Yesterday, Ben threw out the following question:
What does a scientist actually think the history of science offers?
To be frank, I don't think it's necessarily a tough question to answer, but I do think that my answer, and other answers presented will be a challenge to enact in the real life workings of scientific research.
So why is the historical context important? From an empirical standpoint, what it provides is another form of data - data that arguably has a huge impact in how science is done, and perhaps, how science should be done.
In my world, the world of biological scientific research, you tend to look at things in a variety of settings. But more often than not, these settings can broken down to particular layers: For example, in vitro, in vivo, and a wider, some call, ecological perspective. In essence, each of these layers allow someone to answer a scientific question under varying degrees of complexity.
In vitro, implies "the technique of performing a given experiment in a controlled environment outside of a living organism": in other words, in a test tube. In vivo, takes us to the arena where the experiment is done in the context of the living organism. And the ecological angle, presumes that population and environment provide much needed value to that same biological question. Although these specific labels may not technically work in other disciplines, I think it is important to note that the existence of distinct levels of analysis is something that can be applied to all sciences.
But what of the anthropological angle? Humans, after all, react to science. They react with their politics, their culture, their economics, their whims; they may even react by not reacting - all of which, of course, can have significant effects to that original scientific question, and the ability to answer it.
I guess, in my view, this is what history of science provides us with. It allows us to see how this reaction might unfold, based on (I might add) real data - i.e. the reactions of the past. It allows us to see the scientific question in yet another layer, a layer where the actions or inactions of society are considered.
Here's the thing - I'll bet that most scientists more or less agree with the above, that of course, there are important lessons to be taken from history. But do they find themselves having to articulate that importance? Probably not. Is it a factor in their grant proposal, or in their day to day roles as managers/players of a research machine? Almost certainly not.
Which presents us with the conundrum: whereby I gather that in the eyes of most scientists, the history of science is one of those things that matter, but doesn't really matter.
Is this a problem? Especially in this day and age where science can move society in big overt steps? Ironically, that's a question perfect for the science historian - although you kind of hope that its one best discussed with others in the mix.
Anyway, because this is an interesting question, I hope you can pass this question on to other scientists who happen to blog. Part of the reason Ben put it out there, I think, is to see whether this dialogue can also involve some of the marvelous mechanics of the internet. Can we call this a meme? Maybe a mini-meme?
(image from gapingvoid.com)
- Log in to post comments
I think history of science is important because it informs us as to how a discovery was made, what social context it happened in, and what society was willing to do with this new knowledge.
Too much of science education is the spoiler and not enough of the story. Oh, you can learn that Cavendish 'weighed' the earth but the bigger story, the bigger lesson, is what he did to eke out that tiny force. The tale of how a science experiment is performed (again and again) - where the researcher maps out the territory surrounding his/her unknown and comes at it from different ways only to arrive at the same point - is a lesson that would not be without history of science.
In some ways, the "how" of what they did is as important as the "what" they got out of it.
Willy has it: insights into how scientific advances are made by individual scientists are as interesting as the theories they advance. Without a history of science, where are we left regarding how science is actually done (and has been done) - Magic? Voodoo? Who-cares-all-that-matters-is-the-end-result?
That would be a sad (and unproductive) state.
The history of science also demonstrates the vast chasm that exists between science and religion. Scientists repeatedly alter and revise their theories and opinions based on new data. We have seen no religion do that in spite of the overwhelming evidence that human DNA and nonhuman DNA are identical in some areas. The major religions still contend that humans were created by their god in the image of that god. Oh, there are individual religious �leaders� that have let go of some of the traditional dogma, but the massive bulk of the religious community steadfastly clings to archaic and superstitious drivel from the dark ages.
Ron, I think you would be quite surprised at how many similarities there were between the practice of science and the practice of religion in the past and the present - if you stepped back and took a look.
re: "Scientists repeatedly alter and revise their theories and opinions based on new data."
This is a bit oversimplified. There is often intense competition between scientists over what is "truth" and what is valuable data and what is valuable research and who has (should have) the power to determine what is truth, etc...
Rarely, are old scientific theories quickly discarded in favour of new ones. Off the top of my head, I am thinking of the lag in time it took to accept the "truths" set forth by scientists like Alice Stewart (re: x-rays and pregnant women); Barbara McClintock's work on genetics...