It also does a great job of explaining the different characters and their stories. Some little-known who moved chemistry forwards in profound ways, and others, very well-known, who through their loyalty to false theories ended up holding it back.
It's also a pretty short book when helps make it feel accessible.
Carl Sagan’s Cosmos and some of Richard Feynman’s best lectures come to mind as some of the most memorable examples, but I’m certain all the best teachers out there know to incorporate the historical and human aspects to bring the essential perspective and natural mnemonic anchors to otherwise “dry” subjects.
Anyways, I haven't read this (have it on hold at my library) but someone recommended this book on reddit How to Make an Apple Pie from Scratch: In Search of the Recipe for Our Universe, from the Origins of Atoms to the Big Bang https://www.publishersweekly.com/9780385545655
Isaac Asimov wrote a couple books that follow the narrative of science from the beginnings up until the 80s or so, which I highly recommend. One is called Atom and is more focused on how we got to our “present” understanding of particles. There’s also one that takes a broader view, it’s something like History of Science (? not at my bookshelf right now).
There’s several books in this genre for math as well. IMO it’s a much better structure for pedagogy since we can piggy back the education on our natural wiring to care about narrative and mystery/puzzles.
Asimov was incredibly talented.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asimov's_Guide_to_Shakespeare
It's like 800 pages, I haven't read it but I think I'll keep that one. Seems like it might be hard to find another physical copy. He was definitely prolific on a number of topics.
"Asimov was so prolific and diverse in his writing that his books span all major categories of the Dewey Decimal Classification except for category 100, philosophy and psychology" - from his Wikipedia page.
See, for example:
>One, Two, Three... Infinity: Facts and Speculations of Science (1947)
https://www.amazon.com/One-Two-Three-Infinity-Speculations/d...
PDF: https://archive.org/details/OneTwoThreeInfinity_158
..........................
>Thirty Years that Shook Physics: The Story of Quantum Theory (1966)
https://www.amazon.com/Thirty-Years-that-Shook-Physics/dp/04...
PDF: https://archive.org/details/ThirtyYearsThatShookPhysics-TheB...
Can you elaborate on that? What experiments did the professor perform?
Do you mean Special Relativity, which covers classical mechanics and electromagnetism? General Relativity covers gravitation and cosmology without electromagnetism (though Kaluza and later Klein devised a theory unifying gravity and electromagnetism by adding an fifth dimension to General Relativity, which can then be decomposed into 4-dimensional GR and Maxwell's equations).
We did it with several hundred volts (DC, scary) in college and it was pretty fun collecting the data and watching the numbers fall out in excel doing the analysis.
Some people care about the history, some don't. I find when people talk about astrophysics stuff, most of them do not know the history and ought to, because most of their interpretations fall into the "Yes, that was a question in the 1960s but eventually ..."
If you want one for relativity, I strongly suggest Was Einstein Right? by Clifford Will. It dates from 1986, so it is nearly forty years behind now, but it covers the many experiments and tests of relativities special and general.
Hunt for Vulcan is a fun history lesson with some interesting insights about human nature. It's history of science, not science. It took about 3 hours to read and I had a lot of fun with it.
I don't think it's a priori wrong to teach students our current understanding of the world, without going into the details of how we came up with it. I also don't think it's wrong to add those details, but the more details you add, the less of the full picture you'll be able to present. And I definitely don't think it would be a good idea to teach children how we do science, without teaching them what we actually learned from doing it.
I'd also say that the reality of some of the process is extraordinarily boring ("we kept meticulous records of precisely where on the sky various stars were each night, and how their position changed, for a few hundred years, and tried finding a function that matched those numbers; for a few hundred years, we kept adding more and more circles to correct things, until Kepler came up with some ellipses"). And that for many children, learning history is already a huge bore, learning the history of science in addition would make science classes much worse. For others, the opposite is true.
You don't have to include the boring bits of who paid for the research or the day to day lives of the researchers. That isn't science, and it doesn't help the student understand science. A mere description of the fact that Tycho Brahe kept meticulous records of the positions of the planets in the sky and a walkthrough of the math that shows this data matches elliptical orbits and the math that shows that Newton's laws lead to those elliptical orbits is sufficient. The fact that there is a discrepancy for Mercury motivates further developments.
Why assume "that the oil formed a single layer of molecules — a monolayer" ?
That is a very fundamental assumption, and could have been wrong as well (we know it is right, because the values match with more accurate recordings, but still...)
Yes, I definitely understand that most people don't have the training and background to understand complex scientific topics, and in some ways we do have to trust the scientific community if we're not a part of it. And I get frustrated by the common calls of "Do your own research!", which often means "Look at these YouTube grifters with absolutely no training who are just spouting stuff with no research of their own." But even the underlying problem with that is that most people aren't trained to evaluate the quality of data and motivations of people making it, and that is what scientific education should be about. For example, I may have to "trust" the scientific community when it comes to data about infectiousness of COVID because I'm not an epidemiologist, but how that data is translated into rules and regulations is a policy call, and that policy call is not necessarily one where the epidemiologists are the experts. I shouldn't be told to "trust the science" as though I should just accept policy recommendations even if I do accept the underlying data about transmissibility.
In its barest essence the problem is this - delegation affords so much that it is basically unavoidable, but trust sure is tricky. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem - searches for how to demarcate trustworthiness. Sorry to say, but there is a long history of failure to get consensus. It's notably a competitive game and as long as anything has been deemed valuable there have been cheap knock-offs (e.g. Fool's Gold), but things like The News you seem to complain of (e.g. Crichton's Gell-Mann Amnesia [2]) or "conclusions", being more abstract than metal (often the metaphorically concrete), are trickier still to discern reliability.
It may be the single most central (in latitude-long's of WHAAA? coordinates) problem of today's human condition / experience. I think it's a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem BUT the problem applies recursively to advice from anyone about trust/delegation (or about anything else). So, don't trust me. LOL. ;-) I don't think others can really answer these questions for someone. Part of life is learning to live with uncertainty, however precisely modeled. I'm just trying to share a perspective on some of the principles involved with someone who seems interested in and frustrated by the questions.
[1] https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/244659/how-did-r...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#Gell-Mann_amn...
That's part of a larger problem in how science is presented. It is presented as something that is true, when it isn't. It is a model that describes reality. The models you are learning in high school and entry undergrad classes are mostly wrong models whose main use is that they are great building blocks to more complex models, as they work well enough in ideal conditions and correlate well enough with our exist. Yet even the best, most up to date models, aren't right. They work well enough in the places they are used that we can bet human lives on them, but that doesn't mean they describe what the universe is actually doing. Unless someone finds a way to crack open up the universe and check the "source code", we will never know exactly what the universe is doing and are limited to only ever improving models that approach the truth, like a sum that converges on a value at infinity but never equals that value for any finite sum of the series.
Even our math teacher would tell us the stories of how mathematicians "came" to their solutions.
A good teacher makes such a huge difference
Thanks for submitting! Would welcome suggestions for any other publications on how scientific theories were first discovered.