Dear Richard,
For a quite a long time there was a description of the Mnrl.Ind., this being
"The Science & Art of mining". The ancients, however one may think of them
and there techniques, were scientists in their own way, they researched, they
looked, and evaluated what was going on and drew conclusions through either
their own experimentation or others wish to see more efficiency and
production. Agricola produced the first book on mining, he must have
travelled far and wide, and, like any technical author, wanted to assist and
advise others with what was then the most up-to-date technology of the time.
Mining at this time was done by handed down experience, and Agricola was the
first to start the general change: maybe he wasn't a scientist, but he
certainly was an expert and a great authority - Hoovers in his trans. proved
how much his work was respected simply by the number of the edits. produced.
People wanted new technology, so was he a scientist? Maybe not in the
strictest sense since he was not chained to a lab table, but in today's terms
he would certainly have been a Professor of Mining: this begs another
question, is a current Professor of Mining regarded as a scientist? In some
instances certainly if the discipline is scientific, but this leads down
another avenue! Where does science stop and technical knowledge begin! Going
back to the beginning of this diatribe, it used to be the Science & Art of
Mining - there was even a technical mining newspaper in the 1880's called
same which was bound into books by some - & I have a few - the technology
discussed was scientific in as much that the papers presented had been
researched thoroughly, and much thought had gone into what was said. Were
these people scientists? I think so, most peoples perception of a scientist
is of a person siting as a lab. bench peering down a microscope, or working
with complex chemical formulae trying to make something out of them for the
benefit of mankind - or profit. If an individual produces a technical paper
on mining, they are, in my opinion scientific, since all science is dependent
on research, investigation, and logic thought, and of course proof by action.
One only has to look at the history of froth flotation to see what I mean:
they experimented, trial & error, and a lot of hard work (Minerals Separation
Co for example 1900's +). Ultimately these people & others were the
instigators of the most important bulk processing method to date. Were they
scientists though: I think yes, but maybe they would not like to have been
though of as such? Does a scientist have to be loaded with qualifications to
be one? Anyone who can see a new perspective by their own thought and
investigation, and once certain pronounces what they have found should have
the right to be called such, however, there are many who would not seek such
a title. Please, I do not want to be responsible for starting a deluge of
conversation on the definition of a scientist, there are many to-day involved
in mining who are quietly responsible for superb innovations, many of these
are actually 'in the field', and do not seek accolade. Apologies for such a
long preamble. Regards, Bernard
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|