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)
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
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.
Monday, July 03, 2006
Week 2: Rational Reconstruction-Day 1 History of Biology Survey
Today's reading was Chapter 13 on Medieval Medicine and Natural History from Lindberg. Once again this book is excellent and I would like to read all of it as time permits. I am concentrating on the biological aspects but it covers all the sciences, and there are chapters on Islamic science and medicine as well. I like the author's writing style, attention to detail, and the fact that he will freely admit when a topic is not that well known and is open to speculation.
By far the most interesting part of the reading concerned medieval surgery. Quite a bit of detail goes into describing corneal surgery, removal of kidney stones, repair of scrotal hernias, and other procedures, all carried out with little or no anesthesia. Lindberg says the real "heroes" of surgery at the time were the patients themselves, and I definitely agree with him on that point! Other parts I found interesting were the development of hospitals, the Islamic and Galenic influences on European medicine, and the discussion of early urine analysis and the examination of pulses. It was also fascinating that much of our earliest botanical knowledge derived from the development of herbals that served a practical medical purpose. As a biology teacher I feel remiss in never having heard of Albert the Great, especially since his work was fundamental to the development of both botany and zoology. At the end of the chapter Lindberg discusses bestiaries, and recounts some of the fascinating and even amusing traits attributed to some of the animals, such as lynx urine turning into a precious stone. The author reminds us though to be sure to view the bestiaries in the context of both the times and the purposes they served, not unlike when even today we look to the groundhog for meteorological reports. Also interesting to me was Lindberg's discussion of how Cristianity interacted with Greco-Roman medicine and natural history, and how he compares the practice of medicine in the Middle Ages to carpentry and construction today. That was a very enlightening analogy that could have practical use in the classroom.
One of the most surprising aspects of this chapter for me was the level of skill and knowledge physicians had in Medieval times, considering how long ago it was. Lindberg discusses bone-setters, specialists in herbs and other medicines, mid-wives, surgeons, apothecaries, and university-trained physicians. The discussion of what physicians called complexions, and how they related back to the humors I read about earlier, was surprising, in that it showed me how close they were coming to the concept of homeostasis, and how deviations from the "steady-state" characterized disease conditions. Also of note was the prescription of pig manure as a nose bleed remedy!
Further Reading Note:
T.H. White (translator), The Bestiary:A Book of Beasts, 12th century
William B. Ashworth, Jr., "Natural History and the Emblamatic World View"
Physiologus, various translations and treatments
Jerry Stannard, "Albertus Magnus and Medieval Herbalism"
Bibliographic Note:
David C. Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science, (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1992). This chapter (13) dealt with Medieval medicine and natural history.
By far the most interesting part of the reading concerned medieval surgery. Quite a bit of detail goes into describing corneal surgery, removal of kidney stones, repair of scrotal hernias, and other procedures, all carried out with little or no anesthesia. Lindberg says the real "heroes" of surgery at the time were the patients themselves, and I definitely agree with him on that point! Other parts I found interesting were the development of hospitals, the Islamic and Galenic influences on European medicine, and the discussion of early urine analysis and the examination of pulses. It was also fascinating that much of our earliest botanical knowledge derived from the development of herbals that served a practical medical purpose. As a biology teacher I feel remiss in never having heard of Albert the Great, especially since his work was fundamental to the development of both botany and zoology. At the end of the chapter Lindberg discusses bestiaries, and recounts some of the fascinating and even amusing traits attributed to some of the animals, such as lynx urine turning into a precious stone. The author reminds us though to be sure to view the bestiaries in the context of both the times and the purposes they served, not unlike when even today we look to the groundhog for meteorological reports. Also interesting to me was Lindberg's discussion of how Cristianity interacted with Greco-Roman medicine and natural history, and how he compares the practice of medicine in the Middle Ages to carpentry and construction today. That was a very enlightening analogy that could have practical use in the classroom.
One of the most surprising aspects of this chapter for me was the level of skill and knowledge physicians had in Medieval times, considering how long ago it was. Lindberg discusses bone-setters, specialists in herbs and other medicines, mid-wives, surgeons, apothecaries, and university-trained physicians. The discussion of what physicians called complexions, and how they related back to the humors I read about earlier, was surprising, in that it showed me how close they were coming to the concept of homeostasis, and how deviations from the "steady-state" characterized disease conditions. Also of note was the prescription of pig manure as a nose bleed remedy!
Further Reading Note:
T.H. White (translator), The Bestiary:A Book of Beasts, 12th century
William B. Ashworth, Jr., "Natural History and the Emblamatic World View"
Physiologus, various translations and treatments
Jerry Stannard, "Albertus Magnus and Medieval Herbalism"
Bibliographic Note:
David C. Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science, (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1992). This chapter (13) dealt with Medieval medicine and natural history.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Day 5 Collections Visit
We are fortunate at OU to have a world renowned History of Science Collections. My visit will be at a later date, but since you are reading my blog here are a couple of web sites for you.
http://libraries.ou.edu/info/index.asp?id=20
http://homepage.mac.com/kvmagruder/hsci/index.html
http://libraries.ou.edu/info/index.asp?id=20
http://homepage.mac.com/kvmagruder/hsci/index.html
Day 4 Historiography
Wang and Marsh's article dealt with humanizing science in the classroom, and teacher's perceptions and actual practice during instructional time concerning inclusion of science history in science courses. First of all I liked that this was a research article which allowed me to utilize some of the statistical techniques I learned recently in Quantitative Analysis I to help me understand the article's methods, analysis, and conclusions. The main point of the article was to compare how teachers valued inclusion of history of science with how much or often they actually did in practice. All in all it seemed teachers consistently agreed on the importance of history of science (except for elementary school students), but rarely actually followed through to the same degree in the classroom, for a variety of reasons. The authors also interviewed several teachers for more perspective, and I found myself nodding in agreement as I read their comments, especially about the lack of time to teach all the topics in a given semester. This is often true even when history of science isn't included, as there is a lot of pressure today on teachers in all subject areas to be sure students do well on standardized tests, whether they are actually learning anything or are just being trained to be good test takers.
The authors defend their conclusions through statistical analyses, the teacher interviews, and by describing the framework in which history of science can be included. The three componenents are conceptual, procedural, and contextual understanding. They also touch on some topics from some of my other readings for this course, including Kuhn and Conant as they lay out the efforts that have been made over the years to humanize science education. They describe the golden age of science education after the launch of Sputnik, attempts to form an enlightened citizenry, and the standards-based science education reform that started in the 1980's. I have always felt even though there are certain basic ideas and terminology that students must know to be competent in science, it is much more important to help young people be able to think critically, evaluate data, and make decisions.
The authors give in my opinion valid reasons for conceptual understanding being brought about through history of science, and they consistently cite other studies and authors to support their points. To achieve procedural understanding they show how students work in class can parallel scientists' work both in the past and present. I appreciated how they point out that the process of investigation is rife with errors, and great discoveries such as antibiotics can come about through apparent laboratory "mistakes". They also stress the importance of deductive reasoning and not having students just perform cook-book labs that merely verify what is already known. This brings me back again to the Learning Cycle and the workshop that inspired me to pursue my PhD. In the Learning Cycle the students perform the procedure and then develop the concepts, not unlike what scientists have done for centuries. The potential for humanizing science in this context is limitless. History of science for contextual understanding is as important as the previous two, in my opinion. The authors discuss psychological, social, and cultural factors and give clear examples involving Einstein, Curie, and others. We need to take advantage of children's natural curiosity and not turn them off to science by numbing them with terms, book work, and tests. Young people naturally want to figure things out and we need to nurture that innate desire to be a scientist. We can inspire students with the work of scientists of their countries of origin or ethnicity, their humanitarian concerns involving diseases and hunger, and even gender. My students always found it interesting that it was a woman who did most of the original work that enabled Watson and Crick to elucidate the double helix. Students need to realize that scientists and developers like Bill Gates (who also happens to be the world's welathiest man) are held in very high esteem in certain cultures.
In conclusion the teachers in the study reported a lot of the same feelings and opinions I have had over the years, including; it is important to humanize science ans scientists, intrinsic as well as extrinsic motivation is necessary, science/politics/social factors are often closely tied together, scientists must work together and build on other scientists' work, and diverse cultural and heritage role models can be displayed. I disagree with the teachers about elementary students not benefitting from historical perspectives and the lack of procedural understanding.
Bibliographic Note:
Hsingchi A. Wang and David D. Marsh, "Science Instruction with a Humanistic Twist: Teacher's Perception and Practice in Using the History of Science in Their Classrooms", Science & Education, 2002, 11:169-189.
The authors defend their conclusions through statistical analyses, the teacher interviews, and by describing the framework in which history of science can be included. The three componenents are conceptual, procedural, and contextual understanding. They also touch on some topics from some of my other readings for this course, including Kuhn and Conant as they lay out the efforts that have been made over the years to humanize science education. They describe the golden age of science education after the launch of Sputnik, attempts to form an enlightened citizenry, and the standards-based science education reform that started in the 1980's. I have always felt even though there are certain basic ideas and terminology that students must know to be competent in science, it is much more important to help young people be able to think critically, evaluate data, and make decisions.
The authors give in my opinion valid reasons for conceptual understanding being brought about through history of science, and they consistently cite other studies and authors to support their points. To achieve procedural understanding they show how students work in class can parallel scientists' work both in the past and present. I appreciated how they point out that the process of investigation is rife with errors, and great discoveries such as antibiotics can come about through apparent laboratory "mistakes". They also stress the importance of deductive reasoning and not having students just perform cook-book labs that merely verify what is already known. This brings me back again to the Learning Cycle and the workshop that inspired me to pursue my PhD. In the Learning Cycle the students perform the procedure and then develop the concepts, not unlike what scientists have done for centuries. The potential for humanizing science in this context is limitless. History of science for contextual understanding is as important as the previous two, in my opinion. The authors discuss psychological, social, and cultural factors and give clear examples involving Einstein, Curie, and others. We need to take advantage of children's natural curiosity and not turn them off to science by numbing them with terms, book work, and tests. Young people naturally want to figure things out and we need to nurture that innate desire to be a scientist. We can inspire students with the work of scientists of their countries of origin or ethnicity, their humanitarian concerns involving diseases and hunger, and even gender. My students always found it interesting that it was a woman who did most of the original work that enabled Watson and Crick to elucidate the double helix. Students need to realize that scientists and developers like Bill Gates (who also happens to be the world's welathiest man) are held in very high esteem in certain cultures.
In conclusion the teachers in the study reported a lot of the same feelings and opinions I have had over the years, including; it is important to humanize science ans scientists, intrinsic as well as extrinsic motivation is necessary, science/politics/social factors are often closely tied together, scientists must work together and build on other scientists' work, and diverse cultural and heritage role models can be displayed. I disagree with the teachers about elementary students not benefitting from historical perspectives and the lack of procedural understanding.
Bibliographic Note:
Hsingchi A. Wang and David D. Marsh, "Science Instruction with a Humanistic Twist: Teacher's Perception and Practice in Using the History of Science in Their Classrooms", Science & Education, 2002, 11:169-189.
Day 4 History of Biology Survey
Today's reading was the chapter in Lindberg on Greek and Roman medicine. I found this to be interesting reading and as a further reading note would like to finish the book as time permits. Overall I am beginning to get more of a feel for the progression of the course and how biology in particular has developed over the centuries. I am particularly fascinated by the teleological ideas as they pertain to the human body and its study, and how the author defends Galen's work and stresses that it must be viewed within the context of what was known and understood in the second century. As Lindberg points out we still obviously don't have all the answers today, and it's inappropriate to laugh at the idea that the ancient gods were responsible for some diseases when we today have scientific studies concerned with whether prayer somehow speeds up the healing process.
The section on Hippocratic medicine was interesting to me, because of course we are all familiar with the Hippocratic oath that doctors still take today. Apparently they were among the first to emphasize disease and health and deemphasize supernatural aspects of medicine. The four "humors" and their balance are mentioned, but they also used case histories and learned methods to make diagnoses and prognoses and inquiry and a critical approach in this process. Apparently it wasn't until the third century that human and animal dissection and more concern with anatomical and physiological structure and function became prevalent. Herophilus and Erasistratus are mentioned regarding their ideas of how the human body functions, and came up with ideas like pneuma, arteries, veins, and how the nervous system works. It was also interesting to me how the Hellenistic sects came about and the contrasting viewpoints they presented. I wonder if there had been more cohesion of thought and practice if medicine and and biology could have advanced further and faster during this time. It seems to me if the "empiricists" and "rationalists" had worked together they were both on the right track, but coming from different directions. The "pneumatists" and other groups seemed to be less productive in their thinking and practices.
After having said that, Galen comes along and he is by far the most interesting part of the reading. As a further reading note anything about him would be interesting to me. As a teacher, I could point to him as an example of one who drew from various disciplines and schools of thought to create his own useful advancements, ideas and methods. I stress to my students to always be open-minded, learn a variety of viewpoints from a variety of sources and incorporate their best individual aspects into what you feel is the optimal solution or hypothesis. Closed-mindedness is both the scientist's and general educated person's worst enemy, in my opinion.
I would like to see examples of Galen's anatomical work, and it is fascinating how he tied the three physiological components (heart, brain, and liver ) to Platos' three faculties of the soul (passion, rational thought, and appetite). He actually understood the physiology of the cardiovascular system reasonably well, given the limitations of the time. In conclusion Galen is an intriguing figure in historical science and was probably the highlight of this reading for me.
Bibliographic Note:
David C. Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science, (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1992). This book is a wonderful and informative discussion of the European scientific tradition in philosophica, religious, and institutional context from 600 B.C. to A.D. 1450.
Further Study Note:
Charles Singer, A Short History of Anatomy and Physiology from the Greeks to Harvey
Temkin, Galenism
Karl E. Rothschuh, History of Physiology
The section on Hippocratic medicine was interesting to me, because of course we are all familiar with the Hippocratic oath that doctors still take today. Apparently they were among the first to emphasize disease and health and deemphasize supernatural aspects of medicine. The four "humors" and their balance are mentioned, but they also used case histories and learned methods to make diagnoses and prognoses and inquiry and a critical approach in this process. Apparently it wasn't until the third century that human and animal dissection and more concern with anatomical and physiological structure and function became prevalent. Herophilus and Erasistratus are mentioned regarding their ideas of how the human body functions, and came up with ideas like pneuma, arteries, veins, and how the nervous system works. It was also interesting to me how the Hellenistic sects came about and the contrasting viewpoints they presented. I wonder if there had been more cohesion of thought and practice if medicine and and biology could have advanced further and faster during this time. It seems to me if the "empiricists" and "rationalists" had worked together they were both on the right track, but coming from different directions. The "pneumatists" and other groups seemed to be less productive in their thinking and practices.
After having said that, Galen comes along and he is by far the most interesting part of the reading. As a further reading note anything about him would be interesting to me. As a teacher, I could point to him as an example of one who drew from various disciplines and schools of thought to create his own useful advancements, ideas and methods. I stress to my students to always be open-minded, learn a variety of viewpoints from a variety of sources and incorporate their best individual aspects into what you feel is the optimal solution or hypothesis. Closed-mindedness is both the scientist's and general educated person's worst enemy, in my opinion.
I would like to see examples of Galen's anatomical work, and it is fascinating how he tied the three physiological components (heart, brain, and liver ) to Platos' three faculties of the soul (passion, rational thought, and appetite). He actually understood the physiology of the cardiovascular system reasonably well, given the limitations of the time. In conclusion Galen is an intriguing figure in historical science and was probably the highlight of this reading for me.
Bibliographic Note:
David C. Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science, (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1992). This book is a wonderful and informative discussion of the European scientific tradition in philosophica, religious, and institutional context from 600 B.C. to A.D. 1450.
Further Study Note:
Charles Singer, A Short History of Anatomy and Physiology from the Greeks to Harvey
Temkin, Galenism
Karl E. Rothschuh, History of Physiology
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Day 3 Historiography
Holton's article explains the reasons historians of science and science teachers should work together, and attempts to give ways this can be brought about. He mainly does three things; give examples of such cooperation, lays out five specific courses of action by which this may be accomplished, enumerate and describe the ideaologies of potential partners in this pursuit. The author is kind enough to point out the enormous time and paperwork commitments that often hamper our desire to be better and more effective science teachers, even specifically mentioning the pre-college level. Holton outlines his five mechanisms as actually writing curricula that incorporate history of science, its inclusion in new national and state educational benchmarks and standards, placing articles in professional journals, attending meetings, and finding "barrier-crossers" who are willing to carry the flag for the incorporation of more history of science. He goes on to give specific examples of all five, and I especially appreciated the notion that a well-rounded, educated, productive citizen of the world, regardless of their area of expertise, should have a general understanding of important scientific achievements throughout history and their societal and cultural effects. I especially liked Rabi's question to any student posing a research problem as "will it bring you nearer to God?". I for one have never felt that religion and science are mutually exclusive, and as the Bible says, to paraphrase, "when we know everything we become as unto God himself". It's hard to say if the human species will be around long enough to ever know everything, but of course our goal as scientists and teachers is to try to keep learning about and explaining the universe around us, and that in and of itself means keeping the context in which previous learning has taken place, and by that I mean appreciating the history of science. I would say this has been my favorite reading so far, as I learned a lot about attempts to broaden curricula in the past, and ongoing ways to include more history of science in my science classes.
Rutherford's article made one overriding point that stuck with me, and that is that no matter how many large-scale attempts are made at the national and state levels to improve science education, it ultimately comes down to the individual teachers in the classroom and their desire and willingness to truly teach science as a process and include significant and relevant historical elements. My experience in 17 years of teaching from third grade through high school is that there are too many coaches masquerading as science teachers and even "true" teachers who just go through the motions to pick up a paycheck and/or get out to the athletic practice fields in the afternoons. It's easy to just have the students read or take notes, answer the questions at the end of the chapters, and give them a test on it. Labs, other than looking at a few microscope slides or dissecting a frog, are virtually non-existent in many cases, not to mention original research projects and outside readings, including historical ones. I used to submit my senior AP/IB/Honors Biology students to what we called "interrogations", or group oral quizzes, based on notes taken from select readings in Scientific American. These articles are wonderful because they usually include the relevant science leading up to the current school of thought on that topic. I had many students report back later that this format did more to prepare them for university and broadened their thinking more than anything else they did in high school. Going back to science teachers, and Rutherford's article, all the initiatives he discusses such as the Project Physics and Project 2061 are great in theory, but again the problem is often implementation at the classroom level. I know many teachers view in-service or staff development as goof-off days with no students, and presentations are often forgotten by both teachers and administrators as soon as they walk out the door. There is often little in the way of following through on what is presented. This was an informative article, and it exposed me to some curricula materials and programs that I could and should investigate further and utilize in my classroom. It also reminded me that today we have a tremendous resource in the internet that makes much of this support available at our fingertips, for both the student and teacher. The point the author makes about the success of such programs only being able to be evaluated over many years is valid, but I am reminded of what Kuhn said that overall we are apparently doing a good job in science and science education, but of course we should always strive to do better.
Bibliographic Note:
Gerald Holton, "What Historians of Science and Science Educators Can Do For Each Other", Science & Education, 2003, 12: 603-616
F. James Rutherford, "Fostering the History of Science in American Science Education", Science & Education, 2001, 10: 569-580
Rutherford's article made one overriding point that stuck with me, and that is that no matter how many large-scale attempts are made at the national and state levels to improve science education, it ultimately comes down to the individual teachers in the classroom and their desire and willingness to truly teach science as a process and include significant and relevant historical elements. My experience in 17 years of teaching from third grade through high school is that there are too many coaches masquerading as science teachers and even "true" teachers who just go through the motions to pick up a paycheck and/or get out to the athletic practice fields in the afternoons. It's easy to just have the students read or take notes, answer the questions at the end of the chapters, and give them a test on it. Labs, other than looking at a few microscope slides or dissecting a frog, are virtually non-existent in many cases, not to mention original research projects and outside readings, including historical ones. I used to submit my senior AP/IB/Honors Biology students to what we called "interrogations", or group oral quizzes, based on notes taken from select readings in Scientific American. These articles are wonderful because they usually include the relevant science leading up to the current school of thought on that topic. I had many students report back later that this format did more to prepare them for university and broadened their thinking more than anything else they did in high school. Going back to science teachers, and Rutherford's article, all the initiatives he discusses such as the Project Physics and Project 2061 are great in theory, but again the problem is often implementation at the classroom level. I know many teachers view in-service or staff development as goof-off days with no students, and presentations are often forgotten by both teachers and administrators as soon as they walk out the door. There is often little in the way of following through on what is presented. This was an informative article, and it exposed me to some curricula materials and programs that I could and should investigate further and utilize in my classroom. It also reminded me that today we have a tremendous resource in the internet that makes much of this support available at our fingertips, for both the student and teacher. The point the author makes about the success of such programs only being able to be evaluated over many years is valid, but I am reminded of what Kuhn said that overall we are apparently doing a good job in science and science education, but of course we should always strive to do better.
Bibliographic Note:
Gerald Holton, "What Historians of Science and Science Educators Can Do For Each Other", Science & Education, 2003, 12: 603-616
F. James Rutherford, "Fostering the History of Science in American Science Education", Science & Education, 2001, 10: 569-580
Monday, June 26, 2006
Day 3 History of Biology Survey
Even though many of the images in this exhibit were not yet available for viewing online I would appreciate seeing some of them when I visit the collections again, especially those pertaining to human anatomical studies. I was struck by the beauty and artistry of the ones that were available, especially the herbals. Some of the points I found most interesting were blood-letting, the treatment of syphilis with mercury (!), the various ideas about the causes of disease, and the perceived relationships between astronomy, astrology, and anatomy.
Probably most surprising to me was the detail of the drawings, and the ideas that were the cornerstones of science at the time, such as those mentioned above. Also confounding was that for all their beauty the drawings were often not technically sound. This course is helping me to understand and appreciate the context in which these ideas were founded, and as I progress through the readings and images I hope to have gained a better overall appreciation for the flow and development of biological thought from century to century. I also noticed that science seemed to be restricted to the upper classes and clergy and found that interesting.
As a science educator I found this survey useful because I can refer to these online exhibits as a teaching tool and help my students appreciate how far science has come over the centuries by actually showing them and not just telling them about it. I also feel it is imperative that I personally have a better overall feel for how scientific thought has developed and this will make me a better teacher in general.
I would like to see or read the following because frankly I have never been exposed to original works like these and I appreciate their artistry and scientific importance (also Further Study note):
Herball of John Gerard (1597)
Fuchs' De historia stirpium (1547)
Paracelsus. Prognostication auff XXIIII. Augspurg, Getruckt durch H. Steyner, (1536)
Anothomia Mondini nuper optime emedata ac suma diligitia ipressa. Venetiis, Bonetum Locatelli Bergomesuz, 1507. (12 leaves, 32 cm, not illustrated)
Charles Estienne. De dissectione partium corporis humani libri tres, a Carolo Stephano, doctore medico, editi. Vna cum figuris et incisionum declarationibus, a Stephano Riuerio chirurgo copositis. Parisiis, Apud S. Colinaeum, 1545.
Bibliographic Note:
Kerry Magruder,History of Science Online Exhibits, "Part 1. Materia Medica and Herbals: Intro" http://hsci.cas.ou.edu/exhibits/exhibit.php?exbgrp=-999&exbid=48&exbpg=9
These web pages give an overview of some of the drawings and concepts of the 16th century life sciences.
Probably most surprising to me was the detail of the drawings, and the ideas that were the cornerstones of science at the time, such as those mentioned above. Also confounding was that for all their beauty the drawings were often not technically sound. This course is helping me to understand and appreciate the context in which these ideas were founded, and as I progress through the readings and images I hope to have gained a better overall appreciation for the flow and development of biological thought from century to century. I also noticed that science seemed to be restricted to the upper classes and clergy and found that interesting.
As a science educator I found this survey useful because I can refer to these online exhibits as a teaching tool and help my students appreciate how far science has come over the centuries by actually showing them and not just telling them about it. I also feel it is imperative that I personally have a better overall feel for how scientific thought has developed and this will make me a better teacher in general.
I would like to see or read the following because frankly I have never been exposed to original works like these and I appreciate their artistry and scientific importance (also Further Study note):
Herball of John Gerard (1597)
Fuchs' De historia stirpium (1547)
Paracelsus. Prognostication auff XXIIII. Augspurg, Getruckt durch H. Steyner, (1536)
Anothomia Mondini nuper optime emedata ac suma diligitia ipressa. Venetiis, Bonetum Locatelli Bergomesuz, 1507. (12 leaves, 32 cm, not illustrated)
Charles Estienne. De dissectione partium corporis humani libri tres, a Carolo Stephano, doctore medico, editi. Vna cum figuris et incisionum declarationibus, a Stephano Riuerio chirurgo copositis. Parisiis, Apud S. Colinaeum, 1545.
Bibliographic Note:
Kerry Magruder,History of Science Online Exhibits, "Part 1. Materia Medica and Herbals: Intro" http://hsci.cas.ou.edu/exhibits/exhibit.php?exbgrp=-999&exbid=48&exbpg=9
These web pages give an overview of some of the drawings and concepts of the 16th century life sciences.
Day 2 Historiography
In Chapter 6 "Anomaly and the Emergence of Scientific Discoveries" Kuhn describes "normal" science as a "puzzle-solving" activity because it's through the aggregation and accumulation of related experiments and discoveries that the overall picture of a true theory or paradigm emerge. That is, various pieces of the puzzle have to fall into place over time before the entirety can be recognized and appreciated for what it is. It is also difficult to define the act of discovery for this reason. Kuhn gives examples of scientists "discovering" x-rays, oxygen, or nuclear fission and not recognizing what they had done or being able to fit it into the context of their level of understanding at the time. As Kuhn points out, Lavoisier, Priestley, Scheele, and even others could all lay claim to "discovering" oxygen. A paradigm is a set of values, concepts,and assumptions that constitute the way a community views reality, referring here of course to the scientific community. A change in paradigm would be a shift in expectations radical enough to alter our overall viewpoint of a situation, or enough anomalies manifesting themselves that a total revamping of the paradigm is needed. This then calls for the development of more specialized and advanced equipment, vocabulary, skills, and concepts to further pursue anomalies against the backdrop of the new paradigm. I appreciate Kuhn's explanation of how science works and develops through time. He crystallized for the reader how the restriction of a current paradigm allows new discoveries to cumulatively bring about new paradigms, driving the engine of scientific discovery. I enjoyed this selection and will go ahead and read the entire volume.
In Chapter 13 "Progress Through Revolutions" Kuhn discusses science education. He describes how in music, art, literature, history, and the social sciences students learn by being exposed to the works of other artists or researchers, developing their own ideas and works, with textbooks playing a limited role. In science however we rely almost exclusively on textbooks, at least until we start doing our own research, sometimes not until the level of graduate school. He does note that in general this type of science education has been successful, because it grounds and immerses the student in the rigid paradigms of the time, and makes the flexible scientific community able to take notice and make changes as necessary, at least in the long-term and big-picture. I don't agree with his idea that a student of physics doesn't need to read original works just because he has a textbook that summarizes them. I have always believed the sooner a student starts doing their own research, both in the library and the laboratory, the better off they are as developing scientists, and the better equipped they are to draw their own conclusions.
In conclusion Kuhn's main points were that science discovery is a process involving the creation of new paradigms as anomalies are found and that history of science unto itself is an essential component in science education. He used historical examples and comparisons to other disciplines to support his points. Most interesting to me was the idea that due to the nature of science it is difficult to point to specific examples of discovery, as it is a cumulative and ongoing process. This reading applies to me as an educator because I have always tried to stress the history and process of science by utilizing research papers, historical accounts, and Scientific American while deemphasizing an over-dependence on the textbook.
Bibliographic Note:
Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1996). This book deals with the history of science and science as a process but it applies to many disciplines.
In Chapter 13 "Progress Through Revolutions" Kuhn discusses science education. He describes how in music, art, literature, history, and the social sciences students learn by being exposed to the works of other artists or researchers, developing their own ideas and works, with textbooks playing a limited role. In science however we rely almost exclusively on textbooks, at least until we start doing our own research, sometimes not until the level of graduate school. He does note that in general this type of science education has been successful, because it grounds and immerses the student in the rigid paradigms of the time, and makes the flexible scientific community able to take notice and make changes as necessary, at least in the long-term and big-picture. I don't agree with his idea that a student of physics doesn't need to read original works just because he has a textbook that summarizes them. I have always believed the sooner a student starts doing their own research, both in the library and the laboratory, the better off they are as developing scientists, and the better equipped they are to draw their own conclusions.
In conclusion Kuhn's main points were that science discovery is a process involving the creation of new paradigms as anomalies are found and that history of science unto itself is an essential component in science education. He used historical examples and comparisons to other disciplines to support his points. Most interesting to me was the idea that due to the nature of science it is difficult to point to specific examples of discovery, as it is a cumulative and ongoing process. This reading applies to me as an educator because I have always tried to stress the history and process of science by utilizing research papers, historical accounts, and Scientific American while deemphasizing an over-dependence on the textbook.
Bibliographic Note:
Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1996). This book deals with the history of science and science as a process but it applies to many disciplines.
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Day 2 History of Biology survey
1. I feel Aristotle believed biology should be studied because its components, from the simplest organisms to the most complex are easily accessible to us (unlike celestial objects), they are the essence of the "substance" that is most like us, and they each accomplish various life functions in different ways. Celestial objects are too far away and Aristotle believed we could never truly understand them. I feel biology should be studied because as a pure science we are just trying to figure out what things are made of and how they work, and in turn we can apply what we have learned to understand how living things function, from the level of the biosphere all the way down to cells and even molecules and atoms. We learn about ourselves by studying all aspects of biology.
2. I agree with Aristotle's idea of aiming for causal knowledge because biology is based on the concept of structure and function; what it is, how it works, and in turn how all living things interact with their internal and external environments. Biologists should always strive for the how and the why, and how the parts work together as a whole.
3. Aristotle believed even the simplest organisms deserved to be studied because they all have something interesting, exciting, or unique to offer. He refers to the different means by which they all accomplish various life functions and behaviors. He says if one is not inclined to study any aspect of nature they are in turn reluctant to study man himself. Aristotle also discusses how the components of an organism are not the point, but the whole being, and how it lives, that is the goal and point of the study.
4.The cause of organisms can be determined through dissection because comprehensive comparative anatomy can reveal systematic and evolutionary relationships unseen otherwise. Conversely, dissection is limited in terms of study of live behaviors, biochemical, and molecular studies.
The most interesting part of this reading is that Aristotle was laying the foundation for modern science and trying to describe and explain natural phenomena. I was surprised he performed dissections, and I didn't know that he considered living things paradigms of the "substance" that constitutes the universe. I learned more about the philosophy of causation, and appreciate more all the years I supervised student dissections of various specimens. I would like to see this document when I visit the collections.
Bibliographic note:
Magruder, History of Science Online, Week4: Plato and Aristotle, http://homepage.mac.com/kvmagruder/hsci/04-Aristotle-Plato/aristotle-animals.html this web page included my first reading for my history of science course.
Further study:
Aristotle, Parts of Animals, Book I.5
Also History of Animals and Generation of Animals
2. I agree with Aristotle's idea of aiming for causal knowledge because biology is based on the concept of structure and function; what it is, how it works, and in turn how all living things interact with their internal and external environments. Biologists should always strive for the how and the why, and how the parts work together as a whole.
3. Aristotle believed even the simplest organisms deserved to be studied because they all have something interesting, exciting, or unique to offer. He refers to the different means by which they all accomplish various life functions and behaviors. He says if one is not inclined to study any aspect of nature they are in turn reluctant to study man himself. Aristotle also discusses how the components of an organism are not the point, but the whole being, and how it lives, that is the goal and point of the study.
4.The cause of organisms can be determined through dissection because comprehensive comparative anatomy can reveal systematic and evolutionary relationships unseen otherwise. Conversely, dissection is limited in terms of study of live behaviors, biochemical, and molecular studies.
The most interesting part of this reading is that Aristotle was laying the foundation for modern science and trying to describe and explain natural phenomena. I was surprised he performed dissections, and I didn't know that he considered living things paradigms of the "substance" that constitutes the universe. I learned more about the philosophy of causation, and appreciate more all the years I supervised student dissections of various specimens. I would like to see this document when I visit the collections.
Bibliographic note:
Magruder, History of Science Online, Week4: Plato and Aristotle, http://homepage.mac.com/kvmagruder/hsci/04-Aristotle-Plato/aristotle-animals.html this web page included my first reading for my history of science course.
Further study:
Aristotle, Parts of Animals, Book I.5
Also History of Animals and Generation of Animals
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Day 1
Why study the history of science?
As a science educator, and possibly as a trainer of other science teachers one day, it is imperative that I have a better overall knowledge and appreciation for the history of science. I should have a greater understanding of science in terms of other societies such as India and China and have an overall more astute comprehension of the role of science in civilization and human history in general, including socially, philosophically, economically, technologically, and even militarily. I hope to learn to be a more proficient researcher, and I am fortunate to be able to utilize the tremendous history of science collection at the University of Oklahoma.
Why include history of science in science instruction?
Many national and state science learning standards are including history of science, science as inquiry, nature of science, and science in personal and social perspectives. Students have often heard of some of the more famous scientists, such as Darwin, Einstein and Newton, and they can be made relatable and personalized by the teacher. Others they have heard of indirectly but don't realize it, such as Pasteur (pasteurized milk) and Lister (Listerine). They also often don't realize how recent many important scientific advances they take for granted are in terms of human history. One of the things that drew me to the PhD program I am in at OU was my exposure to the Learning Cycle in Dr. Pedersen's workshop last summer. This philosophy encourages students to learn concepts with limited prior knowledge by obtaining data and then analyzing it to draw out concepts, much as scientists, especially early ones, have done throughout history. It shows students how scientists have actually done science historically including its methods, achievements, and even limitations.
How can I and other science educators benefit from studying history of science? What can we gain?
I and science educators in general can benefit from studying the history of science for all of the reasons listed above. Of course their students in turn will benefit as well. I have always enjoyed studying history in general, and learning about it in the context of the history of science just makes it that much more rewarding and enriching for me. The idea of historiography is new to me, but also very intriguing. My training and interests have always focused on the life sciences and I am especially fascinated by the development of microbiology as a science, and how it has benefitted us. The battle between biogenesis and abiogenesis proponents and the religious, philosophical, and cultural implications of that battle has always fascinated me, and this course gives me an opportunity to learn even more about it.
As a science educator, and possibly as a trainer of other science teachers one day, it is imperative that I have a better overall knowledge and appreciation for the history of science. I should have a greater understanding of science in terms of other societies such as India and China and have an overall more astute comprehension of the role of science in civilization and human history in general, including socially, philosophically, economically, technologically, and even militarily. I hope to learn to be a more proficient researcher, and I am fortunate to be able to utilize the tremendous history of science collection at the University of Oklahoma.
Why include history of science in science instruction?
Many national and state science learning standards are including history of science, science as inquiry, nature of science, and science in personal and social perspectives. Students have often heard of some of the more famous scientists, such as Darwin, Einstein and Newton, and they can be made relatable and personalized by the teacher. Others they have heard of indirectly but don't realize it, such as Pasteur (pasteurized milk) and Lister (Listerine). They also often don't realize how recent many important scientific advances they take for granted are in terms of human history. One of the things that drew me to the PhD program I am in at OU was my exposure to the Learning Cycle in Dr. Pedersen's workshop last summer. This philosophy encourages students to learn concepts with limited prior knowledge by obtaining data and then analyzing it to draw out concepts, much as scientists, especially early ones, have done throughout history. It shows students how scientists have actually done science historically including its methods, achievements, and even limitations.
How can I and other science educators benefit from studying history of science? What can we gain?
I and science educators in general can benefit from studying the history of science for all of the reasons listed above. Of course their students in turn will benefit as well. I have always enjoyed studying history in general, and learning about it in the context of the history of science just makes it that much more rewarding and enriching for me. The idea of historiography is new to me, but also very intriguing. My training and interests have always focused on the life sciences and I am especially fascinated by the development of microbiology as a science, and how it has benefitted us. The battle between biogenesis and abiogenesis proponents and the religious, philosophical, and cultural implications of that battle has always fascinated me, and this course gives me an opportunity to learn even more about it.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Aims Essay on Incorporating Historical Perspectives into Science Courses
I read the Aims essay and agree it is important to interject a historical perspective into science courses for liberal arts students. This facilitates a broad and deep perspective as to how and why current scientific thinking has developed and engenders an appreciation for how science is intertwined with all aspects of society, including religion, philosophy, medicine, technology, commerce and so on. In my opinion no matter what field a person is entering an understanding of basic science and its history is crucial to being an informed and productive member of society. As a younger student I too was victimized by my science textbook and the way science was taught to me as a collection of static facts and ideas. It really wasn't until I started teaching that I began to appreciate the history of science and its importance in the total scheme of education. This was mainly due to my "mentor" teacher in my first job who made it a point to include in almost every lesson and lab references to the origins and subsequent development of the scientific ideas concerned. I think the incorporation of the history of science into basic courses simply makes them more exciting and personal to the students.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)