Lipsey, R. G.“Science, Institutions, and the Industrial Revolution.” www.sfu.ca/econ-researh/discussion/dp02-4.pdf

(2)     McKendrick, Neil. “The Role ofScience in the Industrial Revolution.” Scienceand Culture in the Western Tradition. ed. John.G. Burke (Scottsdale, AS;Gorsuch Scarisbrick, 1987)

(3)     Musson A.E.; Robinson, E. Science and Technology in the IndustrialRevolution. University of Toronto, 1969.

(4)     Wolf, A. History of Science, Technology, and Philosophy, XVIII Century, p499; from Clow and Clow p4)

(5)     Boyle, Charles. “The IndustrialRevolution and the Emergence of “Big” Science and Technology”. From People,Science and Technology. Eds., Charles Boyle, Peter Wheale, and Brian Sturgess.Brighton Sussex: 1984. 17-24.

(6)     Alder, Robert. “Newton: Gravityand Light.” From Science Firsts: From the Creation of Science to the Science ofCreation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2002. 61-6; 2. Fara, Paticia.“Matters of Fact” in “Sanctity.” From Newton:The Making of a Genius. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002. 3-13.)

(7)     Mokyr, J; Strotz, R.H. The Second Industrial Revolution, 1870-1914.Northwestern University Aug. 1998. https://sites.northwestern.edu