S1: From the historic campus of Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan,
S1: where the good, the true and the beautiful are taught,
S1: nurtured and honored. This is the radio free Hillsdale Hour,
S1: bringing the activity and education of the college to listeners
S1: across the country.
S2: So there were terrible street conditions almost everywhere. And I
S2: kind of expected the people were going to be, you know,
S2: really disgusted. But the reaction I heard most was compassion.
S2: I mean, deep compassion.
S3: This is your host, Scott Bertram. Welcome to the Radio
S3: Free Hillsdale Hour. Part of the Hillsdale College Podcast Network.
S3: That was Mary Thoreau, chairman of the board of directors
S3: and CEO of the Independent Institute. Her book is Beyond
S3: Homeless Good Intentions, Bad Outcomes, Transformative Solutions. We talk with
S3: Mary in depth in just a moment on today's program.
S3: Later on, Marty Gillman from Hillsdale's chemistry department is back
S3: to conclude her story on the history of phlogiston theory
S3: and fire and how combustion works. First, we're joined now
S3: by Mary Thoreau. She's chairman and chief executive officer at
S3: the Independent Institute. more@independent.org. Mary, thanks so much for joining us.
S2: Thank you so much for inviting me.
S3: Talking about your recent book, which people can find beyond
S3: homeless good intentions, bad outcomes, Transformative solutions. Homelessness is more
S3: complex than people think. You argue and you say, there's
S3: not a single cause, of course, of homelessness. Can you
S3: walk us through the range from systemic issues to personal crisis?
S3: How do people find themselves in homelessness?
S2: Well, as I think we all agree, people are individuals
S2: and therefore they have very individualized paths into homelessness. anything from.
S2: I mean, there certainly are addiction issues and there are
S2: mental health issues which do account for large numbers of
S2: people who are experiencing homelessness. But I've talked to, oh,
S2: I don't know, scores or hundreds of people over the
S2: years I've been involved in this work. And it's varied.
S2: A lot of it comes out of childhood trauma. There
S2: are are so many broken homes, so many so much
S2: violence in homes. And children just are not enabled to
S2: become functioning adults. I'd say trauma is the largest driver.
S2: Trauma can also manifest itself as mental illness. And then
S2: self-medicating trauma can manifest itself as addiction. But I've also
S2: talked to people just, you know, literally did have bad
S2: luck and some of it really terrible luck. Fortunately, those
S2: are the ones who can usually be helped out of
S2: homelessness the quickest. The people who have severe mental illness or.
S2: Or drug addiction or a combination of the. Both, which
S2: is very common. Are there more tricky ones to help?
S2: But they can be helped. And we have countless examples
S2: of people who have been helped to transform their lives,
S2: to become to reach their full potentials. It's not hopeless
S2: and our government treats it as if it is.
S3: On the whole. Would you say we're better today in
S3: dealing with the problem of homelessness than we were, say,
S3: 30 years ago?
S2: No, we're much worse at it. In 2013, the federal
S2: government adopted Housing First as the one size fits all
S2: policy solution for homelessness. And it's a terrible, quote unquote solution.
S2: It claims that the reason people are experiencing. Well, the
S2: term homelessness, I mean, that implies that people are in
S2: the streets because they don't have a home. If you
S2: give them a home, you've solved their problem. And that
S2: is so far from the truth. You have not done
S2: anything to address the underlying issues that put them into homelessness.
S2: As one Salvation Army officer I spoke to said about
S2: Housing First is there inside, but they're still culturally homeless. Mhm.
S2: And they die at higher rates when they're put into
S2: isolated housing by themselves than they do when they're, you know,
S2: oddly in community in the streets.
S3: So what happens at that point? Housing first is you're
S3: critical of it in in the book Beyond Homeless. It
S3: doesn't address the root causes. Once people get the housing,
S3: the housing first, what ends up happening generally.
S2: So housing first came out of a very limited pilot
S2: program of people who were severely mentally ill and suffering from,
S2: you know, severe problems and were housed with accompanying services
S2: to address their issues. And that worked well for that
S2: small set of the population. The. As always, the Army decided, oh,
S2: it works well. Give it to. Let's apply it to
S2: absolutely everybody. And the problem. There are several problems with it.
S2: One is there's. It's not being built. It's very expensive
S2: here in California. LA now is building permanent supportive housing
S2: units for $1.5 million each. That's to house one person.
S2: There's a lot of pushback from these developments being built.
S2: Rightly so. So not many of them are getting built. Um,
S2: and it's so expensive. They could spend an infinite number
S2: of an infinite amount of money on it, and you
S2: would not have sufficient housing. But the more important issue
S2: of it is this, you know, housing first or so-called
S2: permanent supportive housing. Well, there are a couple problems with that.
S2: One is moral. You're assuming permanent supportive housing. The people
S2: have to be permanently supported in housing. They're not going
S2: to get any better. You're just going to warehouse them forever.
S2: And that is just so objectionable. People do have the
S2: ability to come out of homelessness and be reach their
S2: full potential, and many of them can become fully independent.
S2: And that is what we wish for people. The utilitarian
S2: issue with it is, again, it's not addressing the issues
S2: that put them into homelessness in the first place. And
S2: those are many and varied. The models that we cite
S2: in the book are programs that provide the many services
S2: that people need on an individual basis. Some people need,
S2: you know, workforce training to become employable. Some people need
S2: mental health care, they need recovery services. They may and
S2: they need help finding employment, getting their ID. Some people,
S2: it's just as simple as they don't have an ID,
S2: they need an ID, they need a mailing address so
S2: that when they apply for jobs, they can get responses
S2: and so on. So there are myriad things that people need,
S2: and you don't supply those with a one size fits
S2: all solution of here's your apartment. Good luck.
S3: You have the phrase the homelessness industrial complex inside the
S3: book Beyond Homeless. In chapter six, specifically, you're looking at
S3: San Francisco. The dollar spent on programs as compared to
S3: the dollars that actually make it to the people experiencing homelessness.
S3: What's that mix in San Francisco and how should it change?
S2: Well, the term is not original with me. It's a
S2: widely used term. And but it's very true. Literally in California,
S2: literally billions of dollars are being directed, quote unquote, at homelessness.
S2: There was an audit from the state auditor last year
S2: that said the California spent $24 billion over five years
S2: on homelessness services, and it cannot account for where that
S2: money went and what outcomes it produced. The same is
S2: true in San Francisco. The same is true almost everywhere.
S2: There are vast numbers of money taxpayer money being thrown
S2: at homelessness, directed to various nonprofits which get corrupted by
S2: that money. They lose their way. And there are stories
S2: almost every day on the corruption involved. People are directing
S2: millions of dollars to their own pockets, to that of friends,
S2: on lavish trips, on you name it. It's going there.
S2: And again, nobody's measuring. Nobody is asking these nonprofits to
S2: provide reporting on what they're doing with the money and importantly,
S2: what the outcomes are. Anything that the government does report
S2: on homelessness is all outputs. Well, we spent $20 million
S2: on this. We put 8000 people out on the streets
S2: to with outreach services. We passed out, you know, 500
S2: 000 needles and so on, but nothing about, well, what
S2: what did you achieve with it? So I blame the
S2: people responsible for handing out the money. You know, these
S2: stories all vilify the non-profits and the corruption at the non-profits.
S2: But to quote the great Harry Brown, when you strew
S2: the streets with raw meat and packs of wild dogs come,
S2: you don't blame the dogs.
S3: Mary Thoreau is with us. Her book, Beyond Homeless Good Intentions,
S3: Bad Outcomes, Transformative Solutions. So let's talk about what works
S3: in Beyond Homeless. You talk about housing readiness programs. One
S3: of those programs. How is it? How are they different
S3: philosophically from Housing First?
S2: Well, housing readiness programs provide people a path from an
S2: appropriate path, from the streets to self-sufficiency or their full potential,
S2: whatever that may be. And it provides recovery services for
S2: those who are suffering from substance use disorder. It provides
S2: mental health stabilization for those who can be stabilized as well.
S2: Some people will need full custodial care, but that's a
S2: minority and so on. There's a program here in San
S2: Francisco called The Way Out, run by the Salvation Army,
S2: and it goes everywhere from from detox to recovery, then
S2: into a long term program with workforce training, life skills training,
S2: including you can spend a year or two just in
S2: there safe and sober Residency. You may be fully employed,
S2: but you're living in an environment in which, as you
S2: hit life's bumps and you're tempted to go back to
S2: the crutch of drugs or alcohol, you're in an environment
S2: that helps you resist that temptation to to resume your
S2: addiction until you're really ready to go out into the
S2: so-called real world and live in an environment in which
S2: there is temptation at your doorstep, and you're prepared to
S2: resist it and continue on in a well functioning life.
S2: The other one we cite a lot, and it's also
S2: very featured in our our documentary, which accompanies the book,
S2: which is also called Beyond Homeless, is Haven for Hope
S2: in San Antonio.
S3: Right, Mary? This is one I'm aware of. I think
S3: we've talked about it in a previous conversation we've had.
S3: Tell us more about Haven for Hope, how it's different
S3: from other programs and why you think it's been particularly successful.
S2: It's been operating for 15 years, and it's just the
S2: most marvelous model, mostly because the entire community is involved
S2: in it. Every part of the community, you know, the police, fire, EMS,
S2: the hospital system, the business community, the volunteer community. They
S2: partner with 100 nonprofits, 80 of whom office on their campus.
S2: So they have a 22 acre campus right next to downtown.
S2: And it offers everything from just a safe sleeping site with,
S2: you know, showers and meals and access to services. If
S2: people want to avail themselves of it to a secure
S2: campus where people can live, they do have to maintain
S2: their sobriety. They have to be actively working on their program,
S2: which is highly individualized. They come into that campus, they're interviewed, hey,
S2: tell us your story, what happened to you? And from
S2: that information, together they can identify, okay, what's what's your barrier?
S2: And then they can bring in the appropriate nonprofit service
S2: providers to build a whole case management team around that
S2: individual and work with them as they learn how to
S2: transform their lives and go to a fully functional outside
S2: life again. They've been operating for 15 years. It's incredibly
S2: cost effective. It's incredibly, incredibly results effective. And it's been
S2: fully documented with lots and lots of data proving its efficacy.
S2: So we really hold that up as what every community
S2: can and should be doing. And the most important part, again,
S2: is to bring all of the sectors together. The biggest
S2: problem in the homeless industrial complex, and the reason we
S2: have so much dysfunction, is you have everybody operating in silos.
S2: You know, Nobody is talking to each other. Nobody is
S2: coordinating with one another. They're often working at cross purposes.
S2: And if you could just open up lines of communication,
S2: that gets a long way towards a solution.
S3: We'll continue with Mary Thoreau next. Her book is Beyond
S3: Homeless Good Intentions, Bad Outcomes, Transformative Solutions. If you haven't
S3: made plans for this weekend yet, well, now is the time,
S3: because revolutionary America is here this Friday, Saturday, and Sunday,
S3: May 31st. June 1st. June 2nd in theaters, go to
S3: hillsdale.edu/to find a local theater and get your tickets. This
S3: is a documentary experience from Hillsdale College that tells the
S3: true story of the American founding. Our ancestors risked it
S3: all their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor, fighting for
S3: liberty in the American Revolution with 250 years on the line.
S3: Make sure you and your children know this story. Revolutionary
S3: America is in theaters May 31st. June 1st. June 2nd.
S3: hillsdale.edu/hillsdale.edu slash. To find a theater near you and get
S3: your tickets this weekend for Revolutionary America. We continue with
S3: Mary Thoreau, CEO of the Independent Institute. Her book, Beyond
S3: Homeless Good Intentions, Bad Outcomes, Transformative Solutions. Mary, you argue
S3: that these housing readiness programs, that the models help to
S3: restore dignity and independence. You mentioned the fully functioning outside
S3: life after going through these programs. What does that look
S3: like in real life for someone coming out of homelessness
S3: after going through these programs?
S2: It looks like they have a life, you know very
S2: much as you and I have. They can maintain a home.
S2: They can establish healthy relationships. They. If they had a family,
S2: they can reunite with their family and go on to
S2: restored life where they're employed, sober, if they have mental
S2: illness issues, those are stabilized and they can live with joy.
S2: And almost every community. Scott has a good program. I mean,
S2: there there are wonderful programs literally almost everywhere I've looked.
S2: The only issue is that most of them can only
S2: help a few people at a time. And we need
S2: solutions that scale. So that's why we argue for the
S2: Haven for Hope type of model, which addressed the issue
S2: on a whole community wide basis. But all of those
S2: smaller programs can can operate integrated with those and continue
S2: to operate. They don't have to feel threatened that, oh,
S2: that's an either or thing. They can be a part
S2: of the whole, the holistic community wide addressing of the issue.
S3: Now, Beyond homeless addresses accountability for all programs. That means
S3: we have to measure success. And there's a clear definition
S3: in the book. What do you consider success when we
S3: look at various programs?
S2: It's a very detailed definition, but in some it's you
S2: are free of substance use disorder, of addiction. Your mental
S2: illness has been addressed. You are able to hold a job.
S2: You were able to live independently. You were able to
S2: have healthy relationships. You know, private donors. I run a nonprofit.
S2: Our donors, you know, require very detailed reports on how
S2: we use their money and what outcomes we achieved with it.
S2: It's not good enough for us to go to them
S2: and say, oh, you know, we did really good things
S2: with it without any proof. And the problem with, you know,
S2: we've had so much crowding out of private philanthropy, especially
S2: in the homelessness area where years ago, a lot of
S2: private philanthropists just said, well, it's hopeless and throw up
S2: their hands because the government programs have been exacerbating it
S2: so much that it looked hopeless indeed. So mostly the
S2: funding currently comes from government and government. Bureaucrats do not
S2: demand accountability. They just throw the money out there. And
S2: as we know from public choice economics, if the problem
S2: gets worse, they're rewarded by getting bigger budgets and bigger
S2: staffs because, oh, now we've got a much worse problem.
S2: We have to we have to get more money. So
S2: it's a it's perverse incentives. As you know.
S3: Mary Thoreau with us, her book Beyond Homeless. This is
S3: an issue in which people have very emotional responses, pity,
S3: frustration or resignation that the problem isn't getting better. These
S3: emotional responses we feel when we when we see those
S3: experiencing homelessness. Have they shaped public policy here in the
S3: past couple of decades, and has it shaped it for
S3: the worse?
S2: You know, I was really surprised when we first did
S2: we did the documentary. We had a policy report the
S2: documentary was based on. Then we did the book and
S2: I was doing this was during Covid, and I was
S2: doing a lot of community screenings of our short documentary.
S2: And since it's 40, it's 38 minutes long, we would
S2: follow it with audience Q&A or audience discussion. And I did,
S2: I don't know, probably 50 of these in San Francisco
S2: with a wide variety of audiences. And I expected, especially
S2: since San Francisco had gotten so bad. You know, we
S2: had the poop app and we had we literally had
S2: horrible street conditions almost everywhere, because San Francisco is a
S2: very small city. Geography geographically. So there were terrible street
S2: conditions almost everywhere. And I kind of expected that people
S2: were going to be, you know, really disgusted and fed
S2: up and like and blaming the people living in the streets. And,
S2: you know, what do we do to, to get these
S2: out of here? But the reaction I heard most was compassion.
S2: I mean, deep compassion. People understood that they were passing
S2: people suffering, and nobody was helping them effectively. And they
S2: wanted solutions. So one reason our documentary was so incredible,
S2: it was greeted so incredibly enthusiastically is because it's the
S2: title is, you know, as the book and the documentary
S2: is Beyond Homeless Finding Hope. And it casts a vision
S2: that the way things are is not the way they
S2: have to be and that there are solutions and audiences
S2: got so excited about the oh my gosh, you mean
S2: there are solutions to this? Oh, how do I get involved? Oh,
S2: you know, what can we do in my neighborhood? Oh,
S2: you know, and so there was a lot of activism,
S2: street level activism, and people really pushed back against the
S2: status quo in San Francisco, formed, I don't know, countless
S2: new associations from, you know, grow San Francisco neighbors together,
S2: San Francisco, all kinds of things. And as a result,
S2: they pushed back against what the government policies were. They
S2: elected a very pragmatic, moderate mayor Dan Lurie, whose background
S2: was he's of the Levi Strauss fortune, but he's been
S2: doing mostly philanthropy in his life. And he just came
S2: in and has just known no nonsense and said he
S2: wants to turn San Francisco around and everybody was like, yes, yes.
S2: But closed down drug markets make open air drug use
S2: illegal again, and start offering a sober living solution residency
S2: program rather than just strictly these really dystopian housing first
S2: units that you wouldn't want to put your dog in
S2: kind of thing. So big changes going on here and
S2: it's very exciting. So when people do understand, you know,
S2: there are solutions, they want to get involved, they want
S2: to help the people they see that are suffering. They
S2: just haven't known how.
S3: Very through with us. Beyond Homeless is the book. What
S3: role can local communities play versus, say, the federal government?
S3: Is there a top down approach that works, or is
S3: it more bottom up, as we see with some local
S3: organizations like Haven for Hope in San Antonio?
S2: I really think it needs to be done on a
S2: community basis. And what people can do is start holding
S2: gatherings where they bring together, again, the all every sector
S2: in the community. You know, yes, people from the government,
S2: from the EMS and, and emergency response systems, people from
S2: the hospitals, the non-profit sector, very importantly, the business sector,
S2: volunteer organizations and so on. And just start having conversations
S2: about how can we combine, how can we how can
S2: we work together on an initiative that would more likely
S2: succeed than what we've been doing? That's what we've been
S2: doing here in San Francisco. We've been organizing convenings, and
S2: people are very interested in working together. There's some resistance,
S2: especially from the public sector and some of the nonprofits.
S2: They think, well, if I if we work together, we're
S2: going to lose our budget, we're going to lose our
S2: power and so on. But overall, we've been able to
S2: frame it as a very positive. Let's work together to
S2: identify a couple of, you know, let's just identify one
S2: thing we can work together on that would help improve
S2: the situation and then build from there. And people are
S2: quite open to it and interested when you ask them
S2: to help, they're willing and able to help.
S3: Mary Thoreau is chairman and chief executive officer of the
S3: Independent Institute. You can find more@independent.org. And the book is
S3: Beyond Homeless Good Intentions, Bad outcomes, Transformative Solutions. Mary, thanks
S3: so much for joining us here on the Radio Free
S3: Hillsdale Hour.
S2: Thank you. Scott, it's such a pleasure to talk with you.
S3: Up next, Doctor Marty Billman from Hillsdale's chemistry department is back.
S3: She'll give us the conclusion to her story about phlogiston theory, fire,
S3: and how combustion works. I'm Scott Bertram. This is the
S3: radio free Hillsdale Hour. Welcome back to the Radio free
S3: Hillsdale Hour. I'm Scott Bertram. Be sure to find more
S3: Hillsdale College audio on Hillsdale College Podcast Network. more@podcast.hillsdale.edu. We're
S3: joined by Doctor Marty Billman. She is associate professor of
S3: chemistry here at Hillsdale College. Doctor Billman, thanks for joining us.
S4: Yes. Thank you so much.
S3: We continue with our second part of the Discovery of Fire,
S3: part of our Drama in Scientific Discovery series that we've
S3: been talking about. Last time we talked about what is Fire,
S3: we talked about Boyle and Hooke and Phlogiston theory. It
S3: was a bad theory. That's sort of where we pick
S3: things up here in part two. So phlogiston theory is
S3: a bad theory. It will take a while for people
S3: to understand that. But what came next in the discovery
S3: of fire. Scientists wasted time and resources for a while now,
S3: just chasing a bad theory down.
S4: One might think that, but fortunately, good science can still
S4: happen with bad theories in the background. And of course,
S4: it's not to say that some resources weren't, you know,
S4: lost or stolen. It's trial.
S3: And error.
S4: Right? Yeah, exactly. So even though, yes, phlogiston theory was
S4: a bad theory. And if you missed part one, please
S4: go back and listen to part one. But phlogiston theory
S4: itself was not universally believed. So there were some good scientists,
S4: you know, working outside of that framework, like Joseph Black,
S4: one of the first who kind of started getting into
S4: some thermodynamics and, and stuff like that. But even within
S4: the wheelhouse of phlogiston theory, there were still some good,
S4: good scientists, right, who had their well intended. The folks
S4: were motivated to try again and kind of prove phlogiston theory, right,
S4: prove it superior to combustion theory, which is actually how
S4: fire works. So there was development for new glassware, new equipment.
S4: We were improving experimental design as time went on and
S4: our glassblowing prowess became, I mean, kind of top tier,
S4: especially if we're thinking this was not an industrial process.
S4: These were still people blowing glassware that we were getting
S4: more and more closed systems, more refined experimental setups. And
S4: so we were able to discover a great number of
S4: new gases, new elements, new compounds, of course. So there
S4: is good work being done in other avenues. It's just
S4: the answer of what is. Fire was kind of a
S4: tricky subject still.
S3: So who eventually disproves phlogiston theory to the satisfaction of most,
S3: if not all?
S4: Yes, there are two big names. These are the names
S4: that I'm most excited to talk about in this particular series,
S4: but ironically, the one who, at least I would say
S4: is the one who ended up kind of setting up
S4: the fall of Phlogiston theory, was one of its biggest proponents.
S4: His name was Joseph Priestley. He was not a very
S4: well educated man. He was one who did come from
S4: a slightly lower class background, but he knew the right people.
S4: And sometimes that's all you need to get into a
S4: new field. And so he loved to essentially just kind
S4: of mess around in the lab and see what he
S4: could find. And he did work alongside folks like Henry Cavendish,
S4: who ended up he was one of the aforementioned scientists
S4: who discovered a new element and kind of was working
S4: on setting up all those new types of glassware. And
S4: both of them were pro phlogiston theory. Joseph Priestley specifically
S4: being the one who was like, this is right at
S4: all costs, and I'm going to find a way to
S4: prove it, but kind of through again, I'm going to
S4: be a little cheeky here and say, through kind of
S4: dumb luck, he ended up stumbling upwards to the discovery
S4: of oxygen.
S3: That seems like a pretty big deal. So what did
S3: Joseph Priestley do?
S4: All right, so he again is attributed with the discovery
S4: of oxygen, even though he actually wasn't even the first
S4: to discover it. And I'm not even talking East versus
S4: Western world. I'm talking like there was a Swedish chemist
S4: by the name of Carl Scheele, who actually discovered it
S4: like four years prior, but hadn't published his work. So again,
S4: because he wasn't published, people didn't know and he didn't
S4: want to publish until he kind of figured out what
S4: he actually had found. So what, we're gonna put a
S4: pin in Carl Scheele because he, uh, again, didn't actually, uh,
S4: he's not involved with this direct, like competitive story. So,
S4: but again, Joseph Priestley attributed with discovery of oxygen, although
S4: it's not right, he, as said, stated he kind of
S4: was a man of dumb luck. He discovered oxygen on
S4: accident and he published his results in 1775. So we
S4: are in the 1700s now. So it's been kind of
S4: 100 years since the, Robert says, had first proposed their
S4: theory of combustion, and he wasn't actually looking for anything specifically.
S4: He had been given some what now we would call
S4: mercury oxide. It's kind of a red powder. And he
S4: was not only given this, but a bunch of other
S4: kind of like calcified or as again, we would say nowadays,
S4: kind of ossified or oxidized materials. And he was like, well,
S4: what happens if I take this red powder and heat it?
S4: Not even in a sophisticated way, like with a magnifying glass, like,
S4: you know how kids take the magnifying glass?
S3: Yeah, I never did, but I understand.
S4: Yes, exactly. So that's what he did. He's like, I'm
S4: going to take this magnifying glass and refract the light
S4: to a pinpoint and burn this red powder and see
S4: what happens. Like there was no hypothesis, no rationale. And
S4: don't get me wrong, it's fun sometimes to mess around
S4: in the lab, but it's just such a like, right,
S4: a pivotal discovery. And he was just like, teehee, I'm
S4: having fun. So he then found this red powder kind
S4: of where the sunlight was being pinpointed and heating the
S4: powder started to turn back into liquid mercury. And since
S4: he was doing this reaction kind of in like an
S4: enclosed space, again, kind of a gift from Henry Cavendish,
S4: he found that there was a gas that was being
S4: released as this red powder was kind of turning back
S4: into Mercury. Well, he captured the gas because now we
S4: had the technology to do that and was like, well,
S4: let's characterize this gas and see what it is. And
S4: one of the means of characterization was seeing how well
S4: something burned. Mhm. And he did find that this gas
S4: caused the fire to burn way more brightly than what
S4: it had before. And so he was like, aha, this
S4: gas is not phlogiston again. That would be so nice
S4: if he came to that conclusion, because then the two
S4: theories would just kind of collapse into one. Right. But no,
S4: he called this dephlogisticated air because when it burned or
S4: when in the presence of fire, it was so ready
S4: to absorb the phlogiston, which again, according to him, the
S4: phlogiston was like the light and the heat and the
S4: kind of the essence of that fire, because fire got bigger.
S4: He was like, ah, this air must be empty of
S4: phlogiston and ready to receive more of it than regular air.
S3: How did this discovery, the discovery of oxygen, then lead
S3: to the downfall of phlogiston theory.
S4: Aha! So here's where our second player comes in. Another
S4: scientist who is a Frenchman, of which up until this point,
S4: really every scientist that I've named has been an Englishman
S4: taking research taking place in England. So now we have
S4: Antoine Lavoisier, a French chemist, coming into the picture. And
S4: I cannot emphasize this enough. Out of the gate, Priestley
S4: and Lavoisier grew to hate each other.
S3: Good scientific rivalry.
S4: Exactly. And it's like we have the Englishmen and the
S4: Frenchmen fighting each other and. Right. We we also kind
S4: of in the background have have a bunch of political
S4: turmoil that's that's going to be involved here. But what
S4: Lavoisier did and this I'll wrap this back around to Priestley.
S4: But what Lavoisier did is he himself was not any
S4: type of theoretician. He didn't put any new theories together.
S4: He also did not discover any new elements, nor did
S4: he set up any new or design, any new types
S4: of experimental glassware kind of designs. Rather, his mission was,
S4: I am going to take this new technology and go
S4: kind of back 100 years. And with this new technology,
S4: I'm going to recreate a bunch of old experiments and
S4: see if the old theory still, like stand to reason.
S4: He kind of went in assuming nothing and was like,
S4: I'm going to see experimentally what happens. So this meant
S4: that phlogiston theory was about to come under heavy scrutiny.
S4: But he, being Lavoisier, didn't go into all of this
S4: with like, I'm gonna take down phlogiston theory again. He
S4: kind of went in with no intentionally, intentionally, no preconceived
S4: notions on how these theories worked. And he wanted to
S4: see which ones were real and which ones weren't. So
S4: we're going to go back to prior to the rivalry.
S4: Priestley was actually a big fan of Lavoisier's work, and
S4: they were all kind of this is an era now
S4: of kind of increased publication, increased awareness, even across the channel.
S4: And so Priestley, you know, would send fan essentially what
S4: we call fan letters to Lavoisier like praising him for
S4: his publications. Lavoisier was nothing if not prolifically published. He,
S4: like almost every month, came out with some new type
S4: of article. And so Priestley was like, hey, can I
S4: come visit? We could share some of our ideas and,
S4: and see if we can't come to some greater, you know, understanding.
S4: And Priestley did go into this with the best of intentions,
S4: but again, kind of naive because Lavoisier was although yes,
S4: technically in standing a gentleman, he was not a gentleman's gentleman.
S3: Okay.
S4: So 1774, the two have a dinner party and naive
S4: Priestley shares. Oh, hey, I've discovered this new gas. I
S4: call it Dephlogisticated air. Here's all of the deets on
S4: how I set up the experiment, and it is reproducible.
S4: I've done this a couple of different times, you know,
S4: with more than just the magnifying glass. And it just
S4: seems like all you need is heat and you can
S4: get this gas. And Lavoisier was like, you don't say.
S4: So Lavoisier, after the party repeats the experiment, collects this
S4: mysterious gas, rigorously tests it not only to see does
S4: it cause the fire to burn brighter, but also. What
S4: types of properties does it have? And a few years later, 1777,
S4: Lavoisier publishes his New Theory of Combustion, which builds off
S4: of the Robert's original theory, and he states that flammable
S4: objects burn in the presence of this new gas that he,
S4: a couple of years later, would name oxygen. So he's
S4: also the one who named it oxygen. Gotcha. He then
S4: said there were a bunch of other details. He said,
S4: we have these two reactants going in again, some type
S4: of fuel and oxygen gas. And over the course of
S4: the years, at first he did discover carbon dioxide being produced.
S4: It took him a couple more years to realize that
S4: water is produced as well. He was the one who
S4: pinned down these reactants, these products, and he was like, hey, look,
S4: I don't need phlogiston to describe this at all. Sorry, guys.
S4: Phlogiston theory is not correct. And as he's publishing this,
S4: then of course it's like, well, what about priestly? Poor priestly? Well,
S4: priestly all the while not only is getting angry, but
S4: he's saying like, oh my, essentially modern language, my intellectual
S4: property has been stolen and my philosophy is being ridiculed.
S4: And we kind of have to remember this is an
S4: era as well where there were no, especially in like England, France, 1700s,
S4: it wouldn't be another like 50 or so years at
S4: least before, like intellectual property or copyright law would actually
S4: come into play. So Lavoisier was legally complete with within
S4: his right to do what he did, but he was
S4: kind of a jerk about it.
S3: So how did priestly retaliate for this action?
S4: Yeah. So he, he continued to loudly proclaim, despite this
S4: mounting evidence over the next ten, 20 years against him,
S4: that phlogiston theory is correct. Lavoisier is just doing it wrong.
S4: He's missing something, however, and kind of unfortunately, this is
S4: where both men are kind of caught up with like
S4: the world that they live in. This is, as I
S4: had stated, an era of extreme political and social upheaval,
S4: and we would normally associate this with American Revolution America,
S4: because again, the the year right now is like kind
S4: of around 1777 is the last date that I had stated.
S4: So America is a thing now. Hooray! Right. The French
S4: Revolution is happening. Oh, no. And well, Priestley is an Englishman,
S4: so surely he can't be in any danger. But unfortunately,
S4: you know, the political upheaval and tumultuousness kind of spanned
S4: everywhere in Europe at the time. And Priestley, although did
S4: have some friends in the scientific community, was somewhat of
S4: a social contrarian. He did not, you know, subscribe to
S4: the most popular church at the time. He his political
S4: opinions were very contrarian as well. And so he didn't
S4: make a lot of friends. By 1794, he did have
S4: to flee the country. He was not only harassed, it
S4: started with like minor vandalism of his house, but it
S4: did get to the point where, like his house was
S4: raided by a couple of the local, like, common people
S4: in the village he lived in, and he needed to flee,
S4: to go like hang out with his sons in like
S4: a completely different village to just get away from this.
S4: So eventually, though, his, his family had kind of piece
S4: by piece, been moving to America and he joined his
S4: sons in America. Mhm. But even towards the end, you know,
S4: he was still trying to publish these pro phlogiston ideas.
S4: But now he's across the world, you know. Yes. There's
S4: a great quote kind of towards the end of his
S4: life that, uh, that was dated to around 1800. And
S4: he says, I feel perfectly confident on the ground that
S4: I stand upon, though nearly alone. I am under no
S4: apprehension of defeat.
S3: Okay. And what about Antoine Lavoisier? What happens with him?
S4: All right, well.
S3: He's the guy who discovered oxygen.
S4: Yeah.
S3: He named it at least, right?
S4: That's right. He did also try and claim discovery of oxygen.
S4: But then, of course, Priestley was like, well, no, I
S4: actually have some publications. Right. So there was a lot
S4: of contention there. But essentially within the, again, 10 to
S4: 20 years that our post? His publication of The Theory
S4: of Combustion. He did continue to publish more and more works. However,
S4: they became increasingly kind of pointed at his scientific rivals.
S4: He stole experiments from not just Priestley, but a number
S4: of other folks. And so whereas at least Priestley had
S4: friends within the scientific community, Lavoisier had none. And it
S4: did get to the point where he, in his publications,
S4: were starting to call anyone who disagreed with him despite. Right.
S4: Because he's like, look at all of this evidence I'm
S4: giving you guys and you still disagree with me. You're idiots.
S4: All of you are idiots. And so although yes, his
S4: theories and interpretations are chemically correct, he was not a
S4: very great guy. On record. He, uh, not just in
S4: his publications, but kind of interpersonally with other folks who
S4: barely tolerated him.
S3: Mhm.
S4: He is. He's known to have stated that there's only
S4: one person he believed to have been as smart as him,
S4: and that was his wife.
S3: Well, he really was smart if he said that.
S4: That's right. And he did have a couple of of
S4: allies in the scientific community, but ultimately it was not
S4: enough to save him from the guillotine. So by 1793,
S4: he was arrested for being a member of the bourgeoisie.
S4: And because not only was he a scientist, he also
S4: was a tax collector. He owned tobacco fields. He he
S4: was a member of the aristocracy in the truest sense.
S4: So by 1794, he was beheaded. Having said that, it's
S4: not like, again, we don't have his publications. And in 1789,
S4: only a few years before he was beheaded, he had
S4: published what is regarded to be the first modern chemistry
S4: textbook where a lot of our ideas actually still kind
S4: of go back to today. And if it weren't for
S4: the fact, again, because this was France and a lot
S4: of the French, uh, kind of the educated notions, how
S4: do I say this? The materials, um, the actual intellectual materials.
S4: There we go. Okay, so the intellectual materials from the
S4: aristocracy were burned in a lot of the cases. But fortunately,
S4: as Lavoisier was kind of correct, that his wife was
S4: pretty sharp, she was trilingual, as many of the ladies
S4: of the era were, and she took his textbook and
S4: translated it to both English and German. And she was
S4: not beheaded, fortunately, and was able to continue publishing this
S4: textbook in all three countries long after his death.
S3: As we wrap up here on the discovery of fire,
S3: maybe we can explain what the benefit was with our
S3: new understanding of how combustion works. Where do we go
S3: with that?
S4: Yeah. So now that we actually know. Right. Again, because
S4: this textbook was now widely circulated, phlogiston theory rapidly fell off.
S4: It wasn't formally, you know, disproven until around the mid 1800s. Um,
S4: but it was kind of on its last legs. You know,
S4: not many proponents left kind of in its death throes,
S4: if you will. So now that we have this new
S4: understanding for how combustion works, how it's really helped us
S4: kind of from that point moving forward has been now
S4: we know, okay, we have kind of two primary reactants,
S4: we have the fuel and we have oxygen gas, and
S4: we know what our products are. So we know what
S4: our waste products are. And from this, we have been
S4: able to say, okay, well, let's, let's, let's set up
S4: this kind of experiment. And if I want to make
S4: sure that I have, you know, this magnitude of heat released,
S4: I know exactly how much fuel I need because we
S4: know in exactly what proportions, uh, via a chemical reaction,
S4: this can take place. Right? One of the other kind
S4: of results of this law of combustion is now we
S4: also have the law of conservation of mass. And so. Right.
S4: Because if we know the species going in and the
S4: species going out and fire is nothing more than kind
S4: of a visual and energetic byproduct, we also have an
S4: exact idea, not just a hypothetical exact idea of how
S4: much material we need. So like, let's say we want
S4: to do something like escape Earth's gravity and get to
S4: the moon, right? Well, how much fuel do we actually
S4: need to do that? We can calculate that on pen
S4: and paper without having to run a series of experiments
S4: with increasing amounts and wasting a bunch of material. So
S4: that's one really awesome thing. Um, but also kind of
S4: because of the conservation of mass, right? And that not
S4: only applies to combustion, but every chemical reaction. Well, now
S4: we are able to like kind of, again in advance,
S4: kind of predict, well, how much do I need of
S4: this chemical material in order to make a certain amount
S4: of product? So in this era of the turn of
S4: the century, we're getting to the 1800s. Now what's around
S4: the corner? Industrial revolution, right? And so now we're able
S4: to kind of set up in the lab. Well, if
S4: I want to make a certain pharmaceutical, if I want
S4: to synthesize a certain amount of dye, if I want
S4: to make some type of explosive material, I know exactly
S4: how much reactant I need in order to make that
S4: certain amount of product. And of course, that byproduct, if
S4: we want something like explosion, we we know exactly how
S4: much stuff we need to get that.
S3: Doctor Marty Billman is associate professor of chemistry at Hillsdale College.
S3: Our Drama in Scientific Discovery series on the discovery of fire.
S3: Doctor Billman, thanks so much for joining us here on
S3: the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour.
S4: Yes. Thank you so much, Scott, and thank you, listeners.
S4: I hope to come back again.
S3: That will wrap up this edition of the Radio Free
S3: Hillsdale Hour. Our thanks to Mary Thoreau from the Independent
S3: Institute and Doctor Marty Billman from Hillsdale Chemistry Department. Remember,
S3: you can hear new episodes every week on this station.
S3: You also can find extended versions of some of our interviews,
S3: or listen any time to the podcast. Find it@podcasts.hillsdale.edu or
S3: wherever you get your audio. Until next week, I'm Scott Bertram,
S3: and this has been the radio free Hillsdale Hour.