STS 3301: Difference between revisions
From ShawnReevesWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| (25 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Science and Technology Studies 3301: Making of Modern Science== | ==Science and Technology Studies 3301: Making of Modern Science== | ||
{{Course| | |||
: | course=Science and Technology Studies 3301:Making of Modern Science| | ||
instructor=[http://sts.cornell.edu/people/ss536.cfm Suman Seth]| | |||
:Suman Seth | school=Cornell| | ||
date=Fall 2009| | |||
credits=4}} | |||
==Description== | ==Description== | ||
==Shawn's Writings== | ==Shawn's Writings== | ||
Almost every week I wrote a response | ===Weekly response papers=== | ||
Almost every week I wrote a paper in response to the readings, and sometimes included an epigraph or [[science history haiku]]. The challenge lay in avoiding reviewing the ideas and methods in the readings, instead arriving at my own judgments of the value or validity of the arguments therein. | |||
*[[STS3301 Paper Week 1|Week 1:Thomas Kuhn vs. Crosbie Smith]] | |||
*[[STS3301 Paper Week 2|Week 2:Standardization, intentional social change, theory vs. practice, nationalism, acceptable or taboo science, revolution, the classification of people, and indoctrination]] | |||
*[[STS3301 Paper Week 3|Week 3:Influence, style, choice, religion]] | |||
*[[STS3301 Paper Week 4|Week 4:Masters of Theory]] | |||
*[[STS3301 Paper Week 5|Week 5:The Taming of Chance]] | |||
*[[STS3301 Paper Week 6|Week 6:Chemistry and society in the great war]] | |||
*[[STS3301 Paper Week 7|Week 7:Questions]] | |||
*[[STS3301 Paper Week 8|Week 8:American Science?]] | |||
*[[STS3301 Paper Week 9|Week 9:Galison on Poincaré and Einstein]] | |||
*[[STS3301 Paper Week 10|Week 10:Debating Discontinuity and Critiquing Catastrophes]] | |||
*[[STS3301 Paper Week 11|Week 11:The Forman Thesis]] | |||
*[[STS3301 Paper Week 12|Week 12:The American Bomb]] | |||
*[[STS3301 Paper Week 13|Week 13:Is There a "Post-Modern" Physics?]] | |||
===Musings=== | |||
*[[Selection versus influence]] | |||
*[[Science history haiku]] | |||
*[[On emulation vs. creativity]] | |||
===Mid-term essay=== | |||
(See notes and essay in separate article:[[STS3301 Mid-term essay]]) | |||
I wrote about self-preservation of scientists and their work, among their peers and among general society. | |||
===Final essay=== | |||
(See notes and essay in separate article:[[STS3301 Final essay]]) | |||
;Possible inquiries | |||
:Which styles of historiography are best suited to looking at training and its part in the scientific endeavor? | |||
:"Were industrialists like Joule, concerned with their precision and efficiency, the prime creators of this compartmentalized, utilitarian physical science?" From the mid-term essay, noted by Suman Seth to be a good possible question for the final essay. | |||
:Is something like critical opalescence, measuring the outbursts of science, the meat of the history of science? Are all the successes in science incremental leaps made by people mostly shackled to their peers (social peers, work peers, family peers, religious peers), who tentatively reach just beyond their bounds? | |||
:Is training mostly reproduction with a blind touch of freedom in the hopes of creativity? | |||
==Bibliography== | ==Bibliography== | ||
| Line 17: | Line 47: | ||
==Concepts== | ==Concepts== | ||
*Blame | *Blame | ||
*[[Causality]] | |||
*Citation | *Citation | ||
*Classification by nation | *Classification by nation | ||
| Line 30: | Line 61: | ||
*Dynamic states vs. static states | *Dynamic states vs. static states | ||
*Economy | *Economy | ||
*Elitism | |||
*Empiricism | *Empiricism | ||
*Enlightenment | *Enlightenment | ||
| Line 61: | Line 93: | ||
*Schooling | *Schooling | ||
*Seeking an ideal state | *Seeking an ideal state | ||
*[[Selection versus influence]] | |||
*Selective understanding | *Selective understanding | ||
*Self-preservation of scientific endeavors in greater society | *Self-preservation of scientific endeavors in greater society | ||
| Line 68: | Line 101: | ||
*Social Acceptability | *Social Acceptability | ||
*Social Classes | *Social Classes | ||
*Social order | *[[Social order]] | ||
*Specialization | *Specialization | ||
*Standardization | *Standardization | ||
| Line 83: | Line 116: | ||
*Waste | *Waste | ||
[[Category:Courses]] | [[Category:Courses]] [[Category:History]][[Category:History of physics]] | ||
Latest revision as of 17:50, 10 April 2012
Science and Technology Studies 3301: Making of Modern Science
| Course | Science and Technology Studies 3301:Making of Modern Science |
| School | Cornell |
| Instructor | Suman Seth |
| Date | Fall 2009 |
| Credits | 4 |
Description
Shawn's Writings
Weekly response papers
Almost every week I wrote a paper in response to the readings, and sometimes included an epigraph or science history haiku. The challenge lay in avoiding reviewing the ideas and methods in the readings, instead arriving at my own judgments of the value or validity of the arguments therein.
- Week 1:Thomas Kuhn vs. Crosbie Smith
- Week 2:Standardization, intentional social change, theory vs. practice, nationalism, acceptable or taboo science, revolution, the classification of people, and indoctrination
- Week 3:Influence, style, choice, religion
- Week 4:Masters of Theory
- Week 5:The Taming of Chance
- Week 6:Chemistry and society in the great war
- Week 7:Questions
- Week 8:American Science?
- Week 9:Galison on Poincaré and Einstein
- Week 10:Debating Discontinuity and Critiquing Catastrophes
- Week 11:The Forman Thesis
- Week 12:The American Bomb
- Week 13:Is There a "Post-Modern" Physics?
Musings
Mid-term essay
(See notes and essay in separate article:STS3301 Mid-term essay) I wrote about self-preservation of scientists and their work, among their peers and among general society.
Final essay
(See notes and essay in separate article:STS3301 Final essay)
- Possible inquiries
- Which styles of historiography are best suited to looking at training and its part in the scientific endeavor?
- "Were industrialists like Joule, concerned with their precision and efficiency, the prime creators of this compartmentalized, utilitarian physical science?" From the mid-term essay, noted by Suman Seth to be a good possible question for the final essay.
- Is something like critical opalescence, measuring the outbursts of science, the meat of the history of science? Are all the successes in science incremental leaps made by people mostly shackled to their peers (social peers, work peers, family peers, religious peers), who tentatively reach just beyond their bounds?
- Is training mostly reproduction with a blind touch of freedom in the hopes of creativity?
Bibliography
Concepts
- Blame
- Causality
- Citation
- Classification by nation
- Conservation
- Constancy
- Constants
- Crisis
- Critical opalescence
- Determinism
- Dissipation
- Doom
- Drawing on sources
- Dynamic states vs. static states
- Economy
- Elitism
- Empiricism
- Enlightenment
- Free will
- Generalization
- Geographical environment
- Hypothesis, avoidance of
- Indoctrination
- Industrialization of learning
- Industrialization of scientific endeavor
- Lab technology
- Liberality
- Loyalty
- Machines of enlightenment
- Mentorship
- Nationalism
- Normal Science begets its own revolutions
- Objective
- Patronage
- Phenomena
- Philosophy
- Physical hypothesis
- Piety
- Precision
- Predictability
- Progress
- Pure vs. applied science
- Puzzle-solving
- Reductionism
- Salvation
- Schooling
- Seeking an ideal state
- Selection versus influence
- Selective understanding
- Self-preservation of scientific endeavors in greater society
- Self-preservation of scientists among peers
- Self-preservation of scientists in greater society
- Simplification
- Social Acceptability
- Social Classes
- Social order
- Specialization
- Standardization
- Statistics, normalcy, deviance
- Steady state
- Subjective
- Technical application
- Theory vs. experiment
- Tradition
- Training
- Unification
- Universality
- Utilitarianism
- Waste
