| Abstract
| - This paper deals with a controversy which occurred in the field of storm water drainage. Indeed, between 1890 and 1920, there were two opposing camps on American soil on the subject. The first camp was made up of the followers of "tradition" who, from the 1850s onwards, attempted to build sizing formulae, the elaboration and validity of which relied on amassing empirical data regarding the locality to be drained. From the 1880's onwards, the empirical approach came under fire from another diametrically opposed approach. In this new approach, termed rational method, empirical data (measurements) were largely replaced by deduction and calculation. This communication aims at analyzing the successive stages of the controversy that has divided the two opposing camps, in order to better understand why the rational method has eventually dominated.
|
