Reclaiming Lost Science: How to Explain a Forgotten Theory Without the Language to Describe It
One of the biggest challenges in reviving forgotten scientific ideas is that the language to describe them has been lost. Over time, key concepts have been redefined, discarded, or ridiculed, making it almost impossible to have a productive discussion.
I recently came across the work of Eric Dollard, an old-school electrician who challenged conventional views on electricity and physics. At first, his ideas seemed at odds with modern science, but as I dug deeper into Maxwell, Faraday, Lodge, and other early researchers, I realized something crucial:
We’ve lost not just the theories but the very words and frameworks that those scientists used to describe electrical phenomena.
This loss is more than just historical—it affects the foundations of today’s mainstream physics. Many modern theories, including those in quantum mechanics and electromagnetism, rely on ideas that the great pioneers of electricity—Maxwell, Faraday, and even Euler—found repugnant, such as action at a distance.
Even the phrase “action at a distance” itself has been stripped of its original meaning. Once a deeply philosophical and scientific concern, it is now dismissed as “spooky” without serious consideration of its implications.
The Lost Sensory Experience of Electricity
While modern physics teaches an abstract, equation-heavy understanding of electricity, seasoned electricians and engineers that I talk to often “resonate” with some physical interactions that don’t fit neatly into the standard model.
For example, I’ve spoken with experienced electricians who have said:
- “Hang on… yeah, I can actually feel a kind of mechanical ‘pull’ when I connect a battery terminal.”
- “I’ve always wondered exactly where the spark comes from and how it originates.”
These are empirical experiences—they can be felt, observed, and even measured. And yet, the more old-fashioned attempts to explain these effects—ones that align closely with Maxwell’s original thinking or Oliver Lodge’s metaphorical descriptions of their origins—are often dismissed, not because they lack validity, but simply because modern scientific language no longer accommodates them.
This raises a critical question:
How do you explain something that doesn’t fit within the current vocabulary of science?