HISTORYofSCIENCE SOCIETY 1993 Annaal Mccting &nu Fe, NM Nahum Kipnis Bakken Library and Museum 3537 Zenith Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55416 612-927-6508', Fax: 612-927-7265 HISTORY OF SCIENCE ENTERS THHOUGH THE BACK DOOR Hislory of Science Society Panel on History of Science in Science Educalion Santa Fe, NM, November 12, 1993 The question of whelher or not to use the history ot science in teaching science has been debated by hislorians for quite a while. The advantages appeared obvious, but so was lhe fear to compromise the history of science by not being able to present it properly. Consequently, when some historians (Holton) attempted to incorporate the history of science into science curriculum, they did nol receive much supporl from their colleagues. While historians argued among themselves, science teachers at both secondary and poslsecondary levels look the matler in their own hands and started using history as lhey saw fit. "You do it all wrong," historians began to object, but lhe practitioners didn't listen. What shall historians now do: to join the train Improving Science Education or to stand by and crilicize the engineer and passengers? Probably, only a few will join, and each individual will address the problem depending on hiyher background, current.iob, and an experience (if any) in leaching science. While trying to keep a balance between history and teaching science, some (Douglas Allchin, for one) will be more concerned wilh the former, and olhers (myself including), with the latler. Let me explain my position. I do both research in the history ol science and teaching science, and, which is especially important, lteach science teachers (everyone agrees that we shall start the revolution with educating teachers). Thus, my situation appears to be ideal tor helping teachers lo transform lhe "technical" science they teach inlo the "liberal" one (in Michael Matthew's terms). The trouble is that teachers are not quite familiar even wilh the "lechnical" science, which means no foundalion to build on. lf so, what shall we teach such leachers first: hislory and philosophy, or science? My answer: .Both, if you can; otherwise, science." To become receptive lo the change historians and philosophers want, the secondary-school science has lo undergo first another change. Currently, 'learning science" means memorizing a certain number o{ terms, rules, laws, and equations. Studenls are unable to apply this knowledge to any new problem. Memorizing a few more dates or names ol scientists will nol add much. ll sludents are not accustomed to ask "why" relalive lhe ordinary subject matter, why should they be more curious about historical or philosophical issues? The first stage in reforming science educalion is to shift the emphasis trom memorizing facts to developing skills of thinking, reasoning, and systematic purposeful work. Another problem is a preoccupation with the deductive method. First, sludents learn a theory (or a law), and then how to illustrate it by experiment. Finally, lhere is an obvious obsession with modern science, which in physics is simply ridiculous. The only thing students can do about such a concept as "coherenl light" or "super-conductivity", presented in a short paragraph, is to memorize it without any understanding. Can lhis primary change in science teaching be done without involving history/philosophy. The answer is: 'Yes." That is exactly how I slart wi.th teachers. The motto is:'Back to basics" (or "Back to Nature"). These refer to lhe subject matter and the methodology involved. As much as possible, I use the induclive method: observing phenomena, then deriving empirical rules or laws, and tinally connecting lhem with a general theory. I concentrale on activities which enhance students' parlicipation, crealivity, and thinking abilities, and allow them a belter understanding of nature. This means qualitative experiments, it means laboratory and home experiments, and it means invesligative experiments. lcould do all this without involving any history but I chose lhe opposile: lo use history as much as possible even where il was not necessary. The idea was to sell history by packaging it with other attraclions. Whether we like it or not, we have to humble ourselves to the idea, already noted by Doug, that to teachers hislory of science is a teaching tool and nol a subject. As a subjecl, the history of science can be taught only to those who have already mastered science, and this is very difficult to achieve even al a college level. What does attract science leachers in history? Some discuss the history o{ cerlain scientific discoveries and biographies of scientists. To enliven their lectures teachers are eager lo use any funny detail they can lind ("did Tycho Brahe have a silver nose?'). Naturally, there are many other ways to enlertain students, and only the "historically-inclined" leachersa tiny minority in the science teaching community chooses history for this purpose. ln addition to these iwo applicalions of the history of science, I use olhers, which are more imporlant, albeil less known. I found one of lhem in 1984 when watching Sam Devons demonstrating htstorical experimenls with electrostatic generators and Leyden jars made from shampoo bottles: a cheap apparatus must be an irresistible atlraclion to a teacher, and in many cases a protolype of such an apparatus can be lound in history. The benefits of other applications were nol so obvious to leachers and had to be properly presented. One ol lhem is the usage of old theories. Raised on texlbooks promoting the "modern" theories as lhe only correct ones, teachers need time to realize, for instance, that many electrical phenomena can be explained by lhe concept of an electrical iluid combined with hydrostatic and hydrodynamic models much easier than by electron theory. Aside lrom practical consideralions, using old theories stimulates an importanl discussion of lhe relation belween new and old theories, lhe purpose of new theories, etc. lnstead of talking how discoveries were made, teacher can oller to students to repeat certain historical experiments and make lhe conclusions themselves. By slighlly modifying an original apparatus in many cases their replicas can be made so inexpensive as lo allow the experimenl to be conducted as a lab. Lel's lake, for instance, Thomas Young's experiment with a hair. A hair mounted on a slide lrame is held near the eye against the pupil. When looking at a narrow source of Iight (candle flame) a student can see multicolored bands on both sides of the flame. This is a diffraction spectrum. This experiment can be performed qualitalively or quantitalively (measuring the wavelength) and is a much better introduction into diffraction lhan the traditional experiment with a diffraction grating because Young's device itself and its theory are much simpler. Unlike Doug, lam trying not to use any instrument or technique unavailable at lhe time. But this is done not for the sake of "purity" of the experiment, but to show thal scientists were able to achieve important results with very simple instruments but with a lot of diligence. Usually, I do historical experiments with teachers as investigative labs and recommend lhem lo do likewise with their students. Only at the end students (teachers) learn how close lheir findings were to lhe original ones and whether or not their procedures and arguments resembled those ol Newton, Young, and other famous scientists. The lab lormat allows each student to play a scientist, which not only improves their experimental skills but also enhances their creativily and self-confidence. Time conslrains do not allow an exact reproduction ol history. Still, there is enough history in il (instruments, logic, sequence) to give students an idea how the new knowledge is created. lam always presenting historical experiments in their connection with relevant theories, including the background o{ the experiment and ils oulcome. Whenever possible, I use scientilic debates to show teachers that there is always more than one interpretalion of an experiment, and the final conclusion results from a controversy between supporters of differenl views. Sometimes I introduce the opposite views before the experiment, and ask leachers lo lind out who was righl (Galileo or Huygens in lhe dispute on isochronous pendulum, Aristotle or Kepler on lhe rectilinearily of light, etc.) In cases such as the Galvani-Volta debate, where hislorical experiments were inconclusive, lsummarize leachers' results myself. Naturally, when reviewing old theories one does not follow all historical convolulions: first, lhere is no time for that; and second, not all pieces o{ lhe puzzle are equally instructive. Thus, simplification and selectivity are as unavoidable with theories as with experiments. Does it lead to a certain misrepresentation of history? Certainly. But if a hislorian cannol do it properly, what can we expect of ordinary teachers? lt sounds as if the "punsts,, were right when warning against using history in science education. However, before making the conclusion that a truncated history of science is inadmissible in the science class, let us see how "correct" and "complete" is science itself. lt turns oul that wilh science it is even worse, because there the tlaws do not originate from leachers' ignorance: they are sanctified by the authority of textbooks. The errors are usually the errors of omission. For instance, while "verifying" Ohm's law with an incandescent bulb students obtain silly results and wonder whom to blame: Ohm, lheir instruments, or themselves. They don'l know lhal the real culprit is the lextbook which says nothing about the limits of applicability of Ohm's law (or any otherl). Anolher example: how many texlbooks note lhat the uni{orm motion is simply an abstraction thal does not represent any real phenomenon? Can this flaw be overcome? The answer seems obvious: "Of course, just add to the textbook a little bit of this and a little bit of lhat." unfortunately, it won,t work. A student needs a certain degree of intellectual malurity and experience in dealing with the subject lo understand the "line prinl" ol science. For this reason, a simplification in presenting science is correct. The idea is that learning science occurs in stages: you start with something very simple and try to use it. For a while, you are successtul, but then you realize that you don't understand something in a specitic law (or concept). Then you go {or help to a teacher, or anolher book, or you investigate it yourself; and so it goes, ad inf initun. Bul, it the principle of approximation is good for learning science, why can't il be applied lo the history of science? I do not teach a comprehensive course ot the history of science, instead I do case studies: selecting certain concepts or laws and showing how they were inlroduced inlo science. Going from one lopic to another, sludent will notice cerlain palterns, for inslance, in the interaction of experiment and theory, and realize thal it is valid not only tor specific phenomena but for science in general. Students will learn how difficult it is to oblain consistent experimental results, that not each hypothesis turns out to be correct, lhat a small improvement in the apparalus or lhe procedure can make all the difference, etc. This firsthand experience will give students a much better appreciation tor successes and lailures of famous scienlists ot the past. Thus, learning the history of science bit by bit year by year and in different subiects (imagine we have enough teachers capable to do it), students may receive a fair idea of how science works, and how it interacts with philosophy, technology, and society. lcall my method 'hislorical-investigative" to emphasize its two major components and lheir strong interdependence. [t is described in my book Rediscovering Optlcs.l Teachers Iound that lhe historical aspect is appreciated by a smaller number of studenls than the investigalive one. However, they all learn science, learn in a proper way, and there is hope that with time their attitude towards history will improve. Thal what I see in teachers: the more investigative historical experiments lhey do, lhe more inlerest in the history of science in general they display.