Cognitive Systems Engineering: The

Future for a Changing World 1st Edition

Philip J. Smith
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/cognitive-systems-engineering-the-future-for-a-changi
ng-world-1st-edition-philip-j-smith/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Future Work Changing organizational culture for the new

world of work 2nd Edition Alison Maitland

https://textbookfull.com/product/future-work-changing-
organizational-culture-for-the-new-world-of-work-2nd-edition-
alison-maitland/

The Economy: Economics for a Changing World The Core

Econ Team

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-economy-economics-for-a-
changing-world-the-core-econ-team/

An Introduction to Complex Systems Making Sense of a

Changing World Tranquillo

https://textbookfull.com/product/an-introduction-to-complex-
systems-making-sense-of-a-changing-world-tranquillo/

Scientific American Environmental Science for a

Changing World Karr

https://textbookfull.com/product/scientific-american-
environmental-science-for-a-changing-world-karr/
The future of intelligent transport systems George J.
Dimitrakopoulos

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-future-of-intelligent-
transport-systems-george-j-dimitrakopoulos/

Coulson and Richardson’s Chemical Engineering, Fourth

Edition: Volume 3A: Chemical and Biochemical Reactors
and Reaction Engineering R. Ravi

https://textbookfull.com/product/coulson-and-richardsons-
chemical-engineering-fourth-edition-volume-3a-chemical-and-
biochemical-reactors-and-reaction-engineering-r-ravi/

Ecological Challenges and Conservation Conundrums:

Essays and Reflections for a Changing World 1st Edition
John A. Wiens

https://textbookfull.com/product/ecological-challenges-and-
conservation-conundrums-essays-and-reflections-for-a-changing-
world-1st-edition-john-a-wiens/

The Telecommunications Handbook Engineering Guidelines

for Fixed Mobile and Satellite Systems 1st Edition
Jyrki T. J. Penttinen

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-telecommunications-handbook-
engineering-guidelines-for-fixed-mobile-and-satellite-
systems-1st-edition-jyrki-t-j-penttinen/

The State of the World Atlas 10th Edition Dan Smith

Smith Dan

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-state-of-the-world-
atlas-10th-edition-dan-smith-smith-dan/
 Cognitive Systems
Engineering
The Future for a Changing World
 EXPERTISE: RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS
Robert R. Hoffman, K. Anders Ericsson, Gary Klein,
Michael McNeese, Eduardo Salas, Sabine Sonnentag, Frank Durso,
Emilie Roth, Nancy J. Cooke, Dean K. Simonton
Series Editors

Hoc/Caccibue/Hollnagel (1995)—Expertise and Technology: Issues in

Cognition and Human–Computer Interaction

Hoffman (2007)—Expertise Out of Context

Hoffman/Militello (2008)—Perspectives on Cognitive Task Analysis

Mieg (2001)—The Social Psychology of Expertise Case Studies in Research,

Professional Domains, and Expert Roles

Montgomery/Lipshitz/Brehmer (2004)—How Professionals Make

Decisions

Mosier/Fischer (2010)—Informed by Knowledge: Expert Performance in

Complex Situations

Noice/Noice (1997)—The Nature of Expertise in Professional Acting: A

Cognitive View

Salas/Klein (2001)—Linking Expertise and Naturalistic Decision Making

Smith/Hoffman (2017)—Cognitive Systems Engineering: The Future for a

Changing World

Schraagen/Chipman/Shalin (2000)—Cognitive Task Analysis

Zsambok/Klein (1997)—Naturalistic Decision Making

 Cognitive Systems
Engineering
The Future for a Changing World

Edited by
Philip J. Smith
Robert R. Hoffman
CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742

© 2018 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

No claim to original U.S. Government works

Printed on acid-free paper

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-4724-3049-6 (Hardback)

This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts have
been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume responsibility for
the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers have attempted to trace the
copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to
publish in this form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowledged, please write and
let us know so we may rectify in any future reprint.

Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or
utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written
permission from the publishers.

For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.com
(http://www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive,
Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and registration
for a variety of users. For organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system
of payment has been arranged.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only
for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Smith, Philip J. (Philip John), 1953- editor. | Hoffman, Robert R., editor.
Title: Cognitive systems engineering : the future for a changing world /
edited by Philip Smith, Robert R. Hoffman.
Description: Boca Raton : Taylor & Francis, CRC Press, 2017. | Series:
Expertise : research and applications | Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
Identifiers: LCCN 2017015928| ISBN 9781472430496 (hardback : alk. paper) |
ISBN 9781315572529 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Systems engineering. | Cognitive science. | Human-machine systems. |
Expert systems (Computer science)
Classification: LCC TA168 .C597 2017 | DDC 620.001/17–dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017015928

Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at

http://www.taylorandfrancis.com

and the CRC Press Web site at

http://www.crcpress.com
Dedication

What is really new about CSE that sets it apart from the specializations and focus
areas that came before? Task analysis was always “cognitive,” in that it recognized
the importance of cognitive processes in the conduct of tasks, even ones that were
ostensibly mostly physical (see Hoffman and Militello 2008). Human factors, as it
emerged in industrial psychology toward the end of World War I and matured during
World War II, was always about human–machine integration. Then came the com-
puter and the concepts of cybernetics. These were game changers and, as they
changed the work, they changed the scientific study of work. And as work became
progressively more and more cognition-dependent, systems engineering had to
become progressively more and more cognition-focused.
CSE considers the creation of complex macrocognitive work systems. The con-
tributions of Woods are ideas and methods for dealing with the complexity, just as
important as the early notions of cybernetics, control theory, and information theory
were for the World War II-era work in human factors.
David D. Woods received his BA (1974) at Canisius College and his MS (1977)
and PhD (1979) at Purdue University. He was a senior engineer at the Westinghouse
Research and Development Center from 1979 to 1988. He has been on the faculty at
The Ohio State University since 1988.
David is past president of the Resilience Engineering Association, past president
and a fellow of the Human Factors and Ergonomic Society, and a fellow of the
Association for Psychological Science and the American Psychological Association.
He has been the recipient of the Westinghouse Engineering Achievement Award
(1984), a co-recipient of the Ely Award for best paper in the journal Human Factors
(1994), and the recipient of the following: the Laurels Award from Aviation Week and
Space Technology (1995) for research on the human factors of highly automated
cockpits, the Jack Kraft Innovators Award from the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society (2002) for advancing Cognitive Engineering and its application to safer
systems (2002), an IBM Faculty Award (2005), the best paper award at the 5th
International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Manage-
ment (ISCRAM 2008), a Google Faculty Award (2008), and the Jimmy Doolittle
Fellow Award for Research on Human Performance, Air Force Association, Central
Florida Chapter (2012).
David has investigated accidents in nuclear power, aviation, space, and anesthe-
siology, and was an advisor to the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. He has
served on National Academy of Science and other advisory committees including
Aerospace Research Needs (2003), Engineering the Delivery of Health Care (2005),
and Dependable Software (2006). He has testified to the U.S. Congress on Safety at
NASA and on Election Reform. He has worked extensively at the intersection of
engineering and health care as a board member of the National Patient Safety
Foundation (1996–2002) and as associate director of the Midwest Center for Inquiry
on Patient Safety of the Veterans Health Administration. He is co-author of Behind
Human Error (2010), A Tale of Two Stories: Contrasting Views of Patient Safety
(1998), Joint Cognitive Systems: Foundations of Cognitive Systems Engineering
(2005), and Joint Cognitive Systems: Patterns in Cognitive Systems Engineering (2006).
His chapter in this volume retraces his career path, and thus, in this dedication, we
focus on the honoris causa for this book. Woods’ impact on human factors, cognitive
systems engineering, and engineering broadly has been profound. Everyone who has
met him and who has heard his presentations, or has read his works, has been affected,
often to the core of their beliefs and premises about the science of cognitive systems.
For ourselves as editors of this volume, we continue to consider ourselves students of
David whose work has benefited immeasurably from David’s touch. Beginning with
impactful achievements such as those involved in display and workstation design for
the nuclear industry, and continuing with recent innovative concepts of the resilience
and adaptivity of cognitive work systems, David has provided a legacy of ideas,
methods, and students.
David’s manner of thought and expression is notorious. Indeed, his friends
compiled a “Daveish Dictionary” of mind-bending expressions. Daveish expressions
include the following: Negotiate trade-offs in domains of complexity, collaborative
envisioning exercise, shortfall in coordinative mechanisms, breaking the tyranny of
the 2d screen, dynamic trajectories between intertwined processes, anticipatory dis-
plays, performing at the edges of the competence envelope, placing human actors in
the field of practice, change triggers processes of expansive adaptation and trans-
formation, multiple parties and interests as moments of private cognition punctuate
flows of interaction and coordination, context gap complementary vector, escalating
demands as situations cascade, projecting trajectories and side effects from courses of
action, degrees of commitment ahead of a rolling horizon, and extending human
perception over wider ranges and scopes. These are of course taken out of context.
But even in context, Daveisms bend one’s mind. And they are not just butter-thick
wordplay. They spread across serious concepts and important issues. Anyone who
encounters a Daveism and does not grok it is well advised to think until they do.
David’s reach never exceeds his grasp. Spanning industrial and utilities safety,
patient safety and health care, teamwork analysis, human–robot coordination, avi-
ation human factors, space mission operations, and other venues as well, David’s
work is never, ever that of the dilettante who has spread too thin. David always
spreads it on thick. And we love him. We are better scientists because of him, and
better people as well.

REFERENCES
Cook, R.I., Woods, D.D. and Miller, C. (1998). A Tale of Two Stories: Contrasting Views on
Patient Safety. Chicago IL: National Patient Safety Foundation.
Hoffman, R.R. and Militello, L.G. (2008). Perspectives on Cognitive Task Analysis: Historical
Origins and Modern Communities of Practice. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press/Taylor &
Francis.
Hollnagel, E. and Woods, D.D. (2005). Joint Cognitive Systems: Foundations of Cognitive
Systems Engineering. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
Woods, D.D., Dekker, S.W.A., Cook, R.I., Johannesen, L.L. and Sarter, N.B. (2010). Behind
Human Error (2nd Edition). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Woods, D.D. and Hollnagel, E. (2006). Joint Cognitive Systems: Patterns in Cognitive Systems
Engineering. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
Woods, D.D., Patterson, E.S. and Cook, R.I. (2007). Behind human error: Taming complexity
to improve patient safety. In P. Carayon (Ed.), Handbook of Human Factors and
Ergonomics in Health Care and Human Safety. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press/Taylor &
Francis.
http://taylorandfrancis.com
Contents

List of Figures ...................................................................................... xiii

List of Tables ...................................................................................... xvii
Editors ................................................................................................ xix
Contributors ......................................................................................... xxi

Part 1 The Evolution and Maturation of CSE

Chapter 1 Introduction ...........................................................................3

Philip J. Smith and Robert R. Hoffman

Chapter 2 Many Paths, One Journey: Pioneers of Cognitive

Systems Engineering ...............................................................7
Robert R. Hoffman

Chapter 3 On the Origins of Cognitive Systems Engineering: Personal

Reflections .......................................................................... 25
David D. Woods

Chapter 4 Medication Reconciliation Is a Window into “Ordinary” Work ..... 53

Richard I. Cook

Part 2 Understanding Complex

Human–Machine Systems

Chapter 5 Engineering the Morality of Cognitive Systems and the Morality

of Cognitive Systems Engineering ........................................... 79
P. A. Hancock

Chapter 6 Understanding Cognitive Work ............................................... 99

Penelope Sanderson

ix
x Contents

Part 3 Designing Effective Joint Cognitive Systems

Chapter 7 Adaptation in Sociotechnical Systems .................................... 119

Shawn A. Weil, Jean MacMillan, and Daniel Serfaty

Chapter 8 A Taxonomy of Emergent Trusting in the Human–Machine

Relationship ...................................................................... 137
Robert R. Hoffman

Chapter 9 Improving Sensemaking through the Design

of Representations .............................................................. 165
John M. Flach and Kevin B. Bennett

Chapter 10 Making Brittle Technologies Useful ....................................... 181

Philip J. Smith

Chapter 11 Design-Induced Error and Error-Informed Design: A Two-Way

Street ............................................................................... 209
Nadine Sarter

Chapter 12 Speaking for the Second Victim ............................................ 223

Sidney W. A. Dekker

Chapter 13 Work, and the Expertise of Workers ...................................... 229

Amy R. Pritchett

Chapter 14 Designing Collaborative Planning Systems: Putting Joint

Cognitive Systems Principles to Practice ................................. 247
Emilie M. Roth, Elizabeth P. DePass, Ronald Scott, Robert Truxler,
Stephen F. Smith, and Jeffrey L. Wampler

Chapter 15 The FireFox Fallacy: Why Intent Should Be an Explicit Part

of the External World in Human Automation Interaction ........... 269
Christopher A. Miller
Contents xi

Chapter 16 A One-Day Workshop for Teaching Cognitive Systems

Engineering Skills .............................................................. 295
Gary Klein, Laura Militello, Cindy Dominguez, and Gavan Lintern

Chapter 17 From Cognitive Systems Engineering to Human Systems

Integration: A Short But Necessary Journey ............................ 309
Lawrence G. Shattuck

Part 4 Integration

Chapter 18 Future Directions for Cognitive Engineering ............................ 329

Karen M. Feigh and Zarrin K. Chua

Author Index ....................................................................................... 341

Subject Index ....................................................................................... 349
http://taylorandfrancis.com
List of Figures

Figure 2.1 Lewis F. Hanes. ....................................................................8

Figure 2.2 Neville Moray. ................................................................... 11
Figure 2.3 Thomas B. Sheridan. ........................................................... 13
Figure 2.4 Richard Pew. ..................................................................... 15
Figure 3.1 The original diagram used to explain the findings on failures
to revise situation assessments. .............................................. 32
Figure 3.2 The multiple intermingled lines of reasoning in anomaly
response. ........................................................................... 34
Figure 3.3 A version of an either/or human–machine architecture
from the movement to build machine expert systems in AI
in the early 1980s. .............................................................. 37
Figure 3.4 A nuclear power plant control room during a simulated fault
(training simulator). ............................................................. 40
Figure 4.1 Development of the mental model for a patient by an orthopedic
surgeon. ............................................................................ 60
Figure 4.2 (a) Before and (b) after card layouts. ...................................... 67
Figure 5.1 One of the first ever recorded customer complaints provides
us much insight into the relative progress of our attitudes
toward failure in contractual relationships. ............................... 81
Figure 5.2 Disbursement of the fruits of increasing productivity enabled by
technology. ........................................................................ 83
Figure 5.3 Nesting of the four forms of Aristotelian causes and the
directionality of the motivating force in human activities. ........... 85
Figure 6.1 Two versions of the cognitive systems triad showing factors
shaping cognitive work. ..................................................... 102
Figure 6.2 Levels of analysis of human performance, adapted from
Hollnagel et al. (1981) and Woods and Hollnagel (2006). ........ 103
Figure 7.1 Four key dimensions of complex sociotechnical systems. ......... 120
Figure 7.2 Nested feedback loops of adaptation in high-performing
organizations. ................................................................... 122
Figure 7.3 Model-based experimentation: Theoretical and operational
concepts spur modeling and simulation. ................................ 124
Figure 7.4 Stages of the computational technique developed to optimize
organizational structure in the A2C2 program. ....................... 126
Figure 7.5 Results of human-in-the loop experimentation (Diedrich
et al. 2003; Entin et al. 2003). ............................................ 128
Figure 7.6 High-level view of the A2C2 program. ................................. 131
Figure 8.1 Dashed arrows show desirable trajectories in the dynamics
of trusting. ....................................................................... 155

xiii
xiv List of Figures

Figure 9.1 In order to bridge the gulfs of execution and evaluation, it

becomes necessary to design representations that reflect the deep
structure of work domains (the correspondence problem) in
ways that are comprehensible to the humans who are ultimately
responsible for success (the coherence problem). .................... 167
Figure 10.1 Factors influencing attentional bias. ...................................... 187
Figure 10.2 Routing options available for sketching. ................................ 191
Figure 10.3 Computer-recommended orange reroute resulting in an
automation-induced perceptual framing effect. ........................ 192
Figure 10.4 Computer-recommended orange reroute triggering use of an
elimination by aspects strategy. ........................................... 195
Figure 10.5 Interface design to support interactive critiquing
for immunohematologists. .................................................. 200
Figure 11.1 The concept of defense in depth—multiple layers of defenses,
each with its own weaknesses that need to line up for an
accident to occur. .............................................................. 211
Figure 11.2 Reason’s (1997) decision tree for determining the culpability
of unsafe acts. .................................................................. 212
Figure 11.3 Illustration of affordances suggested by the design of door
handles. .......................................................................... 215
Figure 11.4 Indications associated with a flight path angle (FPA) of −3.3
(resulting in an 800 ft/minute descent; top right) and a vertical
speed (V/S) of −3300 ft/minute (lower right) on the FCU. ........ 217
Figure 11.5 The cognitive triad (the text in parentheses refers to the
contributions of all three elements to the problem of mode
awareness). ...................................................................... 219
Figure 13.1 An abstraction hierarchy of baking. ...................................... 231
Figure 13.2 The systems dynamics viewpoint of directional control
and guidance as a set of nested control loops. ........................ 236
Figure 13.3 The flight deck viewpoint of directional control and guidance. .... 237
Figure 14.1 A screenshot of a map in the RCAT display illustrating the
ability to define transportation routes and quickly see results
such as cycle time and throughput. ....................................... 252
Figure 14.2 A screenshot of a transportation problem specification RCAT
display. ........................................................................... 253
Figure 14.3 A screenshot of a multi-mission timeline showing several
planning constraint violations. ............................................. 255
Figure 14.4 A screenshot of the GRS multi-mission timeline that Duty
Officers can use to define and constrain the problem sent to the
automated planner for solution. ........................................... 258
Figure 14.5 A screenshot of the GRS results table. .................................. 258
Figure 14.6 An ATLAS screenshot showing a mission timeline view
(top pane) and a capacity view (bottom pane). ....................... 263
Figure 14.7 An ATLAS screenshot of a Requirements Tag View that
can be used to specify and change relative mission priorities. .... 264
List of Figures xv

Figure 15.1 A portion of the Task Network used in RPA illustrating the
actions expected to be taken (with branching alternatives) upon
encountering a hostile enemy. ............................................. 275
Figure 15.2 The RPA cockpit showing the CCTA display (circled on
the left and enlarged on the top right, with a schematic view—to
compensate for poor image quality—on the lower right). ......... 277
Figure 15.3 Perceived usefulness ratings of the four CIM behaviors
averaged over pilots. ......................................................... 278
Figure 15.4 Perceived ratings for frequency of override/correction for
the CIM behaviors. ........................................................... 279
Figure 15.5 Perceived usefulness ratings of the CCTA display buttons
from full mission simulation trials. ....................................... 280
Figure 15.6 Key dimensions and entities to be represented in a grammar
for delegation or intent expression. ....................................... 283
Figure 15.7 Delegation at different time scales and the relationship
to automation trust and acceptance. ...................................... 285
Figure 16.1 CSE workshop project. ...................................................... 299
Figure 16.2 Information management exercise map. ................................ 300
Figure 16.3 Job aid for the Critical Decision method. ............................... 302
Figure 16.4 Macrocognition as a framework for CSE. .............................. 303
Figure 16.5 Decision Requirements Table. ............................................. 303
Figure 16.6 Decision Requirements Table: Information management. ......... 304
Figure 16.7 Cognitive Performance Indicators. ....................................... 305
Figure 17.1 Conceptual model of HSI within the system acquisition life
cycle environment. ............................................................ 314
Figure 17.2 The HTI model. ................................................................ 315
Figure 17.3 The impact of investing in HSI early (left) or later (right)
in the acquisition process. ................................................... 317
http://taylorandfrancis.com
List of Tables

Table 8.1 Trusting Contextual Dependencies: Trusting Is When .............. 148

Table 8.2 Trusting Contextual Dependencies: Trusting Is Why ................ 150
Table 8.3 Some Varieties of Negative Trusting .................................... 151
Table 8.4 Reliance States Associated with Some of the Varieties of Positive
and Negative Trusting ....................................................... 154
Table 8.5 Considering Trusting and Mistrusting with Respect to the
Justification of Reliance ..................................................... 154
Table 16.1 Example Message Injects for Information Management
Exercise .......................................................................... 300

xvii
http://taylorandfrancis.com
Editors

Philip J. Smith, PhD, is a professor in the Department of

Integrated Systems Engineering at The Ohio State University
and a fellow of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
His research and teaching focus on cognitive systems engi-
neering, human–automation interaction, and the design of
distributed work systems. This research has been supported by
the FAA; NASA; the National Heart, Lung and Blood Insti-
tute; the U.S. Army; and the U.S. Department of Education. Of
particular significance has been his work on the following:

• The influence of brittle technologies on human–machine interactions

• Constraint propagation as a conceptual approach to support asynchronous
coordination and collaboration in the National Airspace System, including
work on the design of airspace flow programs, coded departure routes,
collaborative routing, and the use of virtual queues to manage airport surface
traffic
• Interactive critiquing as a model to support effective human–machine
cooperative problem solving through context-sensitive feedback and the
incorporation of metaknowledge into machine intelligence
• Continuous adaptive planning

Dr. Smith, his students, and his colleagues have won numerous awards, including
the Air Traffic Control Association David J. Hurley Memorial Award for Research in
Collaborative Decision Making, the Airline Dispatchers Federation National Avia-
tion Safety Award, and best paper awards in Human Factors and Clinical Laboratory
Science. (E-mail: smith.131@osu.edu)

Robert R. Hoffman, PhD, is a senior research scientist at

the Institute for Human & Machine Cognition (IHMC) in
Pensacola, Florida. Dr. Hoffman is a recognized world leader in
cognitive systems engineering and human-centered comput-
ing. He is a fellow of the Association for Psychological
Science, a fellow of the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society, a senior member of the Association for the Advance-
ment of Artificial Intelligence, a senior member of the Institute
of Electrical and Electronics and Engineers, and a Fulbright
Scholar. His PhD is in experimental psychology from the University of Cincinnati.
His postdoctoral associateship was at the Center for Research on Human Learning
at the University of Minnesota. He was on the faculty of the Institute for Advanced
Psychological Studies at Adelphi University. Dr. Hoffman has been recognized

xix
xx Editors

internationally in psychology, remote sensing, human factors engineering, intelligence

analysis, weather forecasting, and artificial intelligence—for his research on the psy-
chology of expertise, the methodology of cognitive task analysis, HCC issues for
intelligent systems technology, and the design of macro cognitive work systems. Dr.
Hoffman can be reached at rhoffman@ihmc.us. A full vita and all of his publications
are available for download at www.ihmc.us/users/rhoffman/main.

RECENT BOOKS
Hoffman, R.R., LaDue, D., Mogil, A.M., Roebber, P., and Trafton, J.G. (2017). Minding the
Weather: How Expert Forecasters Thinks. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hoffman, R.R., Hancock, P.A., Scerbo, M., Parasuraman, R., and Szalma, J. (2014). Cam-
bridge Handbook of Applied Perception Research. Cambridge University Press.
Hoffman, R.R., Ward, P., DiBello, L., Feltovich, P.J., Fiore, S.M., and Andrews, D. (2014).
Accelerated Expertise: Training for High Proficiency in a Complex World. Boca Raton,
FL: Taylor & Francis/CRC Press.
Hoffman, R.R. (Au., Ed.) (2012). Collected Essays on Human-Centered Computing, 2001–
2011. New York: IEEE Computer Society Press.
Moon, B., Hoffman, R.R., Cañas, A.J., and Novak, J.D. (Eds.) (2011). Applied Concept
Mapping: Capturing, Analyzing and Organizing Knowledge. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor &
Francis.
Hoffman, R.R., and Militello, L.G. (2008). Perspectives on Cognitive Task Analysis: Historical
Origins and Modern Communities of Practice. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
Crandall, B., Klein, G., and Hoffman, R.R. (2007). Working Minds: A Practitioner’s Guide to
Cognitive Task Analysis. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Ericsson, K.A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P.J., and Hoffman, R.R. (2006). Cambridge Hand-
book of Expertise and Expert Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.

SELECTED RECENT PUBLICATIONS

Hoffman, R.R., Henderson, S., Moon, B., Moore, D.T., and Litman, J.A. (2011). Reasoning
difficulty in analytical activity. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science, 12, 225–240.
Hoffman, R.R., and Woods, D.D. (2011, November/December). Beyond Simon’s slice: Five
fundamental tradeoffs that bound the performance of macrocognitive work systems.
IEEE: Intelligent Systems, 67–71.
Moore, D.T., and Hoffman, R.R. (2011). Sensemaking: A transformative paradigm. American
Intelligence Journal, 29, 26–36.
Hoffman, R.R., Lee, J.D., Woods, D.D., Shadbolt, N., Miller, J., and Bradshaw, J.M. (2009,
November/December). The dynamics of trust in cyberdomains. IEEE Intelligent Sys-
tems, 5–11.
Contributors

Kevin B. Bennett, PhD, earned a PhD (applied–experimental

psychology) from the Catholic University of America in 1984.
Dr. Bennett is a professor in the Department of Psychology of
Wright State University (Dayton, Ohio), and a member of the
Human Factors/Industrial Organizational PhD Program. His
research focuses on using interface technologies to design
effective decision-making and problem-solving support sys-
tems. He has more than 36 years of experience in applying the
Cognitive Systems Engineering/Ecological Interface Design
framework to meet the associated challenges. He is a fellow in
the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society and has served as an editorial board
member of the journal Human Factors for more than two decades. He has more than
50 grants and contracts, 50 primary publications, and 110 secondary publications, and
he has one co-authored book. This work has received several international awards.
(E-mail: kevin.bennett@wright.edu)

Zarrin K. Chua, PhD, earned a doctorate in aerospace

engineering with a focus on human–automation interaction in
2013 from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her MS and
BS degrees are also in aerospace engineering, from Georgia
Tech and Virginia Tech, respectively. She has worked at
research institutions such as Ecole Nationale de l’Aviation
Civile, Institut Supérieur de l’Aéronautique et de l’Espace-
SUPAERO, NASA Johnson Space Center, the Charles
Stark Draper Laboratory, and the Technische Universität
München. In addition to cognitive engineering, her research
interests include cognitive modeling and simulation, experiment design, and
neuroergonomics. (E-mail: zarrin.chua@gmail.com)

Richard I. Cook, PhD, is a research scientist in the Depart-

ment of Integrated Systems Engineering and a clinical pro-
fessor of anesthesiology at The Ohio State University in
Columbus, Ohio. Dr. Cook is an internationally recognized
expert on patient safety, medical accidents, complex system
failures, and human performance at the sharp end of these
systems. He has investigated a variety of problems in such
diverse areas as urban mass transportation, semiconductor
manufacturing, military software, and Internet-based business
systems. He is often a consultant for not-for-profit organiza-
tions, government agencies, and academic groups. His most often cited publications

xxi
xxii Contributors

are “Gaps in the Continuity of Patient Care and Progress in Patient Safety,” “Oper-
ating at the Sharp End: The Complexity of Human Error,” “Adapting to New
Technology in the Operating Room,” and the report A Tale of Two Stories: Con-
trasting Views of Patient Safety and “Going Solid: A Model of System Dynamics and
Consequences for Patient Safety.” (E-mail: cook.16@osu.edu)

Sidney W. A. Dekker, PhD (Ohio State University, 1996) is a

professor of humanities and social science at Griffith Univer-
sity in Brisbane, Australia, where he runs the Safety Science
Innovation Lab. He is also a professor (Hon.) of psychology
at the University of Queensland. Previously, he was a profes-
sor of human factors and system safety at Lund University in
Sweden. After becoming full professor, he learned to fly the
Boeing 737, working part-time as an airline pilot out of
Copenhagen. He is author of, most recently, The Field Guide to
Understanding “Human Error” (CRC Press, 2014), Second
Victim (CRC Press, 2013), Just Culture (CRC Press, 2012), Drift into Failure (CRC
Press, 2011), and Patient Safety (CRC Press, 2011). His latest book is Safety Differently
(CRC Press, 2015). (More at sidneydekker.com; E-mail: s.dekker@griffith.edu.au)

Elizabeth (Beth) P. DePass is a senior scientist at Raytheon

BBN Technologies. She has spent the last 25 years developing
a variety of military planning and logistics decision support
systems. Her current research interests are applying cogni-
tive engineering principles in the design and development of
complex decision support systems that effectively promote
human–machine collaboration. Together with her co-authors,
she has merged cognitive engineering and design, work-
centered analysis, and software engineering to design joint
cognitive systems in support of military planners from Air
Mobility Command and USTRANSCOM. DePass earned a BA in physics from the
College of Charleston (South Carolina). She is a member of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society. (E-mail: edepass@bbn.com)

Cindy Dominguez, PhD, is a principal cognitive engineer at

the MITRE Corporation, brings cognitive engineering
methods to bear in the development of fielded systems and is
actively conducting and applying research toward improving
human–machine teaming. Her current research passions
include creating elegant designs for operators of complex
systems, enabling collaboration at the intersection of humans
and autonomy, and making cognitive engineering systematic
within systems engineering. During 20 years as an Air Force
officer and 10 years in the industry, she has led studies of
Contributors xxiii

cognitive work in settings that include command and control from tactical to strategic,
submarine operations, intelligence analysis, and health care. Recent work in collab-
oration with design professionals has emphasized combining cognitive engineering
and design thinking. (E-mail: cdominguez@mitre.org)

Karen M. Feigh, PhD, earned an BS in aerospace engi-

neering from the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta; an
MPhil in engineering from Cranfield University, United
Kingdom; and a PhD in industrial and systems engineering
from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Currently, she is an
associate professor in the School of Aerospace Engineering at
the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests
include cognitive engineering, design of decision support
systems, human automation interaction, and behavioral mod-
eling. Dr. Feigh serves on the National Research Council’s
Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board and is the associate editor for the Journal of
the American Helicopter Society and the AIAA Journal of Aerospace Information
Systems. (E-mail: karen.feigh@gatech.edu)

John M. Flach, PhD, is a professor of psychology at Wright

State University. He earned a PhD (human experimental psy-
chology) from The Ohio State University in 1984. Dr. Flach
was an assistant professor at the University of Illinois from
1984 to 1990 where he held joint appointments in the
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, the
Psychology Department, and the Institute of Aviation. In 1990,
he joined the Psychology Department at Wright State Uni-
versity. He served as department chair from 2004 to 2013. He
currently holds the rank of professor. He teaches graduate
and undergraduate courses in the areas of applied cognitive psychology and human
factors. Dr. Flach is interested in general issues of coordination and control in
sociotechnical systems. Specific research topics have included visual control of
locomotion, interface design, decision-making, and sociotechnical systems. He is
particularly interested in applications of this research in the domains of aviation,
medicine, highway safety, and assistive technologies. In addition to more than 175
scientific publications, John is a co-author of three books: Control Theory for
Humans (with Rich Jagacinski; Erlbaum, 2003), Display and Interface Design
(with Kevin B. Bennett; Taylor & Francis, 2011), and What Matters? (with Fred
Vorhoorst; Wright State University Library, 2016). (E-mail: john.flach@wright
.edu)
xxiv Contributors

P. A. Hancock, DSc, PhD, is Provost Distinguished Research

Professor in the Department of Psychology and the Institute
for Simulation and Training, as well as at the Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering and the Department of
Industrial Engineering and Management Systems at the Uni-
versity of Central Florida, where he directs the MIT2 Research
Laboratories. (E-mail: peter.hancock@ucf.edu)

Gary Klein, PhD, is known for (a) the cognitive models he

described, such as the Recognition-Primed Decision model,
the Data/Frame model of sensemaking, the Management by
Discovery model of planning in complex settings, and the
Triple Path model of insight; (b) the methods he developed,
including techniques for Cognitive Task Analysis, the
PreMortem method of risk assessment, and the ShadowBox
training approach; and (c) the movement he helped to found in
1989—Naturalistic Decision Making.
The company he started in 1978, Klein Associates, grew
to 37 employees by the time he sold it in 2005. He formed his new company,
ShadowBox LLC, in 2014. The five books he has written, including Sources of
Power: How People Make Decisions (MIT Press, 1998) and Seeing What Others
Don’t: The Remarkable Ways We Gain Insights (PublicAffairs, 2013), have been
translated into 12 languages and have collectively sold more than 100,000 copies.
(E-mail: gary@macrocognition.com)

Gavan Lintern, PhD, earned a PhD in engineering psy-

chology from the University of Illinois, 1978. In his recent
research, he has employed cognitive work analysis to identify
cognitive requirements for complex military platforms. Dr.
Lintern retired in 2009. He now works occasionally as an
industry consultant and runs workshops in cognitive systems
engineering, otherwise filling in as minder of the home pets
and general home roustabout. He has published two books:
The Foundations and Pragmatics of Cognitive Work Analysis
in 2009 (Cognitive Systems Design), and Joker One: A
Tutorial in Cognitive Work Analysis in 2013 (Cognitive Systems Design). (E-mail:
glintern@cognitivesystemsdesign.net)
Contributors xxv

Jean MacMillan, PhD, is a leading expert in understanding,

maximizing, and assessing human performance in complex
sociotechnical systems. Her 25-year career has spanned a
broad range of accomplishments in simulation-based training,
human–machine interaction, and user-centered system design.
Dr. MacMillan is chief scientist Emerita at Aptima, Inc.
and a member of its board of directors. Before joining Aptima
in 1997, Dr. MacMillan was a senior scientist at BBN Tech-
nologies and a senior cognitive systems engineer at Alphatech
(now BAE Systems). She has been a frequent contributor and
strategic advisor to workshops and expert panels on human engineering issues for
organizations such as DARPA and the military services. As an industry leader,
Dr. MacMillan co-chaired a three-year National Research Council study on military
needs for social and organizational models, which resulted in the publication of
Behavioral Modeling and Simulation: From Individuals to Societies.
Dr. MacMillan holds a PhD in cognitive psychology from Harvard University. She
is currently a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Cognitive Engineering
and Decision Making and is associate editor for cognitive systems engineering for the
online journal Cognitive Technology. (E-mail: macmillj@aptima.com)

Laura Militello is the chief scientist of Applied Decision

Science, LLC, the company she helped to found seven years
ago. She applies cognitive systems engineering to the design of
technology and training to support decision making in complex
environments. Her specialty is supporting decision making
in health care. She is also acknowledged as one of the masters
of advanced Cognitive Task Analysis methods, and one of
the leaders of the Naturalistic Decision Making movement.
(E-mail: l.militello@applieddecisionscience.com)

Christopher A. Miller, PhD, is the chief scientist and a co-

owner of a small research and consulting company called
Smart Information Flow Technologies, based in Minneapolis,
Minnesota. He was formerly a research scientist, rising to the
rank of fellow, at the Honeywell Technology Center.
Dr. Miller earned a BA in cognitive psychology from
Pomona College and an MA and PhD in psychology from the
Committee on Cognition and Communication at the Univer-
sity of Chicago. He has managed more than 40 research
projects including multiple BAAs for DARPA, the U.S. Navy,
Army, and Air Force, and NASA.
xxvi Contributors

Dr. Miller has authored or co-authored more than 100 articles in the fields of
computational etiquette, adaptive and adaptable automation, human performance
modeling, cognitive work analysis and associated modeling techniques, linguistic
analysis, and knowledge management approaches. (E-mail: cmiller@sift.net)

Amy R. Pritchett’s research examines safety in dynamic

multi-agent environments. Her current studies focus on effec-
tive distribution of authority between agents in general and air–
ground and human–automation interaction in particular,
especially in civil aviation. She also specializes in translating
these methods into safety analyses and in identifying impli-
cations for air traffic operations, training, and regulatory stan-
dards. Pritchett has led numerous research projects sponsored
by industry, NASA, and the FAA. She has also served via IPA
as director of NASA’s Aviation Safety Program, responsible
for planning and execution of the program, and has served on several executive
committees, including the OSTP Aeronautic Science and Technology Subcommittee
and the executive committees of CAST and ASIAS. She has published more than 170
scholarly publications in conference proceedings and scholarly journals. She has also
won the RTCA William H. Jackson Award and, as part of CAST, the Collier Trophy,
and the AIAA has named a scholarship for her and selected her for the Lawrence
Sperry Award. She served until 2014 as member of the FAA REDAC and chaired the
Human Factors REDAC Subcommittee. She has also served on numerous National
Research Council (NRC) Aeronautics and Space Engineering boards and numerous
NRC committees, including chairing a recent committee examining FAA Air Traffic
Controller Staffing. She is editor-in-chief of the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society’s Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making. She is also a
licensed pilot in airplanes and sailplanes. (E-mail: amy.pritchett@isye.gatech.edu)

Emilie M. Roth, PhD, is the owner and principal scientist of

Roth Cognitive Engineering. She has pioneered the develop-
ment and application of cognitive analysis methods in support
of design and evaluation of advanced technologies, including
applications in military command and control, railroad oper-
ations, health care, and process control. Together with her co-
authors, she has participated in the design and evaluation of a
series of work-centered support systems and collaborative
automated planners for air transport mission planning for the
Air Mobility Command and USTRANSCOM.
Dr. Roth earned a PhD in cognitive psychology from the University of Illinois at
Urbana–Champaign. She is a fellow of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society,
is an associate editor of the Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making,
and serves on the editorial board of the journal Human Factors. She is also a member
of the Board on Human-Systems Integration at the National Academies. (E-mail:
emroth@mindspring.com)
Contributors xxvii

Penelope Sanderson, PhD, is a professor of Cognitive

Engineering and Human Factors with the Schools of Psy-
chology, ITEE, and Clinical Medicine at the University of
Queensland. She leads the Cognitive Engineering Research
Group where her current focus is the development of prin-
ciples for the design of visual and auditory displays, and the
development of approaches for understanding and designing
workplace coordination.
Dr. Sanderson earned a BA (Hons I) in psychology from
the University of Western Australia and an MA and PhD in
engineering psychology from the University of Toronto. She is a fellow of HFES,
IEA, and the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia.
Her work has been recognized by HFES’s Paul M. Fitts Education Award (2012),
Distinguished International Colleague Award (2004), and Jerome Ely Best Paper
Award (1990 and 2005); the Human Factors and Ergonomic Society of Australia’s
Cumming Memorial Medal (2014); and the American Psychological Association’s
Franklin V. Taylor Award (2012). (E-mail: p.sanderson@uq.edu.au)

Nadine Sarter, PhD, is a professor in the Department of

Industrial and Operations Engineering and the director of the
Center for Ergonomics at the University of Michigan. She
earned a PhD in industrial and systems engineering, with a
specialization in cognitive systems engineering, from The
Ohio State University in 1994. Dr. Sarter’s primary research
interests include (1) types and levels of automation and
adaptive function allocation, (2) multimodal interface design,
(3) attention and interruption management, (4) decision
support systems, and (5) human error/error management. She
has conducted her work in a variety of application domains, most notably aviation
and space, medicine, the military, and the automotive industry. Dr. Sarter serves as
associate editor for the journal Human Factors. (E-mail: sarter@umich.edu)

Ronald Scott, PhD, is a lead scientist in the Information and

Knowledge Technologies group at Raytheon BBN Technolo-
gies. Dr. Scott earned a BS in mathematics from MIT, and an
MS and PhD in mathematics from the University of Chicago.
His research is focused on design and development of decision
support systems with a particular emphasis on two techniques:
(1) dynamic visualizations to directly support the cognitive
needs of the decision maker, and (2) development of algo-
rithms, or tailoring of existing algorithms, to better allow the
human decision maker to work collaboratively with the algo-
rithm. (E-mail: ron.scott@raytheon.com)
xxviii Contributors

Daniel Serfaty, PhD, as Aptima’s principal founder, has

established and implemented an ambitious vision for Aptima
as the premier human-centered engineering business in the
world. In addition to his management and governance duties,
his work continues to involve the leadership of interdisci-
plinary projects for U.S. government agencies and private
industries. These efforts aim at optimizing factors that drive
cognitive, behavioral, and organizational performance as well
as integrating humans with technologies to increase resilience
in complex sociotechnical systems. Recently, he led the
launch of a sister company to Aptima, named Aptima Ventures, dedicated to the
commercialization of Aptima’s intellectual property in human performance. Initial
ventures in the new company’s portfolio are in the fields of learning technologies,
corporate training, predictive medical analytics, and cognitive health. His many
industry activities include the leadership of various technology leadership forums and
serving on the board of directors of several technology businesses and on senior
advisory boards of academic, educational, and nonprofit institutions.
Serfaty’s academic background includes undergraduate degrees in mathematics,
psychology, and engineering from the Université de Paris and the Technion, Israel
Institute of Technology, an MS in aerospace engineering (Technion), and an MBA in
International Management from the University of Connecticut. His doctoral work at
the University of Connecticut pioneered a systematic approach to the analysis of
distributed team decision making. He is the recipient of the University of Connecticut
Distinguished Service Award and has been inducted in its Engineering Hall of Fame.
(E-mail: serfaty@aptima.com)

Colonel Lawrence G. Shattuck, PhD (U.S. Army, Retired),

is a senior lecturer in the Operations Research Department at
the Naval Postgraduate School where he directs the Human
Systems Integration Program and serves as the chair of the
Institutional Review Board.
Col. Shattuck graduated from the United States Military
Academy in 1976 and served in the U.S. Army in a variety of
positions and locations for 30 years. During his last 10 years
on active duty, he was the director of the Engineering Psy-
chology Program and Laboratory at the United States Military
Academy. He holds an MS degree in human factors psychology from Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute and a PhD in cognitive systems engineering from The Ohio
State University. (E-mail: lgshattu@nps.edu)
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 John Kepler, for this was the name of that famous mathematician,
was born at Wiel, in the duchy of Wirtemberg, in the year 1571; and
the Abbé Delaporte says, his family was illustrious. He died at
Ratisbon, in 1630. W. B.

A20. The true invention of the telescope cannot be carried back to

an earlier date than the beginning of the seventeenth century.
Johannes Baptista Porta, a Neapolitan, in his Natural Magic, which
was published in the year 1589, says, “Si utramque (lentem
concavam et convexam) recté componere noveris, et longinqua et
proxima majora et clara videbis:” and he is said to have made a
telescope, accordingly, about the year 1594. But Porta is
represented as having made this discovery such as it was, by
accident; and, as not well understanding the proper use of his own
invention.

According to Baron Bielfeld,[A20a] however, telescopes were first

constructed a long time after, in Holland; some say, by John
Lippersheim, a spectacle-maker at Middelbourg in Zealand; others,
by James Metius, brother to the celebrated professor Adrian Metius,
of Franeker. Although the invention of this instrument, of
indispensable use in astronomy, is sometimes attributed to the great
Galileo, he has himself acknowledged, in his treatise, entitled
Nuncius Siderius, that he took the hint from a report of a German
having invented an instrument, by means of which, and with the
assistance of certain glasses, distant objects might be distinguished
as clearly as those that were near. This is precisely what Porta had
mentioned in his book, in 1589; and therefore, if Galileo had not
referred to a German, he might be supposed to have had in his view
the Neapolitan’s conception of a telescope, announced long before
such an instrument was properly constructed.

Whatever may have been the merit of Porta’s discovery, or the

pretensions of Lippersheim, the spectacle-maker, and Metius, Peter
Borel (in his treatise De vero Telescopii Inventore) is of the opinion
that Zachariah Johnson, who, like Lippersheim, was a spectacle-
maker, and in the same city, made this discovery by chance, about
the year 1500; that Lippersheim imitated him, after making numerous
experiments; and that he instructed Metius. There are others, who
have been considered as having had some sort of claim to this
important invention; among whom were a Mr. Digges, of England,
and a M. Hardy, of France, both towards the commencement of the
seventeenth century.

It is certain, however, that Galileo in Italy, (who died in 1642, aged

seventy-eight years,) and, according to Bielfeld, Simon Marius in
Germany, were the first that applied the telescope to the
contemplation of celestial objects. W. B.
A20a. Elem. of Univ. Erud. b. i. ch. 49.

A21. In treating of the astronomy of the Greeks, Lalande contents

himself with barely introducing the name of Aristotle, among their
philosophers; seeming to consider him as one who had done very
little for astronomical science. This philosopher (who died in the
sixty-third year of his age, and only 322 years B. C.) among his other
doctrines, not only maintained the eternity of the world; but, that
Providence did not extend itself to sublunary beings: and as to the
immortality of the soul, it is uncertain whether he believed it or not.
Bayle calls his logic and his natural philosophy, “the weakest of his
works:” and says, further; “It will be an everlasting subject of wonder
to persons who know what philosophy is, to find that Aristotle’s
authority was so much respected in the schools, for several ages,
that, when a disputant quoted a passage from this philosopher, he
who maintained the thesis durst not say, Transeat; but must either
deny the passage or explain it in his own way.” W. B.

A22. This discovery was made on the 8th of January, 1610. It was,
as Mr. Vince observes, a very important one in its consequences; as
it furnished a ready method of finding the longitude of places, by
means of their eclipses. W. B.

A23. Although both Geography and Navigation have been

wonderfully improved by the important discoveries made by the
moderns in astronomy, they have nevertheless, derived the most
essential aid from the application of the Compass to their purposes.

The invention of this instrument, which is of indispensible utility, is

almost universally ascribed to Flavio Gioia, a native of Amalfi in the
kingdom of Naples. He is called, by some writers, Flavio de Melfi, (by
which is meant, Flavio of Amalfi, this town being the place of his
nativity;) and his invention of the Compass is placed in the year
1302. But it is affirmed by others, that Paulus Venetus brought the
Compass first into Italy from China, in the year 1260. The Chinese
Compass, however, whatever may be its antiquity, appears to have
been a very imperfect instrument, compared with the modern
Mariner’s Compass; and, more especially, with the Azimuth
Compass, as improved by Dr. Knight and Mr. Smeaton. The Chinese
Compass, now used, is represented as being nothing more than a
magnetic needle kept floating, by means of a piece of cork, on the
surface of water, in a white china ware vessel, divided at bottom into
twenty-four points.

It is worthy of observation, that the French have laid claim to the

invention of the Compass, upon no better foundation than the
circumstance of a fleur de lys being always placed at the north point
of the chard; although it is known, that Gioia decorated the north end
of the needle with that flower in compliment to his own sovereign,
who bore it in his arms, as being descended from the royal house of
France. “It hath been often,” says Dr. Robertson,[A23a] “the fate of
those illustrious benefactors of mankind, who have enriched science
and improved the arts by their inventions, to derive more reputation
than benefit from the happy efforts of their genius. But,” continues
this eminent historian, “the lot of Gioia has been still more cruel;
through the inattention or ignorance of contemporary historians, he
has been defrauded even of the fame to which he had such a just
title. We receive from them no information with respect to his
profession, his character, the precise time when he made this
important discovery, and the accidents and enquiries which led to it:
the knowledge of this event, though productive of greater effects
than any recorded in the annals of the human race, is transmitted to
us without any of those circumstances which can gratify the curiosity
that it naturally awakens.” W. B.
A23a. Hist. of America, vol. i, b. i.

A24. Galileo Galilei was a strenuous defender of the system of

Copernicus; for which he was condemned by the inquisition, in the
year 1635, under Pope Urban VIII. This extraordinary man was a
native of Florence, and born in 1564. He died in 1642, aged seventy-
eight years.

W. B.

A25. It has been since ascertained that Saturn has seven

satellites, as is more particularly mentioned in the subsequent note.
W. B.

A26. It was about six years after the delivery of this oration, (viz.
on the 13th of March, 1781,) that Herschel discovered the Georgium
Sidus. And nearly eight years and an half after this first discovery, he
made two others: on the 28th of August, 1789, he was enabled to
ascertain, by means of his telescope of forty feet focal length, that
Saturn has a sixth satellite; and, on the 17th of September following,
he found that he has a seventh. The same celebrated astronomer
has since made several important discoveries. Thus, under the
liberal patronage of his sovereign, has the great Herschel
succeeded, by his extraordinary skill and industry in the making of
very large specula, in constructing telescopes, which, in the words of
the learned Mr. Vince, “have opened new views of the heavens, and
penetrated into the depths of the universe; unfolding scenes which
excite no less our wonder than our admiration.”

Many important discoveries (some of which are noticed in the

foregoing pages of these memoirs) have been made by other
eminent astronomers, since the date of Dr. Rittenhouse’s Oration;
some of them, indeed, since his decease; among which are the
discoveries of three new planets. W. B.
 A27. The celebrated Huygens, who, in his Latin works, is styled
Hugenius. W. B.

A28. Among the many eminent astronomers in the sixteenth and

seventeenth centuries, mentioned by Mr. Lalande, in his Astronomie,
with interesting particulars concerning most of them, the only notice
he there takes of his ingenious countryman, who endeavoured to
establish the theory of Vortices which he had projected, is in these
words: “Descartes (René,) né en Touraine en 1596, mort à
Stockholm en 1650. Sa vie a été écrite fort au long par Baillet, à
Paris, 1691, in 4o.” W. B.

A29. The philosophy of Aristotle retained terms so very obscure,

that it seems the Devil himself did not understand, or at least could
not explain them; otherwise we can hardly suppose, that, when the
good patriarch of Venice had summoned his attendance for this very
purpose, he would have been so rude as to put him off with an
answer not only unintelligible but inarticulate. See Bayle, in Art.
Barbaro.

A30. Alluding to the experiments made in France, for determining

the velocity of light; which, though unsuccessful, discovered a noble
philosophical spirit.

A31. This prodigious velocity of light can be no argument against

its materiality, as will appear from the following considerations. The
greatest velocity which we can communicate to any body, is that of a
cannon-ball, impelled by gun-powder; this may be at the rate of
about 20 miles in a minute of time. The planet Saturn moves about
360 miles in a minute, that is 18 times swifter than a cannon-ball;
and the comet of 1680, in its perihelion, moved near 56.66 times
swifter than Saturn, or 990.5 times swifter than a cannon-ball. Now
these are material bodies, moving with very various, and all of them
exceedingly great velocities; and no reason appears why the last
mentioned velocity should be the utmost limit, beyond which nature
cannot proceed; or that some other body may not move 7 or 8
hundred times swifter than a comet, as light is found to do.
 That the different refrangibility of the rays of light, on which their
colours depend, arises from their different velocities, seems so
natural a conjecture, that it has perhaps occurred to every one who
has thought on this subject. To this there are three principal
objections. The first is, that, according to this hypothesis, when the
satellites of Jupiter are eclipsed, their colour ought to change, first to
a green and then to a blue, before their light becomes extinct; which
is contrary to experience. But this objection appears to me of no
weight; for we do not lose sight of the satellite because there is no
light coming from thence to the eye, but because there is not light
enough to render it visible. Therefore at the time a satellite
disappears, there is still light of all colours arriving at the eye: and
though the blue light should predominate on account of its slower
progress, yet the red may predominate on another account; for along
the edge of Jupiter’s shadow, as it passes over the satellite, a
greater proportion of red light, than of blue, will be thrown by the
refraction of Jupiter’s atmosphere. The second objection is, that
since the velocity of the earth in its orbit, causes an aberration of
about 20 seconds in the place of a star, if the different colours of light
depended on different velocities, the aberration of blue light ought
proportionably to exceed that of red light, which would give such an
oblong form to a fixed star as might be discovered with a good
telescope. This objection is of no more force than the former. The
effect ought indeed to follow, but not in a sensible quantity; for at the
altitude of 70 degrees, the apparent place of a fixed star is likewise
removed 20 seconds by refraction, and the very same separation of
the rays must take place; yet this I think is not discoverable with the
best telescope. Perhaps by uniting these two equal causes, which
may be readily done, and thereby doubling the effect, it may become
sensible.

The third objection arises from that curious discovery of Dollond,

by which we are enabled so greatly to improve refracting telescopes.
And this objection I shall for the present leave in its full force; as well
against the above hypothesis, as against every other which I have
seen for the same purpose.
 A32. Mars appears to be surrounded by a very great and dense
atmosphere.

A33. Dr. Herschel discovered, in the year 1789, (fourteen years

after the delivery of this Oration,) two other satellites of Saturn.
These are the innermost of his (now) seven secondary planets.

W. B.

A34. In 745, Virgilus, bishop of Saltzburg, having publicly asserted

in some of his sermons, that there were antipodes, he was charged
with heresy, by Boniface, bishop of Mentz, and cited to appear
before the Pope, who recommended the hearing of the cause to
Utilo, King of Bohemia, and at the same time wrote to him in favour
of Boniface. The event was, the bishop of Saltzburg lost his cause,
and was condemned for heresy.

A35. It has been shewn, in a preceding note, how much the

means of communicating between distant regions, separated by
seas, ware facilitated by the discovery and use of the Compass: but
those means have been still further and very greatly improved, since
the introduction of the use of the Quadrant at sea, especially that
called Hadley’s Quadrant.

The true inventor of the reflecting Quadrant was Dr. Robert Hook,
a very ingenious English mathematician and philosopher, who died
in the year 1702, at the age of sixty-seven years. This instrument,
now commonly styled Hadley’s, was afterwards rendered much more
complete than Dr. Hook’s invention had made it, by Sir Isaac
Newton: but our modern artists, more skilful than those of former
times, as Mr. Lalande has observed, have profited of the ideas of the
great Newton himself, on the subject; and among the later improvers
of the Sea Quadrant, or Octant, is Mr. Hadley, whose name the
instrument usually bears.

It would, however, be doing an act of injustice to the memory of an

American who possessed an extraordinary genius, to omit, in the
course of these memoirs, some notice of his merits in relation to this
matter. Mr. Thomas Godfrey, a native of Pennsylvania, is said to
have turned his attention to this subject, so early as the year 1730;
and in the Transactions of the Royal Society of London, No. 435, will
be found, an “Account of Mr. Thomas Godfrey’s Improvement of
Davis’s Quadrant transferred to the Mariner’s Bow,” drawn up by
James Logan, Esq. formerly of Philadelphia, a gentleman of
extensive learning, and a very eminent mathematician, Mr. Godfrey
is stated to have “sent the instrument (which he had constructed) to
be tried at sea by an acquaintance of his, an ingenious navigator, in
a voyage to Jamaica, who shewed it to a captain of a ship there, just
going for England; by which means, it came to the knowledge of Mr.
Hadley, though perhaps without his being told the name of the real
inventor.” [See The American Magazine, for July 1758.] In a letter,
dated at Philadelphia the 25th of May, 1732, Mr. Logan, who very
ably as well as meritoriously patronized Godfrey, communicated to
the celebrated Dr. Edmund Halley a detailed account and description
of the improved Sea-Quadrant constructed by that ingenious citizen
of America, of which his patron confidently believed him to be the
original inventor. On the 28th of June, 1734, a further account of
Godfrey’s invention was drawn up by Mr. Logan, and subscribed with
his name; which, it is presumed, was also communicated to the
Royal Society: and on the 9th of November, in the same year, Mr.
Godfrey transmitted an account of it, draughted and signed by
himself, to the same learned body. The whole of these interesting
letters, with some accompanying observations on the subject, are
published in the valuable Magazine just referred to, and in the one
for the succeeding month.

In the Transactions of the Royal Society, for the months of

October, November and December, 1731, No. 421, is contained a
Proposal, by Dr. Edmund Halley, for finding the longitude at sea,
within a degree or twenty leagues, &c. In the conclusion of this
paper, Dr, Halley, in speaking of John Hadley, Esq. VP.R.S, (“to
whom,” as he observes, “we are highly obliged for his having
perfected and brought into common use the reflecting telescope,”)
says—He “has been pleased to communicate his most ingenious
instrument for taking the angles by reflection,” (referring, here, to the
Philos. Trans. No. 420;) “it is more than probable that the same may
be applied to taking angles at sea, with the desired accuracy.”

In Mr. Logan’s account of Mr. Godfrey’s invention, dated June 28,

1734, he says: “Tis now four years since Thomas Godfrey hit on this
improvement; for, his account of it, laid before the (Royal) Society
last winter, in which he mentioned two years, was wrote in 1732; and
in the same year, 1730, after he was satisfied in this, he applied
himself to think of the other, viz. the reflecting instrument, by
speculums for a help in the case of longitude, though ’tis also useful
in taking altitudes: and one of these, as has been abundantly proved
by the maker, and those who had it with them, was taken to sea and
there used in observing the latitudes the winter of that year, and
brought back again to Philadelphia before the end of February 1730–
1, and was in my keeping some months immediately after.”

In Mr, Logan’s prior letter to Dr. Halley (dated May 25, 1732,) he
says, that about eighteen months before, Godfrey told him, “he had
for some time before been thinking of an instrument for taking the
distances of stars by reflecting speculums, which he believed might
be of service “at sea;” and that, soon after, Godfrey shewed him an
instrument, which he had procured to be made, for the purpose.
Thus, the time to which Mr. Logan refers Godfrey’s communication of
his improvement to him, would make its date to be about the month
of November, 1730.

In the Rev. Mr. Vince’s great work, entitled, A Complete System of

Astronomy, (and contained in “A Treatise on Practical Astronomy,” at
the end of the second volume of that work,) is an entire chapter on
“Hadley’s Quadrant;” giving a particular description of the instrument,
with rules for the computations from the observations and
illustrations of them by examples. In this Treatise, the author says,
that the instrument took its name from the “inventor,” John Hadley,
Esq. and observes, that not only the science of navigation is greatly
indebted, to this “incomparable instrument,” but such are its various
uses in astronomy, that it may not improperly be called “a portable
observatory.” Mr. Vince further observes, that in the year 1742, about
ten years after Mr. Hadley’s invention (for so he styles it) was
published, a paper in Sir Issac Newton’s own hand-writing was found
among Dr. Halley’s papers, after the Doctor’s death, containing a
figure and description of an instrument (referring to Philos.
Transactions, No. 465,) not much different in its principle from this of
Hadley. He adds, that as Dr. Halley was alive when Mr. Hadley’s
instrument was shewn to the Royal Society, and he took no notice of
this paper of Sir Isaac Newton, it is probable he did not know there
was such an one. In another part of his work (under the head of The
History of Astronomy, vol. ii. p. 280.) Mr. Vince asserts, that the first
person who formed the idea of making a Quadrant to take angles by
reflection, was Robert Hook; and he was born in 1635. On the whole,
however, the learned author draws this conclusion:—“Both Sir Isaac
Newton and Mr. Hadley therefore seem entitled to this invention.”

Mr. Lalande, speaking of this instrument, says: “Le Quartier de

Reflexion, exécuté en 1731 par Hadley, a donné un moyen facile de
mesurer les distances sur mer, à une minute pris, aussi bien
determiner le lieu de la Lune en mer.” See his Astronomie, vol. iii. p.
654.

From these facts, and a careful examination of the papers

themselves, here quoted and referred to, the scientific reader will be
enabled to decide upon the true merits of the controversy that has so
long subsisted, concerning the respective claims of Godfrey and of
Hadley, to the invention of the instrument that bears the name of the
latter.

Before this subject is dismissed, however, it will not be deemed

improper to add, that the late Dr. John Ewing communicated to the
Am. Philosophical Society an account of an Improvement in the
construction of (what he terms) “Godfrey’s double reflecting
Quadrant,” which he had discovered in the spring or summer of the
year 1767: this will be found in the first volume of the Society’s
Transactions. In the conclusion of this communication, Dr. Ewing
says:—“This improvement of an instrument, which was first invented
and constructed by Mr. Godfrey of this city, and which I do not
hesitate to call the most useful of all astronomical instruments that
the world ever knew, I hope will make it still more serviceable to
mankind.”

This communication to the Society by Dr. Ewing, was made in the

year 1770. In one concerning the comet of that year, and made by
Dr. Rittenhouse about the same time, the instrument to which Dr.
Ewing’s improvement applies, is called Hadley’s Quadrant: but
perhaps Dr. Rittenhouse so named it, in conformity to common
usage.

A36. This I know has been pretended to. But it is easy to make
geometrical conclusions come out as we would have them, when the
data they are founded on, are so uncertain that we may chuse them
as suits our purpose.

A37. This circumstance tends gradually to lessen the variety of the

seasons.

A38. This was Tobias Mayer, who was born at Marbach in the
principality of Wurtemberg, in the year 1723: he rendered himself
celebrated in astronomy, by having calculated the best tables of the
moon, and by an excellent catalogue of stars. He died at Gottingen
in 1762, at the age of thirty-nine years. W. B.

A39. It may happen that any of the planets, about the time they
become stationary, shall describe a loop about some small fixed star,
in such manner as might be easily mistaken for the star making part
of a revolution about the planet. This I suspected to have been the
case with the above observation of Montaigne. But the times set
down do not confirm the suspicion.

A40. See page 320 of the foregoing Memoirs.

A41. See page 154 of the foregoing Memoirs.

A42. Mr. T. T. proceeding on a different supposition, has computed

twenty-seven billions of years necessary for that purpose.
 A43. “The main-wheel, which is fixed on the barrel on which the
cat-gut runs.” Mr. Voight.

A44. “A perpetual rochet is a spring lying between the main-wheel,

and a plate which is so high in diameter as to be nearly of a height
with the bottom of the main-wheel teeth, and is cut with fine teeth all
round, in the shape of a fine saw. A click on an axis is fixed between
the two frame-plates, with a weak spring that forces this click into the
fine saw-teeth, which keeps the plate from moving backwards when
the clock is winding up. This fine rochet-wheel is fixed on the barrel-
arbour or axis, the same as the main-wheel. The barrel-rochet
comes close against the plate of the fine rocket, which has a click
screwed on the front, corresponding with the barrel-rochet, and a
spring above that rochet’s click, which forces that click into the
barrel-rochet’s teeth: it is this that makes the clattering noise, which
is heard when a clock is winding up: There is a middling strong
spring placed between two arms of the cross of the main-wheel, bent
like the space of the two arms between which it acts; and this spring
is as broad as the thickness of the cross-arms. One end of that
spring is fastened to the inside of the fine rochet-plate: the other end
lies on the other cross-arm, and acts on that like a gun-lock
mainspring on the cock-tumbler. When the clock or time is set a
going, and the maintaining power or weight of the fusee or barrel,
this power will raise that spring so far as to resist the maintaining
power, and becomes stationary as long as the time-piece is going;
and when it is wound up, this spring in the main-wheel cross will
expand itself, press on the cross-arm, and force that wheel forward,
with nearly the same power as the maintaining power would give: the
click for the fine-teethed rochet falls into one of those fine teeth, and
keeps that rochet steady, without having the least motion, as long as
the winding-up of the clock continues; and by this means a time-
piece can lose no time in winding up: hence it is called a perpetual
rochet; which requires the most accurate workmanship, in its
construction.” Mr. Voight.

A45. This description is drawn up from two separate accounts of

the instrument, with which the Writer of these Memoirs was
obligingly furnished, in writing, by Robert Patterson and the late
David Rittenhouse Waters, Esquires, of Philadelphia. Mr. Patterson
mentions, that he recollects his having seen the Hygrometer so
described, in Dr. Rittenhouse’s Observatory, about thirty years ago.

A46. The second volume of the Transactions of the American

Philosophical Society contains a letter, written on the 13th of
November, 1780, by Dr. Benjamin Franklin, then in France, to Mr.
Nairne, of London: but it was not communicated to the Society, until
January, 1786.

In that letter, Dr. Franklin suggests to Mr. Nairne (an eminent

optician, and mathematical instrument maker,) the idea of an
Hygrometer made of wood; in preference to metalline instruments,
for the purpose of discovering “the different degrees of humidity in
the air of different countries;”—an idea which occurred to the Doctor,
in consequence of a casual circumstance, mentioned in his letter.

Dr. Franklin supposed “a quick sensibility of the instrument, to be

rather a disadvantage” to it; “since,” says he, “to draw the desired
conclusions from it, a constant and frequent observation day and
night, in each country—when the design is, to discover the different
degrees of humidity in the air of different countries—will be
necessary for a year or years, and the mean of each different set of
observations is to be found and determined.”—“For these reasons,”
continues the Doctor, “I apprehend that a substance which, though
capable of being distended by moisture and contracted by dryness,
is so slow in receiving and parting with its humidity that the frequent
changes in the atmosphere affect it sensibly, and which therefore
should, gradually, take nearly the medium of all those changes and
preserve it constantly, would be the most proper substance, of which
to make an Hygrometer:”—and he believes good mahogany wood to
be that substance. In the concluding part of this letter, Dr. Franklin
says to his correspondent: “I would beg leave to recommend to you
—that you would take a number of pieces of the closest and finest
grained mahogany that you can meet with; plane them to the
thinness of about a line, and the width of about two inches across
the grain, and fix each of the pieces in some instrument that you can
contrive, which will permit them to contract and dilate, and will shew,
in sensible degrees, by a moveable hand upon a marked scale, the
otherwise less sensible quantities of such contraction and dilatation.”

Hence it appears, that Franklin and Rittenhouse conceived an idea

of the same kind, nearly at the same time: but that the latter carried
his invention into practice, three or four years before the theory of
the former, founded on similar principles, had been announced to the
American public, or, as it is believed, was made known to any other
person than Mr. Nairne. W. B.

A47. In a table (in the 2d vol. of Lalande’s Astronomie,) entitled,

“Passages de Mercure sur le Soleil, calculés pour trois siècles par
les nouvelles Tables,” the transit of that planet, above referred to, is
thus set down by Lalande, at Paris; viz.

Year. Conjunct. Mean Geocentric Mid. Semi- Short.

Time. Long. Mean dura. dist.
Time
1776. Nov. 2. 9h10′7″. 7.11°3′36″. 9h49′53″. 0h36′42″. 15′43″.A
W. B.

A48. The calculations are here wanting, in Dr. Smith’s MSS.

A49. Here Dr. Rittenhouse’s ends: The remainder of the

versification is continued by another hand.

A50. He never professed the business of making watches: the first

mechanical occupation he assumed was that of a clock maker, an
employment he pursued many years, in the earlier part of his life. W.
B.

A51. Having, in the preceding note, adverted to the unimportant

error in the text, wherein our Philosopher is stated to have pursued
the employment of a watch-maker, instead of that of a clock-maker; it
becomes necessary to notice, in this place, another mistake, though
likewise an inconsiderable one, into which the liberal and candid
writer of the article, above quoted, has been led. Dr. Rittenhouse’s
Observatory, at Norriton—the place of his original residence and the
seat of his farm-house—was erected prior to the celebrated
“Astronomical Observations” made by him, in the year 1769; which
were those relating to the Transit of Venus over the Sun’s disk, on
the 3d of June in that year. W. B.

A52. The time above referred to, is supposed to have been in the
year 1790 or 1791; though perhaps it may have been somewhat
earlier. Dr. Sproat died in the autumn of 1793. W. B.

A53. An uncle of Copernicus was Bishop of Warmia, (in Ermeland,

a little province of Poland,) and gave him a canonry in his cathedral
of Frawenberg, a city in ducal Prussia, situated on the Frische Haff,
at the mouth of the Vistula: it was there he began to devote himself
to astronomy, at the age of twenty-eight years. His great work, De
Revolutionibus Orbium Cœlestium, was completed about the year
1530: but his apprehensions of meeting with persecution from the
bigotted ignorance of the age, in consequence of the system he
therein promulgated, deterred him from publishing it until thirteen
years after that period; and it is supposed that the agitation of his
mind, occasioned by its appearance in the world, produced the
sudden effusion of blood, which terminated his life on the 24th day of
May, in the year 1543. W. B.
 Transcriber’s Note
In the main sections of the text there are many
numbered textual notes, many quite lengthy, which the
writer chose to keep as close as possible to their
references in the text. In the printed book, this resulted in
many pages containing only two lines of the main text.
The writer acknowledges this in the Preface, but points
out the need to keep the notes as close to their
references as possible. Many of these notes have
footnotes of their own, denoted with the traditional *, †, ‡
symbols.

Notes in the Introduction and Appendix also employ

those traditional symbols, which have been resequenced
for the sake of uniqueness. The three notes in the
Introduction become I1, I2, I3, and those in the Appendix
become A1, A2, A3, ... An. If a note is itself footnoted,
that note is indicated as ‘Ana’, etc.

The main text employs 386 numeric notes which

started with ‘1’ for each section. These have been
resequenced across the entire text, again for the sake of
uniqueness. Many notes had footnotes of their own,
denoted with those traditional symbols. These have have
been resequenced as ‘na’, ‘nb’, ‘nc’, etc., where ‘n’ is the
note number. Those notes are placed following the note.

Any internal references to the notes, of course, were

modified to employ the new sequence.

In this version, footnotes have been collected at the

end of the text, and are linked for ease of reference.

Given the publication date (1813), spelling remained

somewhat fluid. So, especially in quoted text, the text
mostly remains as printed unless it is very obviously a
typo (e.g. ‘celebratrd’, or ‘inhahitants’), or where there is
a great preponderance of another variant of a word
elsewhere. There were two instances of a missing ‘of’
which may have been in error.

131.31 The making [of] good Sic

mathematical instruments
145.11 on the fourth day [of] July, Sic
1760.

A quoted translation in note 38 ends abruptly with ‘and

spreads her light:’ (lvi.29) without a closing quotation
mark. This has been amended as ‘spreads her light[.”]’

On two pages (pp. 134, 135), ‘Galileo’ is printed as

‘Gallileo’ (134.33, 134.37 and 135.3), which we take to
be a printer’s lapse.

On p. 182, The ’Rudolphine’ Tables are misspelled two

ways (182.27, 182.29). Both are corrected.

On pp. 327-329, the symbol for Uranus (♅) as printed

is not quite the same as the symbol available to us. In
the text, the small circle is on the top.

Other errors, deemed most likely to be the printer’s,

have been corrected, and are noted here. The
references are to the page and line in the original.

xii.15 not be deemed Replaced.

pre[p/s]umptuous
xxxii.28 the [sun] stood still in See Note
the centre
xxxix.16 Pyth[oga/ago]ras Transposed.
xlvii.4 of his Physics.[”]) Removed.
li.9 Pronaque cum spectent Replaced.
an[a/i]malia
lii.3 he may be enabled Replaced.
t[e/o] know himself
lvii.12 Hyberni[./,] vel quæ Replaced.
tardis
lxii.9 and [security] of See Note
navigation
lxxii.1 wa[n/s] Johannes de Replaced.
Sacro-Bosco
lxxiv.17 for its truth than novelty; Replaced.
[”]
91.11 purer morality and Replaced.
sounder [s/p]olicy.
104.22 to his friend[s]’s little Removed.
library
105.7 personally acquain[t]ed Inserted.
with him
107.1 [in]asmuch as the Restored.
instruments
107.7 [“]It is observable Removed.
110.18 so long distinguis[n/h]ed Replaced.
122.13 Astronomer’s innate Replaced.
ge[u/n]ius
140.12 A descript[t/i]on of Replaced.
148.35 with our guns.[’/”] Replaced.
149.10 as f[o/a]r as the Replaced.
barracks
164.10 and these,[”] Added.
177.30 la mesure du temps.[’/”] Replaced.
184.1 by William Sm[ti/it]h Transposed.
185.3 one-hundredth part of[ Removed.
of] the whole
192.15 See Laland[e]’s Astron. Inserted.
198.16 it has never been done. Removed.
 [”]
198.17 [“]I send you a Added.
description
207.7 good quality and Inserted.
wor[k]manship
207.24 the gl[s/a]ss-works have Replaced.
not
219.25 three [hun]hundred Removed.
pounds
220.25 reached this country[;/,] Replaced.
226.25 History of the Inverted.
America[u/n] Revolution
249.22 the repeated Removed.
occas[s]ions
251.16 Pennsyl[e/v]ania would Replaced.
not yield
254.1 in the ex[u/e]cution of Replaced.
his trust
260.13 of this Anti-Newtonian Replaced.
essayist[:/.]
261.4 Those of anoth[o/e]r Replaced.
cast
262.2 at one of your Transposed.
brothers[,’/’,]
269.7 most embar[r]assing Inserted.
circumstances
303.10 26th of January, 1[726- Replaced
7/627]
344.8 dated “Philadelphia, Oct. Added.
14, 1787[”]
360.20 The agency of Replaced.
i[m/n]formation
367.10 annexed to that statio[n.] Added.
372.30 to the Linn[e/æ]an Replaced.
 system
375.24 that Linn[e/æ]us Replaced.
pronounced him
388.18 on such occa[r/s]ions Replaced.
400.22 precisely the reverse.[”] Removed.
420.22 Mr. Ceracchi became Removed.
embarr[r]assed
455.34 Professor of Eng[g]lish Removed.
458.13 Mr. Ritten[ten]house Removed.
was not himself
477.19 [“]Observations on a Removed.
Comet
495.20 classical learning,[”] Added.
498.2 different systems of Removed.
theology.[”]
508.17 will be annihilated[:/.] Replaced.
512.12 of the human mind.[”] Removed.
513.24 the inha[h/b]itants of the Replaced.
British colonies
519.1 that Dr. Ritten[ten]house Removed.
533.23 the language of Dr. Added.
Reid, [“]fruitful
534.5 [“/‘]In God we live, and Replaced.
move,
534.6 and have our being.[’]” Inserted.
548.8 Venus a[u/n]d Mercury Inverted.
551.22 which jug[g]ling Inserted.
impostors
557.25 in the year 1260[,/.] Replaced.
558.42 by other e[n/m]inent Replaced.
astro[t/n]omers
564.18 their phases f[o/r]om full Replaced.
to new