Some subscribers to Phys-L might be interested in a recent
discussion-list post "Re: Should the History of Science Be Rated X?"
[Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:
**************************************************
PhysLnrR's Noah Podolefsky wrote (paraphrasing): "I might be more
comfortable with the 'recapitulation view' that students' scientific
thinking needs to go in the same order as the historical scientific
development, if the latter were presented as it actually happens -
that is, in fits and starts, with a great deal of controversy and
confusion, and 'understanding' only clearly realized in hindsight,
long after the foundational theories and experiments were done."
Nearly four decades ago science historian Stephen Brush
<http://bit.ly/OpQNbw> addressed the issue of presenting
*fictionalized* vs *actual* scientific history to students in his
classic "Should the History of Science Be Rated X? The way scientists
behave (according to historians) might not be a good model for
students."
Brush wrote "I suggest that the teacher who wants to indoctrinate his
students in the traditional role of the scientist as a neutral fact
finder should not use historical materials of the kind now being
prepared by historians of science: they will not serve his purposes."
Brush concluded: "In more recent times, hostility to science has
been intensified by the image of the 'objective,' robot-like
scientist lacking emotions and moral values. If the new approach to
the history of science really does give a more realistic picture of
the behavior of scientists, perhaps it has a 'redeeming social
significance.' Then, rather than limiting the conception of science
to the strict pattern allowed by traditional local standards, one
might try to change those standards in such a way as to reflect the
freedom that the boldest natural philosophers have always exercised."
**************************************************
"Such puzzling concepts as force, energy, etc., are man-made and were
evolved in an understandable sequence in response to acutely felt and
very real problems. They were not handed down by some celestial
textbook writer to whom they were immediately self-evident."
- D.S.L. Cardwell
REFERENCES [URL shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 09 July 2012.
Hake, R.R. 2012. "Re: Should the History of Science Be Rated X?"
online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/MbTWue>. Post
of 9 Jul 2012 13:37:53 -0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and
link to the complete post were transmitted to several discussion
lists and are also on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at
<http://bit.ly/NclPUR> with a provision for comments.