[net-gold] Re: Should the History of Science Be Rated X?
- From: "David P. Dillard" <jwne@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Other Net-Gold Lists -- Educator Gold <Educator-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Educator Gold <Educator-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, net-gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, NetGold <netgold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Net-Gold <net-gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, K-12ADMINLIFE <K12ADMIN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, K12AdminLIFE <K12AdminLIFE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, NetGold <netgold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Net-Platinum <net-platinum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Net-Gold <NetGold_general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Temple Gold Discussion Group <TEMPLE-GOLD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Temple University Net-Gold Archive <net-gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Health Lists -- Health Diet Fitness Recreation Sports Tourism <healthrecsport@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Health Diet Fitness Recreation Sports <healthrecsport@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, HEALTH-RECREATION-SPORTS-TOURISM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 06:04:57 -0400 (EDT)
.
.
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 13:37:53 -0700
From: Richard Hake <rrhake@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Net-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: AERA-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Net-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Net-Gold] Re: Should the History of Science Be Rated X?
.
.
If you reply to this long (14 B) post please don't hit the reply
button unless you prune the copy of this post that may appear in your
reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already
archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.
.
**************************************************
.
PhysLnrR Noah Podolefsky wrote (paraphrasing): "I might be more
comfortable with the "recapitulation view" that students' scientific
thinking needs to go in the same order as the historical scientific
development, if the latter were presented as it actually happens -
that is, in fits and starts, with a great deal of controversy and
confusion, and 'understanding' only clearly realized in hindsight,
long after the foundational theories and experiments were done."
.
Nearly four decades ago science historian Stephen Brush (1974)
<http://bit.ly/OpQNbw> addressed the issue of presenting
*fictionalized* vs *actual* scientific history to students in his
classic "Should the History of Science Be Rated X? The way scientists
behave (according to historians) might not be a good model for
students."
.
Brush wrote "I suggest that the teacher who wants to indoctrinate his
students in the traditional role of the scientist as a neutral fact
finder should not use historical materials of the kind now being
prepared by historians of science: they will not serve his purposes."
.
Brush concluded; "In more recent times, hostility to science has
been intensified by the image of the 'objective,' robot-like
scientist lacking emotions and moral values. If the new approach to
the history of science really does give a more realistic picture of
the behavior of scientists, perhaps it has a 'redeeming social
significance.' Then, rather than limiting the conception of science
to the strict pattern allowed by traditional local standards, one
might try to change those standards in such a way as to reflect the
freedom that the boldest natural philosophers have always exercised."
.
**************************************************
.
Here is my attempt [bracketed by double lines "~*~*~*~*~* ~*. . . .
."; my CAPS] to make sense of some of the PhysLrnR posts on the
thread "Re: historical development (was FCI results for Chabay &
Sherwood)." [These posts have been almost impossible to follow
because of the hit-the-reply-button syndrome which degrades the
PhysLrnR archives with ambiguous *covert* quotes preceded by ">"
">>" ">>>". . . .; ; please let me know if I've failed to decipher
any posts]:
.
~*~*~*~*~* ~*~*~*~*~* ~*~*~*~*~* ~*~*~*~*~* ~*~*~*~*~* ~*~*~*~*~*
~*~*~*~*~* ~*~*~*~*~* ~*~*~*~*~* ~*~*~*~*~* ~*~*~*~*~* ~*~*~*~*~*
.
John Clement (2012) in his post "Re: FCI results for Chabay &
Sherwood," wrote: ". . . . . . . THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT MAY
ACTUALLY HAVE BENEFIT FOR STUDENTS. THEIR CHANGE IN THINKING MAY
NEED TO GO IN THE SAME ORDER THROUGH SOME OF THE HISTORICAL CHANGES."
.
To which Noah Podolefsky (2012a) in his post "Re: historical
development (was FCI results for Chabay & Sherwood)" *covertly*
quoted the above CAPITALIZED text and then wrote [bracketed by lines
"PPPPPP. . . ."
.
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
.
Just to pick up on this idea, to quote Hammer et al. . . . .
[[following PhysLrnR's protocol, no reference is given]]. . . .who
borrow the idea from evolutionary biology, ontogeny need not
recapitulate phylogeny. That is, the development of the organism (or
student) need not follow the historical development of the species
(or scientific field).
.
This idea has been pretty thoroughly debunked in evolutionary bio . .
. . .[[see, e.g.,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory>]].. . . . .,
partly because it just isn't how things work, and also because
logically there isn't any reason to believe the processes involved in
evolution of species are the same as those involved in development of
the individual.
.
Likewise, there's little reason to believe the processes involved in
the advancement of science are the same as those involved in the
development of knowledge for individuals. ANOTHER SERIOUS THREAT TO
THE RECAPITULATION VIEW IS THAT THE SCIENCE, AS DESCRIBED IN
TEXTBOOKS, IS GENERALLY A GROSS MISCHARACTERIZATION OF HOW THE
SCIENCE ACTUALLY DEVELOPED. SO IF YOU WERE TO FOLLOW THE TEXTBOOK
PATH, YOU WOULDN'T EVEN BE FOLLOWING THE WAY SCIENTISTS ACTUALLY
DEVELOPED THE IDEAS IN THE FIRST PLACE. . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
.
To which Bernard Cleyet (2012) responded by *covertly* quoting the
above CAPITALIZED text and then stating:
.
"I AGREE WITH THE ABOVE, BECAUSE THE TEXT WRITER HAS ALL THE
KNOWLEDGE 'AT ONCE' NOT GAINED CHRONOLOGICALLY."
.
Podolfsky (2012b) responded by *covertly* quoting from the above
CAPITALIZED text and then stating:
.
"Very true. In addition, the text writer has a fairly clean and
consistent story to tell that has been refined and passed down. In
some sense, I might be more comfortable with the recapitulation view
if it were recapitulating how much of science happens - that is, in
fits and starts, with a great deal of controversy and confusion, and
"understanding" only clearly realized in hindsight, long after the
foundational theories and experiments were done."
.
~*~*~*~*~* ~*~*~*~*~* ~*~*~*~*~* ~*~*~*~*~* ~*~*~*~*~* ~*~*~*~*~*
~*~*~*~*~* ~*~*~*~*~* ~*~*~*~*~* ~*~*~*~*~* ~*~*~*~*~* ~*~*~*~*~*
.
Nearly four decades ago science historian Stephen Brush (1974)
<http://bit.ly/OpQNbw> addressed the issue of presenting
*fictionalized* vs *actual* scientific history to students in his
classic "Should the History of Science Be Rated X? The way scientists
behave (according to historians) might not be a good model for
students." The abstract reads [bracketed by lines "BBBBBBB. . . . ";
my CAPS; unless you or your institution has a subscription to
"Science" you'll have to pay $15.00 to get the references]:
.
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
.
I suggest that the teacher who wants to indoctrinate his students in
the traditional role of the scientist as a neutral fact finder should
not use historical materials of the kind now being prepared by
historians of science: they will not serve his purposes. He may wish
to follow the advice of philosopher J. C. C. Smart, who recently
suggested that IT IS LEGITIMATE TO USE FICTIONALIZED HISTORY OF
SCIENCE TO ILLUSTRATE ONE'S PRONOUNCEMENTS ON SCIENTIFIC METHOD (56).
On the other hand, those teachers who want to counteract the
dogmatism of the textbooks and convey some understanding of science
as an activity that cannot be divorced from metaphysical or esthetic
considerations may find some stimulation in the new history of
science. As historian D. S. L. Cardwell has argued (57, p. 120):
.
. . . [I]f the history of science is to be used as an educational
discipline, to inculcate an enlightened and critical mind, then the
Whig view. . . . .[[ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history>]] .
. . . . . cannot do this. For it must emphasize the continuities, the
smooth and successive developments from one great achievement to the
next and so on; and in doing so it must automatically endow the
present state of science with all the immense authority of history.
.
He [Cardwell] suggests that THE CRITICAL MIND MIGHT BE INHIBITED BY
SEEING THE PRESENT AS THE INEVITABLE, TRIUMPHANT PRODUCT OF THE PAST.
The history of science could aid the teaching of science by showing
that "such puzzling concepts as force, energy, etc., are man-made and
were evolved in an understandable sequence in response to acutely
felt and very real problems. THEY WERE NOT HANDED DOWN BY SOME
CELESTIAL TEXTBOOK WRITER TO WHOM THEY WERE IMMEDIATELY SELF-EVIDENT"
(57, p. 120).
.
The past may give some hints on how to survive the most recent
recurrence of public hostility to science. Rather than blaming
historians such as Kuhn for encouraging antiscientific attitudes, as
one physicist did in a public address in 1972 (58), one might
consider this criticism of the older style of science history,
published in 1940 by W. James Lyons (59, p. 381):
.
"The historians of science are responsible, it would appear, for the
unpopularity of science among those most acutely affected by the
depression. In their clamor to enhance the scientific tradition, and
hoard for science all credit for the remarkable and unprecedented
material advances which studded the century and a quarter preceding
1930, THESE HISTORIANS HAVE BEEN MORE ENTHUSIASTIC THAN ACCURATE . .
. science emerged [in the popular mind] as the most prominent force
responsible for making this modern world so startlingly different
from all preceding ages. Thus when, for many people, the modern
world, in spite of all its resources, began to slip from its role of
'best of all imaginable worlds,' science came in for a proportionate
share of blame. HAD A MORE ACCURATE PICTURE OF THE PART SCIENCE HAS
played been presented, science would not now be the object of so much
suspicion and resentment."
.
In more recent times, hostility to science has been intensified by
the image of the "objective," robot-like scientist lacking emotions
and moral values. IF THE NEW APPROACH TO THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE
REALLY DOES GIVE A MORE REALISTIC PICTURE OF THE BEHAVIOR OF
SCIENTISTS, PERHAPS IT HAS A "REDEEMING SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE." Then,
rather than limiting the conception of science to the strict pattern
allowed by traditional local standards, one might try to change those
standards in such a way as to reflect the freedom that the boldest
natural philosophers have always exercised.
.
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
.
.
.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: <http://bit.ly/a6M5y0>
Links to SDI Labs: <http://bit.ly/9nGd3M>
Blog: <http://bit.ly/9yGsXh>
Twitter <http://bit.ly/juvd52>
GooglePlus: <http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE>
.
.
.
REFERENCES [All URL's shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on
09 July 2012. To access posts on the PhysLrnR archives one needs to
subscribe :-(, but that takes only a few minutes by clicking on
<http://bit.ly/nG318r> and then clicking on "Join or Leave
.
.
.
PHYSLRNR-LIST." If you're busy, then subscribe using the "NOMAIL"
option under "Miscellaneous." Then, as a subscriber, you may access
the archives and/or post messages at any time, while receiving NO
MAIL from the list!
.
Brush, S.G. 1974. "Should the History of Science Be Rated X? The way
scientists behave (according to historians) might not be a good model
for students." An abstract is online at <http://bit.ly/NCzNjb>, where
the article can be purchased for $15.00.
.
Clement, J. 2012. "Re: FCI results for Chabay & Sherwood," online on
the PhysLrnR archives at <http://bit.ly/LYEtCa>. Post of 7 Jul 2012
10:42:08-0500 to PhysLrnR.
.
Cleyet, B. 2012. "Re: historical development (was FCI results for
Chabay & Sherwood)" online at <http://bit.ly/McIwN9>. Post of 7 Jul
2012 10:09:49-0700 to PhysLrnR.
.
Podolefsky, N. 2012a. "historical development (was FCI results for
Chabay & Sherwood)," online on the PhysLrnR archives at
<http://bit.ly/RP9KIh>. Post of 7 Jul 2012 10:14:45-0600 to PhysLrnR.
.
Podolefsky, N. 2012b "historical development (was FCI results for
Chabay & Sherwood)," online on the PhysLrnR archives at
<http://bit.ly/MgqB4q>. Post of 7 Jul 2012 11:26:39 -0600 to PhysLrnR.
.
.
Other related posts:
- » [net-gold] Re: Should the History of Science Be Rated X? - David P. Dillard
