# Is the historical method of teaching physics a “legitimate, sure and fruitful method of preparing a student to receive a physical hypothesis”? [closed]

The French physicist, historian, and philosopher of physics, Pierre Duhem, wrote:

The legitimate, sure and fruitful method of preparing a student to receive a physical hypothesis is the historical method. To retrace the transformations through which the empirical matter accrued while the theoretical form was first sketched; to describe the long collaboration by means of which common sense and deductive logic analyzed this matter and modeled that form until one was exactly adapted to the other: that is the best way, surely even the only way, to give to those studying physics a correct and clear view of the very complex and living organization of this science [emphasis added] (Duhem, P.: 1905/1954, ‘The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory’, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, p. 268).
Ernst Mach also advocated the history and philosophy of science (HPS) teaching method:
A person who has read and understand the Greek and Roman authors has felt and experienced more than one who is restricted to the impression of the present. He sees how men, placed in different circumstances, judge quiet differently of the same things from what we do today. His own judgments will be rendered thus more independent (Mach, E.: 1886/1986, ‘On instruction the Classics and the Sciences’, In: ‘Popular Scientific Lectures’, Open Court Publishing Company, La Sale, IL., p. 347).
Igal Galili, author of "Experts’ Views on Using History and Philosophy of Science in the Practice of Physics Instruction," wrote to me that the historical method "presents a great controversy in university physics textbooks of physics."

Arnold B. Arons, in his Teaching Introductory Physics, opposes the HPS teaching method; he thinks something "goes wrong if you suspend judgment (page I-229) in order to retrace historical footsteps."

Why is this? Do you agree or disagree? Is the historical method a "legitimate, sure and fruitful method of preparing a student to receive a physical hypothesis"?

Thanks in advance for any insight on this

-
Note that this is an area of active research (under the label "physics education research"), and that looking to books surely puts you well behind the leading edge of that research. –  dmckee Jun 21 '12 at 20:20
This question is IMO about teaching, not about physics. The accepted answer below, while specifically crafted for physics, could be perfectly appropriate for any subject once the examples are substituted. VTC. –  Sklivvz Dec 26 '12 at 1:09

## closed as off topic by Sklivvz♦, Manishearth♦Dec 26 '12 at 8:16

Questions on Physics Stack Exchange are expected to relate to physics within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

The historical method is necessary for several reasons:

• The historical literature shows you how the correct arguments won out over time. This is pretty much the only way to persuade yourself that the results we have are correct, since when you are learning something you are recapitulating the historical process, and all the confusions people had in the past will be in your head at some point. It is very difficult to get rid of the bad ideas by using textbooks, because the textbooks are written by people who already believe the result. So if you want to know how come we believe quantum mechanics works, or how come we believe GR, you need to read the historical literature. The arguments in textbooks are only persuasive to the converted.
• The historical literature is unfortunately not preserved well in most textbooks. The authors of textbooks do not paraphrase the original articles, but try to present their own arguments. These arguments don't need to persuade anyone, since they are preaching to the choir. So the arguments tend to decay over time. There are rare textbooks, like Landau and Lifschitz, or Feynman, where the arguments are generally better, but still, even in the best books, you don't get universally correct arguments. It is amazing how many times someone comes to you with "The argument in this and so textbook is wrong, therefore relativity is wrong". Usually, the argument is wrong, but the result is perfectly fine. The original author is usually better, since this author had to at least persuade the referee and the editor.
• There are forgotten methods and ideas: if you don't read Gell-Mann, you don't learn current commutators (at least not well, or outside of 2d). If you don't read Kadanoff and Polyakov, you don't learn about OPE closure in higher dimensions determining the anomalous dimensions/critical-exponents (only the most fruitful 2d version, where the OPE is constrained by conformal invariance, has been preserved in textbooks) If you don't read Schwinger and Feynman, you don't understand the particle picture (this is particularly unforgivable). If you don't read Mandelstam, you don't learn S-matrix methods (this is a crime against a whole generation). This is a disease of transmission--- the authors simply wish to transmit the shortest path to the most famous calculation, and the ideas get trod on shamelessly, and the textbooks are nearly always terrible caricatures. There are exceptions, like Weinberg's field theory books, but this is because the author in this case is steeped in the literature, is personally responsible for a large chunk of it, and has his own take on many of the essential results.
• By reading good physicists of the past, you learn what a good physics argument reads like. This is important too. There is no better guide to scientific style than Einstein.

The old literature will introduce you to many problems which used to be considered extremely important, but then were put on the back-burner. Usually this is because 10 years go by or more, and nobody has any ideas. There are always many of these, and they were inspirations to many great developments. For example:

• Tony Skyrme was directly inspired by the then-ancient and completely discredited ideas of Lord Kelvin on topological ether-knot atoms to make his famous model of the proton as a topological defect in the recently discovered pion condensate. Balachandran, Nair, and Rajeev revived this idea in the context of large N, and Witten made it stick, and this was also an exercise in resuscitating a dead idea.
• Gutzwiller was completing an old problem, left unsolved in the early days of quantum mechanics, of finding the semiclassical quantization of chaotic systems. Einstein was already wondering about this in the 1910s, the Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization assumed the classical system was integrable. The Gutzwiller trace formula is one of the central discoveries of the late 20th century, and it was musty stuff when it was formulated.
• Schwarz and Scherk revived the ideas of Kaluza and Klein in the late 1970s to make sense of string theory. The unified field theory ideas were, by 1970, firmly in the dustbin.
• Kolmogorov attacked the ancient problem of solar-system stability, and showed that perturbation theory can be summed away from resonances. This was turned into the KAM theorem over several decades.
• Widom recently considers the thermodynamics of three-phase interfaces, a problem which was considered in the 19th century but neglected forever, until Widom revived it.

This is a seriously truncated list, because so many developments are resuscitated old problems. Most of the literature is expanding on an old problem which was left unsolved for some reason or another. Unfortuntely, many of the problems considered unsolved in earlier eras were just solved later, and you have to know the later developments to know which are still open.

Here is a short woefully incomplete list of dead problems which were never solved and are no longer on anyone's mind as far as I know:

• Mandelstam's double dispersion relations: How do these work? What the heck are they? What do they mean? This was left unsolved and nobody works on it.
• Regge degeneracies: I asked about this here, why are the even and odd trajectories degenerate in QCD? This was a pressing issue in the 1960s. Now, nobody knows and nobody cares (hopefully this will change).
• What is the sigma f(660)? Is it a real particle? Again, this is an off and on question.
• What is going on with the idea of pomeron quark coupling? Is this for real? Is there such a thing as a pomeron quark vertex? This seems like nonsense, but it predicts that pion-proton total cross sections are 2/3 the proton proton cross section, and this is experimentally more or less true. But the idea contradicts Gribov's idea of a universal coefficient. Is Gribov's idea true? Or is there a pomeron quark coupling? Nobody knows and nobody cares.

There are tons more. These old questions are sources of modern ideas, as the ideas come back in and out of fasion. You can't do anything without knowing all of these.

It is also a terrible disservice to previous generations to ignore what they wrote. Unfortunately, time is limited, and the old papers can have suboptimal notation and confusing presentation, due to the dead weight of the era's conventions. This is why I think it is useful to make quick summaries of the entire content of the old papers, using modernized notation and methods, while keeping all the ideas. This is a difficult art, modernizing the papers, but it can be done. In principle this is the job of textbooks, but textbook authors are never going to do this, so one should do it as well as possible.

The other reason to read the old literature is that there are certain things that pop into one's head that are old, which you won't realize were the same things that popped into the original author's ideas. For example, when I was learning statistical mechanics, I was disappointed that the statistical description was on phase space. I thought "why don't you just make a probability distribution for the particle to be at position x and have velocity v and find the equation for the distribution". Of course, this was the original idea of Boltzmann, and the modern theory evolved from this starting point, not the other way around. But I couldn't learn statistical mechanics until I saw somebody do the obvious thing (the Boltzmann equation) first.

There are countless other retreds over old territory:

• Every decade or so, somebody rediscovers the fact that classical EM can be made symmetric between E and B by introducing a second vector potential. The result is that the photon is doubled, and there are two separate U(1) gauge symmetries, and this is not the right way to do monopoles (it isn't topological and it doesn't give Dirac quantization). This thing is published again and again, and it is massively annoying.
• For 3 decades after 1957, people kept on rediscovering the Everett interpretation. Each person was sure their own rediscovery was different, because the Everett interpretation was misrepresented in the literature until the internet came along. So you get "many minds" and "decoherence" and "consistent histories" (although Gell-Mann always cites Everett), and so on, all describing what is essentially the same idea. I met a grad student once who had decided to recast all of quantum mechanics in information theoretic terms, and had come up with a new interpretation of quantum mechanics. A quick reference to Everett showed him that his ideas were all essentially present in Everett's thesis.

There are downsides to studying too much history. The biggest downside is that it kills the motivation for trying out new ideas, because the good historical stuff seems so different from the shoddy stuff it seems you always think of (of course, this is hindsight working). It is also good to keep in touch with what other people are doing, since the community generally has an intelligence regarding what the fruitful things to study are, an intelligence which is greater than any individual.

But the community can also be persuaded to run after nonsense too, like large extra dimensions, so one has to be careful. History makes you brave in this regard, since you can see when arguments are wrong, because when something is wrong, seeing that it is wrong takes only an old argument. Of course, when something is right, it is always completely different from what came before.

Anyway, I am on the side of "yes". You should know the history.

-
The question is should this be taught previous to modern physics you describe how they can be combined but as the questions begs fruitfulness and previous historical teachings seperatly and in preperation for learning the modern concepts. Not at the same time so your answer would be "No" as you believe these should be presented "concurrently" –  Argus Jun 23 '12 at 4:50
The thing is, it's not so much stuff. It looks initimidating because of the volume of the literature, but really, you can fit all the results from before 1900 into a single book, including every problem that was solved. The literature was that scant. It doesn't blow up until Sputnik, around 1957, when the Americans and the Soviets start to compete as to who can spend more on physics. The thing about physics is that it compresses well, so that using modern notation and methods, you can compress the Principia to 10% of its size, you can compress Maxwell's treatise to 10% of its size, etc. –  Ron Maimon Jun 23 '12 at 5:38
+1 on previous comment. Using modern techniques to incorporate "historical" ideas in a modern relavent notion will build a specific skill set which allows the student a broader range of tools at their disposal. Although I believe self-motivated learning is a requirement for fruitfull physicists, it is the teachers "job" to spark this deep interest and any method used to that effect are fruitfully and legitimate. –  Argus Jun 23 '12 at 13:09

To answer the question you have to run the experiment. We are all discounted because we learned by historical trail. So you have to get some young children and run the risk that teaching them the current understanding first will harm their learning in some way. It's very doubtful, but they may understand current issues better. The history can always be explored. Some educator should go build the experiment !!!

-

In my opinion, knowing previous incorrect views and spending time to learn these views only exposes the individual to more biased interpretation.

The best way(again in my opinion) is to learn the correct and widely accepted understandings and knowledge.
Then, use this accurate information to develop a correct understanding.

@Argus: "Newton" doesn't mean "textbook Newton". Newton discovered the Kepler motion in universal gravity, the oblateness of the Earth and the variation of g, the equichronous property of the cycloid, the brachistochrone problem, the speed of sound, the weirdness of $1/r^3$ many-body motion, the Newton rings, the Newton polygon, the Newton method, the Taylor series, and lots more. All of Newton's results need to be presented to first year students, and they never are, because people have not translated the Principia to present the arguments in modern notation and methods. –  Ron Maimon Jun 22 '12 at 18:08