January 31, 2025
Thanks to Alissa Simon, HMU Tutor, for today’s post.
Michael Faraday introduces Lecture 1 of the Chemical History of a Candle with a passionate discussion about the function of the cup of wax which builds at the bottom of a burning wick. This liquid wax pools to be used as fuel in burning. This cup wastes nothing since all gathered wax will be burned or will eventually cool for the next usage. A candle which does not form this cup, a candle of diverse shapes for example, does not please him. Rather, Faraday finds beauty in the functionally symmetrical cup at the base of the wick (and if you’re having trouble visualizing this, please watch the amazing video posted by Bill Hammack, the Engineer Guy). Faraday writes:
“No fuel would serve for a candle which has not the property of giving this cup. These beautiful candles which are irregular and intermittent in their shape cannot have that nicely-formed edge to the cup which is the great beauty in a candle. I hope you will now see that the perfection of a process—that is, its utility—is the better point of beauty about it. It is not the best looking thing, but the best acting thing, which is the most advantageous to us. These good-looking candles are bad-burning ones.”
So right out of the gate, within the first few paragraphs of the first lecture on chemistry, not only do we have a discussion of utility but also of beauty. Furthermore, Faraday defines beauty as that which is most useful or efficient. He says that the candles which may be pleasing to look at burn badly and cause gutters along its edge which drip onto other surfaces. Faraday takes issue with these cutely styled candles because they are poorly designed for their purpose. They become wasteful. While the candles might be pleasant to look at, they aren’t pleasant to use and for Faraday, use is of extreme importance. So when he says “the best acting thing” is the most beautiful, he means that form fits the function perfectly.
Yet, Faraday understands that the poorly shaped candles are also an important part of the demonstration. Naming the candle’s flaws leads him into the discussion of efficiency, utility, and eventually, beauty. Faraday says, “[T]he great mistakes and faults with regard to candles, as in many other things, often brings with them instruction.” In other words, for the science minded, the perfectly shaped candle which cups the wax and doesn’t drip should be compared with a candle whose wax drips down the sides. Faraday notes the differences which lead to cause and effect which allows him to conclude that the better functioning one is ultimately more beautiful.
But why would Faraday want the audience to think in terms of beauty? Is beauty really tied to utility? Isn’t it sufficient to say that the candle is efficient, or useful? Must the chemistry lecture really go to such lengths as beauty? I recently raised this question to the participants in the January Quarterly Discussion. Our discussion tied ideas of utility to those of meaning-making. In Faraday’s lectures, utility might also be a synonym for meaning. In other words, Faraday connects meaning to the candle’s function. In this sense, then, beauty is a form of meaning-making. Faraday places importance on the function and efficiency, which create a meaningful connection to the more efficient candle, and the thing that makes the most meaning might also be the most beautiful.
The other half of our discussion was dedicated to Francis Bacon’s Aphorisms. While Bacon did not introduce beauty into the conversation, he was certainly interested in utility. Writing in 1620, Bacon describes man as a “servant and interpreter of Nature” (I). In the Aphorisms, he describes the reasons for a new philosophy of science. Rather than relying on the same answers that humans had used for one thousand years (aka Aristotle’s philosophy), Bacon asks scientists to look for cause and effect, to use sensory data in a meaningful way, and organize real experiments rather than using chance effects.
Both men credit nature’s complexity. In many aphorisms, Bacon admits that nature has more ability to build, create, and change than humans can comprehend. In X, he writes, “The subtlety of nature is greater many times over than the subtlety of the senses and understanding.” Having said that, however, he also asks that humans try to increase their awareness, which requires specialized language. In XV, he writes, “There is no soundness in our notions, whether logical or physical. Substance, Quality, Action, Passion, Essence itself, are not sound notions; much less are Heavy, Light, Dense, Rare, Moist, Dry, Generation, Corruption, Attraction, Repulsion, Element, Matter, Form, and the like; but all are fantastical and ill-defined.” In order for science to advance, Bacon clearly sees the need for change. No longer can man rely on Aristotle’s Categories and syllogistic arguments.
We discussed the ways in which both of these men presented a philosophy of science rather than performing scientific experiments directly and how this philosophy might be essential to the more experimental side of science. While Faraday clearly discusses and demonstrates experiments, he also argues for the recognition that the most useful item is also the most beautiful. This passionate claim seems a little unscientific on the surface as it presents like a bias towards beauty, further proving how difficult it is to be unbiased. But also demonstrating how experiment turns into passion and art.
As always, the Quarterly Discussion left me with more questions than answers. I enjoyed the time among engaging and interesting people and am grateful for all the work and time our friends and students put into the materials! Thanks for joining the conversation! Our next Quarterly Discussion falls in April and will focus on fairy tales. Please email as****@*mu.edu for more information and to register.
Photo credit: Shutterstock/ dboroFootage
