Difference between revisions of "Questions for physics teachers concerning history and philosophy"
(more questions on teaching) |
(→When do we invoke falsification, and when paradigm-shifts, in discussing scientific advancements?) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
Grant may be a bit hyperbolic, but should there not be some scholars crossing between physics and history to make sure to serve each field's interest in the other to the utmost? | Grant may be a bit hyperbolic, but should there not be some scholars crossing between physics and history to make sure to serve each field's interest in the other to the utmost? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===How much do we present physics as a structure of concepts and how much as what we do with certain instruments/metrics?=== | ||
| + | See [[Concepts first or practices first]]. Consider the pendulum. Do we "apply principles" to the pendulum, or do we measure it to learn? Do we have to do some of both at the same time? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Where is the authority in physics?=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===What makes a good physicist?=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Must a student of introductory recapitulate the skepticism of the era in which the learned concepts were controversial?=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Must we hold empiricist orthodoxy above all else?=== | ||
| + | See Michael R. Matthews, ''Science Teaching:The role of history and philosophy of science'' 1994, his account of Millikan vs. Ehrenhaft, where Millikan discarded observations, to Ehrenhaft's dismay, that didn't fit atomism but turned out to be correct. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===When do we invoke falsification, and when paradigm-shifts, in discussing scientific advancements?=== | ||
| + | This goes along with the question of how often we remind ourselves to teach our students to be scientists, not just what other scientists have accomplished already. | ||
| + | ===Is this field oriented towards the solution of social problems?=== | ||
[[Category:History of physics]] | [[Category:History of physics]] | ||
[[Category:Physics teaching]] | [[Category:Physics teaching]] | ||
Latest revision as of 18:14, 18 February 2013
Contents
- 1 How important is it that the history of physics, compared to other topics in physics, be taught?
- 2 Who should teach the history of physics
- 3 Will historiographers of science need scientific expertise?
- 4 How much do we present physics as a structure of concepts and how much as what we do with certain instruments/metrics?
- 5 Where is the authority in physics?
- 6 What makes a good physicist?
- 7 Must a student of introductory recapitulate the skepticism of the era in which the learned concepts were controversial?
- 8 Must we hold empiricist orthodoxy above all else?
- 9 When do we invoke falsification, and when paradigm-shifts, in discussing scientific advancements?
- 10 Is this field oriented towards the solution of social problems?
How important is it that the history of physics, compared to other topics in physics, be taught?
Consider the importance of the history of our nation, which is taught in complete courses separate from world history or ancient history.
Who should teach the history of physics
Should all courses be taught by history instructors?
Who should teach students how to write the history of physics?
Will historiographers of science need scientific expertise?
If so, how do we offer them a path to that expertise?
[Their] diminishing knowledge of science ... prevents, or seriously hinders, historians of science from writing about the content of modern sciences such as physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, medicine, and others. That task must be left to those scientists who have a desire to present the modern history of their subject to modern readers. The simple fact is that fewer and fewer historians of science have the requisite scientific knowledge to study historical texts that are technically scientific.
-Edward Grant, "Troglodyte Historian of Science" in Osiris v27, 2012.
Grant may be a bit hyperbolic, but should there not be some scholars crossing between physics and history to make sure to serve each field's interest in the other to the utmost?
How much do we present physics as a structure of concepts and how much as what we do with certain instruments/metrics?
See Concepts first or practices first. Consider the pendulum. Do we "apply principles" to the pendulum, or do we measure it to learn? Do we have to do some of both at the same time?
Where is the authority in physics?
What makes a good physicist?
Must a student of introductory recapitulate the skepticism of the era in which the learned concepts were controversial?
Must we hold empiricist orthodoxy above all else?
See Michael R. Matthews, Science Teaching:The role of history and philosophy of science 1994, his account of Millikan vs. Ehrenhaft, where Millikan discarded observations, to Ehrenhaft's dismay, that didn't fit atomism but turned out to be correct.
When do we invoke falsification, and when paradigm-shifts, in discussing scientific advancements?
This goes along with the question of how often we remind ourselves to teach our students to be scientists, not just what other scientists have accomplished already.
