Re: Historical material

[Larry Cartwright <exit60@CABLESPEED.COM>]

OTOH, 1979 Nobel laureate Sheldon Glashow said "The history of science
is highly overrated."  (He also said that high school physics was deadly
dull; "The guy who wrote the textbook was even named Dull.")

There are teachers and texts who/which put so much emphasis on the
historical aspects of science that kids are left with the idea that's
what science is mostly all about: memorizing the names and dates and
accomplishments of a lot of dead people, like a bad social studies
class.

I think history of science is best served as dessert, after basic
nutrition has been assured.  Or perhaps as with herbs, carefully used as
an adjunct to the recipe, but not in such strength as to become the
predominant flavor.  Or like a fine dinner wine, exquisite but not
really to be drunk for its own sake.  Ooooooh, I hope this doesn't start
a can-you-top-this simile contest on Phys-L :-)

I don't think most people have much appreciation for the history of a
field until they have already grasped the substance of the field.  Most
of my students never seemed to much appreciate the few tidbits of
history with which I insisted they become familiar.  When I was a
student, I didn't give a rat's patoot about the history of physics; but
when I started teaching, the historical aspects suddenly became both
fascinating and valuable.  Perhaps Sir Archibald's essay is more
applicable after one has moved beyond the introductory plateau.

Best wishes,

Larry

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Larry Cartwright   <exit60@cablespeed.com>
Retired (June 2001) Physics Teacher
Charlotte MI 48813 USA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Carl Gaither wrote:
> I came across some very interesting words written by Sir Archibald Geikie
> nearly 100 years ago in 1905.  In the introductory paragraph to Chapter I of
> "The Founders of Geology" he wrote:
>
> "In science, as in all other departments of inquiry, no thorough grasp of a
> subject can be gained unless the history of its development is clearly
> appreciated.  Nevertheless, students of Nature, while eagerly pressing
> forward in the search after her secrets, are apt to keep the eye too
> constantly fixed on the way that has to be travelled, and to lose sight and
> remembrance of the paths already trodden.  It is eminently useful, however,
> if they will now and then pause in the race, in order to look backward over
> the ground that has been traversed, to mark the errors as well as the
> successes of the journey, to note the hindrances and the helps which they
> and their predecessors have encountered, and to realise what have been the
> influences that have more especially tended to retard or quicken the
> progress of research."
>
> I am wondering if in the fields of physics, chemistry, biology and
> mathematics there isn't a failure on the part of the teachers to impart into
> the student the value and benefit of reading the historical material
> pertaining to a discipline.  I find my daughter, who is in high school,
> always reading some classical novel for English, but I have yet to see her
> reading any of the classical works from chemistry, biology, physics or
> mathematics.  I do however, see her working innumerable problems from these
> disciplines and always asking, "Why do I have to learn to do this?" or "Who
> thought this stuff up?" Is it possible that the teachers don't tell the
> students where the thoughts and ideas that they are presenting in class came
> from.  Is it even possible that the teachers don't even know the history of
> their specific discipline and are only trained in how to "work problems"?
>
> I have spent the better part of the last six years writing books on
> scientific quotations and have found an unbelievable amount of material that
> would be most readable for virtually any student from the seventh grade on
> up.  However, I find that these books frequently aren't in the high school
> libraries, the city libraries and are often very infrequently checked out
> from the university libraries.
>
>  Some of these books would make fantastic reading material for the
> classroom.  However, I find that teachers of high school math, physics,
> chemistry, etc. do not view it appropriate to read book to the students.
>
> I guess what I'm interested in finding out is why the field of literature,
> history, art and music find it imperative for the students to be aware of
> the classical work along with the contemporary works but we in the sciences
> fail to promote the classical works?
>
> Just a thought after reading the paragraph by Geikie.