(A)Historical Science

Abstract

bIn contrast to many other human endeavors, science pays little attention to its history. Fundamental scientific discoveries are often considered to be timeless and independent of how they were made. Science and the history of science are regarded as independent academic disciplines. Although most scientists are aware of great discoveries in their fields and their association with the names of individual scientists, few know the detailed stories behind the discoveries. Indeed, the history of scientific discovery is sometimes recorded only in informal accounts that may be inaccurate or biased for self-serving reasons. Scientific papers are generally written in a formulaic style that bears no relationship to the actual process of discovery. Here we examine why scientists should care more about the history of science. A better understanding of history can illuminate social influences on the scientific process, allow scientists to learn from previous errors, and provide a greater appreciation for the importance of serendipity in scientific discovery. Moreover, history can help to assign credit where it is due and call attention to evolving ethical standards in science. History can make science better.The history of science bores most scientists stiff.-Sir Peter Medawar (1)

Graduate Biomedical Science Education Needs a New Philosophy

“…It is thereby critical to create an awareness of the epistemic limits of science ( 75 , 76 ) and address error sources such as logical fallacies or sloppiness in experimental design ( 12 , 13 , 77 , 78 ), just as much as cases of misconduct ( 79 ). On the other hand, there must be sufficient room for learning from the fun side of scientific blunders, serendipitous discoveries ( 45 , 80 ), and success stories. To facilitate authentic experiences ( 69 ), learners could use self-chosen projects of their interest or aspects of their thesis work to apply central scientific concepts such as deductive and inductive reasoning.…”

Revolutionary Science

“…Neither the theory of evolution, nor the germ theory of disease, nor the discovery that DNA carries genetic information seems to have been triggered by the type of crisis in normal science that he envisioned. Here we visit the subject of revolutionary science as part of our continuing exploration of the state of current science that has included prior essays on descriptive ( 5 ), mechanistic ( 6 ), important ( 7 ), specialized ( 8 ), diseased ( 9 ), competitive ( 10 ), (a)historical ( 11 ), and field ( 12 ) science.…”

Impacted Science: Impact Is Not Importance

“…However, there has been relatively little discussion of the effect of IF mania on scientific progress. As part of our exploration of the state of current science, which has included essays on descriptive ( 10 ), mechanistic ( 11 ), important ( 12 ), specialized ( 13 ), diseased ( 14 ), competitive ( 15 ), (a)historical ( 16 ), and field ( 17 ) science, we now examine the consequences of the focus on scientific impact rather than importance. There are many problems with IF mania, but perhaps its most pernicious effect is its influence on how scientists work and what they choose to study.…”