Although I have not quite finished the course work, and have to schedule one final visit to the Collections, I wanted to begin my final post partially so I could begin to document my general observations as they occur to me, but also because it is not clear when I will return to the Collections. I have visited three times already, and as I progress through my program at OU I hope to continue to make use of the Collections, as well as take at least one general survey course of the history of science during a regular semester. I also wanted to again thank Dr. Magruder and everyone at the Collections and OU libraries who have helped me. I wish to remind any readers of this blog that OU has a world-renowned History of Science Collections of which we should be proud, and to utilize it whenever possible. I cannot relate in words the impression and impact of holding and reading some of the original works at the Collections. I also wish to thank the readers of this blog, particularly those who provided feedback.
One of the main points I learned this summer is to be aware of pseudoscience, pseudohistory, Whiggism, hagiography, rational reconstruction, and "shoe-horning". I feel I am not only more aware of these potential pitfalls, but have learned ways to avoid and defeat them, with an emphasis on the use of original sources whenever possible. I have also been exposed to many new sources and methods of research, which I will continue to utilize. Some of the high points for me were obviously Darwin, Mendel, and Watson and Crick. The Double Helix in particular has immediately become one of my favorite books, in or out of science. The sequence of books and essays dealing with evolution, creationism, and how we as a society are dealing with it has importance then and now, and provided fascinating thought and reading. It was also stimulating and refreshing to learn more about some people and subjects that I knew much less of, such as Aristotle, Galen, Dobzansky, the mechanical philosophists, Harvey, Huxley, and far too many others to list them all. Some topics, such as spontaneous generation, quickly made me realize that there is so much more to learn for everyone, including me. In the same vein, I have a renewed interest in learning more about Newton, Einstein, Galileo and others like them who worked mostly outside the realm of biology, as well as more about the history of physics, chemistry, and geology in general. I think another main point I learned is to be more open-minded about the nature of science itself, that it is a collective process carried out historically in a variety of ways, and is not always cleancut, and by its nature there are a lot of twists and turns and even dead ends.
I should also add that I last attended school when I finished a master's degree in 1994, and the technology and methods of teaching and learning have changed a lot in a relatively short period of time. Courses that are all or partially online, blogging, and greater use of laptops in the classroom have all come to change my perspective this summer on education. and the various ways it can be accomplished. It has also been reinforced for me that one is never too old or accomplished to stop learning, and that getting stale and bogged down is dangerous both personally and professionally. One of my former supervisors advised me that changing jobs, furthering one's education, and other major shifts in one's career should take place fairly frequently, as this helps to cut down on complacency and getting in a rut. This is especially true for teachers, because it is the students that get short-changed when teachers are lackadaisical, bored, or under-prepared.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Week 4 Day 5 Historiography
My final reading for this course is from Bauer, chapters 4 and 5, respectively titled "Other Fables About Science" and "Imperfections of the Filter". Some of the fables the author discusses include if science is factual, if science knowledge is like a map, if successful prediction necessarily makes a theory correct, if science is truly open-minded, if scientists should publish all their data and give credit to those whose work they build on, if science is self-correcting, and if great scientists can speak for science. Bauer addresses each of these ideas, and provides much evidence and logic as to why they are not always true, and therefore fables, as he calls them. I think again it all goes back to the point that as long as humans do science, human foibles will by defintion be part of the process. I have to reiterate that I don't think this necessarily calls for a total sacking and debunking of the scientific method. At the same time I agree with Bauer on nearly every point, except for ultimately why he is so against the scientific method. I also must restate that the concurrent reading of The Double Helix is extremely enlightening, even if Bauer references one observer who says Watson "has given his more spontaneous acts the color of calculation". Bauer also suggests Watson downplays the amount of intense reading and thinking that he and Crick had to do, although I don't agree with this personally, based on my reading of the book.
In chapter five he continues by discussing the imperfections of the knowledge filter, so he is acknowledging it is not perfect either, because current knowledge may be misleading, scientists cannot be completely objective, and human institutions function imperfectly. Once again Bauer is showing that science is much more of a winding road, filled with pot-holes, than most science textbooks make it out to be. These misconceptions are then perpetuated by students and teachers who rely too heavily on the texts, and not on original and solid secondary sources. It is important for students to see that scientists are human, do not always work the same way, and science is not a straight line process, either in time or content. The idea of scientists using "reality therapy" was new and surprising to me, in how complete objectivity may not be reachable, but consensus is more likely to come about.
As to what from this course makes more sense to me now, I would have to say Bauer's explanation of Kuhn's revolutions has made his concepts more understandable to me. The whole of the Bauer reading will affect me as a science educator in bringing terminology and relative placement to the various ways that science works, so I can more effectively relate these ideas to my students and colleagues, and help in the future if I have the opportunity to train prospective science teachers at the university level.
I was pleased to see a reference to Carl Sagan, who is by far one of my favorite authors, and through his writings one of the best science teachers ever.
Bibliographic Note:
Henry H. Bauer, Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method, (Urbana and Chicago, University of Illinois Press, 1994). Bauer, chemistry professor at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, upends current contentions about science literacy in a small, dense book that could be the nucleus of a restructuring of how science works in our culture, or, in the author's terms, how its reputation works.
In chapter five he continues by discussing the imperfections of the knowledge filter, so he is acknowledging it is not perfect either, because current knowledge may be misleading, scientists cannot be completely objective, and human institutions function imperfectly. Once again Bauer is showing that science is much more of a winding road, filled with pot-holes, than most science textbooks make it out to be. These misconceptions are then perpetuated by students and teachers who rely too heavily on the texts, and not on original and solid secondary sources. It is important for students to see that scientists are human, do not always work the same way, and science is not a straight line process, either in time or content. The idea of scientists using "reality therapy" was new and surprising to me, in how complete objectivity may not be reachable, but consensus is more likely to come about.
As to what from this course makes more sense to me now, I would have to say Bauer's explanation of Kuhn's revolutions has made his concepts more understandable to me. The whole of the Bauer reading will affect me as a science educator in bringing terminology and relative placement to the various ways that science works, so I can more effectively relate these ideas to my students and colleagues, and help in the future if I have the opportunity to train prospective science teachers at the university level.
I was pleased to see a reference to Carl Sagan, who is by far one of my favorite authors, and through his writings one of the best science teachers ever.
Bibliographic Note:
Henry H. Bauer, Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method, (Urbana and Chicago, University of Illinois Press, 1994). Bauer, chemistry professor at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, upends current contentions about science literacy in a small, dense book that could be the nucleus of a restructuring of how science works in our culture, or, in the author's terms, how its reputation works.
Week 4 Day 5 History of Biology Case Study
I am obviously going to read this entire book, as it is virtually impossible to put down. Today though I am to focus my discussion on responses by Klug (pp. 153-158), Stent (pp.161-175), Lewontin (pp. 185-187), Sinsheimer (pp. 191-194), Merton (pp. 213-218), and Medawar (pp.218-224).
I realized I did not not have the Norton Critical Edition, so I ordered it from Amazon and had it shipped overnight, so I should have it by Friday and be able to finish up my postings. Now having received the book and finished my assigned readings, I am glad I did because it always helps to get a variety of perspectives on an issue. Klug basically defends Franklin, and suggests that she was not far from figuring out the DNA structure herself. I am not so sure about this, but it cannot be denied that her work was instrumental to the collective effort that resulted in the final outcome. Personally, I feel she should have been included in the Nobel award group with Wilkins, Crick, and Watson. Stent covers the other reviews and discussions of The Double Helix and I agreed with him for the most part, in that Lewontin and Sinsheimer were somewhat offbase in their replies, and Merton and Medawar better understood, represented, and explained what was going on in Watson's accounts of the discovery of the double-helix.
Merton and Medawar pretty much describe the book as I saw it, whereas Lewontin and Sinsheimer are needlessly derisive and derogatory toward Watson. I felt Watson came across as somewhat of a conniver, even sly, but in positive way, as he ultimately was the best "puzzle-solver" of the group while Crick was the true intellect and Franklin, Donahue, Wilkins and others provided substantial data, ideas, and support as well. By the way, I intend to read all of the Norton Critical Edition as time permits. Waddington and Chargaff seem to be jealous, to a certain extent. I for one found reading The Double Helix to be one of the most informative, exciting, and eye-opening science related tomes I have ever come across.
I liked that Medawar emphasized the experiments of Griffith and their importance, even if Watson chose not to. I also noticed that a couple of times even these distinguished reviewers fall into the trap that Mendel's work was "rediscovered" in 1900. Another important point was the discussion that practicing scientists seem to take the history of science for granted sometimes, but it is explained that since science is a cumulative process, the practioners are dependent on their history, just maybe not immediately cognizant of it. I am a science teacher, but I have done original research at various times, and I think that colored my view in the past as well, to a certain extent. This summer has definitely helped to change that.
Bibliographic Note:
James D. Watson, The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA-Norton Critical Edition,(W.W. Norton & Company, 1981). "By identifying the structure of DNA, the molecule of life, Francis Crick and James Watson revolutionized biochemistry and won themselves a Nobel Prize. At the time, Watson was only twenty-four, a brilliant young zoologist hungry to make his mark. His uncompromisingly honest account of the heady days of their thrilling sprint against other world-class researchers to solve one of science's greatest unsolved mysteries gives a dazzlingly clear picture of a world of brilliant scientists with great gifts, very human ambitions, and bitter rivalries. With humility unspoiled by false modesty, Watson relates his and Crick's desperate efforts to beat Linus Pauling to the Holy Grail of the life sciences, the identification of the basic building block of life. He is impressed by the achievements of the young man he was, but clear-eyed about his limitations. Never has such a brilliant scientist also been so gifted, and so truthful, in capturing in words the flavor of his work."
Further Reading Note:
I intend to read The Molecular Biology of the Gene, by Watson. I would also like to review works by Franklin, Pauling, Wilkins and other contemporaries, competitors, and workers who Watson and Crick drew from in their own studies.
I realized I did not not have the Norton Critical Edition, so I ordered it from Amazon and had it shipped overnight, so I should have it by Friday and be able to finish up my postings. Now having received the book and finished my assigned readings, I am glad I did because it always helps to get a variety of perspectives on an issue. Klug basically defends Franklin, and suggests that she was not far from figuring out the DNA structure herself. I am not so sure about this, but it cannot be denied that her work was instrumental to the collective effort that resulted in the final outcome. Personally, I feel she should have been included in the Nobel award group with Wilkins, Crick, and Watson. Stent covers the other reviews and discussions of The Double Helix and I agreed with him for the most part, in that Lewontin and Sinsheimer were somewhat offbase in their replies, and Merton and Medawar better understood, represented, and explained what was going on in Watson's accounts of the discovery of the double-helix.
Merton and Medawar pretty much describe the book as I saw it, whereas Lewontin and Sinsheimer are needlessly derisive and derogatory toward Watson. I felt Watson came across as somewhat of a conniver, even sly, but in positive way, as he ultimately was the best "puzzle-solver" of the group while Crick was the true intellect and Franklin, Donahue, Wilkins and others provided substantial data, ideas, and support as well. By the way, I intend to read all of the Norton Critical Edition as time permits. Waddington and Chargaff seem to be jealous, to a certain extent. I for one found reading The Double Helix to be one of the most informative, exciting, and eye-opening science related tomes I have ever come across.
I liked that Medawar emphasized the experiments of Griffith and their importance, even if Watson chose not to. I also noticed that a couple of times even these distinguished reviewers fall into the trap that Mendel's work was "rediscovered" in 1900. Another important point was the discussion that practicing scientists seem to take the history of science for granted sometimes, but it is explained that since science is a cumulative process, the practioners are dependent on their history, just maybe not immediately cognizant of it. I am a science teacher, but I have done original research at various times, and I think that colored my view in the past as well, to a certain extent. This summer has definitely helped to change that.
Bibliographic Note:
James D. Watson, The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA-Norton Critical Edition,(W.W. Norton & Company, 1981). "By identifying the structure of DNA, the molecule of life, Francis Crick and James Watson revolutionized biochemistry and won themselves a Nobel Prize. At the time, Watson was only twenty-four, a brilliant young zoologist hungry to make his mark. His uncompromisingly honest account of the heady days of their thrilling sprint against other world-class researchers to solve one of science's greatest unsolved mysteries gives a dazzlingly clear picture of a world of brilliant scientists with great gifts, very human ambitions, and bitter rivalries. With humility unspoiled by false modesty, Watson relates his and Crick's desperate efforts to beat Linus Pauling to the Holy Grail of the life sciences, the identification of the basic building block of life. He is impressed by the achievements of the young man he was, but clear-eyed about his limitations. Never has such a brilliant scientist also been so gifted, and so truthful, in capturing in words the flavor of his work."
Further Reading Note:
I intend to read The Molecular Biology of the Gene, by Watson. I would also like to review works by Franklin, Pauling, Wilkins and other contemporaries, competitors, and workers who Watson and Crick drew from in their own studies.
Week 4 Day 4 Historiography
Today's reading is chapter 3, continuing from Bauer, on "How Science Really Works". In it he describes the various mechanisms by which science progresses, including what he calls the jigsaw puzzle and the knowledge filter, and compares both against the myth of the scientific method. I am starting to think that Bauer has basically taken one simple yet important idea and stretched it out into several chapters. The point he seems to be stuck on is that science by definition is a human endeavor, and scientists by definition are human and obviously are going to act that way. I feel he is going way overboard in denigrating and deemphasizing the scientific method. I believe it is one of several methods by which science gets done, and probably the most important and common one. Just because not all the great scientists have used it, and just because all the great discoveries have not necessarily come about through it, that doesn't mean it's a myth or a negative thing.
As far as what is new and surprising, the filter and the puzzle concepts are interesting ways of representing how science gets done, but neither is really new or surprising to anyone who teaches or does science. It's just that we may not have consciously called them that or tried to conceptualize the scientific process in those terms. Of course I guess that is also the main idea, in that by naming, pointing out, and describing them the author is forcing me to think about them. In that sense I think this reading is beneficial, and I actually agree for the most part with Bauer. He points out that the objectivity of science is not due to the individuals but the collective body of science policing itself over time. I also agree with him that the history of science must be portrayed accurately, and not molded into a particular set of concrete steps that all scientists have and must follow. This is simply not true, and not should be presented as such.
I think Bauer is also incomplete, from my point of view as a science teacher, because I am at the mercy of the state and federal governments and my school district as to what is considered to be scientific literacy, especially as it relates to the all important standardized testing now so prevalent. I am not sure what to do about that problem, at this point. His graph on page 53 of the increase in the number of science journals is interesting, as is also him bringing up the cold fusion debacle, especially in light of my just having read of no less that Linus Pauling making a fundamental chemical error in a paper. He also cites Kuhn, from one of my earliest readings, and seems to defend his ideas to a certain extent. Of note also is his claim that pseudoscience is such because of the collective nature of science, because anything could be considered scientific if the only standard is whether the scientific method can be applied to it or not.
He closes by attributing the successes of science to the filter and the puzzle, and not to the scientific method. I think as a science educator this reading will help reinforce for me to emphasize the variety of ways science progresses and the collective nature of science. I don't think we can just throw out what is called the scientific method as a basic framework for problem solving in and out of science classes, and especially as long as teachers, students, and schools are held accountable by standardized tests that still treat it as the only way to do science.
Bibliographic Note:
Henry H. Bauer, Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method, (Urbana and Chicago, University of Illinois Press, 1994). Bauer, chemistry professor at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, upends current contentions about science literacy in a small, dense book that could be the nucleus of a restructuring of how science works in our culture, or, in the author's terms, how its reputation works.
As far as what is new and surprising, the filter and the puzzle concepts are interesting ways of representing how science gets done, but neither is really new or surprising to anyone who teaches or does science. It's just that we may not have consciously called them that or tried to conceptualize the scientific process in those terms. Of course I guess that is also the main idea, in that by naming, pointing out, and describing them the author is forcing me to think about them. In that sense I think this reading is beneficial, and I actually agree for the most part with Bauer. He points out that the objectivity of science is not due to the individuals but the collective body of science policing itself over time. I also agree with him that the history of science must be portrayed accurately, and not molded into a particular set of concrete steps that all scientists have and must follow. This is simply not true, and not should be presented as such.
I think Bauer is also incomplete, from my point of view as a science teacher, because I am at the mercy of the state and federal governments and my school district as to what is considered to be scientific literacy, especially as it relates to the all important standardized testing now so prevalent. I am not sure what to do about that problem, at this point. His graph on page 53 of the increase in the number of science journals is interesting, as is also him bringing up the cold fusion debacle, especially in light of my just having read of no less that Linus Pauling making a fundamental chemical error in a paper. He also cites Kuhn, from one of my earliest readings, and seems to defend his ideas to a certain extent. Of note also is his claim that pseudoscience is such because of the collective nature of science, because anything could be considered scientific if the only standard is whether the scientific method can be applied to it or not.
He closes by attributing the successes of science to the filter and the puzzle, and not to the scientific method. I think as a science educator this reading will help reinforce for me to emphasize the variety of ways science progresses and the collective nature of science. I don't think we can just throw out what is called the scientific method as a basic framework for problem solving in and out of science classes, and especially as long as teachers, students, and schools are held accountable by standardized tests that still treat it as the only way to do science.
Bibliographic Note:
Henry H. Bauer, Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method, (Urbana and Chicago, University of Illinois Press, 1994). Bauer, chemistry professor at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, upends current contentions about science literacy in a small, dense book that could be the nucleus of a restructuring of how science works in our culture, or, in the author's terms, how its reputation works.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Week 4 Day 4 History of Biology Case Study
Today's discussion focuses on pages 71-133 from The Double Helix. I intended to finish reading the book before I commented on any of it, and fourtunately was able to. In these pages Watson and Crick are facing starts and stops in their drive to elucidate the structure of DNA. Personal infighting, administrative delays, and lack of some of the necessary data among other things are making their task difficult, to say the least, before they finally triumph. The reactions of Bragg, Wilkins, Franklin and others are telling, in my opinion. Watson continues to make things interesting with his humor and writing style, and his descriptions of Crick's behavior in particular are both illuminating and wry. It's also interesting that Linus Pauling published a paper with a fundamental chemical error.
I think there is definitely room for "personal styles" of research in science, and they are glaringly obvious in this book. Franklin seemed to be introverted, dedicated, and somewhat of a "techie" as she kept to herself in the lab, and also held her work closely. Watson's asides about her, including those about her appearance, were intriguing. Crick was the "idea man", the theorotician whose intellect kept him bounding from one problem to another, and was usually in conflict with Bragg. It seems he never stopped talking, and usually his ideas were fruitful ones, at least in the long run. Watson seemed to lurk around, taking ideas and data when and where he could find them, and yet he always seemed to be able to help fit those pieces together. Linus Pauling is one of the most fascinating characters in the book, and I intend to read more about him. He almost seemed to be the larger than life "scientist as showman" with his personality and tremendous intellect. Wilkins, Bragg, and others featured in the book all seem to have their own personal styles of research as well. I am also seeing the point in reading Bauer and Watson simultaneously, as I can relate many points Bauer makes to the real life scientists in The Double Helix. Watson also explains how attitudes and social mores vary from country to country, because the more genteel British wouldn't think of usurping someone else's work, but the crude Americans and wily French have no problems with it, as the goal is to beat everyone else to the punch, by whatever means necessary. It's interesting in this light that Watson is the only American in the group!
I think in the cases of Wilkins and Franklin, their particular research styles ultimately held them back to a certain extent, especially their tendency to withhold ideas and data, and cling to a specific hypothesis or technique. Crick's talkativeness seemed to help him draw ideas from others, and Watson was sort of the ultimate puzzle-solver, who was open-minded and willing and able to cobble together the pieces of data and ideas he glommed from others. "Personal styles"of research show us that there really is no one, tried and true "scientific method" that has always been applied by everyone. The fact that this reading, highlighting some of the greatest minds of the 20th century, exhibits such a diversity of thinking and research styles is about the best evidence possible of this.
As an aside, I remember using Luria broth in the microbiology lab, now I am more familiar with the gentlemann for whom it is named!
Bibliographic Note:
James D. Watson, The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA, (New York, Simon & Schuster, 1968). "By identifying the structure of DNA, the molecule of life, Francis Crick and James Watson revolutionized biochemistry and won themselves a Nobel Prize. At the time, Watson was only twenty-four, a brilliant young zoologist hungry to make his mark. His uncompromisingly honest account of the heady days of their thrilling sprint against other world-class researchers to solve one of science's greatest unsolved mysteries gives a dazzlingly clear picture of a world of brilliant scientists with great gifts, very human ambitions, and bitter rivalries. With humility unspoiled by false modesty, Watson relates his and Crick's desperate efforts to beat Linus Pauling to the Holy Grail of the life sciences, the identification of the basic building block of life. He is impressed by the achievements of the young man he was, but clear-eyed about his limitations. Never has such a brilliant scientist also been so gifted, and so truthful, in capturing in words the flavor of his work."
Further Reading Note:
I intend to read The Molecular Biology of the Gene, by Watson. I would also like to review works by Franklin, Pauling, Wilkins and other contemporaries, competitors, and workers who Watson and Crick drew from in their own studies.
I think there is definitely room for "personal styles" of research in science, and they are glaringly obvious in this book. Franklin seemed to be introverted, dedicated, and somewhat of a "techie" as she kept to herself in the lab, and also held her work closely. Watson's asides about her, including those about her appearance, were intriguing. Crick was the "idea man", the theorotician whose intellect kept him bounding from one problem to another, and was usually in conflict with Bragg. It seems he never stopped talking, and usually his ideas were fruitful ones, at least in the long run. Watson seemed to lurk around, taking ideas and data when and where he could find them, and yet he always seemed to be able to help fit those pieces together. Linus Pauling is one of the most fascinating characters in the book, and I intend to read more about him. He almost seemed to be the larger than life "scientist as showman" with his personality and tremendous intellect. Wilkins, Bragg, and others featured in the book all seem to have their own personal styles of research as well. I am also seeing the point in reading Bauer and Watson simultaneously, as I can relate many points Bauer makes to the real life scientists in The Double Helix. Watson also explains how attitudes and social mores vary from country to country, because the more genteel British wouldn't think of usurping someone else's work, but the crude Americans and wily French have no problems with it, as the goal is to beat everyone else to the punch, by whatever means necessary. It's interesting in this light that Watson is the only American in the group!
I think in the cases of Wilkins and Franklin, their particular research styles ultimately held them back to a certain extent, especially their tendency to withhold ideas and data, and cling to a specific hypothesis or technique. Crick's talkativeness seemed to help him draw ideas from others, and Watson was sort of the ultimate puzzle-solver, who was open-minded and willing and able to cobble together the pieces of data and ideas he glommed from others. "Personal styles"of research show us that there really is no one, tried and true "scientific method" that has always been applied by everyone. The fact that this reading, highlighting some of the greatest minds of the 20th century, exhibits such a diversity of thinking and research styles is about the best evidence possible of this.
As an aside, I remember using Luria broth in the microbiology lab, now I am more familiar with the gentlemann for whom it is named!
Bibliographic Note:
James D. Watson, The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA, (New York, Simon & Schuster, 1968). "By identifying the structure of DNA, the molecule of life, Francis Crick and James Watson revolutionized biochemistry and won themselves a Nobel Prize. At the time, Watson was only twenty-four, a brilliant young zoologist hungry to make his mark. His uncompromisingly honest account of the heady days of their thrilling sprint against other world-class researchers to solve one of science's greatest unsolved mysteries gives a dazzlingly clear picture of a world of brilliant scientists with great gifts, very human ambitions, and bitter rivalries. With humility unspoiled by false modesty, Watson relates his and Crick's desperate efforts to beat Linus Pauling to the Holy Grail of the life sciences, the identification of the basic building block of life. He is impressed by the achievements of the young man he was, but clear-eyed about his limitations. Never has such a brilliant scientist also been so gifted, and so truthful, in capturing in words the flavor of his work."
Further Reading Note:
I intend to read The Molecular Biology of the Gene, by Watson. I would also like to review works by Franklin, Pauling, Wilkins and other contemporaries, competitors, and workers who Watson and Crick drew from in their own studies.
Week 4 Day 3 Historiography
Today's historiography assignment is chapter 2 in Bauer. Honestly, I just finished reading this chapter, and am at a bit of a loss as to how to begin. It seemed Bauer was throwing out a lot of "common-sense" items that any open-minded, humble, and knowledgeable science educator takes more or less for granted anyway. I think one of his main points is that science by definition is the domain of human beings, with all the positives and negatives that necessarily involves. I guess part of my problem with this chapter, as Dr. Magruder and I discussed in person previously, is that I tend to have a generous and liberal view of the so-called scientific method, and even though I think it is an excellent framework and starting point for science students, I have never labored under the delusion that all science has always been done that way. I recall times my students might question how viewing specimens microscopically and drawing them could be considered an "experiment", or building DNA models from clay or beads. I would explain to them that there are a multitude of ways that "science" gets done, and I don't think it's by chance that I also started reading The Double Helix today!
However, despite what I typed in the first paragraph, the title of the chapter, "The So-Called Scientific Method", pretty much gives the reader the thrust of the text. Bauer mentions Bacon and Popper, and I would like to point out here that I have always discouraged my students from using the words "proven" or "disproven". I believe one should always leave the window cracked ever so slightly in case a point needs to be reevaluated in light of new data. He goes on to distinguish and discuss theoretical and experimental science, and I got a chuckle from the notion that biologists divorce three times more often on the average than chemists, physicists, and geologists. The term "anecdotal evidence" came to mind immediately! It is interesting how Bauer breaks down the scientific communities and subdisciplines and compares and contrasts them, including the relative amount of mathematics required, and whether this bears on how "scientific" an area of study actually is. This is relevant to me, because I try to impart to my students the meaning of qualitative versus quantitative data, and how they can each be important relative to the type of study being done. I think another consideration that Bauer should touch on, as I'm sure he does, is pure versus applied science (technology), and the idea of studying something just to find out about it as opposed to trying to find a solution to a specific problem. It's also important to address that those applications may be good or bad, depending on what they are and the viewpoint of the observer.
Bauer goes on to say that we currently have a much better understanding of the history of science, and this is important because he is emphasizing much of what I learned earlier in this course concerning rated "X" history, Whiggism, pseudoscience, and pseudohistory. He states that we call those that are science literate that because they subscribe to many of those things I just mentioned. He makes another interesting point, and that is that physicists are most often promoted to leadership and administrative positions, and this is problematic for several reasons. I have to agree with him here. He concludes with the notion that the myth of the scientific method actually promotes less than ethical behavior, hubris, and short-cutting.
Bibliographic Note:
Henry H. Bauer, Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method, (Urbana and Chicago, University of Illinois Press, 1994). Bauer, chemistry professor at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, upends current contentions about science literacy in a small, dense book that could be the nucleus of a restructuring of how science works in our culture, or, in the author's terms, how its reputation works.
However, despite what I typed in the first paragraph, the title of the chapter, "The So-Called Scientific Method", pretty much gives the reader the thrust of the text. Bauer mentions Bacon and Popper, and I would like to point out here that I have always discouraged my students from using the words "proven" or "disproven". I believe one should always leave the window cracked ever so slightly in case a point needs to be reevaluated in light of new data. He goes on to distinguish and discuss theoretical and experimental science, and I got a chuckle from the notion that biologists divorce three times more often on the average than chemists, physicists, and geologists. The term "anecdotal evidence" came to mind immediately! It is interesting how Bauer breaks down the scientific communities and subdisciplines and compares and contrasts them, including the relative amount of mathematics required, and whether this bears on how "scientific" an area of study actually is. This is relevant to me, because I try to impart to my students the meaning of qualitative versus quantitative data, and how they can each be important relative to the type of study being done. I think another consideration that Bauer should touch on, as I'm sure he does, is pure versus applied science (technology), and the idea of studying something just to find out about it as opposed to trying to find a solution to a specific problem. It's also important to address that those applications may be good or bad, depending on what they are and the viewpoint of the observer.
Bauer goes on to say that we currently have a much better understanding of the history of science, and this is important because he is emphasizing much of what I learned earlier in this course concerning rated "X" history, Whiggism, pseudoscience, and pseudohistory. He states that we call those that are science literate that because they subscribe to many of those things I just mentioned. He makes another interesting point, and that is that physicists are most often promoted to leadership and administrative positions, and this is problematic for several reasons. I have to agree with him here. He concludes with the notion that the myth of the scientific method actually promotes less than ethical behavior, hubris, and short-cutting.
Bibliographic Note:
Henry H. Bauer, Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method, (Urbana and Chicago, University of Illinois Press, 1994). Bauer, chemistry professor at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, upends current contentions about science literacy in a small, dense book that could be the nucleus of a restructuring of how science works in our culture, or, in the author's terms, how its reputation works.
Week 4 Day 3 History of Biology Case Study
I am excited about today's case study, specifically pages 1-70 from Watson's well-known book. One of the first things I noticed was Watson's sly sense of humor, this helped to make the selection truly enjoyable to read. I found myself chuckling out loud more than once at some of his comments and maneuverings. It would be interesting to read the perspectives of the other major characters to see how or if they correlate with Watson's recollections of events. The author strikes me as mischievous and almost devious in his administrative and scientific dealings with his colleagues and superiors. He certainly seemed to enjoy socializing, sometimes with alcohol, and apparently had an eye for the ladies as well. Of course this is also keeping in mind his tremendous intellect, even though my judgement so far is that Crick was the superior thinker of the two.
I think scientists at least give lip service to a common "code of conduct", and in fact most scientists adhere to it. As Bauer points out, scientists are human after all, and fraught with the same weaknesses as any other member of society. I think sometimes the pressure to produce papers or make notable breakthroughs is overwhelming, and as Bauer also says sometimes the temptation to cut corners is too strong as well. Additionally, sometimes the interpersonal dynamics in a lab or a department can foster less than ethical behavior. In my opinion the code of conduct is simply that you give credit where credit is due, and if you are going to use someone else's work or ideas be sure you are up front about it and have their blessing or even better their cooperation. I think Bragg's and Watson's characterization of the code of conduct is best illustrated by the incident in chapter eight wherein Crick feels Bragg used one of his ideas in a paper without crediting him and becomes furious, almost to the point of leaving. Bragg eventually acknowledges that they must have had the same idea independently. The problem here is in perspective, because it is Watson relating the story, and neither Crick nor Bragg are able to directly their versions of events. Watson seems to have no problem with the fact that he personally relied heavily on Crick's intuitions and the work of many others like Franklin, Pauling, and Wilkins in developing the idea of the self-replicating double helix of DNA. No doubt Watson helped bring it all together, but his own code of conduct was questionable in other ways, such as his dealings with the fellowship office in Washington.
This book has opened my eyes to some aspects of the development of the model of DNA that I had no knowledge of, and it has reinforced my prior understanding in some areas. For instance, I feel even more strongly now that Rosalind Franklin should have been included as a Nobel prize winner, as all indications are her work was indispensable to Watson and Crick's collaboration. Also, similar to how I felt about Mendel, I see Watson especially, but also the other major characters in the book, in more human terms, and not just as some hagiographic sidebar in one of my texts. Readings such as this are invaluable to me as a science educator in properly relating the progress of science to my students.
Bibliographic Note:
James D. Watson, The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA, (New York, Simon & Schuster, 1968). "By identifying the structure of DNA, the molecule of life, Francis Crick and James Watson revolutionized biochemistry and won themselves a Nobel Prize. At the time, Watson was only twenty-four, a brilliant young zoologist hungry to make his mark. His uncompromisingly honest account of the heady days of their thrilling sprint against other world-class researchers to solve one of science's greatest unsolved mysteries gives a dazzlingly clear picture of a world of brilliant scientists with great gifts, very human ambitions, and bitter rivalries. With humility unspoiled by false modesty, Watson relates his and Crick's desperate efforts to beat Linus Pauling to the Holy Grail of the life sciences, the identification of the basic building block of life. He is impressed by the achievements of the young man he was, but clear-eyed about his limitations. Never has such a brilliant scientist also been so gifted, and so truthful, in capturing in words the flavor of his work."
Further Reading Note:
I intend to read The Molecular Biology of the Gene, by Watson. I would also like to review works by Franklin, Pauling, Wilkins and other contemporaries, competitors, and workers who Watson and Crick drew from in their own studies.
I think scientists at least give lip service to a common "code of conduct", and in fact most scientists adhere to it. As Bauer points out, scientists are human after all, and fraught with the same weaknesses as any other member of society. I think sometimes the pressure to produce papers or make notable breakthroughs is overwhelming, and as Bauer also says sometimes the temptation to cut corners is too strong as well. Additionally, sometimes the interpersonal dynamics in a lab or a department can foster less than ethical behavior. In my opinion the code of conduct is simply that you give credit where credit is due, and if you are going to use someone else's work or ideas be sure you are up front about it and have their blessing or even better their cooperation. I think Bragg's and Watson's characterization of the code of conduct is best illustrated by the incident in chapter eight wherein Crick feels Bragg used one of his ideas in a paper without crediting him and becomes furious, almost to the point of leaving. Bragg eventually acknowledges that they must have had the same idea independently. The problem here is in perspective, because it is Watson relating the story, and neither Crick nor Bragg are able to directly their versions of events. Watson seems to have no problem with the fact that he personally relied heavily on Crick's intuitions and the work of many others like Franklin, Pauling, and Wilkins in developing the idea of the self-replicating double helix of DNA. No doubt Watson helped bring it all together, but his own code of conduct was questionable in other ways, such as his dealings with the fellowship office in Washington.
This book has opened my eyes to some aspects of the development of the model of DNA that I had no knowledge of, and it has reinforced my prior understanding in some areas. For instance, I feel even more strongly now that Rosalind Franklin should have been included as a Nobel prize winner, as all indications are her work was indispensable to Watson and Crick's collaboration. Also, similar to how I felt about Mendel, I see Watson especially, but also the other major characters in the book, in more human terms, and not just as some hagiographic sidebar in one of my texts. Readings such as this are invaluable to me as a science educator in properly relating the progress of science to my students.
Bibliographic Note:
James D. Watson, The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA, (New York, Simon & Schuster, 1968). "By identifying the structure of DNA, the molecule of life, Francis Crick and James Watson revolutionized biochemistry and won themselves a Nobel Prize. At the time, Watson was only twenty-four, a brilliant young zoologist hungry to make his mark. His uncompromisingly honest account of the heady days of their thrilling sprint against other world-class researchers to solve one of science's greatest unsolved mysteries gives a dazzlingly clear picture of a world of brilliant scientists with great gifts, very human ambitions, and bitter rivalries. With humility unspoiled by false modesty, Watson relates his and Crick's desperate efforts to beat Linus Pauling to the Holy Grail of the life sciences, the identification of the basic building block of life. He is impressed by the achievements of the young man he was, but clear-eyed about his limitations. Never has such a brilliant scientist also been so gifted, and so truthful, in capturing in words the flavor of his work."
Further Reading Note:
I intend to read The Molecular Biology of the Gene, by Watson. I would also like to review works by Franklin, Pauling, Wilkins and other contemporaries, competitors, and workers who Watson and Crick drew from in their own studies.
Monday, July 24, 2006
Week 4 Day 2 Historiography
This assignment concerns the first chapter from Bauer, and I am to compare and contrast his views with traditional textbook presentations of the nature of science. The first point is to define the three components that constitute the definition of what science literacy actually is. One of my early thoughts in reading this selection was that maybe we should start identifying as early as possible and putting on a separate educational track the potential scientists among our students. I then began to realize that Bauer's main point is that all of our knowledge, including science, is theory-based, and subject to change. Science literacy, he says, like all types of literacy, should be ecouraged because it is a good thing, not as a tool to accomplish something else. Bauer envisions "STS", or science, tecnology, and society studies being incorporated to everyone's benefit, from the layperson to scientists and engineers.
The author states that science as it is currently taught, using textbooks, is too dogmatic and leaves out the "fits and starts" that good history of science can convey as part of the total picture. Basically, I think he is saying that students need some basic science facts and some training in scientific process, but the emphasis should be on understanding the role of science in society and technology. This would have surprised me a few weeks ago, but in the context of what I have learned this summer it seems logical. I have always tried to help my students see how their science lessons fit into the bigger picture, or better yet, I try to give them the tools with which they will be able to figure those things out for themselves. I have relied less on textbooks than most teachers I know, partially because of my original mentor teacher, and partially perhaps subconsciously for the reasons Bauer gives. I am finding that some of what I am reading this summer I have sort of unknowingly at least been trying to do throughout my career as an educator, even if I didn't have the terms and a defined concept in my mind.
I believe in giving the students a certain base of information predicated on currently accepted ideas, using the scientific method as a basic framework to support the notion of problem-solving, and then getting them to think about how it all fits into the bigger picture of their lives in modern society. The operative word here is think. The key is helping a person develop the ability to make judgements and formulate informed opinions from the perspective of a broad world-view, complete with historical perspectives. This is similar to Bauer's push for more STS and less science, and I feel he makes a strong case, but of course I've only read the first chapter so far.
One point that I must raise here is that science teachers, and for that matter all teachers today, are under enormous pressure to see to it that students attain a certain level of proficiency on standardized tests. Bauer rips this kind of testing at the beginning of the chapter. School funding is actually tied to this now, and even the school's and teacher's certifications in some cases. I guess that at certain times this summer I've gotten excited and enthused about various components of my studies, and then reality sinks in in terms of practicality and applicability. I think the main impact of this reading on me is to encourage me that I have for the most part done the right thing for most of my career and will continue to do so, with some adjustments here and there. I also think that I will be able to see more clearly the picture that Bauer is painting as I progress through the chapters, and will be able to refer back to this discussion.
Bibliographic Note:
Henry H. Bauer, Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method, (Urbana and Chicago, University of Illinois Press, 1994). Bauer, chemistry professor at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, upends current contentions about science literacy in a small, dense book that could be the nucleus of a restructuring of how science works in our culture, or, in the author's terms, how its reputation works.
The author states that science as it is currently taught, using textbooks, is too dogmatic and leaves out the "fits and starts" that good history of science can convey as part of the total picture. Basically, I think he is saying that students need some basic science facts and some training in scientific process, but the emphasis should be on understanding the role of science in society and technology. This would have surprised me a few weeks ago, but in the context of what I have learned this summer it seems logical. I have always tried to help my students see how their science lessons fit into the bigger picture, or better yet, I try to give them the tools with which they will be able to figure those things out for themselves. I have relied less on textbooks than most teachers I know, partially because of my original mentor teacher, and partially perhaps subconsciously for the reasons Bauer gives. I am finding that some of what I am reading this summer I have sort of unknowingly at least been trying to do throughout my career as an educator, even if I didn't have the terms and a defined concept in my mind.
I believe in giving the students a certain base of information predicated on currently accepted ideas, using the scientific method as a basic framework to support the notion of problem-solving, and then getting them to think about how it all fits into the bigger picture of their lives in modern society. The operative word here is think. The key is helping a person develop the ability to make judgements and formulate informed opinions from the perspective of a broad world-view, complete with historical perspectives. This is similar to Bauer's push for more STS and less science, and I feel he makes a strong case, but of course I've only read the first chapter so far.
One point that I must raise here is that science teachers, and for that matter all teachers today, are under enormous pressure to see to it that students attain a certain level of proficiency on standardized tests. Bauer rips this kind of testing at the beginning of the chapter. School funding is actually tied to this now, and even the school's and teacher's certifications in some cases. I guess that at certain times this summer I've gotten excited and enthused about various components of my studies, and then reality sinks in in terms of practicality and applicability. I think the main impact of this reading on me is to encourage me that I have for the most part done the right thing for most of my career and will continue to do so, with some adjustments here and there. I also think that I will be able to see more clearly the picture that Bauer is painting as I progress through the chapters, and will be able to refer back to this discussion.
Bibliographic Note:
Henry H. Bauer, Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method, (Urbana and Chicago, University of Illinois Press, 1994). Bauer, chemistry professor at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, upends current contentions about science literacy in a small, dense book that could be the nucleus of a restructuring of how science works in our culture, or, in the author's terms, how its reputation works.
Week 4 Day 2 History of Biology Survey
Today's assignment consisted of reading chapters 6-9 and the epilogue from Farber. I am glad I purchased this book, as I have found Farber to be easy to read, extremely informative, and well organized, and I intended to read the entire volume even if it hadn't been assigned for this course. I did notice that Farber refers to the "rediscovery" of Mendel's work in 1900, I guess he hadn't read Brannigan's chapter that I did! Initially he tackles the separation of physiology or function from natural history and its deviation into its own discipline(s). Bichat's tranfusion experiments on dogs in particular got my attention. His main point here is the transition from traditional natural history collecting, naming, and grouping to more of an emphasis on experimental method, even to the point of trying to reduce biology strictly to the level of physics. It's also interesting that in this day and age of animal rights, some of the early physiology experiments seemed rather gruesome, and yet in light of the times few objected to them. He addresses the use of the word biology as we know it today and the Modern Synthesis, which interestingly helped lead to even more specialization under the umbrella of biology.
One chapter is devoted to private and public zoos, gardens, museums, and collections in what Farber calls the Victorian Golden Age of natural history. The story of Jumbo and P.T. Barnum was enlightening and amusing, even though Jumbo tragically was run over by a train, and his remains were lost in a fire. He also delves into the development of ecology or environmental science, and conservation efforts. He invokes Leopold, Thoreau, and others, but surprisingly and sadly to me he did not mention Edward Abbey, who in my opinion was just as important in this area. I was pleased to see Virchow mentioned regarding cell theory, however. Going back to the Modern Synthesis, Farber's discussion of how natural history, inheritance, and evolution came together was eye-opening for me. Juian Huxley, Dobzhansky, Morgan, and Mayr all played key roles, but of course it was Darwin's evolutionary theory that provided the backbone by "viewing all biological knowledge as the result of a long historical process". I was curious to see if Hardy and Weinberg would be mentioned in relation to the synthesis of biological thought but they were not. I always felt their mathematical treatment of variation in a gene pool was critical to an understanding of the process for my students.
E.O. Wilson's many achievements and contributions are the focus of the final chapter, from ant pheromones to the introduction of the field of sociobiology. I have a renewed appreciation for this man and his life, and am encouraged to read more of his works. Farber encapsulates the chronological perspective and continuing importance of natural history in his epilogue. I feel his book has given me a comprehensive and balanced view of the history of this discipline, and his writing style has helped me better understand some of the other readings of this course, as well as some of my own prior knowledge. I feel better equipped as a teacher to present and discuss these topics with my students and colleagues as well. We also through natural history can take advantage of younger student's innate curiosity about the world around them and help expand and build on that through the rest of their education.
Bibliographic Note:
Paul Lawrence Farber, Finding Order in Nature: The Naturalist Tradition from Linnaeus to E.O. Wilson, (Baltimore and London, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000).
Further Reading Note:
I would like to view some of the works by Magendie, Hooker, Huxley, Mayr, Virchow, Dobzhansky, and Wilson.
One chapter is devoted to private and public zoos, gardens, museums, and collections in what Farber calls the Victorian Golden Age of natural history. The story of Jumbo and P.T. Barnum was enlightening and amusing, even though Jumbo tragically was run over by a train, and his remains were lost in a fire. He also delves into the development of ecology or environmental science, and conservation efforts. He invokes Leopold, Thoreau, and others, but surprisingly and sadly to me he did not mention Edward Abbey, who in my opinion was just as important in this area. I was pleased to see Virchow mentioned regarding cell theory, however. Going back to the Modern Synthesis, Farber's discussion of how natural history, inheritance, and evolution came together was eye-opening for me. Juian Huxley, Dobzhansky, Morgan, and Mayr all played key roles, but of course it was Darwin's evolutionary theory that provided the backbone by "viewing all biological knowledge as the result of a long historical process". I was curious to see if Hardy and Weinberg would be mentioned in relation to the synthesis of biological thought but they were not. I always felt their mathematical treatment of variation in a gene pool was critical to an understanding of the process for my students.
E.O. Wilson's many achievements and contributions are the focus of the final chapter, from ant pheromones to the introduction of the field of sociobiology. I have a renewed appreciation for this man and his life, and am encouraged to read more of his works. Farber encapsulates the chronological perspective and continuing importance of natural history in his epilogue. I feel his book has given me a comprehensive and balanced view of the history of this discipline, and his writing style has helped me better understand some of the other readings of this course, as well as some of my own prior knowledge. I feel better equipped as a teacher to present and discuss these topics with my students and colleagues as well. We also through natural history can take advantage of younger student's innate curiosity about the world around them and help expand and build on that through the rest of their education.
Bibliographic Note:
Paul Lawrence Farber, Finding Order in Nature: The Naturalist Tradition from Linnaeus to E.O. Wilson, (Baltimore and London, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000).
Further Reading Note:
I would like to view some of the works by Magendie, Hooker, Huxley, Mayr, Virchow, Dobzhansky, and Wilson.
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Week 4 Day 1 History of Biology Case Study
Today's lesson requires a case study dealing with spontaneous generation including a lengthy reading from Farley consisting of chapters 1-6. There is also an optional reading of a paper dealing with Pasteur, which I obtained, read, and will discuss. Spontaneous generation has always been one of my favorite topics to both teach and study, for several reasons. Much of modern microbiology's tools and techniques came about due to scientists studying this topic, and some of science's classic experiments arose from this area of investigation. Students' interest can be heightened with descriptions of some of the experiments and opinions concerning this topic, and there is the potential conundrum that after working so hard and long to "disprove" spontaneous generation, at least under the conditions of the earth today, it is still a relevant topic concerning how life may have originated on earth and even on other planets, as we begin to reach and study them closely.
I learned several important points right away in the introduction, specifically the difference between abiogenesis and heterogenesis, and why the distinction is important. This becomes especially crucial when Pasteur undertakes work in this area. Farley also explains the significance of the term "by chance" as part of the definition of spontaneous generation and how the meaning has changed over the years. He is also determined to point out the Whiggish tendencies inherent in how this topic has been presented over time in textbooks and by teachers, including myself. As I continued reading I learned that parasitic worms and their reproduction played a major role in the debate concerning spontaneous generation, and this was a consideration I had not encountered before. It dawned on me while reading that this subject provides an interesting window into science in general, its history, and most of the philosophies and movements I have come across this summer. So many of the names and ideas from previous readings were to be found in these chapters from Farley that I have almost come to regard spontaneous generation as being central to the development and history of science, and of course in particular biology.
I learned more about the Naturphilosophen, the concept of unity, and the Germans' work with parasitic worms and belief in spontaneous generation. At around the same time Lamarck and Cuvier were disagreeing on this topic in France, apparently with major political and societal implications. Concurrently in Britain there was strong theology-based oppostion to spontaneous generation, and Priestly and his experiments are prominently discussed. Farley concludes that the notion that Redi and Spallanzani had reduced spontaneous generation to an archaic argument in the early 1800s is absurd, as it goes on into the 20th century in some cases.
Yeast seemed to become a major part of the controversy as the 1800s progressed, and workers such as Schleiden, Schwann, Muller, Virchow, Dujardin, and Pasteur begin to enter into the reading at this point. I am beginning to see how throughout this century spontaneous generation vacillated between acceptance and rejection. Farley states that even though Pasteur seemingly laid the idea to rest in the 1860s, this primarily applied to France, and it actually made a comeback in England and Germany. The reading concludes by discussing Pasteur and his famous experiments, and some I did not know about. It was interesting how the author ties so much of this chapter to the politics of the time as well, particularly regarding Pasteur. This reading is driving home the point for me that I would definitely benefit from one of the general history of science overview courses, and possibly even more in the philosophy of science. The names, concepts, and time frames can almost be overwhelming sometimes.
The essay on Pateur provided several memorable points for me to discuss. I didn't realize Pasteur worked in such a variety of scientific areas, especially physics, as I knew of him mainly due to his work in microbiology. The authors do point out that his work in this area did flow into his later work for which he is better known. The notion I have learned this summer about consulting original sources still holds true, in this case a detailed discussion of Pateur's lab notebooks, with the caveat that even Pasteur was prone to dramatic flourishes and political maneuvering sometimes in recounting his studies. Of course I learned quite a bit about how optical isomers were first discovered, Auguste Laurent, and I also found out Pasteur was something of a political creature. Another point I would emphasize from this reading is that this is another of those famous, supposed "Eureka!" moments in science that in reality was a cumulative and painstaking longterm process, that also depended to some extent on the previous work of others.
Bibliographic Note:
John Farley,The Spontaneous Generation Controversy from Descartes to Oparin, (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977). According to John Farley, the most accepted definition of spontaneous generation is "that some living entities may arise suddenly by chance from matter independently of any parent". As a part of the history of science, the story of spontaneous generation, which can be traced back to Aristotle, has been seen as a "classic" case of how modern scientific techniques debunked a persistent myth.
Gerald L. Geison and James A. Secord, "Pasteur and the Process of Discovery", Isis, 79 (1988): 6-36. An essay on whether Pasteur's socio-political concerns helped motivate the direction of his research.
Further Reading Note:
Upon my next visit to the collections I would like to view any available original works by Pasteur, Tyndall, Spallanzani, Redi, and anyone else associated with the idea of abiogenesis.
I learned several important points right away in the introduction, specifically the difference between abiogenesis and heterogenesis, and why the distinction is important. This becomes especially crucial when Pasteur undertakes work in this area. Farley also explains the significance of the term "by chance" as part of the definition of spontaneous generation and how the meaning has changed over the years. He is also determined to point out the Whiggish tendencies inherent in how this topic has been presented over time in textbooks and by teachers, including myself. As I continued reading I learned that parasitic worms and their reproduction played a major role in the debate concerning spontaneous generation, and this was a consideration I had not encountered before. It dawned on me while reading that this subject provides an interesting window into science in general, its history, and most of the philosophies and movements I have come across this summer. So many of the names and ideas from previous readings were to be found in these chapters from Farley that I have almost come to regard spontaneous generation as being central to the development and history of science, and of course in particular biology.
I learned more about the Naturphilosophen, the concept of unity, and the Germans' work with parasitic worms and belief in spontaneous generation. At around the same time Lamarck and Cuvier were disagreeing on this topic in France, apparently with major political and societal implications. Concurrently in Britain there was strong theology-based oppostion to spontaneous generation, and Priestly and his experiments are prominently discussed. Farley concludes that the notion that Redi and Spallanzani had reduced spontaneous generation to an archaic argument in the early 1800s is absurd, as it goes on into the 20th century in some cases.
Yeast seemed to become a major part of the controversy as the 1800s progressed, and workers such as Schleiden, Schwann, Muller, Virchow, Dujardin, and Pasteur begin to enter into the reading at this point. I am beginning to see how throughout this century spontaneous generation vacillated between acceptance and rejection. Farley states that even though Pasteur seemingly laid the idea to rest in the 1860s, this primarily applied to France, and it actually made a comeback in England and Germany. The reading concludes by discussing Pasteur and his famous experiments, and some I did not know about. It was interesting how the author ties so much of this chapter to the politics of the time as well, particularly regarding Pasteur. This reading is driving home the point for me that I would definitely benefit from one of the general history of science overview courses, and possibly even more in the philosophy of science. The names, concepts, and time frames can almost be overwhelming sometimes.
The essay on Pateur provided several memorable points for me to discuss. I didn't realize Pasteur worked in such a variety of scientific areas, especially physics, as I knew of him mainly due to his work in microbiology. The authors do point out that his work in this area did flow into his later work for which he is better known. The notion I have learned this summer about consulting original sources still holds true, in this case a detailed discussion of Pateur's lab notebooks, with the caveat that even Pasteur was prone to dramatic flourishes and political maneuvering sometimes in recounting his studies. Of course I learned quite a bit about how optical isomers were first discovered, Auguste Laurent, and I also found out Pasteur was something of a political creature. Another point I would emphasize from this reading is that this is another of those famous, supposed "Eureka!" moments in science that in reality was a cumulative and painstaking longterm process, that also depended to some extent on the previous work of others.
Bibliographic Note:
John Farley,The Spontaneous Generation Controversy from Descartes to Oparin, (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977). According to John Farley, the most accepted definition of spontaneous generation is "that some living entities may arise suddenly by chance from matter independently of any parent". As a part of the history of science, the story of spontaneous generation, which can be traced back to Aristotle, has been seen as a "classic" case of how modern scientific techniques debunked a persistent myth.
Gerald L. Geison and James A. Secord, "Pasteur and the Process of Discovery", Isis, 79 (1988): 6-36. An essay on whether Pasteur's socio-political concerns helped motivate the direction of his research.
Further Reading Note:
Upon my next visit to the collections I would like to view any available original works by Pasteur, Tyndall, Spallanzani, Redi, and anyone else associated with the idea of abiogenesis.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Week 3 Day 5 History of Biology Case Study
As a biology teacher I was probably as familiar coming into this course with Gregor Mendel and his experiments on plant hybrids as any other figure from the history of biology, excepting maybe Darwin, Watson, and Crick. Once again, I find there was quite a bit more I needed to know, and several points that I have been guilty of misrepresenting to my students over the years. I accept part of the blame for this, but I also must say that to a certain extent I was victimized by my own education, from grade school on, and in particular by the over-reliance on textbooks and perpetuation of many of the cliches, pseudohistory, and pseudoscience rampant in American education. At the same time, I am personally trying to do something about this by continuing my education, broadening my perspective, focusing on being a better science teacher, and hopefully passing on some of what I learn to other teachers as well as my students.
I have always been fascinated by Mendel, and after reading the Masterworks of Discovery edition on his experiments and life he is more relatable than ever to me. Mendel was a science teacher from an agricultural family who enjoyed chess and meteorology. He had difficulty dealing with the sick and injured (his own health was troublesome for him as well), and was apparently a gifted administrator and religious figure, who nevertheless rarely mixed his science and theology. In these readings I came across Schleiden and Schwann for the first time in this course, and it got me thinking that I would have liked to have included more on the historical aspects of the development of cell theory. Of course, this is an opportunity for further reading and study on my own. Mendel interacted with many famous scientists throughout his life, and even studied under the famous Doppler.
Secord and Monaghan do a wonderful job of explaining the Chi-square statistical method, and in doing so make a strong case that Mendel and/or his assistants never actually "fudged" his data as his been suggested by some. They also address the issue that Mendel was actually concerned with hybridization of plants, and never fundamentally stated the laws of heredity and certainly never approached the idea of a gene. The authors make Mendel's experiments easily understandable, and seem to be in agreement with Allchin's points from earlier in the course, for the most part, as Mendel never really had a clear hypothesis.
Brannigan, meanwhile, makes a strong case that in my opinion lays to rest the idea that Mendel's work was forgotten until the early 1900s, as he gives many documented examples of how various workers were using and referencing Mendel up to then and after as well. Unfortunately, some were even apparently using his ideas and results without actually giving Mendel credit. He discusses scientists such as Naudin who were doing similar work before or at the same time as Mendel, other hybridists who did much the same as Mendel but without the ratios, and he discusses Darwin's idea of pangenesis and the part Mendel's work played in the ongoing evolution controversy. It is also impressive to me that Mendel was one of the first to begin to apply mathematics to biology, but then he had taught physics and apparently was well-schooled at the University of Vienna. Bateson and the biometricians provided an interesting component of this reading as well. Brannigan concludes that Mendel was not as obscure as many think, and his paper was misread by some and taken correctly by others concerning evoution, natural selection, variation, and heredity. I have a hard time with any idea that Mendel's work conflicted with religion, as Mendel himself, a monk and priest, scrupulously kept those domains separate, as I feel they should be.
Bibliographic Note:
Augustine Brannigan, The Social Basis of Scientific Discoveries, (Cambridge and New York, Cambridge University Press, 1981). I was concerned with chapter 6 on Mendel.
Alain F. Corcos and Floyd V. Monaghan, Gregor Mendel's Experiments on Plant Hybrids: A Guided Study, (New Brunswick, Rutgers University Press, 1993). A comprehensive look at Mendel and his work.
Further Reading Note:
Upon my next visit to the Collections I would like view some of Mendel's available original work.
I have always been fascinated by Mendel, and after reading the Masterworks of Discovery edition on his experiments and life he is more relatable than ever to me. Mendel was a science teacher from an agricultural family who enjoyed chess and meteorology. He had difficulty dealing with the sick and injured (his own health was troublesome for him as well), and was apparently a gifted administrator and religious figure, who nevertheless rarely mixed his science and theology. In these readings I came across Schleiden and Schwann for the first time in this course, and it got me thinking that I would have liked to have included more on the historical aspects of the development of cell theory. Of course, this is an opportunity for further reading and study on my own. Mendel interacted with many famous scientists throughout his life, and even studied under the famous Doppler.
Secord and Monaghan do a wonderful job of explaining the Chi-square statistical method, and in doing so make a strong case that Mendel and/or his assistants never actually "fudged" his data as his been suggested by some. They also address the issue that Mendel was actually concerned with hybridization of plants, and never fundamentally stated the laws of heredity and certainly never approached the idea of a gene. The authors make Mendel's experiments easily understandable, and seem to be in agreement with Allchin's points from earlier in the course, for the most part, as Mendel never really had a clear hypothesis.
Brannigan, meanwhile, makes a strong case that in my opinion lays to rest the idea that Mendel's work was forgotten until the early 1900s, as he gives many documented examples of how various workers were using and referencing Mendel up to then and after as well. Unfortunately, some were even apparently using his ideas and results without actually giving Mendel credit. He discusses scientists such as Naudin who were doing similar work before or at the same time as Mendel, other hybridists who did much the same as Mendel but without the ratios, and he discusses Darwin's idea of pangenesis and the part Mendel's work played in the ongoing evolution controversy. It is also impressive to me that Mendel was one of the first to begin to apply mathematics to biology, but then he had taught physics and apparently was well-schooled at the University of Vienna. Bateson and the biometricians provided an interesting component of this reading as well. Brannigan concludes that Mendel was not as obscure as many think, and his paper was misread by some and taken correctly by others concerning evoution, natural selection, variation, and heredity. I have a hard time with any idea that Mendel's work conflicted with religion, as Mendel himself, a monk and priest, scrupulously kept those domains separate, as I feel they should be.
Bibliographic Note:
Augustine Brannigan, The Social Basis of Scientific Discoveries, (Cambridge and New York, Cambridge University Press, 1981). I was concerned with chapter 6 on Mendel.
Alain F. Corcos and Floyd V. Monaghan, Gregor Mendel's Experiments on Plant Hybrids: A Guided Study, (New Brunswick, Rutgers University Press, 1993). A comprehensive look at Mendel and his work.
Further Reading Note:
Upon my next visit to the Collections I would like view some of Mendel's available original work.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Week 3 Day 3 Research Methods
This assignment consisted of a comparison of the search results obtained using Google and those obtained using Google Scholar. I decided to use Rhea darwinii, the bird Darwin famously realized he had just eaten, after searching intently for it. Farber mentions it in chapter five of Finding Order in Nature. A search on Google yielded general encyclopedic descriptions of the bird, for the most part, and references to natural history museums, etc. A search using Google Scholar, however, obtained mostly links to scientific publications, and especially links to original works by Darwin. For instance, the first link was to a 1961 article from The Geographical Journal titled "Man and the Environment in the South Chilean Islands". I also noticed that I could directly access the articles, since I had logged in through the OU libraries. When I did the same on Google Scholar without logging in, the articles were usually not available. This gives me another valuable tool in my research arsenal, and reinforces previous notions about using direct, original, and scientifically sound references as much as possible.
Google:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rhea+darwinii&btnG=Google+Search
Google Scholar:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=rhea+darwinii&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search
Google:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rhea+darwinii&btnG=Google+Search
Google Scholar:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=rhea+darwinii&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search
Week 3 Day 4 History of Biology Case Studies
These articles, despite the time frames they are generally concerned with, resonate well today, because as a science teacher in the northeastern part of Oklahoma I encounter almost daily resistance to the idea of evolution. Some of it is due to parents, students and even fellow professionals being misinformed or underinformed, but of course much of it is due to strong personal and community-based religious beliefs. As an educator it is my duty to instruct my students as to the current state of scientific thought, but as this course and these essays in particular demonstrate, one always has to incorporate how historical, cultural, and societal institutions have helped to shape and influence the current state of thinking. I am not particularly religious myself, but partially out of professional self-preservation instincts and partially out of respect for others' viewpoints I try to maintain an open mind and remind my students that science (in particular evolution) and religion are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and acknowledging that we can figure out how natural processes occur without completely denying religion and spirituality. I have a difficult time with the "hard-liners", then and now, who invoked spontaneous generation and the origin of life on earth to deny evolution or equated Darwinism with atheism. Even today the standard response from many of my students concerning any mention of Darwin or evolution is that there is no way we were once monkeys, or descended from monkeys, and that's about as far as their knowledge or line of reasoning can be extended. I have had students and parents tell me that the bible actually states Darwin was wrong and there is no such thing as evolution.
Jensen's article describes a well known exchange that took place at a scientific meeting in 1860, between the Bishop of Oxford and a young scientist and friend of Charles Darwin, Thomas Henry Huxley, concerning Darwin and his work. This was the incident that apparently ignited and inflamed the rift between science and religion that has not been completely resolved to this day. The essay describes events leading up to the "debate", the conversation itself, and what transpired afterward. Apparently what set things off was the Bishop asking Huxley if he would prefer a simian for a grandfather or grandmother. Huxley calmly replied he would rather have a monkey for a grandfather than someone like Wilberforce, and Huxley preoceeded to defend Darwin's theory as the best explanation that had been generated to that point in time for the origin of species. It seems others, and Joseph Hooker in particular, also defended Darwin's theory, and the audience was more or less on their side. Of course both sides felt they had emerged victorious in the impromptu "debate". Jensen points out that the Darwin supporters were not only in opposition to the religious figures, but also many of the older and more established scientists, and this episode prompted a heightened sense of persecution among the Darwinites. He also mentions how modern television has continued the drama, when actually there was a certain degree of wit and playfulness involved. He concludes that the general relationship between religion and science was affected by the exchange, and the chasm was widened.
The essay on the Scopes trial reinforced for me a danger I have always warned my students of, and that is learning one's history, science, and other subjects from popular culture sources. Maybe it's better to have seen the play or movie Inherit the Wind than to have never been exposed to the Scopes trial and its sigificance at all, but again I am reminded to consult original works and/or informed, legitimate secondary works by scholars whenever possible. The focus of Larson's essay was what really happened before, during, and after the famous "monkey trial", and a lot of my own misconceptions or lack of knowledge have been rectified. One of the most interesting points was that Scopes was never actually jailed, and in fact the entire episode originated as a maufactured ploy by the town of Dayton to gain publicity, and the fledgling ACLU to try to void Tennesse's new antievolution law. I was also not aware that William Jennings Bryan passed away just days after the trial concluded. Both essays discussed Bryan indeatil, and I was incredulous that he actually had no problem with evolution itself, but he felt the majority of Americans did and therefore fought against it. Larson concludes that the trial was effectively a draw, winning no converts to either side, but further rallying many of those already in either camp.
The final reading was Numbers' essay on creationism. I wished it had been current enough to give me more information on the current idea of intelligent design, but it did extend into the 1980s and therefore discussed its origins and early attempts by creationists to "scientize" their ideas. I was so enthused by this reading I went back and perused the previous essay in God and Nature dealing with the evangelical reaction to Darwin's theory of natural selection. I learned some interesting points about Kant and the mechanistic philosophy that helped me sort out some of the concepts from earlier in this course. I was also surprised to see Popper (who I admit I don't know much about), Bacon, Bateson, Kuhn, and others cited by the creationists to support their theologies! I was stunned by the lengths Price and others went in trying to mold biblical ideas into a scientific framework, how powerful the churches were and are in shaping public opinion, Bryan's fanatacism, and the backlash against universities, students, professors, and education in general. All this in a country that owes much of its economy and standing in the world to our scientific and technological prowess.
Bibliographic Note:
Vernon J. Jensen, "Return to the Wilberforce-Huxley Debate". British Journal for the History of Science 21 (1988): 161-179.
Edward J. Larson, "The Scopes Trial in History and Legend," in When Science and Christianity Meet, ed. David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, pp. 245-264. (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2003).
Ronald L. Numbers, "The Creationists," in God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science, ed. David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, pp. 391-423. (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1986).
Further Reading Note:
These essays cite numerous works I would like to review in the future, especially in light of the modern debate facing science teachers and society in general concerning evolution, intelligent design, and creationism in the classroom.
Jensen's article describes a well known exchange that took place at a scientific meeting in 1860, between the Bishop of Oxford and a young scientist and friend of Charles Darwin, Thomas Henry Huxley, concerning Darwin and his work. This was the incident that apparently ignited and inflamed the rift between science and religion that has not been completely resolved to this day. The essay describes events leading up to the "debate", the conversation itself, and what transpired afterward. Apparently what set things off was the Bishop asking Huxley if he would prefer a simian for a grandfather or grandmother. Huxley calmly replied he would rather have a monkey for a grandfather than someone like Wilberforce, and Huxley preoceeded to defend Darwin's theory as the best explanation that had been generated to that point in time for the origin of species. It seems others, and Joseph Hooker in particular, also defended Darwin's theory, and the audience was more or less on their side. Of course both sides felt they had emerged victorious in the impromptu "debate". Jensen points out that the Darwin supporters were not only in opposition to the religious figures, but also many of the older and more established scientists, and this episode prompted a heightened sense of persecution among the Darwinites. He also mentions how modern television has continued the drama, when actually there was a certain degree of wit and playfulness involved. He concludes that the general relationship between religion and science was affected by the exchange, and the chasm was widened.
The essay on the Scopes trial reinforced for me a danger I have always warned my students of, and that is learning one's history, science, and other subjects from popular culture sources. Maybe it's better to have seen the play or movie Inherit the Wind than to have never been exposed to the Scopes trial and its sigificance at all, but again I am reminded to consult original works and/or informed, legitimate secondary works by scholars whenever possible. The focus of Larson's essay was what really happened before, during, and after the famous "monkey trial", and a lot of my own misconceptions or lack of knowledge have been rectified. One of the most interesting points was that Scopes was never actually jailed, and in fact the entire episode originated as a maufactured ploy by the town of Dayton to gain publicity, and the fledgling ACLU to try to void Tennesse's new antievolution law. I was also not aware that William Jennings Bryan passed away just days after the trial concluded. Both essays discussed Bryan indeatil, and I was incredulous that he actually had no problem with evolution itself, but he felt the majority of Americans did and therefore fought against it. Larson concludes that the trial was effectively a draw, winning no converts to either side, but further rallying many of those already in either camp.
The final reading was Numbers' essay on creationism. I wished it had been current enough to give me more information on the current idea of intelligent design, but it did extend into the 1980s and therefore discussed its origins and early attempts by creationists to "scientize" their ideas. I was so enthused by this reading I went back and perused the previous essay in God and Nature dealing with the evangelical reaction to Darwin's theory of natural selection. I learned some interesting points about Kant and the mechanistic philosophy that helped me sort out some of the concepts from earlier in this course. I was also surprised to see Popper (who I admit I don't know much about), Bacon, Bateson, Kuhn, and others cited by the creationists to support their theologies! I was stunned by the lengths Price and others went in trying to mold biblical ideas into a scientific framework, how powerful the churches were and are in shaping public opinion, Bryan's fanatacism, and the backlash against universities, students, professors, and education in general. All this in a country that owes much of its economy and standing in the world to our scientific and technological prowess.
Bibliographic Note:
Vernon J. Jensen, "Return to the Wilberforce-Huxley Debate". British Journal for the History of Science 21 (1988): 161-179.
Edward J. Larson, "The Scopes Trial in History and Legend," in When Science and Christianity Meet, ed. David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, pp. 245-264. (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2003).
Ronald L. Numbers, "The Creationists," in God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science, ed. David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, pp. 391-423. (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1986).
Further Reading Note:
These essays cite numerous works I would like to review in the future, especially in light of the modern debate facing science teachers and society in general concerning evolution, intelligent design, and creationism in the classroom.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Week 3 Day 3 History of Biology Case Study
Yet another fascinating reading, this time focused on the reaction to Darwin's theory of natural selection, across all categories and levels of society. Dr. Magruder provided an article dealing with the evangelical reaction, and I also read chapter five in Farber. I think the most surprising aspect of the first reading is that both men in question are respected religious leaders, and yet they are also scientists and seem open-minded and even receptive to many of Darwin's points. They seem to question natural selection and evolution from a scientific angle, and are not inherently hostile to it on religious grounds. Apparently one of the main sticking-points at the time was the debate over the age of the earth, and that most believed the earth simply wasn't old enough to have supported the long-term process of evolution. This was based on both religious viewpoints in some cases, and on the science of the time.
As an aside here I would like to mention that this week I was fortunate to be able to visit the Oklahoma Aquarium in Jenks. This is an outstanding facility I intend to incorporate into my teaching, but I mention it here because as I viewed the impressive variety of this collection of aquatic life I found my thoughts shifting to my readings for this course, in particular Darwin's emphasis of the variety and distribution of the earth's populations, and how it helped form the basis for his ideas. I may not be able to go back in time and discover as Darwin did, but fortunately we have opportunities like this available to us to help us appreciate what it must have been like. I also recently viewed the film Master and Commander, and have a fortified appreciation for the segments in which the ship's doctor, who is also a naturalist, has the opportunity to explore the Galapogos Islands and gather specimens. To be able to view and study original works by scientists that character is based on has been a rewarding and enriching experience this summer.
The Wright-Gardiner article made clear to me several important points about Darwin, his work, and how it was viewed by his contemporaries. The three prongs of Darwin's argument are each treated with objectivity and depth by men of science and religion. The problem of the sources of variation, the definition of species, and analogies drawn to support more than one point are all discussed in the context of the times. One point I see as being particularly important is that Darwin did not necessarily have to be able to explain how traits are passed on genetically for natural selection to be valid, but Gray (with his divinely influenced heredity) and others felt without that the whole theory was weakened. The characters mention that Darwin intentionally avoided spontaneous generation and the origin of life, but again, the process of natural selection, while it explains a lot of things, was not really concerned with those questions.
Farber, in chapter five, gives some interesting background on Darwin and his work. I was impressed how Darwin was unafraid to utilize the works of others to prepare the foundation on which he built his ideas. Lyell, Malthus, Linnaeus, Buffon and many others provided key points and I was particularly impressed at how Darwin interacted positively with Wallace, and how Wallace deferred to the older and more established Darwin. I was also pleased to read about other supporters of Darwin, such as Hooker and Huxley. I also was not aware that the Germans, in particular Haeckel, were such strong early proponents of natural selection. Of course not all reaction was in agreement with him, and again Thomson's calculated age of the earth was viewed as problematic for the idea of evolution. Aggaziz, Owen, Gray and others all found fault to one degree or another with Darwin's work. Of course, some like Gray, simply felt the idea was sound but incomplete, lacking a divine or spiritual element.
Bibliographic Note:
Kerry Magruder, "The American Evangelical Reception of Darwin's Theory". An informative and interesting treatment of a meeting between Gardiner and Wright in 1875, with copious footnotes providing many other reading opportunities.
Paul Lawrence Farber, Finding Order in Nature, (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000).
Further Reading Notes:
Both components of this assignment have many items mentioned and/or cited that I would like to pursue further, especially concerning the reaction to Darwin.
As an aside here I would like to mention that this week I was fortunate to be able to visit the Oklahoma Aquarium in Jenks. This is an outstanding facility I intend to incorporate into my teaching, but I mention it here because as I viewed the impressive variety of this collection of aquatic life I found my thoughts shifting to my readings for this course, in particular Darwin's emphasis of the variety and distribution of the earth's populations, and how it helped form the basis for his ideas. I may not be able to go back in time and discover as Darwin did, but fortunately we have opportunities like this available to us to help us appreciate what it must have been like. I also recently viewed the film Master and Commander, and have a fortified appreciation for the segments in which the ship's doctor, who is also a naturalist, has the opportunity to explore the Galapogos Islands and gather specimens. To be able to view and study original works by scientists that character is based on has been a rewarding and enriching experience this summer.
The Wright-Gardiner article made clear to me several important points about Darwin, his work, and how it was viewed by his contemporaries. The three prongs of Darwin's argument are each treated with objectivity and depth by men of science and religion. The problem of the sources of variation, the definition of species, and analogies drawn to support more than one point are all discussed in the context of the times. One point I see as being particularly important is that Darwin did not necessarily have to be able to explain how traits are passed on genetically for natural selection to be valid, but Gray (with his divinely influenced heredity) and others felt without that the whole theory was weakened. The characters mention that Darwin intentionally avoided spontaneous generation and the origin of life, but again, the process of natural selection, while it explains a lot of things, was not really concerned with those questions.
Farber, in chapter five, gives some interesting background on Darwin and his work. I was impressed how Darwin was unafraid to utilize the works of others to prepare the foundation on which he built his ideas. Lyell, Malthus, Linnaeus, Buffon and many others provided key points and I was particularly impressed at how Darwin interacted positively with Wallace, and how Wallace deferred to the older and more established Darwin. I was also pleased to read about other supporters of Darwin, such as Hooker and Huxley. I also was not aware that the Germans, in particular Haeckel, were such strong early proponents of natural selection. Of course not all reaction was in agreement with him, and again Thomson's calculated age of the earth was viewed as problematic for the idea of evolution. Aggaziz, Owen, Gray and others all found fault to one degree or another with Darwin's work. Of course, some like Gray, simply felt the idea was sound but incomplete, lacking a divine or spiritual element.
Bibliographic Note:
Kerry Magruder, "The American Evangelical Reception of Darwin's Theory". An informative and interesting treatment of a meeting between Gardiner and Wright in 1875, with copious footnotes providing many other reading opportunities.
Paul Lawrence Farber, Finding Order in Nature, (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000).
Further Reading Notes:
Both components of this assignment have many items mentioned and/or cited that I would like to pursue further, especially concerning the reaction to Darwin.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Week 3 Day 2 History of Biology Case Study
I feel remiss in admitting, as a science teacher, I have not read On the Origin of Species in its entirety. Like many, unfortunately, my knowledge of Darwin and his work has come from secondary sources, excerpts, and coursework. One of the main points I have learned this summer, thanks to this course and Dr. Magruder, is that one should utilize original sources as much as possible, and for that I am thankful and intend to do so in the future.
Darwin does avoid technical jargon for the most part. He seems to be interested in making his case as easily comprehended as possible, for even the lay person. I think Darwin wanted all people to be able to first of all understand and secondly appreciate the significance of what he had figured out. To me this was the classic case of people around the world slapping their foreheads and asking themselves why they didn't see this themselves. The elegance of Darwin's work is in, in some ways, its simplicity, and its ability to explain and fit into things in such a universal manner.
Darwin, in the first two chapters, is primarily concerned with laying the foundation of natural selection in terms of the variety found in populations, whether in the wild or domesticated. As is his style, he gives example after example to strongly support his idea of variation, even though he was not right on terms of the basis of that variation yet. Of course it wasn't crucial at that point to identify the exact sources of variation, interms of the mechanics of natural selection. That would come later. In the third chapter he gets into the notion of competition between the individuals that conprise a population, especially species and to a lesser extent genera. He is basically saying that there is only so much in the way of resources such as food, space, etc., and it is natural to assume there is only so much to go around. Populations will continue to grow up to these limits as is their normal tendency.
As a contemporary reader, I can put myself in the postion of being one those saying "Why didn't I think of that?". It's like it was all laid out and in retrospect, even reading it in the time of Darwin himself, the sheer elegance and for lack of a better term common sense in putting the pieces of the puzzle together is almost overwhelming. I could see almost a sense of resentment, coupled of course with the excitement of seeing how the parts of the argument flow together to support and construct the overall idea of natural selection.
I feel the most attractive parts of these chapters would be Darwin's patient, but not pandering way of meticulously explaining and correlating all the data and observations as he lays the foundation for the rest of his text. I would say one of the least attractive features is Darwin not necessarily building his theory from the ground up, but piecing it together from previous work and adding in his own. Given this, as Mayr points out in the introduction, Darwin doesn't use footnotes or a bibliography.
As far as how this reading will impact my own teaching, I intend to finish the book as soon as I can, and I feel I can more comfortably and confidently present the ideas of natural selection and evolution to my students in the future, as well as how they originated and developed over time. This is especially important with the current controversy over creationism in the science classroom.
Bibliographic Note:
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (A Facsimile of the First Edition), (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1964). With an introduction by Ernst Mayr, this is arguably the pre-eminent work in biology, outlining Darwin's theory of natural selection. It was published in 1859.
Further Reading Note:
I purchased this copy and intend to read all of it, and I would like to view all of the Collections' holdings of Darwin.
Darwin does avoid technical jargon for the most part. He seems to be interested in making his case as easily comprehended as possible, for even the lay person. I think Darwin wanted all people to be able to first of all understand and secondly appreciate the significance of what he had figured out. To me this was the classic case of people around the world slapping their foreheads and asking themselves why they didn't see this themselves. The elegance of Darwin's work is in, in some ways, its simplicity, and its ability to explain and fit into things in such a universal manner.
Darwin, in the first two chapters, is primarily concerned with laying the foundation of natural selection in terms of the variety found in populations, whether in the wild or domesticated. As is his style, he gives example after example to strongly support his idea of variation, even though he was not right on terms of the basis of that variation yet. Of course it wasn't crucial at that point to identify the exact sources of variation, interms of the mechanics of natural selection. That would come later. In the third chapter he gets into the notion of competition between the individuals that conprise a population, especially species and to a lesser extent genera. He is basically saying that there is only so much in the way of resources such as food, space, etc., and it is natural to assume there is only so much to go around. Populations will continue to grow up to these limits as is their normal tendency.
As a contemporary reader, I can put myself in the postion of being one those saying "Why didn't I think of that?". It's like it was all laid out and in retrospect, even reading it in the time of Darwin himself, the sheer elegance and for lack of a better term common sense in putting the pieces of the puzzle together is almost overwhelming. I could see almost a sense of resentment, coupled of course with the excitement of seeing how the parts of the argument flow together to support and construct the overall idea of natural selection.
I feel the most attractive parts of these chapters would be Darwin's patient, but not pandering way of meticulously explaining and correlating all the data and observations as he lays the foundation for the rest of his text. I would say one of the least attractive features is Darwin not necessarily building his theory from the ground up, but piecing it together from previous work and adding in his own. Given this, as Mayr points out in the introduction, Darwin doesn't use footnotes or a bibliography.
As far as how this reading will impact my own teaching, I intend to finish the book as soon as I can, and I feel I can more comfortably and confidently present the ideas of natural selection and evolution to my students in the future, as well as how they originated and developed over time. This is especially important with the current controversy over creationism in the science classroom.
Bibliographic Note:
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (A Facsimile of the First Edition), (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1964). With an introduction by Ernst Mayr, this is arguably the pre-eminent work in biology, outlining Darwin's theory of natural selection. It was published in 1859.
Further Reading Note:
I purchased this copy and intend to read all of it, and I would like to view all of the Collections' holdings of Darwin.
Friday, July 14, 2006
Week 3 Day 1 History of Biology Survey
Today's reading encompasses the introduction and first four chapters of Farber, although I purchased the book and intend to read it all. Farber points out in the introduction that naming and categorizing are natural human tendencies, oing all the way back to the Genesis story. He distinguishes natural history from "folk biology" because it attempts to group and name plants, animals, and minerals and seeks underlying and overarching relationships and order. He cites the importance of natural history in terms of social, political, economic problems, and describes the conflict between religious and secular views and their interpretations of nature. I remember some of my former professors and teachers stressing to us that biology was no longer the domain of those catching and naming animals and pressing plants, and Farber uses that phrase to explain the importance of natural history and its branches then and now.
The first chapter was interesting because I learned a lot more about Linnaeus and his works, who of course I had heard of, but it also emphsized Buffon and his importance, who I knew very little about until now. I learned how Linnaeus used startling (for the time) sexual imagery to classify plants, that he was religious and linked the study of nature with the worship of God, and that he was somewhat full of himself, apparently. I learned that Buffon was initially known more for his work in the physical sciences, was more secular in his views, and leaned heavily on Aristotle and Pliny in his work. Even though the two were contemporaries, they had different viewpoints and goals as Linnaeus valued naming and classifying, and Buffon sought natural laws through study, comparison, and generalization.
Chapter 2 was concerned with the development of natural history into a scientific discipline from 1760 through 1840. It described the specimen collections of the time, and their social, scientific, and financial importance. Also discussed were the struggles of men like Verreaux and Swainson to find support and financing for their travels and collecting. Paris became for a time the center for natural history, and France was rivaled only by the Dutch. The advances in printing and lithography made knowledge more accessible to the common people, and natural history began to sub-divide into more specific disiplines as well. The works of Audubon and Gould are also discussed in this chapter.
Chapter 3 delves into the debate concerning comparative anatomy, which held significance beyond just how the animal body should be understood. Apparently there were competing ideas championed at this time by Cuvier and Saint-Hilaire, with the latter claiming that anatomical development stressed form rather than function, and the former believing that through comparative anatomy he could unravel the order in nature. Later von Baer and especially Owen further developed these notions further through archetypes and homologies.
The fourth and final chapter in this assigned reading is the jumping off point to Darwin's work, and sets the stage for his ground-breaking ideas. I was not aware of the work of Napoleon Bonaparte's nephew in this field, but allarently it was substantial according to Farber. The chapter discusses the formalization and standardization of classification and nomenclature, with Linnaeus' work forming the basis of it. Advances in taxidermy and other technical innovations are treated here as well. The major concerns at this time were variation and what Farber calls the "species problem", as well as biogeographical and ecological patterns, although the term "ecology" was not in use at the time. Humboldt, Hooker, Owen, Agassiz, and Gunther are all mentioned prominently here.
This reading has stoked my desire to learn more about the development of natural history, biology, and related fields, so I may more effectively convey these important ideas and historical events to my students. It has also better prepared me to understand the context and paradigms in place as Charles Darwin was forming and releasing his ideas, with all of their obvious significance.
Bibliographic Note:
Paul Lawrence Farber, Finding Order In Nature: The Naturalist Tradition From Linnaeus to E.O. Wilson, (Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000). Farber, professor of the history of science at Oregon State University, examines the almost three-century-long tradition of natural history in this slim book, part of the Johns Hopkins Introductory Studies in the History of Science series. Natural history, according to Farber, falls between "folk biology" and mainstream science.
Further Reading Note:
Otto Brunfel, Living Images of Plants (1530)
Aristotle, History of Animals
Buffon, Natural History
Linnaeus, Plant Species (1753), Flora Lapponica (1737), and Systema naturae (1735)
the works of Pliny
William Swainson, Zoological Illustrations, (1820-23)
John James Audubon, The Birds of America (1827-38)
the works of John Gould
Georges Cuvier, Animal Kingdom... (1817)
The first chapter was interesting because I learned a lot more about Linnaeus and his works, who of course I had heard of, but it also emphsized Buffon and his importance, who I knew very little about until now. I learned how Linnaeus used startling (for the time) sexual imagery to classify plants, that he was religious and linked the study of nature with the worship of God, and that he was somewhat full of himself, apparently. I learned that Buffon was initially known more for his work in the physical sciences, was more secular in his views, and leaned heavily on Aristotle and Pliny in his work. Even though the two were contemporaries, they had different viewpoints and goals as Linnaeus valued naming and classifying, and Buffon sought natural laws through study, comparison, and generalization.
Chapter 2 was concerned with the development of natural history into a scientific discipline from 1760 through 1840. It described the specimen collections of the time, and their social, scientific, and financial importance. Also discussed were the struggles of men like Verreaux and Swainson to find support and financing for their travels and collecting. Paris became for a time the center for natural history, and France was rivaled only by the Dutch. The advances in printing and lithography made knowledge more accessible to the common people, and natural history began to sub-divide into more specific disiplines as well. The works of Audubon and Gould are also discussed in this chapter.
Chapter 3 delves into the debate concerning comparative anatomy, which held significance beyond just how the animal body should be understood. Apparently there were competing ideas championed at this time by Cuvier and Saint-Hilaire, with the latter claiming that anatomical development stressed form rather than function, and the former believing that through comparative anatomy he could unravel the order in nature. Later von Baer and especially Owen further developed these notions further through archetypes and homologies.
The fourth and final chapter in this assigned reading is the jumping off point to Darwin's work, and sets the stage for his ground-breaking ideas. I was not aware of the work of Napoleon Bonaparte's nephew in this field, but allarently it was substantial according to Farber. The chapter discusses the formalization and standardization of classification and nomenclature, with Linnaeus' work forming the basis of it. Advances in taxidermy and other technical innovations are treated here as well. The major concerns at this time were variation and what Farber calls the "species problem", as well as biogeographical and ecological patterns, although the term "ecology" was not in use at the time. Humboldt, Hooker, Owen, Agassiz, and Gunther are all mentioned prominently here.
This reading has stoked my desire to learn more about the development of natural history, biology, and related fields, so I may more effectively convey these important ideas and historical events to my students. It has also better prepared me to understand the context and paradigms in place as Charles Darwin was forming and releasing his ideas, with all of their obvious significance.
Bibliographic Note:
Paul Lawrence Farber, Finding Order In Nature: The Naturalist Tradition From Linnaeus to E.O. Wilson, (Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000). Farber, professor of the history of science at Oregon State University, examines the almost three-century-long tradition of natural history in this slim book, part of the Johns Hopkins Introductory Studies in the History of Science series. Natural history, according to Farber, falls between "folk biology" and mainstream science.
Further Reading Note:
Otto Brunfel, Living Images of Plants (1530)
Aristotle, History of Animals
Buffon, Natural History
Linnaeus, Plant Species (1753), Flora Lapponica (1737), and Systema naturae (1735)
the works of Pliny
William Swainson, Zoological Illustrations, (1820-23)
John James Audubon, The Birds of America (1827-38)
the works of John Gould
Georges Cuvier, Animal Kingdom... (1817)
Week 2 Day 5 Historiography
This essay by Allchin concludes Week 2, as well as a series of articles concerned with how-and even whether or not-history of science should be presented in the classroom, including how science and the nature of science is defined philosophically. I think a comparison of the viewpoints of Brush and Allchin basically comes down to this. Neither seems to feel history of science should be included in the classroom, but for different reasons. Brush believes if we are going to drill the scientific method into our students' heads, it is irresponsible to present the historical works of scientists who apparently did not utilize this type of framework in their experiments. Allchin advocates that it is wrong to "shoe-horn" history of science into the mode of hypothetico-deductive reasoning, and exposure to current philosophical attempts to like-wise "shoe-horn" all science would result in confused and misguided science teachers and consequently, confused and misguided science students.
My feelings after reading and thinking about this series of essays are as follows. All history is too important to disregard, including the history of science. I believe a responsible science teacher will continue to promote what we generally call the scientific method because it provides a logical set of steps to follow in problem-solving and a common format that facilitates communication and understanding of ideas between scientists around the globe. At the same time, it would be irresponsible to present any kind of falsification, distortion, or "shoe-horning" of history without clarifying under special circumstances, as I discuss below. I have always believed our goal in education is to say to the students, this is what we know or believe to be true, this is why, and this is how we got there. From there students need to learn to use their own capacities for creative thought and formulate opinions and ideas with the guidance of the teacher and whatever sources the students choose to explore on their own. This can apply to what happened in the past, the current state of thinking, and what may come about in the future. To me it is acceptable to present the works, life, successes, and tribulations of Galileo, Harvey, and others as we know them to have occurred. Scientific processes and outcomes happen in a variety of ways, and it's likewise okay to hypothetically go back and see if Galileo's discovery of the moons of Jupiter roughly fits the scientific method or not, for illustrative purposes. This is as long as students and teachers understand what they are doing and are not knowingly or unknowingly rewriting history. After all, creativity and imagination, coupled with drive, natural curiosity, and hopefully a desire to better all of our lives is what science should be about.
Finally, I feel both Brush and Allchin are maybe a bit rigid, even if their points are valid. I feel Lawson was criticized a bit harshly by Allchin, and the last paper in particular sometimes had a biting and personal tone to it. Judging by some of his responses, Lawson seems to have felt the same way, and I think both are guilty of being somewhat blinded to the concessions made by the other. I did appreciate Allchin's tabulation of the various methods by which science functions, and as always he makes good use of references and strongly supports all of his main points. This series of readings has greatly broadened my perspectives on how I can and should incorporate history of science into my courses in the future.
Bibliographic Note:
Douglas Allchin, "Why Respect for History-and Historical Error-Matters.", Science & Education 15 (2006): 91-111
also see previously cited articles by Allchin, Brush, and Lawson
My feelings after reading and thinking about this series of essays are as follows. All history is too important to disregard, including the history of science. I believe a responsible science teacher will continue to promote what we generally call the scientific method because it provides a logical set of steps to follow in problem-solving and a common format that facilitates communication and understanding of ideas between scientists around the globe. At the same time, it would be irresponsible to present any kind of falsification, distortion, or "shoe-horning" of history without clarifying under special circumstances, as I discuss below. I have always believed our goal in education is to say to the students, this is what we know or believe to be true, this is why, and this is how we got there. From there students need to learn to use their own capacities for creative thought and formulate opinions and ideas with the guidance of the teacher and whatever sources the students choose to explore on their own. This can apply to what happened in the past, the current state of thinking, and what may come about in the future. To me it is acceptable to present the works, life, successes, and tribulations of Galileo, Harvey, and others as we know them to have occurred. Scientific processes and outcomes happen in a variety of ways, and it's likewise okay to hypothetically go back and see if Galileo's discovery of the moons of Jupiter roughly fits the scientific method or not, for illustrative purposes. This is as long as students and teachers understand what they are doing and are not knowingly or unknowingly rewriting history. After all, creativity and imagination, coupled with drive, natural curiosity, and hopefully a desire to better all of our lives is what science should be about.
Finally, I feel both Brush and Allchin are maybe a bit rigid, even if their points are valid. I feel Lawson was criticized a bit harshly by Allchin, and the last paper in particular sometimes had a biting and personal tone to it. Judging by some of his responses, Lawson seems to have felt the same way, and I think both are guilty of being somewhat blinded to the concessions made by the other. I did appreciate Allchin's tabulation of the various methods by which science functions, and as always he makes good use of references and strongly supports all of his main points. This series of readings has greatly broadened my perspectives on how I can and should incorporate history of science into my courses in the future.
Bibliographic Note:
Douglas Allchin, "Why Respect for History-and Historical Error-Matters.", Science & Education 15 (2006): 91-111
also see previously cited articles by Allchin, Brush, and Lawson
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Week 2 Day 5 History of Biology Survey
This reading was chapter 5 "Natural History and Physiology" and it was one of the longer selections so far, and was filled with many dates, names, and quite a bit of information in general. It was concerned with medicine, physiology, and natural history in the 18th century and their development into the science we call biology today. In fact, the term "biology" is just now being used, in the course of my assigned readings. In terms of my education, time frame in which I live, and personal knowledge, this selection was the most relatable to me so far. I recognized many names, experiments, and theories, but I still learned many things I didn't know. Also, the sequence of events and the interactions that brought biology to the point it is now are becoming much clearer to me as well.
There far too many overall to discuss here, but some of the more interesting episodes discussed in the reading included von Haller and Glisson's gall bladder experiments, and the concept of sensible and irritable tissues, as well as the incorporation of metaphysical explanations for muscular contraction, for instance. Even today neuroscience is still one of the areas with the most questions that remain unanswered. I am not a particularly religious person, and it struck me in this reading how often scientists were still turning to spiritual explanations for some of their observations, and how the mechanical versus organicist philosophy was often more like mechanism/atheism versus vitalism/spiritualism. I appreciated Bourget's attempts to distinguish organic and inorganic, and Buffon's "internal mold" sounding remarkably like the DNA/RNA templates we know of today. I know, I know, no rational reconstruction allowed, but it is difficult to read and disallow myself from thinking in terms of what we know today. This reading has helped reinforce in me the necessity of trying to keep historical science ideas in the proper context.
I could write an entire research paper on the generation section of this reading alone! I have always been fascinated by parthenogenesis, regeneration, genetics, and basically all aspects of gender and sexual and asexual reproduction. As I read about Trembley's work with Hydra reminded me of all the years professionally used that organism to demonstrate many fundamental biological concepts, and never having heard of Trembley, how much more I could have done from the historical aspect. I woould like to view some of his work in the collections, as well. I have learned a lot more about workers like Harvey, Leeuwenhoek, Swammerdam, Hartsoeker, Maupertuis, and Needham and the social, cultural, and scientific environments they persevered in.
Bibliographic Note:
Thomas L. Hankins, Science and the Enlightenment: Cambridge History of Science Series, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1985). Science and the Enlightenment is a general history of eighteenth-century science covering both the physical and life sciences. It places the scientific developments of the century in the cultural context of the Enlightenment and reveals the extent to which scientific ideas permeated the thought of the age.
Further Reading Note:
Christian Wolff, Theory of Generation (1759)
any works by Spallanzani or Redi
Buffon, Natural History (1749)
Maupertuis, System of Nature (1757)
George Stahl, True Theory of Medicine (1708)
There far too many overall to discuss here, but some of the more interesting episodes discussed in the reading included von Haller and Glisson's gall bladder experiments, and the concept of sensible and irritable tissues, as well as the incorporation of metaphysical explanations for muscular contraction, for instance. Even today neuroscience is still one of the areas with the most questions that remain unanswered. I am not a particularly religious person, and it struck me in this reading how often scientists were still turning to spiritual explanations for some of their observations, and how the mechanical versus organicist philosophy was often more like mechanism/atheism versus vitalism/spiritualism. I appreciated Bourget's attempts to distinguish organic and inorganic, and Buffon's "internal mold" sounding remarkably like the DNA/RNA templates we know of today. I know, I know, no rational reconstruction allowed, but it is difficult to read and disallow myself from thinking in terms of what we know today. This reading has helped reinforce in me the necessity of trying to keep historical science ideas in the proper context.
I could write an entire research paper on the generation section of this reading alone! I have always been fascinated by parthenogenesis, regeneration, genetics, and basically all aspects of gender and sexual and asexual reproduction. As I read about Trembley's work with Hydra reminded me of all the years professionally used that organism to demonstrate many fundamental biological concepts, and never having heard of Trembley, how much more I could have done from the historical aspect. I woould like to view some of his work in the collections, as well. I have learned a lot more about workers like Harvey, Leeuwenhoek, Swammerdam, Hartsoeker, Maupertuis, and Needham and the social, cultural, and scientific environments they persevered in.
Bibliographic Note:
Thomas L. Hankins, Science and the Enlightenment: Cambridge History of Science Series, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1985). Science and the Enlightenment is a general history of eighteenth-century science covering both the physical and life sciences. It places the scientific developments of the century in the cultural context of the Enlightenment and reveals the extent to which scientific ideas permeated the thought of the age.
Further Reading Note:
Christian Wolff, Theory of Generation (1759)
any works by Spallanzani or Redi
Buffon, Natural History (1749)
Maupertuis, System of Nature (1757)
George Stahl, True Theory of Medicine (1708)
Monday, July 10, 2006
Week 2 Day 4 Historiography
Today's reading was comparatively brief, but fascinating for a variety of reasons. Brush is responding to Allchin's criticisms of Lawson's "shoehorning" history of science into hypothetico-deductive thought. These articles are discussed and/or cited previously in this blog. The first thing that caught my attention was that Brush makes some statements that are not unlike my own thoughts in this blog, to myself, and verbalized to Dr. Magruder in person during a visit to the collections, all before I actually read this essay. Lawson may be wrong in apparently not providing overwhelming historical evidence to support his points, in particular concerning Galileo and the moons of Jupiter. He may also be wrong if he indeed feels all science must be lumped under hypothetico-deductive reasoning and the scientific method per se. However, I must rise to his defense on a couple of points. I do feel that problem solving in general does typically follow a set of steps or guidelines that subconsciously or knowingly we all follow to seek the answer to a question, whether we are practicing scientists, science students, or in everyday life. This is just how problem-solving, and apparently the human brain usually works. Secondly, I feel philosphers of science are misguided if they feel they must elucidate and put in place one single, over-riding way that science must be accomplished. I am not too fond of absolutism, and stating that there is one definable answer to every question, or one single label to put on everything. It is perfectly acceptable to have different approaches to scientific endeavors, or even different ways of interpreting outcomes or the process by which something happened. To me it's okay if Lawson wants to try to define Galileo's experiments a certain way, as long as he acknowledges the possibility that maybe, historically, that wasn't exactly what Galileo was thinking. I agree with Brush, that as long as scientists don't falsify data for whatever purpose, the important thing is not how they figured something out, but what it is they have determined and its implications and relevance to the paradigms of the time. He gives a wonderful example concerning astronomy and the mapping of the stars in the 19th century. No particular hypotheses were being tested, but the workers accumulated a tremendous database that many others drew from subsequently. Who could suggest these astronomers were not doing science, even if it didn't necessarily fit neatly into a scientific method? I could also apply this line of thought to many of the early herbalists and microscopists I have been reading about recently. Brush makes another important point in that it is the explanation of new or known facts that is most important, not the genesis of the facts. I remember some of my science professors insisted there was no such thing as a single or true scientific method anyway, that to find the answer to a question one employed whatever means necessary, as long as those results could likewise be obtained by others to ensure plausibility and reproducibility. It was also interesting that Max Planck said that sometimes new ideas cannot take hold until the older generation that resists them dies off, and that younger scientists are subject to this type of pressure from established scientists who feel their reputations may be at stake if the ideas they have based their careers on are modified or discarded.
Bibliographic Note:
Stephen G. Brush, "Comments on the Epistemological Shoehorn Debate." Science & Education 13 (2004): 197-200.
Bibliographic Note:
Stephen G. Brush, "Comments on the Epistemological Shoehorn Debate." Science & Education 13 (2004): 197-200.
Sunday, July 09, 2006
Week 2 Day 4 History of Biology Survey
This was one of the best readings yet, and provided lots of ideas for items I would like to view and study further when I visit the collections again, as outlined below in my Further Reading addendum. The reading was Chapter 5 in Westfall titled "Biology and the Mechanical Philosophy", and as the title suggests the focus was on the interactions and tension between organicist and mechanistic philosophies in the 17th century. This chapter opened my eyes to some things I have always wondered about, specifically why biology in general and microscopy didn't advance at a greater rate than it did during this time frame. Westfall actually calls mechanical philosophy "crudity itself", and because it held sway over scientific thinking at the time it hindered progress in biology greatly.
Some of the interesting aspects of this reading include the author citing workers such as Bauhin and Ray and how Linnaeus used their studies as a foundation for his, and yet Westfall succombs to hagiography when he describes Linnaeus as a "god among heroes". Nevertheless it was fascinating to read about the development of what has led to our modern system of taxonomy. I have always had a particular interest in microbiology and embryology, so this reading's discussion of the development of the microscope held my attention, with all the implications it entailed. Francesco Stuuti was a name I was not familiar with, and I loved Jonathon Swift's cynical little poem as well. I also appreciated how the trials of figuring out human circulation led into the embryological aspects of Harvey and others observing the pulsing heart in chick embryos.
One of the most surprising aspects of the reading for me, not being familiar with Mechanical philosophy, was how Descartes and others tried so hard to explain away organic ideas of life with their own mechanistic theories. The idea of iatromechanics was new to me as well, and it was fascinating how Borelli tried to explain human movements in terms of machines. Of course, to play devil's advocate, one could even today try to view life as a series of chemical reactions, minus the view of any kind of "life-force". This made me think of Richard Dawkins and the idea that a living thing is just a vessel to facilitate the replication of the genetic material it contains. I was happy to see the discussion lead into embryology and spontaneous generation as scientists tried to explain reproduction and development, given the context of the times and the face-off between the organicists and mechanists. It was amazing to think about Descartes and others trying to explain development as an unfolding of pre-existing parts, and in such stark contrast to the thinking and works of Harvey, Malpighi, Camerarius, Graaf, and others. Westfall points out that for all the 17th century organicist embryologists accomplished, they had yet to account for the most obvious fact of generation, that offspring can and do inherit characteristics from both parents.
As an educator, I feel so much more knowledgeable about this era in biology than I did before, I can more comfortably discuss with my students the various points of view that collectively drove biology forward. It was heartening to find out more about the works of scientists I thought I knew about, only to see there was much more at work than I was aware of. This reading filled in a lot of gaps in my own knowledge and understanding, and having access to the collections at OU makes it that much more fascinating and informative.
Bibliographic Note:
Richard S. Westfall, The Construction of Modern Science: Mechanisms and Mechanics, (New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., (1971)
Further Reading Note:
Descartes, The Description of the Human Body and Treatise on Man
William Harvey, On the Generation of Animals and On the Motion of the Heart and Blood
Robert Hooke, Micrographia
Marcello Malphigi, Treatise on the Earthworm
John Ray, General History of Plants
Some of the interesting aspects of this reading include the author citing workers such as Bauhin and Ray and how Linnaeus used their studies as a foundation for his, and yet Westfall succombs to hagiography when he describes Linnaeus as a "god among heroes". Nevertheless it was fascinating to read about the development of what has led to our modern system of taxonomy. I have always had a particular interest in microbiology and embryology, so this reading's discussion of the development of the microscope held my attention, with all the implications it entailed. Francesco Stuuti was a name I was not familiar with, and I loved Jonathon Swift's cynical little poem as well. I also appreciated how the trials of figuring out human circulation led into the embryological aspects of Harvey and others observing the pulsing heart in chick embryos.
One of the most surprising aspects of the reading for me, not being familiar with Mechanical philosophy, was how Descartes and others tried so hard to explain away organic ideas of life with their own mechanistic theories. The idea of iatromechanics was new to me as well, and it was fascinating how Borelli tried to explain human movements in terms of machines. Of course, to play devil's advocate, one could even today try to view life as a series of chemical reactions, minus the view of any kind of "life-force". This made me think of Richard Dawkins and the idea that a living thing is just a vessel to facilitate the replication of the genetic material it contains. I was happy to see the discussion lead into embryology and spontaneous generation as scientists tried to explain reproduction and development, given the context of the times and the face-off between the organicists and mechanists. It was amazing to think about Descartes and others trying to explain development as an unfolding of pre-existing parts, and in such stark contrast to the thinking and works of Harvey, Malpighi, Camerarius, Graaf, and others. Westfall points out that for all the 17th century organicist embryologists accomplished, they had yet to account for the most obvious fact of generation, that offspring can and do inherit characteristics from both parents.
As an educator, I feel so much more knowledgeable about this era in biology than I did before, I can more comfortably discuss with my students the various points of view that collectively drove biology forward. It was heartening to find out more about the works of scientists I thought I knew about, only to see there was much more at work than I was aware of. This reading filled in a lot of gaps in my own knowledge and understanding, and having access to the collections at OU makes it that much more fascinating and informative.
Bibliographic Note:
Richard S. Westfall, The Construction of Modern Science: Mechanisms and Mechanics, (New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., (1971)
Further Reading Note:
Descartes, The Description of the Human Body and Treatise on Man
William Harvey, On the Generation of Animals and On the Motion of the Heart and Blood
Robert Hooke, Micrographia
Marcello Malphigi, Treatise on the Earthworm
John Ray, General History of Plants
Saturday, July 08, 2006
Week 2 Day 3 Historiography
This essay continues, refines, and extends the arguments of Brush and Allchin discussed below because pseudosciences such as parapsychology and creationism are known to be misleading and dangerous, but pseudohistory can be almost as damaging and certainly no remedy. Allchin says typical textbook science histories are flawed, inflate scientific drama, romanticize scientists and their work and lives, and oversimplify the process of science by "shoe-horning" all great scientific discoveries into the scientific method and/or hypothetico-deductive reasoning. All the essays I have read recently, including this one, give excellent examples to support these points.
As to how this article has instructed and informed me as a science teacher, Allchin suggests educators should understand and recognize pseudohistory, Whiggism, and hagiography when they encounter them, and take appropriate measures to protect their students and themselves. We can of course become more educated ourselves in the history of science, learn about analyzing texts rhetorically, appreciate how myths work culturally to shape views of science, and master at least one case-study in depth and gradually expand into others.
Allchin defends his conclusions as usual with well-researched and readable descriptions of examples, and sums it up with a cogent and thought-provoking conclusion. He goes to great lengths to explain what pseudoscience and pseudohistory are, and how sometimes the latter can actually be the former. He examines hagiography, or idolization of scientists, and comes back to the idea of Whiggism or Whig history, the rational reconstruction from previous articles.
I also have to wonder as I read these essays if maybe the authors aren't being a little overly dramatic and maybe being a bit too harsh on Lawson, for instance. It's possible to take almost any endeavor involving problem-solving and try to "shoe-horn" it into being representative of the steps of a general scientific method and/or hypothetico-deductive reasoning. This, in my opinion, is not necessarily an undesirable process. For instance, I have my students sometimes consider an everyday quandary such as losing one's key ring. I have them recall the steps they follow in trying to retrieve the keys, and we then discuss how they approximate the steps of the scientific method. My point is that there is a general and logical approach to problem solving an any level, and sometimes we are using this process without being consciously aware of it. This goes back to the author's points in that I agree students should not be spoon-fed pseudohistory just to make a point, because there are other ways to ground them in good scientific technique and philosophy without making grievous distortions of the past.
Bibliographic Note:
Douglas Allchin, "Pseudohistory and Pseudoscience", Science & Education 13 (2004): 179-195. This essay further reinforces how pseuduscience and pseudohistory should be rated "X" because it can mislead science students, teachers, and practicing scientists.
As to how this article has instructed and informed me as a science teacher, Allchin suggests educators should understand and recognize pseudohistory, Whiggism, and hagiography when they encounter them, and take appropriate measures to protect their students and themselves. We can of course become more educated ourselves in the history of science, learn about analyzing texts rhetorically, appreciate how myths work culturally to shape views of science, and master at least one case-study in depth and gradually expand into others.
Allchin defends his conclusions as usual with well-researched and readable descriptions of examples, and sums it up with a cogent and thought-provoking conclusion. He goes to great lengths to explain what pseudoscience and pseudohistory are, and how sometimes the latter can actually be the former. He examines hagiography, or idolization of scientists, and comes back to the idea of Whiggism or Whig history, the rational reconstruction from previous articles.
I also have to wonder as I read these essays if maybe the authors aren't being a little overly dramatic and maybe being a bit too harsh on Lawson, for instance. It's possible to take almost any endeavor involving problem-solving and try to "shoe-horn" it into being representative of the steps of a general scientific method and/or hypothetico-deductive reasoning. This, in my opinion, is not necessarily an undesirable process. For instance, I have my students sometimes consider an everyday quandary such as losing one's key ring. I have them recall the steps they follow in trying to retrieve the keys, and we then discuss how they approximate the steps of the scientific method. My point is that there is a general and logical approach to problem solving an any level, and sometimes we are using this process without being consciously aware of it. This goes back to the author's points in that I agree students should not be spoon-fed pseudohistory just to make a point, because there are other ways to ground them in good scientific technique and philosophy without making grievous distortions of the past.
Bibliographic Note:
Douglas Allchin, "Pseudohistory and Pseudoscience", Science & Education 13 (2004): 179-195. This essay further reinforces how pseuduscience and pseudohistory should be rated "X" because it can mislead science students, teachers, and practicing scientists.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Week 2 Day 2 Historiography
Brush's and Allchin's arguments are similar in that they both state that assuming science always fits neatly into our notion of the scientific method is dangerous from a historical and philosophical point of view. This is because it is apparently not always true, and it can mislead our science students, teachers, and practicing scientists. Lawson's shoehorn may be potentially problematic, but it is important to keep an open mind and consider all viewpoints on a given subject.
Allchin uses several cases to support his main point that "the error lies in trying to fit the history of science into one particular philosophical conception of science". By that he means that some of the great historical scientific examples we as science teachers often use in the classroom are not necessarily rigid examples of scientific method and hypothetico-deductive reasoning. We then as teachers turn around and insist students follow these strict guidelines in the laboratory, as all great scientists have always done. One of the most interesting points he makes is that sometimes it's more the development of new or better instruments (in this case the telescope and microscope) than it is adherence to a particular scientific philosophy that makes for important discoveries.
I very much appreciated that he used two biological examples (Harvey/Malpghi and Mendel) along with Galileo to support his main point. He mentions that sometimes even original sources need to be carefully considered as to meaning and context, and of course secondary ones must be examined for omissions, additions, and misinterpretations. I think in some ways Allchin is a bit of a nit-picker, because even if neither Harvey nor Malpghi hypothesized about capillaries, they were still discovered in the course of their experiments. To me that is what science is about, because sometimes you have an incomplete or incorrect hypothesis, and the joy of discovery often comes from unexpected and unforeseen outcomes. After all that is how both the Gram stain and antibiotics came to be known. Likewise, the use of agar to replace gelatin in the microbiology lab was hardly due to rigorous conformation to scientific method. Of course, as I sit back and read what I have typed I realize this is really the point he was trying to make, after all.
The section on Mendel was particularly intriguing, and along with the other cases Allchin effectively shoots Lawson's ideas down. To me it's okay that Mendel's work didn't neatly fit under the umbrella of hypothetico-deductive reasoning, as long as we as science educators understand that and pass it on to our students. His work was still tremendously important to the development of biology and genetics. In fact the essays I have read the past few days have made me realize that in my career I have, maybe sometimes subconsciously, tried very hard to teach science as it really was and is. I also realize I can do more to avoid the pitfalls of teaching rote science and science history gleaned from Brush's "celestial textbook writers".I also expect my students to be able to originate, structure, and carry out original research projects using the scientific method as a model. At the same time they need to understand that scientific discovery as a process is a human endeavor, with all the frailties that entails.
Bibliographic Note:
Douglas Allchin. "Lawson's Shoehorn, or Should the Philosophy of Science Be Rated 'X'?", Science & Education 12 (2003): 315-329. The author discusses Lawson's interpretations of works by Galileo and Mendel and how philosophical preconceptions can distort history and and lessons about the nature of science, especially concerning scientific method and hypothetico-deductive reasoning.
Anton Lawson, "The Generality of the Hypothetico-Deductive Method: Making Scientific Thinking Explicit", American Biology Teacher 62 (2000): 482-495
Anton Lawson, "What Does Galileo's Discovery of Jupiter's Moons Tell Us About the Process of Scientific Discovery?" Science & Education 11 (2002): 1-24.
Allchin uses several cases to support his main point that "the error lies in trying to fit the history of science into one particular philosophical conception of science". By that he means that some of the great historical scientific examples we as science teachers often use in the classroom are not necessarily rigid examples of scientific method and hypothetico-deductive reasoning. We then as teachers turn around and insist students follow these strict guidelines in the laboratory, as all great scientists have always done. One of the most interesting points he makes is that sometimes it's more the development of new or better instruments (in this case the telescope and microscope) than it is adherence to a particular scientific philosophy that makes for important discoveries.
I very much appreciated that he used two biological examples (Harvey/Malpghi and Mendel) along with Galileo to support his main point. He mentions that sometimes even original sources need to be carefully considered as to meaning and context, and of course secondary ones must be examined for omissions, additions, and misinterpretations. I think in some ways Allchin is a bit of a nit-picker, because even if neither Harvey nor Malpghi hypothesized about capillaries, they were still discovered in the course of their experiments. To me that is what science is about, because sometimes you have an incomplete or incorrect hypothesis, and the joy of discovery often comes from unexpected and unforeseen outcomes. After all that is how both the Gram stain and antibiotics came to be known. Likewise, the use of agar to replace gelatin in the microbiology lab was hardly due to rigorous conformation to scientific method. Of course, as I sit back and read what I have typed I realize this is really the point he was trying to make, after all.
The section on Mendel was particularly intriguing, and along with the other cases Allchin effectively shoots Lawson's ideas down. To me it's okay that Mendel's work didn't neatly fit under the umbrella of hypothetico-deductive reasoning, as long as we as science educators understand that and pass it on to our students. His work was still tremendously important to the development of biology and genetics. In fact the essays I have read the past few days have made me realize that in my career I have, maybe sometimes subconsciously, tried very hard to teach science as it really was and is. I also realize I can do more to avoid the pitfalls of teaching rote science and science history gleaned from Brush's "celestial textbook writers".I also expect my students to be able to originate, structure, and carry out original research projects using the scientific method as a model. At the same time they need to understand that scientific discovery as a process is a human endeavor, with all the frailties that entails.
Bibliographic Note:
Douglas Allchin. "Lawson's Shoehorn, or Should the Philosophy of Science Be Rated 'X'?", Science & Education 12 (2003): 315-329. The author discusses Lawson's interpretations of works by Galileo and Mendel and how philosophical preconceptions can distort history and and lessons about the nature of science, especially concerning scientific method and hypothetico-deductive reasoning.
Anton Lawson, "The Generality of the Hypothetico-Deductive Method: Making Scientific Thinking Explicit", American Biology Teacher 62 (2000): 482-495
Anton Lawson, "What Does Galileo's Discovery of Jupiter's Moons Tell Us About the Process of Scientific Discovery?" Science & Education 11 (2002): 1-24.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Week 2 Day 2 History of Biology Survey
I found several aspects of this reading to be fascinating and surprising. Debus begins by describing theoretical accounts of how the earth is impregnated by "astral seeds" that cause metal to grow in veins. He states the earth was considered to be alive by many people at the time. This made me think about how if one steps back and looks at the vegetation rising from the earth it is almost like an orange or someother fruit with mold taking root and growing into and out of it. I can understand how people at that time had some of the ideas they did. They even thought the metals would grow back like grain in a field, to be harvested again and again. My interest was piqued again at the beginning of the chapter when Debus mentions Robert Fludd's search for the spiritus mundi, or unknown factor in the air and water that made life and spontaneous generation possible. The documentation of fantastical beasts such as the sphinx, lamia, satyr, dragon, and mantichora along with the elephant, rhinocerus, and orangutan demonstrates that the reality can be just as bizarre and amazing as the myth. Then again, species become extinct all the time, and there is more often than not a grain of truth in even the most incredible claims, so it would be enlightening to know the basis of the ideas of legendary animals like unicorns and centaurs, and how grounded in reality they actually are. It also noted that many such animals were included because they had been mentioned in the Bible.
This reading reinforces some points from some of the essays I have read the past few days as well as reminding me of some of the laboratory and field work I have been fortunate enough to be involved with previously. I, like most biology teachers, always reference Carolus Linnaeus as the creator of our modern system of classification, but this reading goes into great detail about previous classification systems, whether they contributed to Linnaeus' work or not. One project I worked on was to isolate chloroplast DNA from species of Penstemen for systematic and classification purposes, and this article was intriguing as it related other methods of grouping plants and in some ways how far we have come in a few hundred years, and yet in other ways we haven't. Debus also discusses the distillation and isolation of plant biochemical products, mainly for medicinal purposes. Another project I played a small part in was concerned with the preparation from Astragalus or loco weed, the alkaloid active ingredient for further study, so again I was struck by the familiarity with which I viewed the work of these scientists centuries removed from me.
I feel this reading benefits me as teacher because of the instances I cited above, and also because it gave me a broader and more general understanding of how botany and zoology were developing in this time frame. It actually made me feel closer to understanding how these early thinkers were working, and my overall perspective of the development of biology is continuing to grow. I would like to finish this book as time permits, and I would enjoy viewing as many of the original drawings, wood-cuttings, and paintings as are available in the collections.
Bibliographic Note:
Allen G. Debus, Man and Nature in the Renaissance, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1978). This is a detailed book about how the Renaissance helped lead into the Scientific Revolution.
Further Reading Note:
Agnes Arber, Herbals : Their Origin and Evolution
Karen M. Reed, "Renaissance Humanism and Botany", Annals of Science, 33, 1976
Edward Topsell, Historie of Four-Footed Beastes and Historie of Serpents, (1600's)
Herbarius (1485)
Pliny the Elder, Natural History, 1st century A.D.
This reading reinforces some points from some of the essays I have read the past few days as well as reminding me of some of the laboratory and field work I have been fortunate enough to be involved with previously. I, like most biology teachers, always reference Carolus Linnaeus as the creator of our modern system of classification, but this reading goes into great detail about previous classification systems, whether they contributed to Linnaeus' work or not. One project I worked on was to isolate chloroplast DNA from species of Penstemen for systematic and classification purposes, and this article was intriguing as it related other methods of grouping plants and in some ways how far we have come in a few hundred years, and yet in other ways we haven't. Debus also discusses the distillation and isolation of plant biochemical products, mainly for medicinal purposes. Another project I played a small part in was concerned with the preparation from Astragalus or loco weed, the alkaloid active ingredient for further study, so again I was struck by the familiarity with which I viewed the work of these scientists centuries removed from me.
I feel this reading benefits me as teacher because of the instances I cited above, and also because it gave me a broader and more general understanding of how botany and zoology were developing in this time frame. It actually made me feel closer to understanding how these early thinkers were working, and my overall perspective of the development of biology is continuing to grow. I would like to finish this book as time permits, and I would enjoy viewing as many of the original drawings, wood-cuttings, and paintings as are available in the collections.
Bibliographic Note:
Allen G. Debus, Man and Nature in the Renaissance, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1978). This is a detailed book about how the Renaissance helped lead into the Scientific Revolution.
Further Reading Note:
Agnes Arber, Herbals : Their Origin and Evolution
Karen M. Reed, "Renaissance Humanism and Botany", Annals of Science, 33, 1976
Edward Topsell, Historie of Four-Footed Beastes and Historie of Serpents, (1600's)
Herbarius (1485)
Pliny the Elder, Natural History, 1st century A.D.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Week 2 Day 1 Historiography
The web page cited below made valid points about how we tend to project our modern ideas, paradigms, and level of understanding onto historical figures and events. It breaks down the ideas of rational reconstuction, Whig history, precursor-itis, and presentism as being how we take the drama out of history by making the simplest solutions the right ones. Of course this could not have always been the case. However there is also the idea of Ockham's razor which suggests that all things being equal the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. I realize that is a bit off-topic but it ocurred to me when I read the web page. The web page does a great job of using Stonehenge and Whig history as examples to support its points, as well as a map exercise.
Brush's article was a fascinating and thoughtful read, to say the least. I am also developing an appreciation for how Dr. Magruder has sequenced the readings for this course. For instance, Kuhn's thoughts are a lot clearer to me now, having read this article, whether I agree any more or less with him. Conant is referenced again in this essay, I would like to learn more about him as well, especially since I appreciate some of his main ideas. Brush certainly doesn't seem to mind stepping on a few toes, either, as he makes his case. He is also somewhat witty and sly in how he frames his essay within the context of the movie rating system and evokes terms like "traditional local standards" and "redeeming social significance". No, science history should not be pornographic.
Brush's main argument is that if science teachers wish to utilize history of science they should employ as many original works as possible, or at least be familiar with them. He gives an example involving Galileo's writing being altered to include the words "by experiment". He also questions if we are just going through the motions so to speak regarding the teaching of objective scientific method and distorting our, and our students', perception of the the true reality of the nature of science. He also says that working outside the constriction of the scientific method as the greatest minds often have needs to be included, as does the evolution of science over time, responding to the needs and problems of all aspects of the societies of the respective century.
In terms of science teaching Brush defines Whig history as the teacher only being interested in those earlier developments that led up to today's established theories and laws. He adds that the science teacher also assumes anyone who fails to move toward modern ideas must be acting non-objectively and has not accepted the true scientific method.
Brush says that the history of science might be rated X for young and impressionable science students because it may distort their perception of the professional scientist as being grounded in scientific method and bound to the outcome of their experiments. He argues that this is not always how science has operated historically.
Brush believes history of science may be uninteresting or counterproductive for a scientist because it may load a course with superfluous information, it does nothing to add to their training as functioning scientists, and it may sidetrack them on problems that have no modern, relevant value.
Brush concludes that fictionalized history may be better than what historians are currently providing, that dogmatized history of science is counterproductive, science should be held up and examined for what is both good and bad about it throughout its history, and that the new approach would also help mollify the image of the robotic scientist who lacks emotions and moral values. He belives it should reflect the freedom that the boldest natural philosophers have always exercised, rise above restrictive local standards and consequently have redeeming social significance and hence, not be "rated X".
Bibliographic Note:
Kerry Magruder, "The Fallacy of Rational Reconstruction, or 'The Whig Interpretation of History'", History of Science Online, http://homepage.mac.com/kvmagruder/hsci/01-beginnings/stonehenge/Stonehenge-4-rr.html, This web page from OU's History of Science Collections explains how we can incorrectly explain history on the basis of modern knowledge we take for granted.
Stephen G. Brush "Should The History Of Science Be Rated X?", Science 183 (1974):1164-1172. This classic and fascinating essay explores new and different ways to teach science, in the context of how scientists and science history are portrayed.
Brush's article was a fascinating and thoughtful read, to say the least. I am also developing an appreciation for how Dr. Magruder has sequenced the readings for this course. For instance, Kuhn's thoughts are a lot clearer to me now, having read this article, whether I agree any more or less with him. Conant is referenced again in this essay, I would like to learn more about him as well, especially since I appreciate some of his main ideas. Brush certainly doesn't seem to mind stepping on a few toes, either, as he makes his case. He is also somewhat witty and sly in how he frames his essay within the context of the movie rating system and evokes terms like "traditional local standards" and "redeeming social significance". No, science history should not be pornographic.
Brush's main argument is that if science teachers wish to utilize history of science they should employ as many original works as possible, or at least be familiar with them. He gives an example involving Galileo's writing being altered to include the words "by experiment". He also questions if we are just going through the motions so to speak regarding the teaching of objective scientific method and distorting our, and our students', perception of the the true reality of the nature of science. He also says that working outside the constriction of the scientific method as the greatest minds often have needs to be included, as does the evolution of science over time, responding to the needs and problems of all aspects of the societies of the respective century.
In terms of science teaching Brush defines Whig history as the teacher only being interested in those earlier developments that led up to today's established theories and laws. He adds that the science teacher also assumes anyone who fails to move toward modern ideas must be acting non-objectively and has not accepted the true scientific method.
Brush says that the history of science might be rated X for young and impressionable science students because it may distort their perception of the professional scientist as being grounded in scientific method and bound to the outcome of their experiments. He argues that this is not always how science has operated historically.
Brush believes history of science may be uninteresting or counterproductive for a scientist because it may load a course with superfluous information, it does nothing to add to their training as functioning scientists, and it may sidetrack them on problems that have no modern, relevant value.
Brush concludes that fictionalized history may be better than what historians are currently providing, that dogmatized history of science is counterproductive, science should be held up and examined for what is both good and bad about it throughout its history, and that the new approach would also help mollify the image of the robotic scientist who lacks emotions and moral values. He belives it should reflect the freedom that the boldest natural philosophers have always exercised, rise above restrictive local standards and consequently have redeeming social significance and hence, not be "rated X".
Bibliographic Note:
Kerry Magruder, "The Fallacy of Rational Reconstruction, or 'The Whig Interpretation of History'", History of Science Online, http://homepage.mac.com/kvmagruder/hsci/01-beginnings/stonehenge/Stonehenge-4-rr.html, This web page from OU's History of Science Collections explains how we can incorrectly explain history on the basis of modern knowledge we take for granted.
Stephen G. Brush "Should The History Of Science Be Rated X?", Science 183 (1974):1164-1172. This classic and fascinating essay explores new and different ways to teach science, in the context of how scientists and science history are portrayed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)