This is a writing assignment for a class. The questions guiding it were:

We only had 1000 words to do this, so it was a bit of a challenge. I also tried to be somewhat charitable.

Making Ammonia Review

Broadly, what is Johnson doing, history and philosophy-wise, in his book? Johnson starts with philosophical categories, uses historical evidence to complicate them, then uses his historical analysis as a jumping-off point for a philosophical one. What follows is an explication and assessment of how he does so. Along the way, I will touch on the questions from the prompt.

Johnson has Kuhn’s entire framework in mind and is particularly interested in a species of the concept discovery: a breakthrough (Johnson 2022, 3). It seems we risk a naïve conception of scientific breakthrough. It is not just one event, like a publication (Johnson 2022, 3). It can’t just be a ‘useful finding,’ as it is possible the finding’s utility is never realized (Johnson 2022, 185). And this breakthrough occurred in normal science and is not a paradigm shift, therefore eliding proper Kuhnian analysis (Johnson 2022, 175). Likewise, you cannot capture this breakthrough through ‘puzzle solving,’ as breakthroughs cannot be characterized by well-articulated problems (Johnson 2022, 68).

Those are some of Johnson’s many points. His arguments will follow, but I’d be remiss not to mention The Haze. Acting as both a metaphor and a literal phenomenon, it is a foggy concept. Consequently, it is frustrating to philosophers trading in clarity. But the outline of the Haze can be understood through the book's outline. We start with the broader currents. These include political and economic motivations for ammonia production in agricultural spaces, technological advancements, and other scientific progress at the time, such as developments from physical chemistry (Johnson 2022, 9-29; Johnson 2022, 47-54). What follows is condensation into a smaller ‘arena for discovery’ which surrounds the academic community, and centers on Haber and Nernst (Johnson 2022, 77-91). Finally, the Haze ‘dissipates,’ in that it impacts further science and the social world. Johnson examines this through Haber’s work on industrializing ammonia production, and of course, his role in the chemical warfare of WWI (Johnson 2022, 149-156). Another way to understand the Haze is through Kuhn’s insight about social context being required for discovery: the Haze must condense on something (Johnson 2022, 69). Like dew on grass. Therefore, Kuhn’s work can be seen as enabling Johnson’s analysis by allowing broader interpersonal, social, and technological factors to feature in the analysis of scientific discovery.

This reveals the main historical argument: there was a ‘confluence of factors’ needed for the breakthrough at that time and place, which Johnson argues by examining the historical currents and the roles they played in the breakthrough. It is important that he argues that without these pieces, the breakthrough couldn’t have occurred as it did. His analysis that working scientists before Haber didn’t have certain epistemic ‘goods,’ especially the ‘balancing’ insight from physical chemistry, was sufficient for this purpose (Johnson 2022, 159). By presenting this main argument, he simultaneously articulates the historical events that constitute the breakthrough. He then uses this to develop his own analysis of the Haze’s structure and the nature of scientific breakthroughs.

I know the Haze and the structure will be a topic of criticism in class. But let’s look at a positive first. Reframing the Haber and Nernst debate as an epistemic exchange is a particularly strong part of the book, and it highlights the interaction between the philosophical and historical (Johnson 2022, 73). It complicates a common narrative but also helps Johnson’s own brokerage account (Johnson 2022, 197). I’ll avoid details about the brokerage account, but he presents Haber and Nernst as two agents embodying different epistemic perspectives and condensing the theoretical into the experimental. Johnson provided a historical argument that Nernst wasn’t just dismissive and hostile but must have understood the significance of Haber’s work. This interaction was not simply a humiliation for Haber, but provided a “sharpened physical insight” important for the breakthrough (Johnson 2022, 127). So, the broader Kuhnian approach of systems and frameworks is brought out in a historical analysis that also lends to Johnson’s articulation of the Haze’s structure. Consider me a fan! At least it is elegant.

Regarding the interactions he chooses to depict in the book, he isn’t very picky about historical cases when it comes to ammonia. Because of his ‘confluence of factors’ argument/approach, all of them contribute to his broader philosophical argument.

I’ve made pains to be charitable thus far, but let’s move on to criticisms. First, Johnson, at times, seems to want to dive into an analysis of the ammonia breakthrough, but he clearly wants to expand beyond this case to a general account of the Haze. There is an overgeneralization worry here. While he is not being picky in his historical examples of ammonia, he is only characterizing one historical breakthrough. That said, I’m unsure how charitable this gripe is. I think there is value in homing in on a particular historical example, identifying a structure to articulate, and then proposing empirical hypotheses for later scrutiny. But if this was his aim, I wish he had been clearer about it.

To focus on a specific issue, Johnson wants to draw out some lessons about how to ‘control the Haze’ and to ‘tip the probability of condensation in our favor’ (Johnson 2022, 225). This seems to assume that science has a (somewhat) stable trajectory. Johnson’s defense of this assumption is philosophical—even if there is no “true” objectivity, paradigms have an internal logic that we can, in principle, follow to situate ourselves at the condensation point (Johnson 2022, 180-182). But identifying the condensation point and the factors leading up to it might only be possible in retrospect, and he provides no argument otherwise. Perhaps I’m missing the argument, but—again—clarity could save the day here.

This leads to the final issue I’ll discuss. I was very surprised by how quick yet expansive his philosophical analysis was at the end. He brought a lot together, made a lot of suggestions, but without the typical philosophical ‘rigor’ I’ve come to expect. His lack of clarity and careful argument was frustrating to read. My list of things to discuss is about 1000 words. That being said, even in good analytic philosophy there is speculation and exploration. If it is philosophy’s job to be clear and precise, perhaps Johnson is giving us a lot to work with.

References

Johnson, Benjamin. 2022. Making Ammonia: Fritz Haber, Walther Nernst, and the Nature of Scientific Discovery. Springer Cham.