The Theatre of the Blind: Starring a Promethean Prankster, a Phoney Phenomenon, a Prism, a Pocket, and a Piece of Wood

Abstract

One of the most notorious cases of full-blown scientific error is the `non-existent' form of radiation known as `N-rays', discovered in the spring of 1903 by the French physicist Blondlot. After a short but full and interesting life, N-rays were killed off (so the story goes) in the autumn of 1904 by the American physicist Wood, who, after visiting Blondlot's laboratory in Nancy, published in Nature a damning report of what he found (or didn't find). In this paper, I look at the way in which these events have been represented in subsequent commentaries (including a later one of Wood's), concentrating particularly on `the tale of the removal of the prism'. I also examine the source of the effectiveness of Wood's `rhetoric of undiscovery' which I claim lies in his construction and operation of a `theatre of the blind', in which only we who were not there can see the nothing that is there. Throughout the text, Wood's credibility as a reporter is questioned in the interest of providing a symmetrically sceptical account of Wood's scientific claims and status, as a counter to the standard story.

Academic urban legends

“… 4. The myths of the decimal point error and of iron content in spinach carry a number of parallels to Malcolm Ashmore’s (1993) fascinating analysis of various diverging accounts of how Robert W. Wood allegedly debunked the existence of ‘N-rays’ in 1904. …”

Categorical feminism

“…The data were analysed using discursive psychology (DP), an ethnomethodological approach to spoken and textual interaction (Ashmore 1993;Attenborough 2010Attenborough , 2011Attenborough , 2014Edwards 2007). DP attends to the details of text construction, organisation and rhetorical orientation, including the notion of 'recipient design'; that is, the 'multitude of ways' in which actions like assessments are constructed to 'display an orientation and sensitivity to' their intended recipients (see Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson 1974:727).…”

Words, Contexts, Politics

“…In Sacks's terms, we could say that 'what dominant groups [or, in this case, "the media"] basically own is how it is that we see reality ' (1992:398). And if politics, the realm of the political, can be taken to emerge in situations where various choices exist but not all of those choices can be chosen, then media texts are essentially political phenomenon: to own how it is that we see reality is to be able to make choices about what kind of realities you want to make visible, and what kind(s) you want to conceal (see Ashmore 1993;Attenborough 2012). Whatever other politics, or critical stances, the articles included here might want to endorse, or commit to, it is a feature of this kind of discourse analytic sensibility that it cannot help but be engaged with data of a fundamentally 'political' nature.…”