Did thirteenth century scholars attempt to determine the congealing of oil by reading Aristotle?

Question

In "The Production of Knowledge" William Starbuck presents the following anecdote (without providing its source). Is this anecdote based on a real historically traceable incidence?

During the thirteenth century, professors at the University of Paris decided to find out whether oil would congeal if left outdoors on a cold night. They launched a research project to investigate the question. To them, research meant searching through the works of Aristotle. After much effort, they found that nothing Aristotle had written answered their question, so they declared the question unanswerable.

Answer 1

In short: The claim mentioned above is not based on a real historically traceable incidence.

As revealed by Yisela's excellent inquiry from W. Starbuck, mentioned above in a comment, the argument stems from

"Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution”, authored by Watzlawick, Weakland, and Fisch. The story appears near the top of page 78 (or Chapter 7

and indeed

the authors do not provide a historical reference

More correct answer: Within the original work (Watzlawic et al.) the claim conveys something true.

First, the above story appears in a chapter that is dedicated to the formation of mythologies. The chapter also discusses subjective origins of mythologies.

This is what happened to me when reading the above story in this context:

1. At first it sounded somewhat plausible to me
2. Given the context of the chapter, I would however be even more skeptical, whether this might be an intellectual joke with some basic underlying truth.
3. Rather than providing a reference (like for other examples in the same book), the paragraph ends with a rather lengthy footnote without much meaning. In the middle of this footnote the authors however state:

Conversely, many gifted writers are astounded and even annoyed at the deeper meanings that others read into their works. Thus while the former believe they know, but apparently do not, the latter seem to know more than they are willing to acknowledge

4. With this in mind I would re-read the chapter, and note that one paragraph before the story on 13th century scholars, the authors use an argument that seems to run at odds with the story on 13th century scholars (and relates to an aspect recognized by Obie 2.0's comment on original question):

... if anybody had bothered to look at the most obvious source for the understanding of change, he didn't not leave a written record.

5. Continuing to read (and reflecting the above comment of Avery that something should be known in other records), the story sounds even more exaggerated, as it is introduced (without a reference) as:

In more than one way, this absurd situation reminded us of a famous piece of scholastic enquiry into the nature of things; at some point during the thirteenth century...

In short, Watzlawic et al. are somewhat funny, and have a justified point.

Answer 2

This story is surprisingly easy to completely disprove, because devotion to Aristotle's worldview was banned at the University of Paris in thirteenth century.

Condemnations of 1210–1277

The Condemnation of 1210 was issued by the provincial synod of Sens, which included the Bishop of Paris as a member (at the time Peter of Nemours). The writings of a number of medieval scholars were condemned, apparently for pantheism, and it was further stated that: "Neither the books of Aristotle on natural philosophy or their commentaries are to be read at Paris in public or secret, and this we forbid under penalty of excommunication."

It is not known how far this ban was taken, but the Wikipedia page makes clear that we have no direct evidence that Aristotle was publicly read between 1210 and 1277, making this anecdote impossible.

The 1277 ban was more serious and listed 219 teachings derived from Aristotle which were forbidden at the university. For example, Aristotle taught that "nature abhors a vacuum," but without scientific evidence this was considered a mere human-authored dogma, so proclaiming it to students was banned. Other Aristotelian dogmas that were rejected through the ban include "there exists only a single planet in the universe" and "the heavens do not move."

Medieval historians have concluded that the 1277 ban created conditions for more open, lively academic debate about the nature of the universe. Which makes this anecdote even more impossible.