STS3301 Final essay: Difference between revisions
Created page with '==What style(s) of historiography are best for studying training in science?== ===What have we learned about training?=== In Kevles, Frayn, and Stanley, we see the struggle, be…' |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
===What constitutes evidence of a good teacher? a good curriculum?=== | ===What constitutes evidence of a good teacher? a good curriculum?=== | ||
Much positive outcome seems to be attributed in the historical record to international exchanges of scientists and students. (readings: Kevles, Seth, ... subjects:Sommerfeld, Copenhagen and Bohr, NRC/IRC fellowships, I. I. Rabi) | |||
Revision as of 21:39, 17 November 2009
What style(s) of historiography are best for studying training in science?
What have we learned about training?
In Kevles, Frayn, and Stanley, we see the struggle, between the wars, with the idea that science lacked enough consideration of ethics. As scientists were claiming wartime and or industrial powers, they often, at least in perception, overshot society's bounds of acceptability. The humanists muttered "I told you so" at every sign of hubris from the scientists. Meanwhile, science sometimes was a scapegoat for problems of urbanization, social unrest, the fog of war, and other issues. Was it a gross oversight in the pedagogy of physics in the early 20th century that it did not address ethics sufficiently, if at all?
What constitutes evidence of a good teacher? a good curriculum?
Much positive outcome seems to be attributed in the historical record to international exchanges of scientists and students. (readings: Kevles, Seth, ... subjects:Sommerfeld, Copenhagen and Bohr, NRC/IRC fellowships, I. I. Rabi)
