Yet, in the 1970s, counting sunspots signified something much more dramatic and nefarious about the history of science itself. In these years, John “Jack” Eddy, an astrophysicist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research, began to scour old, dusty books in library basements to resuscitate a long-forgotten event in the history of solar behavior, behavior that seemed completely at odds with the prevailing orthodox understanding of the sun. Despite what appeared to be the historic and predictable vacillation in the number of sunspots every eleven years, a regularity known to exist since the mid-19th century, Eddy noticed in his records what appeared to be the virtual absence of sunspots between 1645 and 1715.
This curious blemish in the solar record was no small discovery. “If it really happened,” Eddy noted in one of his earliest talks on the matter, “we should recognize it as perhaps the most drastic thing that has ever happened to the sun since we began observing it and start including it in our work on the solar cycle." (Eddy, 1974) The implication was obvious: if the sun acted regularly and predictably every eleven years or so, how does one explain the disappearance of sunspots for almost a century?
Eddy’s investigation, as it turned out, showed that Maunder was not forgotten merely because of his inability to properly disseminate his finding about sunspots, but rather because the astrophysical community had – for almost a century – allowed their preexisting assumptions to blind them to new ideas. A conspiracy had taken place, Eddy argued, one based in what appeared to be a universal belief that the sun acted regularly and predictably according to the solar cycle – what he called the principle of solar uniformitarianism.
The strength of Maunder’s observations was insufficient to break the universally-accepted canon of solar regularity. Instead of acknowledging and understanding an anomaly in solar behavior, “solar physicists have largely continued to ignore or forget the anomaly, if real,” Eddy insisted in the spring of 1976. “Some have institutionalized the solar cycle and made a profession of extending it into the past and predicting in the future; ignoring, doubting, or intentionally diluting the claims of Maunder of this skeleton in the closet of solar physics." (Eddy, 1976)
This is an important story in part because it helps to explain why Eddy spoke about sunspots with what historian Kark Hufbauer referred to as “a missionary’s zeal.” (Hufbauer, 1991) But what else does the story show? It certainly does not mean that Eddy’s pioneering work led to a wholesale abandonment of the idea that the sun (for the most part) behaves in a regular, cyclical fashion. That interpretation would be too extreme. However, it would not be too extreme to argue that he used what he considered a crime against Maunder to justify his own predilections as a scientist. Throughout his professional life, he harbored a deep skepticism toward what he saw as scientists’ proclivity for unoriginality and challenged others’ apparent unwillingness to probe the very depths of their own professional, and sometimes erroneous, assumptions. Eddy was comfortable opening the closet.
Eddy, John, "The Long Solar Winter," 1974 December 5, Box 2, John Eddy Papers, National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Eddy, John, ”Maunder Minimum,” 15 April 1976, Box 3, JEP
Eddy, John, ”The Changing Sun,” 28 May 1978, Box 3, JEP
Hufbauer, Karl. Exploring the Sun: Solar Science Since Galileo. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991.