Re: [Phys-l] the twistorical approach

["Polvani, Donald G." <donald.polvani@ngc.com>]

John Denker wrote:

> If you want to study the history of science, that's commendable, but
bear in mind that it is an advanced, complicated,
> and difficult topic ... not to be confused with intro physics.

I find this an interesting perspective.  I've taught a one semester
history of science course at a local community college.  The students
are usually non-science majors satisfying one of their two science
requirements.  One science requirement course must have a lab while the
second science course requirement need not have a lab.  Most of the
non-science majors select the history of science course because it is
one of the few science courses taught without a lab.  Very few science
majors select the course.  Having little knowledge of science, most of
the students have little interest in the history of science course.
Having taught a physics course at the same community college, I can say
that the academic ability of the students taking the history of science
course is, in general, much below the ability of the physics majors.

On the other hand, as a physics major, I find the course material
fascinating.  It's like getting a chance to study all the things I was
curious about while learning physics but never had much time to study as
a student.  However, as an undergraduate at Harvard, I did have a
history of science course which was taught to junior and senior level
physics majors (and, perhaps, others as well, I don't really recall).
So, I guess I agree that the history of science is an "advanced" topic,
although, IMHO it isn't "complicated or difficult".  You just need to
already know some of the fundamentals to have an interest in learning
how we got to know those fundamentals.

Don

Dr. Donald G. Polvani
Northrop Grumman Corp.
Oceanic and Naval Systems
Annapolis, MD