In the intro to this last Isis focus section, Jane Maienschein and George Smith wrote that they\u00a0intended\u00a0for the section to be “a start for what we hope will be\u00a0a continuing and lively conversation.”\u00a0 Outside of niche areas, I’m not 100% sure what the last big conversation in our profession was, at least a conversation with more than one side.\u00a0 If there\u00a0is to be such a conversation, the existential one about the use of our profession\u00a0is a well-chosen\u00a0place to begin.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
The first problem is: how can such a conversation take place?\u00a0 Ben Cohen at World’s Fair wondered about just this point<\/a>; John Lynch (who co-wrote the piece on science and education) replied in the comments that there was some thoughts to creating online fora, or maybe an HSS session, but that it seems to be\u00a0“down to the blogs”.\u00a0 (John also asked the crucial question at Stranger Fruit: who in the history of science is blogging?<\/a> which seems to have led, among other things, to\u00a0much higher hit counts back here).\u00a0 Unsurprisingly, I’m a big supporter of the blog option.\u00a0 To me,\u00a0a blogging community is sort of like a laboratory of culture and methodology.\u00a0 It’s less formal and less final than a journal or a conference.\u00a0 It’s harder to let points drop on account of the fact that any replies will be months-off.\u00a0 It’s more inclusive to any who are interested in participating.\u00a0 It can also support different rules of argumentation (more on this soon).<\/p>\n A\u00a0community of\u00a0science blogs took up the Focus section heartily,\u00a0with discussion revolving primarily around to what extent\u00a0the history of science can provide valuable context and a sense of motivation to scientific work, especially in scientific education, to help them see science as more than a collection of facts to memorize.\u00a0 See A Blog Around the Clock<\/a>, “Hopeful Monster” at Chance and Necessity<\/a>, David Ng at World’s Fair<\/a>, and Brian Switek at Laelaps<\/a>,\u00a0and the comments section in all.\u00a0 All of these basically deal with the need for perspective on what it means to do science,\u00a0focusing mostly on the Gooday\/Lynch\/Wilson\/Barsky article on history in science education.\u00a0 My own take on this <\/a>was that history of science was being viewed as a\u00a0salve for inadequacies\u00a0in current science education.\u00a0 I acknowledged that we could help, but, having had some exposure to history of science courses, I wondered whether just any history of science course would do.\u00a0 I tend to think\u00a0that the value of any\u00a0one-off exposure to history of science (or any humanities course) would be less useful than a history of science course specifically tailored to the problem, particularly one with technical material that runs parallel to a more practical course on the same subject\u00a0(I don’t think I made this point particularly clearly).\u00a0 Such courses are currently rare, in my experience anyway, because historians these days tend to have such different concerns\u00a0from scientists.<\/p>\n One\u00a0thematic concern I had throughout the Isis series was that “history” was being used as a stand-in for a well-crafted solution to\u00a0whatever<\/em> ailments there might be in other areas: the exposure to history causing scientists to recognize their social contexts, to question their working assumptions, or even the utility of their work.\u00a0 When we say “history” do we really mean “philosophy”, “sociology”, or “methodological introspection”?\u00a0 Why introduce history into the debate over DNA barcoding, when the historical argument is weaker than the (quite strong) philosophical one<\/a>? \u00a0(More on this at a later date).\u00a0 Why consider history a boon to scientists who need to reflect more on the basis of their methodology, when systematic scrutiny is what is being called for<\/a>?\u00a0 These uses of history place it more\u00a0in the tradition of “inspirational literature” than analysis.\u00a0\u00a0Is history simply a back door into more forbidding, but more fundamental\u00a0literatures?\u00a0 Farbeit for me to discount the usefulness of my own profession, but it seems more like our neighbors in the philosophy and sociology of science might have more of a direct role to play than we do.\u00a0 Of course, we most definitely inform sociological and philosophical discussions, but no one (including myself) really addressed that point (but see John Wilkins at Evolving Thoughts<\/a>).\u00a0 But does “history-as-history” have a role to play?\u00a0 Food for future thought.\u00a0 (I suggested one possibility<\/a>, but am not necessarily enthusiastic).<\/p>\n All this points to what fellow-Ether Wave Propagandist\u00a0Christopher might refer to as a “hierarchy of historical needs”.\u00a0 Assume that historians have the highest needs for historical understanding.\u00a0 I would say this blog is an attempt to address this need: what literary, pedagogical, and analytical methodologies can we use to understand history better?\u00a0 Philosophers and sociologists seem to require historical study more as case-studies to inform their own debates.\u00a0 Scientists, policymakers, and the public have still other historical needs that ought to be much more carefully identified.\u00a0<\/p>\n