Robert Hooke and Robert Boyle

Answer

Robert Hooke: Scientific Revolution through Collaboration

Name of Historical Individual: Robert Hooke

Year of Writing Memoir: 1701

When Robert Hooke joined the London Royal Society as an apprentice in 1660, there was an eerie foreboding that his prospects in Science would be bleak. At the time, several members of the early Royal Society were known proponents of experiential learning, modelled as the “the visual world” (Henderson, 2019). Hooke himself aligned himself with this view. Despite the pervasiveness of the notion of visual artistry among several scientists, prominent members of the London Royal Society, notably, Robert Murray, John Wilkins, William Petty, John Evelyne, William Brouncker, and Robert Boyle, Hooke’s mentor, held similar views: they eschewed sensory stimulus as a form of scientific inquiry dismissing it for conjuring emotions, and “swaying the intellect” (Henderson, 2019). I sided with the early Royal Society members. Nevertheless, I consider myself fortunate to have been chosen for an apprenticeship program under Boyle in 1660 and a full time employment offer two years later.  This was the most rewarding part of his life at the Royal Society, as it gave him the opportunity to design and build the apparatus for establishing Boyles Law. In medicine, his breakthrough moment came in 1665, when his seminal work Micrographia, was published. This book provides a most rudimentary approach to the discipline of microscopy, optics, and properties of light.

Type of Research

Robert Hooke primarily pioneered research on the use of mechanical equipment in research. For instance, his breakthrough research in microscopy was achieved as a result of prior research on the microscope Henderson (2019).  Further research on visual artistry gave rise to the design of apparatus for proving Boyle’s law. His research interest in mechanical devices still yielded the development of springs for analyzing mechanical properties of materials as captured in Hooke’s Law.

Hooke’s Predecessor and his impact on him

Robert Hooke will be eternally indebted to Professor Robert Boyle for accepting him as an apprentice at the Royal Society. Professor Boyle specifically taught him to embrace scientific discovery without being overly familiar with the subject. Accordingly, Boyle’s long-held view that Scientific Research demanded an open mind, provided Robert Hooke with prerequisite knowledge for investigating phenomena, a disposition that sets the mind free to embrace novelty in research. Professor Boyle’s approach emphasized the treatment of research subjects as “though you are interacting with it for the first time” (Henderson, 2019). While Hooke do not fully subscribe to Boyle’s view of scientific novelty, he equally admired his intellectual acuity and composure. Hooke believed that Boyle’s heritage as a nobleman, a member of the aristocracy, and a deeply religious man played an important in shaping his scientific approach. His numerous encounters with Professor Boyle at the society helped to shape his methodology of “seeing and knowing” as well (Henderson, 2019).

How Future Generations will benefit from Hooke’s Memoir

Hooke’s time at the academy, and sometimes difficult relationship with his mentor, Professor Boyle represents a microcosmic preview of considerable dearth of trust and disunity in modern empirical research. However, the pair still ignored their differences to engender breakthrough on Boyles’ Law. Retrospectively, notwithstanding the ideological differences with Professor Boyle, Hooke maintained collaborative engagements with Professor Boyle as they both pursued a common trajectory in science. Tellingly, development of experiments on pneumatics, the anchor escapement, the spring-controlled watch, circular or conical pendulum - corresponding equivalence of planetary motion- were born out of sacrifice and compromise in a largely adversarial environment. Modern scientists can learn from this, to craft a working formula for joint research. Secondly, modern scientists can accelerate the pace of research by drawing from antique approaches such as Professor Boyles’ which advocated for scientific research from the realm of familiar phenomena. On the other hand, they should assimilate experiential investigations with “new” forms of scientific research as a way of evaluating scientific observations.