Re: Historical material

["John S. Denker" <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>]

Carl Gaither wrote:
> I came across some very interesting words written by Sir Archibald Geikie
> nearly 100 years ago in 1905.  In the introductory paragraph to Chapter I of
> "The Founders of Geology" he wrote:
>
> "In science, as in all other departments of inquiry, no thorough grasp of a
> subject can be gained unless the history of its development is clearly
> 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 lose sight and
> remembrance of the paths already trodden.  It is eminently useful, however,
> if they will now and then pause in the race, in order to look backward over
> the ground that has been traversed, to mark the errors as well as the
> successes of the journey, to note the hindrances and the helps which they
> and their predecessors have encountered, and to realise what have been the
> influences that have more especially tended to retard or quicken the
> 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 to impart into
> 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,
> always reading some classical novel for English, but I have yet to see her
> 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 "Who
> thought this stuff up?" Is it possible that the teachers don't tell the
> students where the thoughts and ideas that they are presenting in class came
> 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 of
> their specific discipline and are only trained in how to "work problems"?

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.