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.
No comments:
Post a Comment