A. Truman Schwartz Macalester College St. Paul, Minnesota 55105
I
I
The History of Chemistry Education for revolution
Peter B. Medawar, the Nohel-prize winning immunologist, has observed that "a view widely prevalent among the Young Turks of Science is t h a t interest in t h e history of science is a sign of failing powers." And it may well he that many scientists echo Henry Ford's famous one-word dismissal of history a s "Bunk!" Nevertheless, most of the teachers of chemistry attending the 4th Biennial Conference on Chemical Education remained seats for the .in their ~ ~svmnosium " . ~ on The~Uses of ~ History in Teaching Chemistry. T h e symposium, organized by Leonard W. Fine and Robert Kohler, was unusual in t h a t it brought together professional historians of science and interested amateurs like the author of this paper. T h e response generated by the session seemed t o indicate, a t least the participants, t h a t although the marriage of Clio and Chemistry has been a little rocky, the report of a divorce ( I ) was decidedly premature. If the majority of practicing scientists are indeed skeptical of history, it may be because, a s Thomas Kuhn ( 2 )has suggested, "the depreciation of historical fact is deeply, and probably functionally, ingrained in t h e ideology of t h e scientific profession." For historical truth, not the sanitized, sovietized sort, b u t the unvarnished version, undermines the mvth of the linear advancement of science and calls into ,~~ question the infallibility of the prevailing paradigms. Such heresv is contrarv to the canon of what Kuhn calls "normal science"-"research firmly based upon one or more past scientific achievements. achievements t h a t some narticular scientific c o m m u n i t ~ a ~ k n o w l e d for ~ e sa time a s supplying the foundation for its further practice." (3). I think t h a t Kuhn is correct in his contention t h a t most authors of science textbooks rewrite history so a s to "disguise not only the role hut the very existence of the revolutionsthat ~ r o d u c e dthem." (4). Thus, texts and teachers become propagandists fir acreptrd urthodoxv and force the experimrmt.~ and the theories of the past into a contemporary Procrustean hed. Acnrding to many rhrmtst-educators, t h i i ahistorical approach (which is, in fact,a re\.isionist spl)n)achJis [he must i~onronriate and effective means of ilttninine what H a r ~ d d Goldwhite ( I ) calls the "prime objective of courses which teach chemistry," i.e., "to indoctrinate students with a particularly useful and productive puzzle-solving technique" (emphasis m i n e L i n other words. t o manufacture "normal chemists." I am not altogether convinced that the production of normal scientists should he-our highest goal. I resonate t o t h e words of Karl Popper when he says (g): "In my view the normal scientist a s Kuhn describes him is a person one ought to be sorry for. . . The normal scientist in my view has hein taught hadlv . . .He has been taught in a d o m a t i c spirit; he is a victim of indoctrination. He has learned technique which can be applied without asking the reason why." Furthermore, it was normal science which Ortega Y Gasset decried so intemperately in this well-known polemic ( 6 ) ~
~
That is to say, modern science, the root and symbol of our actual civilization,finds a place for the intellectually commonplace man and allows him to work therein with success.. .If the specialist is ignorant of the inner philosophy of the science he cultivates, he is much more radically ignorant of the historical conditions requisite for its continuation; that is to say: how society and the heart of man are to he organized in order that theremay continue to be investigators. ~
~
~
~
~
~
These are strong words, b u t not without a germ of truth. I hasten to add that I am not such a n impractical romantic as t o spurn all normal science. After all, chemistry has been phenomenally successful a t solving puzzles which were safely within the boundary conditions imposed by accepted doctrine. Most of us seldom, if ever, venture beyond these limits. What 1 do submit is t h a t a n honest, unhowdlerized historical approach-one which admits of error, approximation, and human foihles-is not necessarily detrimental to conventional chemistrv. Moreover. it stands a chance of . generating the imagination and insight required for scientific revolutions. I believe that an historical emphasis can promote these ends in a number of significant ways. T h e following list is by no means exhaustive, but i t is suggestive
~~~
~
~
~.
~~.~ .~ ~
L~
~~
~
~
~
a
Experimental science has progressed thanks in great part to the work of men astoundingly mediocre, and even less than mediocre.
Based on a paper presented at the 4th Biennial Conference on Chemical Education, University of Wisconsin, Madison, August 11, 1976.
1) A study of the past discloses that chemistry is full of ambiguity and the clash of ideas-not a monolith rising toward omniscience. It raises questions where traditional teaching too often supplies only answers. 2) When concepts clash, methods of evaluating them are required; and the historical account includes examples of the experimental, logical, mathematical, and even esthetic bases for validation in the sciences. Moreover, it tends to keep the experimental horse I d m e the throrrtirnl rnrt. 31 The historical approach sewn dispels the notion of n sinrl~, it reveal, a wide variety ofotlt.n unwrrsal scientificmrthud. In~lp;~d intensely personal approaches to the truth. Contrast, for instance, Becquerel's serendipidous discovery of radioactivity with the Curies' methodical search through a tan of pitchblende. 4) Such examples of methodological diversity illustrate the human diversity of scientists. I suppose there is a risk in learning too much about anyone's past. Scientific saints like John Dalton may he uneanonized for conveniently rounding off mass ratios to fit experiment to theory. Lavoisier may be exposed as unjustified in some of his claims of priority and remiss in not acknowledging the contributions of Priestley and others. And the motives of James Watson may he, by his own admission, more complex and selfserving then the advancement of knowledge. But I find that the warts do not detract, nor do they reduce my admiration for these men and their accomplishments. History pumps blood into the mummified masters, idealized by our hero-worship. Surely Stephen Brush must have had his tongue in his cheek when he asked, "Should the History of Science be Rated X?" (7). I muchprefer the unexpurgated version. And I have enough confidence in youth to believe that they can read it without being corrupted. 5) An historical approach recognizes imagination-imagination every bit as brilliant and perceptive as that whieh has produced mankind's greatest music, painting, and poetry. Henry Bent likes toquote N. R. Campbell on this subject: "The 19thcentury philosophers' anxiety to conceal the role of imagination in scientific discovery is largely responsible for the ineptitude of modern education in science. Scientists complain of the lack of appreciation of scientific knowledge; what else can they expect if they offer to the world only the dry bones of knowledge from which the breath has departed?" It is also worth noting that in the judgment of the late Jacob Bronowski (a),the great collective work of art of the 20th
Volume 54, Number 8, August 1977 / 467
century is physics-particularly the development of atomic theory. Indeed. Bronowski's definition of science (9)."the search to dis"Mult&ity in Unity." fi) The last quotation from Bronowski is from a small book whose title is an arresting juxtaposition: "Science and Human Values." Many scientists admit noconnection between the two. And yet, a study of the historical record reveals the numerous value-laden choices made by practicing chemists. I refer not only ta their extra-scientific activities and opinions (which range widely and are, in themselves, fascinating subjects for investigation), hut also to choices ofwhat phenomena to study, how to study them, and how to apply the results. Maybe this is what Henry Bent means when he talks about "fusing1 and Ought." And J. Robert Oppenheimer must have had something like this in mind as he watched the fireball over the New Mexico desert in the predawn of July 16,1945, and recalled the words of the Bhagovod Gita: "I have become Death. the shatterer of worlds." 7) Reference to theTrinity test should remind usonceagain that science has immense social consequences. But placing chemical discoveries in the context of history also emphasizes the tremendous intellectual implications of Daltanian atomism, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, and molecular biology. Such paradigms have literally altered the world as mankind understands it. 8) Finally, I would like to be so bold as to suggest that the historical approach to chemistry can tell us something about the nature of truth. It can, for example, help avoid the common error of reification-confusing ideas and facts, models and realities. But . I submit that the revolutionary development of chemistry does more. It discloses a tentative, relative, small-t truth approximately
468 / Journal of ChemicalEducation
describing an imperfectly perceived small-r reality. Whether there exists a capital-R REALITY which can be mirrored with absolute fidelity by a captial-T TRUTH is of no operational consequence. 1know, from chemistry and from the history of ehemistry, that no scientist, no homo sapien, will ever discover it. We cannot divorce what weobserve and what we think from our humanity. Therefore, as Kuhn concludes (101, "we may. . .have to relinquish the notion that changes of paradigms carry scientists and those who learn from them closer and closer to the truth." S u c h self-knowledge should squelch o u r claims of ahsolutism a n d should m a k e u s humble i n t h e face of o u r ignorance. B u t i t should also fill u s with justifiable pride a t mankind's creative achievements in coming to know this world. I n short, history reminds u s of t h e simple y e t profound t r u t h uttered is a by Aaron I h d e at the Madison meeting-"Chemistry H u m a n Enterprisen-he i t normal o r revolutionary.
Literature Cited 111 Goldwhito,H.,J. CHEM. EDUC.52.645 119751. 121 Kuhn.T. S.,"TheStructureof SeientifieRevolutinns." Universityof Chicago Press. Chicago, 1964.p. 137. 131 Ref. 12l.p. 10. 14) Ref 12). p. 136. ( 5 ) Popper. K.. "Criticism and the Crnwfh of Knowledge: 1Editdil.r~:Lakstos. I.. and Musgrsve. A l . Cambridge University Press. Camhiidpe, 19711. pp. 52-13. 161 Ortega Y Gasaet.J."The Hevoltof theMarses." Nurtan.New York. 1912,Chapt. I?. PP.107-114. 17) Brush, S. G.. Science. 183.1164 119741. 181 Bmnowski, J., '"TheAscent of Man: Little. Blown, Bustun. 1913, p. X 0 . 191 Brunowski. J., "Scienceand Humsn Values."Harper. New Y d . 1956, p. 27. 1101 Ref 121. p . 169.
