We are fortunate at OU to have a world renowned History of Science Collections. My visit will be at a later date, but since you are reading my blog here are a couple of web sites for you.
http://libraries.ou.edu/info/index.asp?id=20
http://homepage.mac.com/kvmagruder/hsci/index.html
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Day 4 Historiography
Wang and Marsh's article dealt with humanizing science in the classroom, and teacher's perceptions and actual practice during instructional time concerning inclusion of science history in science courses. First of all I liked that this was a research article which allowed me to utilize some of the statistical techniques I learned recently in Quantitative Analysis I to help me understand the article's methods, analysis, and conclusions. The main point of the article was to compare how teachers valued inclusion of history of science with how much or often they actually did in practice. All in all it seemed teachers consistently agreed on the importance of history of science (except for elementary school students), but rarely actually followed through to the same degree in the classroom, for a variety of reasons. The authors also interviewed several teachers for more perspective, and I found myself nodding in agreement as I read their comments, especially about the lack of time to teach all the topics in a given semester. This is often true even when history of science isn't included, as there is a lot of pressure today on teachers in all subject areas to be sure students do well on standardized tests, whether they are actually learning anything or are just being trained to be good test takers.
The authors defend their conclusions through statistical analyses, the teacher interviews, and by describing the framework in which history of science can be included. The three componenents are conceptual, procedural, and contextual understanding. They also touch on some topics from some of my other readings for this course, including Kuhn and Conant as they lay out the efforts that have been made over the years to humanize science education. They describe the golden age of science education after the launch of Sputnik, attempts to form an enlightened citizenry, and the standards-based science education reform that started in the 1980's. I have always felt even though there are certain basic ideas and terminology that students must know to be competent in science, it is much more important to help young people be able to think critically, evaluate data, and make decisions.
The authors give in my opinion valid reasons for conceptual understanding being brought about through history of science, and they consistently cite other studies and authors to support their points. To achieve procedural understanding they show how students work in class can parallel scientists' work both in the past and present. I appreciated how they point out that the process of investigation is rife with errors, and great discoveries such as antibiotics can come about through apparent laboratory "mistakes". They also stress the importance of deductive reasoning and not having students just perform cook-book labs that merely verify what is already known. This brings me back again to the Learning Cycle and the workshop that inspired me to pursue my PhD. In the Learning Cycle the students perform the procedure and then develop the concepts, not unlike what scientists have done for centuries. The potential for humanizing science in this context is limitless. History of science for contextual understanding is as important as the previous two, in my opinion. The authors discuss psychological, social, and cultural factors and give clear examples involving Einstein, Curie, and others. We need to take advantage of children's natural curiosity and not turn them off to science by numbing them with terms, book work, and tests. Young people naturally want to figure things out and we need to nurture that innate desire to be a scientist. We can inspire students with the work of scientists of their countries of origin or ethnicity, their humanitarian concerns involving diseases and hunger, and even gender. My students always found it interesting that it was a woman who did most of the original work that enabled Watson and Crick to elucidate the double helix. Students need to realize that scientists and developers like Bill Gates (who also happens to be the world's welathiest man) are held in very high esteem in certain cultures.
In conclusion the teachers in the study reported a lot of the same feelings and opinions I have had over the years, including; it is important to humanize science ans scientists, intrinsic as well as extrinsic motivation is necessary, science/politics/social factors are often closely tied together, scientists must work together and build on other scientists' work, and diverse cultural and heritage role models can be displayed. I disagree with the teachers about elementary students not benefitting from historical perspectives and the lack of procedural understanding.
Bibliographic Note:
Hsingchi A. Wang and David D. Marsh, "Science Instruction with a Humanistic Twist: Teacher's Perception and Practice in Using the History of Science in Their Classrooms", Science & Education, 2002, 11:169-189.
The authors defend their conclusions through statistical analyses, the teacher interviews, and by describing the framework in which history of science can be included. The three componenents are conceptual, procedural, and contextual understanding. They also touch on some topics from some of my other readings for this course, including Kuhn and Conant as they lay out the efforts that have been made over the years to humanize science education. They describe the golden age of science education after the launch of Sputnik, attempts to form an enlightened citizenry, and the standards-based science education reform that started in the 1980's. I have always felt even though there are certain basic ideas and terminology that students must know to be competent in science, it is much more important to help young people be able to think critically, evaluate data, and make decisions.
The authors give in my opinion valid reasons for conceptual understanding being brought about through history of science, and they consistently cite other studies and authors to support their points. To achieve procedural understanding they show how students work in class can parallel scientists' work both in the past and present. I appreciated how they point out that the process of investigation is rife with errors, and great discoveries such as antibiotics can come about through apparent laboratory "mistakes". They also stress the importance of deductive reasoning and not having students just perform cook-book labs that merely verify what is already known. This brings me back again to the Learning Cycle and the workshop that inspired me to pursue my PhD. In the Learning Cycle the students perform the procedure and then develop the concepts, not unlike what scientists have done for centuries. The potential for humanizing science in this context is limitless. History of science for contextual understanding is as important as the previous two, in my opinion. The authors discuss psychological, social, and cultural factors and give clear examples involving Einstein, Curie, and others. We need to take advantage of children's natural curiosity and not turn them off to science by numbing them with terms, book work, and tests. Young people naturally want to figure things out and we need to nurture that innate desire to be a scientist. We can inspire students with the work of scientists of their countries of origin or ethnicity, their humanitarian concerns involving diseases and hunger, and even gender. My students always found it interesting that it was a woman who did most of the original work that enabled Watson and Crick to elucidate the double helix. Students need to realize that scientists and developers like Bill Gates (who also happens to be the world's welathiest man) are held in very high esteem in certain cultures.
In conclusion the teachers in the study reported a lot of the same feelings and opinions I have had over the years, including; it is important to humanize science ans scientists, intrinsic as well as extrinsic motivation is necessary, science/politics/social factors are often closely tied together, scientists must work together and build on other scientists' work, and diverse cultural and heritage role models can be displayed. I disagree with the teachers about elementary students not benefitting from historical perspectives and the lack of procedural understanding.
Bibliographic Note:
Hsingchi A. Wang and David D. Marsh, "Science Instruction with a Humanistic Twist: Teacher's Perception and Practice in Using the History of Science in Their Classrooms", Science & Education, 2002, 11:169-189.
Day 4 History of Biology Survey
Today's reading was the chapter in Lindberg on Greek and Roman medicine. I found this to be interesting reading and as a further reading note would like to finish the book as time permits. Overall I am beginning to get more of a feel for the progression of the course and how biology in particular has developed over the centuries. I am particularly fascinated by the teleological ideas as they pertain to the human body and its study, and how the author defends Galen's work and stresses that it must be viewed within the context of what was known and understood in the second century. As Lindberg points out we still obviously don't have all the answers today, and it's inappropriate to laugh at the idea that the ancient gods were responsible for some diseases when we today have scientific studies concerned with whether prayer somehow speeds up the healing process.
The section on Hippocratic medicine was interesting to me, because of course we are all familiar with the Hippocratic oath that doctors still take today. Apparently they were among the first to emphasize disease and health and deemphasize supernatural aspects of medicine. The four "humors" and their balance are mentioned, but they also used case histories and learned methods to make diagnoses and prognoses and inquiry and a critical approach in this process. Apparently it wasn't until the third century that human and animal dissection and more concern with anatomical and physiological structure and function became prevalent. Herophilus and Erasistratus are mentioned regarding their ideas of how the human body functions, and came up with ideas like pneuma, arteries, veins, and how the nervous system works. It was also interesting to me how the Hellenistic sects came about and the contrasting viewpoints they presented. I wonder if there had been more cohesion of thought and practice if medicine and and biology could have advanced further and faster during this time. It seems to me if the "empiricists" and "rationalists" had worked together they were both on the right track, but coming from different directions. The "pneumatists" and other groups seemed to be less productive in their thinking and practices.
After having said that, Galen comes along and he is by far the most interesting part of the reading. As a further reading note anything about him would be interesting to me. As a teacher, I could point to him as an example of one who drew from various disciplines and schools of thought to create his own useful advancements, ideas and methods. I stress to my students to always be open-minded, learn a variety of viewpoints from a variety of sources and incorporate their best individual aspects into what you feel is the optimal solution or hypothesis. Closed-mindedness is both the scientist's and general educated person's worst enemy, in my opinion.
I would like to see examples of Galen's anatomical work, and it is fascinating how he tied the three physiological components (heart, brain, and liver ) to Platos' three faculties of the soul (passion, rational thought, and appetite). He actually understood the physiology of the cardiovascular system reasonably well, given the limitations of the time. In conclusion Galen is an intriguing figure in historical science and was probably the highlight of this reading for me.
Bibliographic Note:
David C. Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science, (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1992). This book is a wonderful and informative discussion of the European scientific tradition in philosophica, religious, and institutional context from 600 B.C. to A.D. 1450.
Further Study Note:
Charles Singer, A Short History of Anatomy and Physiology from the Greeks to Harvey
Temkin, Galenism
Karl E. Rothschuh, History of Physiology
The section on Hippocratic medicine was interesting to me, because of course we are all familiar with the Hippocratic oath that doctors still take today. Apparently they were among the first to emphasize disease and health and deemphasize supernatural aspects of medicine. The four "humors" and their balance are mentioned, but they also used case histories and learned methods to make diagnoses and prognoses and inquiry and a critical approach in this process. Apparently it wasn't until the third century that human and animal dissection and more concern with anatomical and physiological structure and function became prevalent. Herophilus and Erasistratus are mentioned regarding their ideas of how the human body functions, and came up with ideas like pneuma, arteries, veins, and how the nervous system works. It was also interesting to me how the Hellenistic sects came about and the contrasting viewpoints they presented. I wonder if there had been more cohesion of thought and practice if medicine and and biology could have advanced further and faster during this time. It seems to me if the "empiricists" and "rationalists" had worked together they were both on the right track, but coming from different directions. The "pneumatists" and other groups seemed to be less productive in their thinking and practices.
After having said that, Galen comes along and he is by far the most interesting part of the reading. As a further reading note anything about him would be interesting to me. As a teacher, I could point to him as an example of one who drew from various disciplines and schools of thought to create his own useful advancements, ideas and methods. I stress to my students to always be open-minded, learn a variety of viewpoints from a variety of sources and incorporate their best individual aspects into what you feel is the optimal solution or hypothesis. Closed-mindedness is both the scientist's and general educated person's worst enemy, in my opinion.
I would like to see examples of Galen's anatomical work, and it is fascinating how he tied the three physiological components (heart, brain, and liver ) to Platos' three faculties of the soul (passion, rational thought, and appetite). He actually understood the physiology of the cardiovascular system reasonably well, given the limitations of the time. In conclusion Galen is an intriguing figure in historical science and was probably the highlight of this reading for me.
Bibliographic Note:
David C. Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science, (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1992). This book is a wonderful and informative discussion of the European scientific tradition in philosophica, religious, and institutional context from 600 B.C. to A.D. 1450.
Further Study Note:
Charles Singer, A Short History of Anatomy and Physiology from the Greeks to Harvey
Temkin, Galenism
Karl E. Rothschuh, History of Physiology
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Day 3 Historiography
Holton's article explains the reasons historians of science and science teachers should work together, and attempts to give ways this can be brought about. He mainly does three things; give examples of such cooperation, lays out five specific courses of action by which this may be accomplished, enumerate and describe the ideaologies of potential partners in this pursuit. The author is kind enough to point out the enormous time and paperwork commitments that often hamper our desire to be better and more effective science teachers, even specifically mentioning the pre-college level. Holton outlines his five mechanisms as actually writing curricula that incorporate history of science, its inclusion in new national and state educational benchmarks and standards, placing articles in professional journals, attending meetings, and finding "barrier-crossers" who are willing to carry the flag for the incorporation of more history of science. He goes on to give specific examples of all five, and I especially appreciated the notion that a well-rounded, educated, productive citizen of the world, regardless of their area of expertise, should have a general understanding of important scientific achievements throughout history and their societal and cultural effects. I especially liked Rabi's question to any student posing a research problem as "will it bring you nearer to God?". I for one have never felt that religion and science are mutually exclusive, and as the Bible says, to paraphrase, "when we know everything we become as unto God himself". It's hard to say if the human species will be around long enough to ever know everything, but of course our goal as scientists and teachers is to try to keep learning about and explaining the universe around us, and that in and of itself means keeping the context in which previous learning has taken place, and by that I mean appreciating the history of science. I would say this has been my favorite reading so far, as I learned a lot about attempts to broaden curricula in the past, and ongoing ways to include more history of science in my science classes.
Rutherford's article made one overriding point that stuck with me, and that is that no matter how many large-scale attempts are made at the national and state levels to improve science education, it ultimately comes down to the individual teachers in the classroom and their desire and willingness to truly teach science as a process and include significant and relevant historical elements. My experience in 17 years of teaching from third grade through high school is that there are too many coaches masquerading as science teachers and even "true" teachers who just go through the motions to pick up a paycheck and/or get out to the athletic practice fields in the afternoons. It's easy to just have the students read or take notes, answer the questions at the end of the chapters, and give them a test on it. Labs, other than looking at a few microscope slides or dissecting a frog, are virtually non-existent in many cases, not to mention original research projects and outside readings, including historical ones. I used to submit my senior AP/IB/Honors Biology students to what we called "interrogations", or group oral quizzes, based on notes taken from select readings in Scientific American. These articles are wonderful because they usually include the relevant science leading up to the current school of thought on that topic. I had many students report back later that this format did more to prepare them for university and broadened their thinking more than anything else they did in high school. Going back to science teachers, and Rutherford's article, all the initiatives he discusses such as the Project Physics and Project 2061 are great in theory, but again the problem is often implementation at the classroom level. I know many teachers view in-service or staff development as goof-off days with no students, and presentations are often forgotten by both teachers and administrators as soon as they walk out the door. There is often little in the way of following through on what is presented. This was an informative article, and it exposed me to some curricula materials and programs that I could and should investigate further and utilize in my classroom. It also reminded me that today we have a tremendous resource in the internet that makes much of this support available at our fingertips, for both the student and teacher. The point the author makes about the success of such programs only being able to be evaluated over many years is valid, but I am reminded of what Kuhn said that overall we are apparently doing a good job in science and science education, but of course we should always strive to do better.
Bibliographic Note:
Gerald Holton, "What Historians of Science and Science Educators Can Do For Each Other", Science & Education, 2003, 12: 603-616
F. James Rutherford, "Fostering the History of Science in American Science Education", Science & Education, 2001, 10: 569-580
Rutherford's article made one overriding point that stuck with me, and that is that no matter how many large-scale attempts are made at the national and state levels to improve science education, it ultimately comes down to the individual teachers in the classroom and their desire and willingness to truly teach science as a process and include significant and relevant historical elements. My experience in 17 years of teaching from third grade through high school is that there are too many coaches masquerading as science teachers and even "true" teachers who just go through the motions to pick up a paycheck and/or get out to the athletic practice fields in the afternoons. It's easy to just have the students read or take notes, answer the questions at the end of the chapters, and give them a test on it. Labs, other than looking at a few microscope slides or dissecting a frog, are virtually non-existent in many cases, not to mention original research projects and outside readings, including historical ones. I used to submit my senior AP/IB/Honors Biology students to what we called "interrogations", or group oral quizzes, based on notes taken from select readings in Scientific American. These articles are wonderful because they usually include the relevant science leading up to the current school of thought on that topic. I had many students report back later that this format did more to prepare them for university and broadened their thinking more than anything else they did in high school. Going back to science teachers, and Rutherford's article, all the initiatives he discusses such as the Project Physics and Project 2061 are great in theory, but again the problem is often implementation at the classroom level. I know many teachers view in-service or staff development as goof-off days with no students, and presentations are often forgotten by both teachers and administrators as soon as they walk out the door. There is often little in the way of following through on what is presented. This was an informative article, and it exposed me to some curricula materials and programs that I could and should investigate further and utilize in my classroom. It also reminded me that today we have a tremendous resource in the internet that makes much of this support available at our fingertips, for both the student and teacher. The point the author makes about the success of such programs only being able to be evaluated over many years is valid, but I am reminded of what Kuhn said that overall we are apparently doing a good job in science and science education, but of course we should always strive to do better.
Bibliographic Note:
Gerald Holton, "What Historians of Science and Science Educators Can Do For Each Other", Science & Education, 2003, 12: 603-616
F. James Rutherford, "Fostering the History of Science in American Science Education", Science & Education, 2001, 10: 569-580
Monday, June 26, 2006
Day 3 History of Biology Survey
Even though many of the images in this exhibit were not yet available for viewing online I would appreciate seeing some of them when I visit the collections again, especially those pertaining to human anatomical studies. I was struck by the beauty and artistry of the ones that were available, especially the herbals. Some of the points I found most interesting were blood-letting, the treatment of syphilis with mercury (!), the various ideas about the causes of disease, and the perceived relationships between astronomy, astrology, and anatomy.
Probably most surprising to me was the detail of the drawings, and the ideas that were the cornerstones of science at the time, such as those mentioned above. Also confounding was that for all their beauty the drawings were often not technically sound. This course is helping me to understand and appreciate the context in which these ideas were founded, and as I progress through the readings and images I hope to have gained a better overall appreciation for the flow and development of biological thought from century to century. I also noticed that science seemed to be restricted to the upper classes and clergy and found that interesting.
As a science educator I found this survey useful because I can refer to these online exhibits as a teaching tool and help my students appreciate how far science has come over the centuries by actually showing them and not just telling them about it. I also feel it is imperative that I personally have a better overall feel for how scientific thought has developed and this will make me a better teacher in general.
I would like to see or read the following because frankly I have never been exposed to original works like these and I appreciate their artistry and scientific importance (also Further Study note):
Herball of John Gerard (1597)
Fuchs' De historia stirpium (1547)
Paracelsus. Prognostication auff XXIIII. Augspurg, Getruckt durch H. Steyner, (1536)
Anothomia Mondini nuper optime emedata ac suma diligitia ipressa. Venetiis, Bonetum Locatelli Bergomesuz, 1507. (12 leaves, 32 cm, not illustrated)
Charles Estienne. De dissectione partium corporis humani libri tres, a Carolo Stephano, doctore medico, editi. Vna cum figuris et incisionum declarationibus, a Stephano Riuerio chirurgo copositis. Parisiis, Apud S. Colinaeum, 1545.
Bibliographic Note:
Kerry Magruder,History of Science Online Exhibits, "Part 1. Materia Medica and Herbals: Intro" http://hsci.cas.ou.edu/exhibits/exhibit.php?exbgrp=-999&exbid=48&exbpg=9
These web pages give an overview of some of the drawings and concepts of the 16th century life sciences.
Probably most surprising to me was the detail of the drawings, and the ideas that were the cornerstones of science at the time, such as those mentioned above. Also confounding was that for all their beauty the drawings were often not technically sound. This course is helping me to understand and appreciate the context in which these ideas were founded, and as I progress through the readings and images I hope to have gained a better overall appreciation for the flow and development of biological thought from century to century. I also noticed that science seemed to be restricted to the upper classes and clergy and found that interesting.
As a science educator I found this survey useful because I can refer to these online exhibits as a teaching tool and help my students appreciate how far science has come over the centuries by actually showing them and not just telling them about it. I also feel it is imperative that I personally have a better overall feel for how scientific thought has developed and this will make me a better teacher in general.
I would like to see or read the following because frankly I have never been exposed to original works like these and I appreciate their artistry and scientific importance (also Further Study note):
Herball of John Gerard (1597)
Fuchs' De historia stirpium (1547)
Paracelsus. Prognostication auff XXIIII. Augspurg, Getruckt durch H. Steyner, (1536)
Anothomia Mondini nuper optime emedata ac suma diligitia ipressa. Venetiis, Bonetum Locatelli Bergomesuz, 1507. (12 leaves, 32 cm, not illustrated)
Charles Estienne. De dissectione partium corporis humani libri tres, a Carolo Stephano, doctore medico, editi. Vna cum figuris et incisionum declarationibus, a Stephano Riuerio chirurgo copositis. Parisiis, Apud S. Colinaeum, 1545.
Bibliographic Note:
Kerry Magruder,History of Science Online Exhibits, "Part 1. Materia Medica and Herbals: Intro" http://hsci.cas.ou.edu/exhibits/exhibit.php?exbgrp=-999&exbid=48&exbpg=9
These web pages give an overview of some of the drawings and concepts of the 16th century life sciences.
Day 2 Historiography
In Chapter 6 "Anomaly and the Emergence of Scientific Discoveries" Kuhn describes "normal" science as a "puzzle-solving" activity because it's through the aggregation and accumulation of related experiments and discoveries that the overall picture of a true theory or paradigm emerge. That is, various pieces of the puzzle have to fall into place over time before the entirety can be recognized and appreciated for what it is. It is also difficult to define the act of discovery for this reason. Kuhn gives examples of scientists "discovering" x-rays, oxygen, or nuclear fission and not recognizing what they had done or being able to fit it into the context of their level of understanding at the time. As Kuhn points out, Lavoisier, Priestley, Scheele, and even others could all lay claim to "discovering" oxygen. A paradigm is a set of values, concepts,and assumptions that constitute the way a community views reality, referring here of course to the scientific community. A change in paradigm would be a shift in expectations radical enough to alter our overall viewpoint of a situation, or enough anomalies manifesting themselves that a total revamping of the paradigm is needed. This then calls for the development of more specialized and advanced equipment, vocabulary, skills, and concepts to further pursue anomalies against the backdrop of the new paradigm. I appreciate Kuhn's explanation of how science works and develops through time. He crystallized for the reader how the restriction of a current paradigm allows new discoveries to cumulatively bring about new paradigms, driving the engine of scientific discovery. I enjoyed this selection and will go ahead and read the entire volume.
In Chapter 13 "Progress Through Revolutions" Kuhn discusses science education. He describes how in music, art, literature, history, and the social sciences students learn by being exposed to the works of other artists or researchers, developing their own ideas and works, with textbooks playing a limited role. In science however we rely almost exclusively on textbooks, at least until we start doing our own research, sometimes not until the level of graduate school. He does note that in general this type of science education has been successful, because it grounds and immerses the student in the rigid paradigms of the time, and makes the flexible scientific community able to take notice and make changes as necessary, at least in the long-term and big-picture. I don't agree with his idea that a student of physics doesn't need to read original works just because he has a textbook that summarizes them. I have always believed the sooner a student starts doing their own research, both in the library and the laboratory, the better off they are as developing scientists, and the better equipped they are to draw their own conclusions.
In conclusion Kuhn's main points were that science discovery is a process involving the creation of new paradigms as anomalies are found and that history of science unto itself is an essential component in science education. He used historical examples and comparisons to other disciplines to support his points. Most interesting to me was the idea that due to the nature of science it is difficult to point to specific examples of discovery, as it is a cumulative and ongoing process. This reading applies to me as an educator because I have always tried to stress the history and process of science by utilizing research papers, historical accounts, and Scientific American while deemphasizing an over-dependence on the textbook.
Bibliographic Note:
Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1996). This book deals with the history of science and science as a process but it applies to many disciplines.
In Chapter 13 "Progress Through Revolutions" Kuhn discusses science education. He describes how in music, art, literature, history, and the social sciences students learn by being exposed to the works of other artists or researchers, developing their own ideas and works, with textbooks playing a limited role. In science however we rely almost exclusively on textbooks, at least until we start doing our own research, sometimes not until the level of graduate school. He does note that in general this type of science education has been successful, because it grounds and immerses the student in the rigid paradigms of the time, and makes the flexible scientific community able to take notice and make changes as necessary, at least in the long-term and big-picture. I don't agree with his idea that a student of physics doesn't need to read original works just because he has a textbook that summarizes them. I have always believed the sooner a student starts doing their own research, both in the library and the laboratory, the better off they are as developing scientists, and the better equipped they are to draw their own conclusions.
In conclusion Kuhn's main points were that science discovery is a process involving the creation of new paradigms as anomalies are found and that history of science unto itself is an essential component in science education. He used historical examples and comparisons to other disciplines to support his points. Most interesting to me was the idea that due to the nature of science it is difficult to point to specific examples of discovery, as it is a cumulative and ongoing process. This reading applies to me as an educator because I have always tried to stress the history and process of science by utilizing research papers, historical accounts, and Scientific American while deemphasizing an over-dependence on the textbook.
Bibliographic Note:
Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1996). This book deals with the history of science and science as a process but it applies to many disciplines.
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Day 2 History of Biology survey
1. I feel Aristotle believed biology should be studied because its components, from the simplest organisms to the most complex are easily accessible to us (unlike celestial objects), they are the essence of the "substance" that is most like us, and they each accomplish various life functions in different ways. Celestial objects are too far away and Aristotle believed we could never truly understand them. I feel biology should be studied because as a pure science we are just trying to figure out what things are made of and how they work, and in turn we can apply what we have learned to understand how living things function, from the level of the biosphere all the way down to cells and even molecules and atoms. We learn about ourselves by studying all aspects of biology.
2. I agree with Aristotle's idea of aiming for causal knowledge because biology is based on the concept of structure and function; what it is, how it works, and in turn how all living things interact with their internal and external environments. Biologists should always strive for the how and the why, and how the parts work together as a whole.
3. Aristotle believed even the simplest organisms deserved to be studied because they all have something interesting, exciting, or unique to offer. He refers to the different means by which they all accomplish various life functions and behaviors. He says if one is not inclined to study any aspect of nature they are in turn reluctant to study man himself. Aristotle also discusses how the components of an organism are not the point, but the whole being, and how it lives, that is the goal and point of the study.
4.The cause of organisms can be determined through dissection because comprehensive comparative anatomy can reveal systematic and evolutionary relationships unseen otherwise. Conversely, dissection is limited in terms of study of live behaviors, biochemical, and molecular studies.
The most interesting part of this reading is that Aristotle was laying the foundation for modern science and trying to describe and explain natural phenomena. I was surprised he performed dissections, and I didn't know that he considered living things paradigms of the "substance" that constitutes the universe. I learned more about the philosophy of causation, and appreciate more all the years I supervised student dissections of various specimens. I would like to see this document when I visit the collections.
Bibliographic note:
Magruder, History of Science Online, Week4: Plato and Aristotle, http://homepage.mac.com/kvmagruder/hsci/04-Aristotle-Plato/aristotle-animals.html this web page included my first reading for my history of science course.
Further study:
Aristotle, Parts of Animals, Book I.5
Also History of Animals and Generation of Animals
2. I agree with Aristotle's idea of aiming for causal knowledge because biology is based on the concept of structure and function; what it is, how it works, and in turn how all living things interact with their internal and external environments. Biologists should always strive for the how and the why, and how the parts work together as a whole.
3. Aristotle believed even the simplest organisms deserved to be studied because they all have something interesting, exciting, or unique to offer. He refers to the different means by which they all accomplish various life functions and behaviors. He says if one is not inclined to study any aspect of nature they are in turn reluctant to study man himself. Aristotle also discusses how the components of an organism are not the point, but the whole being, and how it lives, that is the goal and point of the study.
4.The cause of organisms can be determined through dissection because comprehensive comparative anatomy can reveal systematic and evolutionary relationships unseen otherwise. Conversely, dissection is limited in terms of study of live behaviors, biochemical, and molecular studies.
The most interesting part of this reading is that Aristotle was laying the foundation for modern science and trying to describe and explain natural phenomena. I was surprised he performed dissections, and I didn't know that he considered living things paradigms of the "substance" that constitutes the universe. I learned more about the philosophy of causation, and appreciate more all the years I supervised student dissections of various specimens. I would like to see this document when I visit the collections.
Bibliographic note:
Magruder, History of Science Online, Week4: Plato and Aristotle, http://homepage.mac.com/kvmagruder/hsci/04-Aristotle-Plato/aristotle-animals.html this web page included my first reading for my history of science course.
Further study:
Aristotle, Parts of Animals, Book I.5
Also History of Animals and Generation of Animals
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Day 1
Why study the history of science?
As a science educator, and possibly as a trainer of other science teachers one day, it is imperative that I have a better overall knowledge and appreciation for the history of science. I should have a greater understanding of science in terms of other societies such as India and China and have an overall more astute comprehension of the role of science in civilization and human history in general, including socially, philosophically, economically, technologically, and even militarily. I hope to learn to be a more proficient researcher, and I am fortunate to be able to utilize the tremendous history of science collection at the University of Oklahoma.
Why include history of science in science instruction?
Many national and state science learning standards are including history of science, science as inquiry, nature of science, and science in personal and social perspectives. Students have often heard of some of the more famous scientists, such as Darwin, Einstein and Newton, and they can be made relatable and personalized by the teacher. Others they have heard of indirectly but don't realize it, such as Pasteur (pasteurized milk) and Lister (Listerine). They also often don't realize how recent many important scientific advances they take for granted are in terms of human history. One of the things that drew me to the PhD program I am in at OU was my exposure to the Learning Cycle in Dr. Pedersen's workshop last summer. This philosophy encourages students to learn concepts with limited prior knowledge by obtaining data and then analyzing it to draw out concepts, much as scientists, especially early ones, have done throughout history. It shows students how scientists have actually done science historically including its methods, achievements, and even limitations.
How can I and other science educators benefit from studying history of science? What can we gain?
I and science educators in general can benefit from studying the history of science for all of the reasons listed above. Of course their students in turn will benefit as well. I have always enjoyed studying history in general, and learning about it in the context of the history of science just makes it that much more rewarding and enriching for me. The idea of historiography is new to me, but also very intriguing. My training and interests have always focused on the life sciences and I am especially fascinated by the development of microbiology as a science, and how it has benefitted us. The battle between biogenesis and abiogenesis proponents and the religious, philosophical, and cultural implications of that battle has always fascinated me, and this course gives me an opportunity to learn even more about it.
As a science educator, and possibly as a trainer of other science teachers one day, it is imperative that I have a better overall knowledge and appreciation for the history of science. I should have a greater understanding of science in terms of other societies such as India and China and have an overall more astute comprehension of the role of science in civilization and human history in general, including socially, philosophically, economically, technologically, and even militarily. I hope to learn to be a more proficient researcher, and I am fortunate to be able to utilize the tremendous history of science collection at the University of Oklahoma.
Why include history of science in science instruction?
Many national and state science learning standards are including history of science, science as inquiry, nature of science, and science in personal and social perspectives. Students have often heard of some of the more famous scientists, such as Darwin, Einstein and Newton, and they can be made relatable and personalized by the teacher. Others they have heard of indirectly but don't realize it, such as Pasteur (pasteurized milk) and Lister (Listerine). They also often don't realize how recent many important scientific advances they take for granted are in terms of human history. One of the things that drew me to the PhD program I am in at OU was my exposure to the Learning Cycle in Dr. Pedersen's workshop last summer. This philosophy encourages students to learn concepts with limited prior knowledge by obtaining data and then analyzing it to draw out concepts, much as scientists, especially early ones, have done throughout history. It shows students how scientists have actually done science historically including its methods, achievements, and even limitations.
How can I and other science educators benefit from studying history of science? What can we gain?
I and science educators in general can benefit from studying the history of science for all of the reasons listed above. Of course their students in turn will benefit as well. I have always enjoyed studying history in general, and learning about it in the context of the history of science just makes it that much more rewarding and enriching for me. The idea of historiography is new to me, but also very intriguing. My training and interests have always focused on the life sciences and I am especially fascinated by the development of microbiology as a science, and how it has benefitted us. The battle between biogenesis and abiogenesis proponents and the religious, philosophical, and cultural implications of that battle has always fascinated me, and this course gives me an opportunity to learn even more about it.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Aims Essay on Incorporating Historical Perspectives into Science Courses
I read the Aims essay and agree it is important to interject a historical perspective into science courses for liberal arts students. This facilitates a broad and deep perspective as to how and why current scientific thinking has developed and engenders an appreciation for how science is intertwined with all aspects of society, including religion, philosophy, medicine, technology, commerce and so on. In my opinion no matter what field a person is entering an understanding of basic science and its history is crucial to being an informed and productive member of society. As a younger student I too was victimized by my science textbook and the way science was taught to me as a collection of static facts and ideas. It really wasn't until I started teaching that I began to appreciate the history of science and its importance in the total scheme of education. This was mainly due to my "mentor" teacher in my first job who made it a point to include in almost every lesson and lab references to the origins and subsequent development of the scientific ideas concerned. I think the incorporation of the history of science into basic courses simply makes them more exciting and personal to the students.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)