Science teaching idea.

[ollypenrice]

We are afflicted by an arts-science educational divide which is destructive, in my view, of a healthy relationship between science and daily life. It leads to a misunderstanding of what science is and what it does and contributes to the dreadful reporting of science by the media.

Now school science is at present taught to future practioners of science but wouldn't the History of Science (for non practitioners) be a great A level? You could study the evolution of scientific method, the history of scientific ideas and their effects on society. Medicine, Darwin's impact on religion, science and its impact on technology. Astronomy and navigation. The philosophical questions arising from modern physics. Wonderful! All the stuff we talk about here but which seems to find no place in contemporary school education.

Olly

[TheThing]

It's not that it finds 'no place in contemporary education'. It is that it is not, currently, on the National Cirriculum (which needs kicking into touch!)

It would be lovely to give teachers back the oppotunity to teach the subjects that they like and Olly's idea is brilliant.

At the moment, these subject rely on teachers running them as extra activities in their own time. Such a waste! Britain used to lead the way in scientific endevour. It would be great to see it leading the way again.

[barkis]

I thought Astronomy was part of the NC, or at least it used to be.

The drawback, was, the subject was probably confined to the misconceived Idea that astronomy was simply a question of observing the night sky, instead of encompassing all the scientific subjects that are contained therein, and thus making it a much more attractive pursuit.

Ron.

[TheThing]

It is for years 5 or 6 (Primary/Junior school depending on area). I believe that it is mostly restricted to a quick overview of the Solar System.

Still, it's a start I suppose...

[Macavity]

I think there has always been a pretty HUGE "schism" between Science & Arts. Even in a 60/70s traditional (boys) grammar school, I had to choose between Physics & Chemistry OR History & Geography at THIRTEEN. Mostly, so 1/4 of my year had an "accelerated regime", and maybe, SIX (5%) of these got into Oxbridge? But that from someone who uhm... didn't. Yet, as much as my Arty acquintances (we didn't socialise overmuch!) were willfully ignorant of science, the only real literature I ever read was the odd article in Practical Wireless.

It is my prejudice that whereas quite a few "scientists" develop later-life interests in Arts, the inverse is even LESS likely? So such an course might be a GREAT thing! I think it could be a tad hard to pursuade some of my new-found Arty, "New Age" [or simply weird] friends that the "History of Science" didn't END with M. Parcelsus. Maybe almost as hard as pursuading some astronomers that everything that went before isn't just "Poppycock" etc.

I think there is still the problem of TIME (and earning a crust)? Can we achieve a sufficient excellence without specialisation? We may be producing "rounded" or more "emotionally intelligent" citizens with generalist subjects, but are they of practical use? Whereas I was able to personally broaden my knowledge somewhat through a (initially unwelcome!) early retirement, such is the privilege of rather few. Perhaps broader attitude change is needed re. education and (ever harder, more time consuming) work.

[ollypenrice]

I think there probably are more scientists with literary or arts interests than vice versa, I'm ashamed to say. (English graduate...) The novellist Ian McEwan is one who urges literary readers to read more science. Good for him.

I agree about kicking the National Curriculm out of the window. I really don't like the idea that any central government should define what should and should not be taught.

If there's room on the curriculum for A level political history (all those really interesting kings and queens, remember) then surely we could make room for a history of science as an alternative. (Louis the 14th's foreign policy or Einstein's General Theory of Relativity? Now which would I rather know about...??)

Olly

[brianb]

Great idea Olly!

If there's room on the curriculum for A level political history (all those really interesting kings and queens, remember) then surely we could make room for a history of science as an alternative.

Why "alternative" .... I don't see anything wrong with learning political and scientific history. You need the science to understand the power of weapons, and you need the politics to understand why they get used even when the leaders think they don't ever need to.

[Macavity]

Well, there is apparently a DEMAND for this sort information:

BBC iPlayer - The Story of Science: Power, Proof and Passion: What Is Out There?

Such things do enrich a sometimes dry subject? Who'd have thought Tycho Brahe had part of his nose cut off in a duel, kept a clairvoyant dwarf beneath his table, and had a Elk which was killed by drunken fall down some stairs...

[ollypenrice]

Well, there is apparently a DEMAND for this sort information:

BBC iPlayer - The Story of Science: Power, Proof and Passion: What Is Out There?

Such things do enrich a sometimes dry subject? Who'd have thought Tycho Brahe had part of his nose cut off in a duel, kept a clairvoyant dwarf beneath his table, and had a Elk which was killed by drunken fall down some stairs...

Indeed. Or that George Ellery Hale once stopped his motorcycle (or was it a trike?) and challenged two nearby riders to a race. Pity they were Police motorcyclists...

Look at all the popular science books in the big bookshops, many if not most of which take an historical approach to their subject. I have dozens of them on my shelves and very good they are.

Olly