Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Carl Gaither wrote:
Archibald Geikie
I came across some very interesting words written by Sir
nearly 100 years ago in 1905. In the introductory paragraph toChapter I of
"The Founders of Geology" he wrote:thorough grasp of a
"In science, as in all other departments of inquiry, no
subject can be gained unless the history of its development is clearlylose sight and
appreciated. Nevertheless, students of Nature, while eagerly pressing
forward in the search after her secrets, are apt to keep the eye too
constantly fixed on the way that has to be travelled, and to
remembrance of the paths already trodden. It is eminentlyuseful, however,
if they will now and then pause in the race, in order to lookbackward over
the ground that has been traversed, to mark the errors as well as thewhich they
successes of the journey, to note the hindrances and the helps
and their predecessors have encountered, and to realise whathave been the
influences that have more especially tended to retard or quicken theto impart into
progress of research."
I am wondering if in the fields of physics, chemistry, biology and
mathematics there isn't a failure on the part of the teachers
the student the value and benefit of reading the historical material
pertaining to a discipline.
IMHO, calling this a "failure" would be a hideous overstatement.
I find my daughter, who is in high school,to see her
always reading some classical novel for English, but I have yet
reading any of the classical works from chemistry, biology, physics or
mathematics.
There's a very good reason for that! The history of science is an
_advanced_ subject, to be studied only _after_ one has a decent
grasp of the principles of science and the principles of history.
It is completely unsuitable as a method (let alone a substitute)
for teaching high-school physics/biology/chemistry.
I think Geikie understood this; he called attention to the errors
and hindrances that are a very very big part of the real history
of science. The student who is struggling with the basic concepts
cannot reasonably be expected to cope with these unnecessary
impediments.
I do however, see her working innumerable problems from these
disciplines and always asking, "Why do I have to learn to do this?"
That's a good question, but the answer is not rooted in history.
If the HS teacher is doing a poor job of motivating the subject,
do not jump to the conclusion that the remedy comes from history.
A much better motivation comes from the _future_ applications of
the subject.
or "Whoin class came
thought this stuff up?" Is it possible that the teachers don't tell the
students where the thoughts and ideas that they are presenting
from.
Yes, it is possible. Indeed it is highly desirable that HS
teachers don't cover the history of science.
Is it even possible that the teachers don't even know the history ofproblems"?
their specific discipline and are only trained in how to "work
Of course it is possible. I say again, the history of science
is an advanced subject. Most HS teachers don't have this particular
advanced training. And they don't need it.