This may be nitpicking, but I'll bring it up anyway: There are certain clues about a biography that are important to the person's body of work. In science, there's always a fine line between when you're prattling in trivia and when it's important, much more so than in history. However, if there is information that can be considered critical, it should by all means be included. For example: <<It's the equivalent of counting yet another "He was apprenticed as a bookbinder" <buzz> "Faraday" question as physics.>> Matt may be right, but it happens that he picks a bad example. Faraday's upbringing is crucial to understanding his body of work. The fact that he wasn't classically trained as a scientist led to the delay in acceptance of his work on chlorine*, even starting quasi-rivalries with Davy and Wollaston* to the point that Davy nearly vetoed Faraday's induction into the Royal Society*. In fact, Faraday got his foot in the door in part because his beautiful lab notes that he sent to Davy (of all people) were so well-present in a book he bound with his own hands*. So, while "bookbinder" may rank with "lens grinder" in terms of cliched status, it's certainly legitimate. Of course, I've now assured it won't get asked again, because I've told everyone. :p * - Source: _Five Equations that Changed the World_, by Michael Guillen, PhD, Harvard University and ABC-TV Andy Goss
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:45 AM EST EST