Comments on: Basic science and tech education

By: vkr

vkr — Thu, 26 Feb 2004 05:43:11 +0000

Some nice math and science books that I remember from my childhood: 1. James R Newman – The world of mathematics. This is in more than one volume and is a beautiful mixture of history, anecdote and serious math (with some original works by people like Euler and Laplace thrown in.). 2. R. Courant and H.Robbins – What is mathematics? 3. George Gamow-Mr Tompkins, One, two, three Infinity. Generally any book by him is great reading, though some of it may be dated. 4. Fred Hoyle – On the life and death of stars. This is one of the nicest elucidations of what happens in stars that I have read. 5. Y.I Perelman – Physics for Everyone, Physics can be fun etc. This is for middle school kids and has some really nice stuff about everyday physical phenomena and cool experiments. Also discusses the science in some of H.G Wells and Jules Verne’s science fiction ! 6. For an idea of how science is done and discoveries are made – James Watson’s book “The Double Helix” is really fun reading.

By: John Kozak

John Kozak — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:51:24 +0000

Semi-random assortment, unordered: The Feynman Lectures On Physics Conceptual Mathematics The Making of a Fly How Monkeys See the World Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

By: chris

chris — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:46:58 +0000

“I always thought it was interesting that the money in France had pictures of writers & scientists, not just politicians (in the pre-Euro days). More substantive thoughts later.” Always thought it was normal, he thought, looking at the picture of Darwin on a £10 (UK) note

By: David Foster

David Foster — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 06:13:47 +0000

There’s a new textbook coming out which focuses on both history of science/technology and on social innovation—sounds very promising. It’s “Inventing America” (Pauline Maier, Merritt Smith, et al). I have some thoughts here: http://photoncourier.blogspot.com/2003_12_01_photoncourier_archive.html#107228571093635718

By: jonathan

jonathan — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 05:38:15 +0000

I think good historical writing can very well convey the scientific method, in the same way that a well researched true-crime story can give real insights into police methodology. And it’s that method, and the analytical tools that need to be used, that are the absolutely essential things that must be conveyed in science education; the details pertaining to any particular sub-field of science can come much later. As piece of literature, as well as science writing, Paul de Kruif’s `Microbe Hunters’, a 1926 history of the pioneers in bacteriology, is a terrific book. Less literary but excellent pedagogically is almost anything by Asimov, as an earlier poster pointed out.

By: Mr Ripley

Mr Ripley — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 04:57:55 +0000

Money in Israel ditto.

By: David Foster

David Foster — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 04:36:46 +0000

I always thought it was interesting that the money in France had pictures of writers & scientists, not just politicians (in the pre-Euro days). More substantive thoughts later.

By: Will

Will — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 04:17:57 +0000

Kuhn, C.P. Snow, Feynman. Heh… no one has mentioned “A New Kind of Science” yet, on this or Felten’s blog.

By: Kieran Healy

Kieran Healy — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 04:17:15 +0000

Tied for 10th in a greatest books in world history contest!??? Hey, it could have been The Lord of the Rings.

By: DJW

DJW — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 04:14:25 +0000

Thank God these college presidents are shoring up Tom Freidman’s ego. Lord knows that’s a worthy cause.

By: john

john — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 03:36:09 +0000

Seconding Chris, I guess I’m not entirely surprised, but isn’t it embarassing how bad some of these choices are? Stephen Covey? Fukuyama? Tuesdays with f****** Morrie?!

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 03:20:44 +0000

Plenty of terrific books have been writen about science. I think of The Second Creation by Crease and Mann and The Growth of Biological Thought by Ernst Mayr. (The latter is even by a scientist.) And I’m not thinking very hard. But there’s almost nothing in the teaching of science that would lead anyone to read these. My experience says that English and philosophy professors know how to teach introductory courses that are serious and useful for majors and non alike. But science professors teach completeley different intro courses to the two audiences, and the kinds of course are bad for different reasons. Only advanced students get to take good courses. The sciences are obviously less book-oriented than English or philosophy, but even the good courses are even less book-oriented than the fields.

By: Danny

Danny — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 03:13:21 +0000

I’m not sure that teaching the scientific method and teaching the history of science are mutually exclusive. It seems to me as if the scientific method might be best taught in the context of its historical development.

By: Omri

Omri — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 03:06:26 +0000

Given that all of the textbooks used for classes like Physics 101 are sold to captive audiences, it should come as no surprise that they are too mediocre to wind up mentioned by the survey respondents.

By: Adam Kotsko

Adam Kotsko — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 02:14:35 +0000

I recommend Brian Greene’s The Elegant Universe. I’ve often thought that math instruction in specific would be much improved by a real effort to teach the history of math—perhaps it would be easier to pay attention if students understood why someone came up with (or discovered) trig identities. I reached this conclusion after two weeks of substitute teaching in a trig class and realizing that all of the students viewed what went on in the class as rather arbitrary and inscrutable.