Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “How Ignorance Drives Science #3” [Hake (2013)]. The abstract reads:
ABSTRACT: I recently became aware of Stuart Firestein’s (2012) http://bit.ly/198nbyH Ignorance: How It Drives Science at http://bit.ly/15NqzM1 - the introduction is online at http://bit.ly/13wLAFE.
Here Firestein means by “ignorance” (in his own words) “a particular condition of knowledge: the absence of fact, understanding, insight, or clarity about something. . . . . . This is knowledgeable ignorance, perceptive ignorance, insightful ignorance.” To most scientists Firestein's “ignorance” is simply “stupidity” - see e.g., the signature quotes.
My own three decades worth of experience as a solid-state physicist is consistent with Firestein’s thesis that “ignorance” (as defined above and called by scientists “stupidity”) drives science - see e.g., “Early History of High Field Superconductivity: 1930-1967 - A Tragicomedy in Twelve Acts” [Hake (2011)] at http://bit.ly/ojnMqo (8.8 MB), especially the Epilogue on page 28, wherein I give quotes supporting Firestein’s thesis by scientists Berlincourt, Brush, Dyson, and Pippard.
In this post I also give links to further evidence in support of Firestein's thesis:
A. Three abstracts of discussion-list posts:
a. “Re: Should the History of Science Be Rated X?” [Hake (2012a)] at http://bit.ly/NclPUR;
b. “Should the History of Science Be Rated X? ADDENDA” [Hake (2012b)] at http://bit.ly/NUe6LC; and
c. “Can Education Research Be 'Scientific'? What's 'Scientific'? ” [Hake (2012c)]at http://bit.ly/YrZJUS.
B. Two books:
a. Real Science: What it is, and what it means [Ziman (2000)] at http://bit.ly/c8N2U1, especially Ziman's statement on p. 183 http://bit.ly/16OorRe “most scientists would say that their research is directed into specific AREAS OF IGNORANCE” - My CAPS.
b. Out of the Crystal Maze: Chapters from The History of Solid State Physics [Hoddeson et al. (1992)] at http://bit.ly/195zbRk.
*******************************************
To access the complete 17 kB post please click on http://yhoo.it/17rfTBZ .
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
Google Scholar: http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52
Facebook: http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm
LinkedIn: http://linkd.in/14uycpW
“The pace of fundamental advance in physics is set by human STUPIDITY. The pace is, and always has been, very slow.”
- Freeman Dyson (1958), my CAPS
“If we wish to boast of our achievements, let us not point to the unerring pursuit of truth by a logically faultless thinking machine, but to the astonishing way in which truth can be caused to emerge from the toils of error and STUPIDITY.”
- A.B. Pippard (1977), my CAPS
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 19 July 2013.]
Hake, R.R. 2013. “How Ignorance Drives Science #2” online on the OPEN! Net-Gold archives at http://yhoo.it/17rfTBZ. Post of 19 Jul 2013 16:06:12-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being distributed to various discussion lists.
Showing posts with label Stephen Brush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stephen Brush. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Friday, July 13, 2012
Should the History of Science Be Rated X? ADDENDA
Some blog followers might be interested in a recent discussion-list post “Should the History of Science Be Rated X? ADDENDA” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:
***************************************************
In a previous post “Re: Should the History of Science Be Rated X?” at http://bit.ly/MbTWue, I copied the abstract of Stephen Brush’s (1974) http://bit.ly/OpQNbw classic essay of the above title, but was unable to furnish the references because I did not have access to Brush's complete article. I've now located an online copy at http://bit.ly/MfDWs7. In this post I give:
a. Brush's abstract with references taken from the online version of Brush (1974), but converted to quasi-APA style and updated so as to include hot-links where available;
b. reactions to Brush (1974) in articles (a) “U-Rated Not X-Rated: Reassessing How Science Students Could Benefit from Learning History of Science” [Gooday (2005)] at http://bit.ly/NPmCvB, and (b) “Does science education need the history of science?” [Gooday et al. (2008)] at http://bit.ly/LciPpO;
c. references to a over 30 articles directly relevant to the use of history in science teaching;
d. six quotes on the non-text-book-nature of science progress as borne out by my own involvement in the convoluted early history of high-magnetic-field superconductivity.
***************************************************
To access the complete 42 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/LVI5Cf.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to SDI Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
“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 (1963-1964)
“[One of the hallmarks of science literacy is to] recognize that scientific concepts (e.g., velocity, acceleration, force, energy, electrical charge, gravitational and inertial mass). . . . are invented (or created) by acts of human intelligence and are not tangible objects or substances accidentally discovered, like a fossil, or a new plant or mineral.”
- Arnold Arons (1983)
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 13 July 2012.
Arons, A.B. 1997. Teaching Introductory Physics. Wiley, publisher's information at http://bit.ly/jBcyBU. Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/bBPfop, note the searchable “Look Inside” feature.
Cardwell, D.S.L. 1963-1964. “Memoirs of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society” 106: 108.
Hake, R.R. 2012. “Should the History of Science Be Rated X? ADDENDA,” online at http://bit.ly/LVI5Cf. Post of 13 Jul 2012 13:51:41-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
***************************************************
In a previous post “Re: Should the History of Science Be Rated X?” at http://bit.ly/MbTWue, I copied the abstract of Stephen Brush’s (1974) http://bit.ly/OpQNbw classic essay of the above title, but was unable to furnish the references because I did not have access to Brush's complete article. I've now located an online copy at http://bit.ly/MfDWs7. In this post I give:
a. Brush's abstract with references taken from the online version of Brush (1974), but converted to quasi-APA style and updated so as to include hot-links where available;
b. reactions to Brush (1974) in articles (a) “U-Rated Not X-Rated: Reassessing How Science Students Could Benefit from Learning History of Science” [Gooday (2005)] at http://bit.ly/NPmCvB, and (b) “Does science education need the history of science?” [Gooday et al. (2008)] at http://bit.ly/LciPpO;
c. references to a over 30 articles directly relevant to the use of history in science teaching;
d. six quotes on the non-text-book-nature of science progress as borne out by my own involvement in the convoluted early history of high-magnetic-field superconductivity.
***************************************************
To access the complete 42 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/LVI5Cf.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to SDI Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
“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 (1963-1964)
“[One of the hallmarks of science literacy is to] recognize that scientific concepts (e.g., velocity, acceleration, force, energy, electrical charge, gravitational and inertial mass). . . . are invented (or created) by acts of human intelligence and are not tangible objects or substances accidentally discovered, like a fossil, or a new plant or mineral.”
- Arnold Arons (1983)
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 13 July 2012.
Arons, A.B. 1997. Teaching Introductory Physics. Wiley, publisher's information at http://bit.ly/jBcyBU. Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/bBPfop, note the searchable “Look Inside” feature.
Cardwell, D.S.L. 1963-1964. “Memoirs of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society” 106: 108.
Hake, R.R. 2012. “Should the History of Science Be Rated X? ADDENDA,” online at http://bit.ly/LVI5Cf. Post of 13 Jul 2012 13:51:41-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Monday, July 9, 2012
Re: Should the History of Science Be Rated X?
Some blog followers 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 (1974) 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."
**************************************************
To access the complete 14 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/MbTWue.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to SDI Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
"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.
**************************************************
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 (1974) 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."
**************************************************
To access the complete 14 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/MbTWue.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to SDI Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
"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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
