Why, oh why, don't many physics programs EDUCATE?

[Geremia]

http://www.newmancause.co.uk/" :

8.

Nor indeed am I supposing that there is any great danger, at least in this day, of over-education; the danger is on the other side. I will tell you, Gentlemen, what has been the practical error of the last twenty years,—not to load the memory of the student with a mass of undigested knowledge, but to force upon him so much that he has rejected all. It has been the error of distracting and enfeebling the mind by an unmeaning profusion of subjects; of implying that a smattering in a dozen branches of study is not shallowness, which it really is, but enlargement, which it is not; of considering an acquaintance with the learned names of things and persons, and the possession of clever duodecimos, and attendance on eloquent lecturers, and membership with scientific institutions, and the sight of the experiments of a platform and the specimens of a museum, that all this was not dissipation of mind, but progress. All things now are to be learned at once, not first one thing, then another, not one well, but many badly. Learning is to be without exertion, without attention, without toil; without grounding, without advance, without finishing. There is to be nothing individual in it; and this, forsooth, is the wonder of the age. What the steam engine does with matter, the printing press is to do with mind; it is to act mechanically, and the population is to be passively, almost unconsciously enlightened, by the mere multiplication and dissemination of volumes. Whether it be the school boy, or the school girl, or the youth at college, or the mechanic in the town, or the politician in the senate, all have been the victims in one way or other of this most preposterous and pernicious of delusions. Wise men have lifted up their voices in vain; and at length, lest their own institutions should be outshone and should disappear in the folly of the hour, they have been obliged, as far as they could with a good conscience, to humour a spirit which they could not withstand, and make temporizing concessions at which they could not but inwardly smile.

It must not be supposed that, because I so speak, therefore I have some sort of fear of the education of the people: on the contrary, the more education they have, the better, so that it is really education. Nor am I an enemy to the cheap publication of scientific and literary works, which is now in vogue: on the contrary, I consider it a great advantage, convenience, and gain; that is, to those to whom education has given a capacity for using them. Further, I consider such innocent recreations as science and literature are able to furnish will be a very fit occupation of the thoughts and the leisure of young persons, and may be made the means of keeping them from bad employments and bad companions. Moreover, as to that superficial acquaintance with chemistry, and geology, and astronomy, and political economy, and modern history, and biography, and other branches of knowledge, which periodical literature and occasional lectures and scientific institutions diffuse through the community, I think it a graceful accomplishment, and a suitable, nay, in this day a necessary accomplishment, in the case of educated men. Nor, lastly, am I disparaging or discouraging the thorough acquisition of anyone of these studies, or denying that, as far as it goes, such thorough acquisition is a real education of the mind. All I say is, call things by their right names, and do not confuse together ideas which are essentially different. A thorough knowledge of one science and a superficial acquaintance with many, are not the same thing; a smattering of a hundred things or a memory for detail, is not a philosophical or comprehensive view. Recreations are not education; accomplishments are not education. Do not say, the people must be educated, when, after all, you only mean, amused, refreshed, soothed, put into good spirits and good humour, or kept from vicious excesses. I do not say that such amusements, such occupations of mind, are not a great gain; but they are not education. You may as well call drawing and fencing education, as a general knowledge of botany or conchology. Stuffing birds or playing stringed instruments is an elegant pastime, and a resource to the idle, but it is not education; it does not form or cultivate the intellect. Education is a high word; it is the preparation for knowledge, and it is the imparting of knowledge in proportion to that preparation. We require intellectual eyes to know withal, as bodily eyes for sight. We need both objects and organs intellectual; we cannot gain them without setting about it; we cannot gain them in our sleep, or by haphazard. The best telescope does not dispense with eyes; the printing press or the lecture room will assist us greatly, but we must be true to ourselves, we must be parties in the work. A University is, according to the usual designation, an Alma Mater, knowing her children one by one, not a foundry, or a mint, or a treadmill.

Boy, after having obtained a B.S. degree in physics and astronomy from a state university, can I relate to this! My professors never required that I read, e.g., the original classic physics papers that liberal arts students at, e.g., http://www.stjohnscollege.edu/" , do! Consequently, everything I learned was a disconnected array of facts and problems to solve. Problem-solving isn't nearly as stressed in Italy, according to my Italian physics friends, so why is it here? So, here are my two main questions:

• Why is problem-solving stressed so much in U.S. physics programs?
• Why aren't the classic papers and books required in U.S. physics programs?

For example, these are what students, working towards BAs at the liberal arts schools St. John's College and Thomas Aquinas College, read:

At St. John's College​

Descartes, Le Monde
Huygens, On the Motion of Colliding bodies
Leibniz, “On Body, Force, Elasticity”
“Essay on Dynamics”
Newton, “Principia”
Mayer, “Remarks on The Forces of Inorganic Nature”
Maxwell, “On Work and Energy”
“On Heat Engines”
Huygens, Treatise on Light
Newton, “The New Theory about Light and Colors”
Young, “On the Nature of Light and Colors”
Taylor, “On the Motion of the Stretched String”
Bernoulli, “…On New Vibrations of Strings”
William Gilbert, On the Loadstone
Charles du Fay, letter concerning Electricity
Benjamin Franklin, letter to Collinson
J.A. Nollet, “Observations on Several New Electrical Phenomena”
Chales Coulomb, “Memoirs on electricity and magnetism”
Alessandra Volta, “On the electricity excited by the contact of conducting substances”
Hans Christian Oersted, “The efficacy of electric conflict on the magnetic needle”
Faraday, Experimental Researches in Electricity
On Static Electrical Inductive Action, Letter to Philips
Answer to Dr. Hare’s Letter
A speculation touching Electric Conduction and the Nature of Matter
On Lines of Magnetic Force
On the Physical Character of the Lines of Magnetic Force
Albert Einstein, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”
“Does the inertia of a Body Depend upon its Energy Content?”
“On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light”
“The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity”
Hermann Minkowski, “Space and Time”
Faraday, “On the absolute quantity of Electricity associated with the particles or atom of Matter”
J.J. Thomson, “Cathode Rays”
R.A. Milliken, The Electron
E. Rutherford, “The Scattering of α and β particles by matter and the Structure of the Atom”
A. Einstein, “Concerning a Heuristic Point of View about the Creation and Transformation of Light”
N. Bohr, “On the Spectrum of Hydrogen”
L. De Broglie, “The Undulatory Aspects of the Electron”
E. Schrodinger, Four Lectures on Wave Mechanics
C.J. Davisson, “Are Electrons Waves?”
W. Heisenberg, The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory
Physics and Philosophy
N. Bohr, “Einstein’s Objections to Quantum Mechanics”
A. Einstein, B. Poldosky, N. Rosen, “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?”
N. Bohr, “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?”
D. Bohm, Causality and Chance in Modern Physics

http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/curriculum/index.htm" ​

Aristotle On Generation and Corruption
St. Thomas Aquinas On the Principles of Nature,
On the Combination of the Elements
Lavoisier Elements of Chemistry
Avogadro Masses and Proportions of Elementary Molecules
Dalton Proportion of Gases in the Atmosphere
Gay-Lussac Combination of Gaseous Substances
Pascal Treatise on the Weight of the Mass of the Air
various authors Scientific papers of Berthollet, Couper, Lavoisier, Mendeleev, Richter, Wollaston, Cannizzaro, et alia
Atomic Theory Manual
Einstein Relativity: The Special and General Theory
Huygens Treatise on Light
Newton Optiks
Maxwell A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism
Gilbert De Magnete
Ampere Papers
various authors Mechanics, Waves, and Optics Manual
Electricity and Magnetism Manual
​

Why do I deserve a B.S. in physics when these liberal arts students are the ones, based on their knowledge of these classics, more educated in certain respects of physics than I?

 

[Andy Resnick]

I sympathize with your perspective-honestly. I am currently stepping through some seminal papers in the development of thermodynamics elsewhere on this site; I understand and agree with you that there is value in reading the original source material. There was more than a few moments when I considered going to St. John's instead of RPI. Especially after I got to RPI...

However, the undergraduate physics curriculum, designed for a student who is going to have a career in physics/engineering/science/etc.- has different goals. For example, reading Newton's 'Principia' and *not* reading (for example) Halliday, Resnick, and Walker, will leave the student ill-prepared for graduate school, a technical job, or any other 'next step'.

Now- problem solving. I agree with you that the 'shut up and calculate' approach has been taken too far. I am happy to tell you that the AAPT (American Association of Physics Teachers) agrees with you as well, and has sponsored a workshop for new faculty (I went last year) for about a decade, with the goal of finding and developing *better* approaches to teaching the Physics curriculum. I am constantly reminded of the statement "Progress is possible only when the old generation dies off".

So- go and read the original material; it will undoubtably enrich your understanding. But always live in the present, looking towards the future. Besides using contemporary mathematical skills, you needs skills that simply were not available then (meaning there is no 'original source material'): computer modeling, for example.

 

[lisab]

That list of reading looks more like a great curriculum for a 'History of Science' major. But how is that knowledge going to help a student who has just landed his first job, and is asked to operate an oscilloscope, or tackle a difficult technical problem? Knowledge is great, but you need marketable skills, too.

I suppose you could have both but I don't know how the typical undergrad student would find the time to read all those books. It's already a very tough 4 years.

 

[kote]

That list of reading looks more like a great curriculum for a 'History of Science' major. But how is that knowledge going to help a student who has just landed his first job, and is asked to operate an oscilloscope, or tackle a difficult technical problem? Knowledge is great, but you need marketable skills, too.

Speaking of which, you can usually find classes on many of the texts listed above - just not in physics departments. History and Philosophy of Science often have their own unified department with people studying these things. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_and_philosophy_of_science. Other schools will have classes in either history or philosophy departments. Any good philosophy of science course will go into some history.

I wrote my undergraduate philosophy thesis analyzing the historical development of the interpretation of QM, covering original Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Bohm, Bell, etc. This isn't an unusual type of thing to do in philosophy departments at all. It's exactly the kind of thing that is studied in philosophy of physics. In my case a physics professor was happy to advise and read it too, and I would assume that you'd be able to get support from your physics department if you went this route.

I do think that even a single course in philosophy or history of physics would be very helpful for physics undergrads. Some physics students can have as much of an arrogant and dismissive view of the philosophical and historical foundations of their field as bad philosophy students can have of physics. A dose of perspective can be very useful in both cases.

(Bohr was my favorite, by the way, and you can find the leading Bohr scholar, Jan Faye, in the philosophy department at the University of Copenhagen. And for the record I also majored in engineering.)

 

[Geremia]

That list of reading looks more like a great curriculum for a 'History of Science' major. But how is that knowledge going to help a student who has just landed his first job, and is asked to operate an oscilloscope, or tackle a difficult technical problem? Knowledge is great, but you need marketable skills, too.

Sure, but what about those students going off to grad school in theoretical physics? Where do they learn creativity, which will help them devise new and ingenious theories, if not by readings the masters themselves?

 

[Geremia]

Speaking of which, you can usually find classes on many of the texts listed above - just not in physics departments.

Indeed, but I am not advocating that all physics programs become history or philosophy of physics departments. I am just noting that these things, in any degree whatsoever, are sorely lacking in the vast majority of undergrad physics programs. I suppose what I am really thinking is that physics should not be taught as a self-subsisting knowledge system that just suddenly appeared, as though via "divine inspiration," from the intellects of a handful of 20th century minds. It has a history; it is human, and its knowledge is in no way exclusive of all other types of knowledge. In fact, it can profitably learn from other disciplines for the advancement of itself and the other fields, too.

 

[Sankaku]

While I fully agree that the history and cultural context of science are both very important, I am not sure that I agree with the Roman Catholic agenda implied in links from the first post.

There are many things that could be improved in University education, but trying to teach 'creativity' by forcing people to read the scientific 'masters' seems more like the exams to enter the Imperial Chinese bureaucracy. Should there be more of a balance? Yes, certainly. But I worry that mandating these kinds of courses would just result in students cramming historical factoids to pass irrelevant tests.

You don't teach creativity. You inspire people to want to create.

 

[Geremia]

While I fully agree that the history and cultural context of science are both very important, I am not sure that I agree with the Roman Catholic agenda implied in links from the first post.

"Roman Catholic agenda?" Please explain.

There are many things that could be improved in University education, but trying to teach 'creativity' by forcing people to read the scientific 'masters' seems more like the exams to enter the Imperial Chinese bureaucracy. Should there be more of a balance? Yes, certainly. But I worry that mandating these kinds of courses would just result in students cramming historical factoids to pass irrelevant tests.

Sure, they shouldn't be forced; they should be inspired.

You don't teach creativity.

This might be true. I've always thought of it as follows: Teachers give the students the tools, and the students create with them.

You inspire people to want to create.

Yes, I agree with this, but how?

 

[kanjames]

Yes, I agree with this, but how?

Personally, I would suggest leave them with the tools and expose them to the materials that have the potential to "inspire" (eg. the lists above) instead of making it as a required course and testing on irrelevant exams. Hopefully with enough personal time in the students' hands they will eventually come up with something that they find interesting, which is usually where creativity comes about from one's mind.

 

[ZapperZ]

Sure, but what about those students going off to grad school in theoretical physics? Where do they learn creativity, which will help them devise new and ingenious theories, if not by readings the masters themselves?

So how are you going to explain all the creativity that's coming out of these theorists that HAVE undergone the traditional curriculum? Or are you claiming that we haven't had any creative theorists these past many years?

Furthermore, since when do theorists have a monopoly on "creativity"? That's insulting to experimentalists who have devised some of the most ingenious experiments, and discovered some of the most unexpected phenomena.

The classic papers are wonderful in historical terms. However, they are NOT useful pedagogically! You do not gain real knowledge simply by reading something, something that is common in arts majors. You cannot solve for the forces needed to support a structure simply by reading Principia.

Zz.

 

[bcrowell]

Why aren't the classic papers and books required in U.S. physics programs?

IMO reading historical papers like the ones you listed is not particularly useful in understanding physics deeply, developing the ability to be creative in physics, or even in developing the ability to think skeptically in a broader context. There are a lot of reasons why people end up learning to calculate rather than to understand what they're doing. Often the reason is that their professors only know how to calculate. Or the student may not care about anything beyond calculation. Calculation is also a necessary (but not sufficient) part of developing a deeper understanding.

One shouldn't create a false dichotomy between lousy textbooks and logically rigorous primary academic papers. Even at the freshman level, not all textbooks are incoherent hodgepodges of spoon-fed facts like Halliday or Serway. For example, some of the Berkeley Physics Series is very good, as is PSSC Physics and the Feynman lectures. It's just that 95% of freshman texts are terrible, and if your professor is of the "shut up and calculate" persuasion himself, then he isn't going to be willing and able to search out the other 5%.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Even at the freshman level, not all textbooks are incoherent hodgepodges of spoon-fed facts like Halliday or Serway. For example, some of the Berkeley Physics Series is very good, as is PSSC Physics and the Feynman lectures. It's just that 95% of freshman texts are terrible, and if your professor is of the "shut up and calculate" persuasion himself, then he isn't going to be willing and able to search out the other 5%.

I think it's a bit over the top to claim 95% of freshman texts are "terrible". Most books can be perceived either as good or bad depending on how they are presented to the student- it's helpful to remember that Feynman's lectures were reviled by his students. More accurately, a majority of freshman/introductory physics courses are geared towards simple "shut up and calculate" approaches. The books are interchangeable.

 

[bcrowell]

I think it's a bit over the top to claim 95% of freshman texts are "terrible".

"Terrible" is an overly broad term, and I shouldn't have used it. As I read the original post, it was a complaint about courses that teach "what" but not "why." In other words, a liberally educated person should know not just "gravity is proportional to 1/r^2" but "how do we know that gravity is proportional to 1/r^2?" I would certainly claim that 95% of freshman texts bother with "how do we know" less than 25% of the time. As a random example, read Halliday and Resnick's explanation of relativistic momentum and energy.

Most books can be perceived either as good or bad depending on how they are presented to the student

A textbook sets the agenda of a course. An instructor who picks a book like Halliday has set a certain agenda: we will learn "what" but not "why." Typically the instructor picks such a book because the instructor only understands "what" but not "why." In that environment, a ceiling has been set on how much the students will learn.

it's helpful to remember that Feynman's lectures were reviled by his students.

Actually I believe this is nothing more than a popular myth. IIRC Feynman made some remarks about how he considered the course to be a failure, and these were taken out of context and exaggerated later.

It's also important to realize that the OP's concerns about understanding the "why" questions are not concerns that are shared by most students. Most students want a book that tells them how to solve exam problems using cookbook recipes. There may very well be a negative correlation between a book's popularity with students and the degree to which it accomplishes what the OP was asking for.

More accurately, a majority of freshman/introductory physics courses are geared towards simple "shut up and calculate" approaches. The books are interchangeable.

I don't consider Purcell's treatment of E&M to be interchangeable with, say, Halliday and Resnick's treatment of E&M. Purcell answers the "how do we know" questions. H&R doesn't.

 

[Phyisab****]

I have to disagree completely OP. It sounds like you wanted a degree in the history of science. I have my own issues with the educational environments I have encountered, namely the condescending and aloof nature of 75% of physics professors. But I am very glad that in my education the practical skills needed for physics were stressed, and not the historical perspective. This gave me skills which are marketable in industry and did not cause me to become a useless academic.

 

[D H]

My professors never required that I read, e.g., the original classic physics papers that liberal arts students at, e.g., http://www.stjohnscollege.edu/" , do!

The students at St. Johns eventually learn calculus, but apparently http://www.stjohnscollege.edu/academic/mathtutorial.shtml", and then they learn it primarily by reading Newton's Principia. That is terribly late to learn calculus, and a terrible reference as well. What is the value of reading the Principia to a physics student? Have you tried doing so? I have. I have; it is insufferable. Newton takes pages upon pages of slow text and archaic geometric arguments to arrive at and explain a simple result when expressed using modern mathematical notation.

Newton was writing for a different audience than today's science and mathematics student. The mindset of the audience and the mathematical tools available in Newton's time, even augmented with Newton's calculus, limited the nature of the discourse. It is the nature of the discourse rather than the physics and mathematics that is of interest to liberal arts students. Liberal arts students are expected to read several thousands (tens of thousands?) of pages per year, with the volume of material read per year increasing as the students advance. Science and mathematics students are expected to read several hundreds of pages per year, with the volume of text read per year decreasing as the students advance. Different mindsets and different goals result in different teaching techniques.

Those liberal arts students are reading the initial papers to discover the progression of human thinking rather than to understand modern mathematics and physics. Mathematics and physics students read the centuries-long refinement, consolidation, and expansion of those initial concepts. The initial presentations are ofttimes awkward and murky. It took a long time to distill those initial ideas down. It is the distilled thinking that is the essential concept to learn for math and science students. That the initial concepts are a bit awkward and verbose is precisely why these classical papers are of interest to liberal arts students but are of little value to the undergraduate science and mathematics students in the mainline science and math curriculum. They might well be of interest if the science/math undergrad chooses to take an elective class or two in the philosophy of science.

 

[Andy Resnick]

As a random example, read Halliday and Resnick's explanation of relativistic momentum and energy.

I find it odd that you chose a decidedly advanced concept to support your claim regarding introductory texts. I have a well-documented argument against the canonical introductory physics class, but *adding* advanced material is not part of my solution; clarifying the essential concepts is. Either way, neither of us thinks the OP's book list appropriate.

A textbook sets the agenda of a course. An instructor who picks a book like Halliday has set a certain agenda: we will learn "what" but not "why." Typically the instructor picks such a book because the instructor only understands "what" but not "why." In that environment, a ceiling has been set on how much the students will learn.

A textbook does not set the course for anyone other than a lazy instructor- as you point out. Nowadays, there is so much more to introductory courses than just the printed text- many professors augment with online content.

Actually I believe this is nothing more than a popular myth. IIRC Feynman made some remarks about how he considered the course to be a failure, and these were taken out of context and exaggerated later.

Goodstein and Neugebauer, who wrote the Preface to the series in 1989 and were present during the 1961-62 and 63-64 lectures, state very clearly that students "dreaded" the class, and that attendance steadily decreased.

It's also important to realize that the OP's concerns about understanding the "why" questions are not concerns that are shared by most students. Most students want a book that tells them how to solve exam problems using cookbook recipes. There may very well be a negative correlation between a book's popularity with students and the degree to which it accomplishes what the OP was asking for.

I don't consider Purcell's treatment of E&M to be interchangeable with, say, Halliday and Resnick's treatment of E&M. Purcell answers the "how do we know" questions. H&R doesn't.

As I've said many, many, times: I think the undergraduate Physics curriculum needs an overhaul. Purcell may be the one exception out of the half-dozen 'standard' texts currently in use; I have not read the Berkeley Course series.

 

[Geremia]

I have to disagree completely OP. It sounds like you wanted a degree in the history of science. I have my own issues with the educational environments I have encountered, namely the condescending and aloof nature of 75% of physics professors. But I am very glad that in my education the practical skills needed for physics were stressed, and not the historical perspective. This gave me skills which are marketable in industry and did not cause me to become a useless academic.

It sounds like you never wanted to get into the fundamental questions of physics when you first started your degree? If that's the case, then how you were educated was probably good, but I would call it more like a vocational training.

 

[Geremia]

The students at St. Johns eventually learn calculus, but apparently http://www.stjohnscollege.edu/academic/mathtutorial.shtml", and then they learn it primarily by reading Newton's Principia. That is terribly late to learn calculus, and a terrible reference as well. What is the value of reading the Principia to a physics student? Have you tried doing so? I have. I have; it is insufferable. Newton takes pages upon pages of slow text and archaic geometric arguments to arrive at and explain a simple result when expressed using modern mathematical notation.

Sure, but I can assure you you will understand it better. A lot of physics information gets lost when its all wrapped in equations. We really do take for granted what the equations mean.

 

[D H]

The students at St. Johns eventually learn calculus, but apparently not until their junior year, and then they learn it primarily by reading Newton's Principia. That is terribly late to learn calculus, and a terrible reference as well. What is the value of reading the Principia to a physics student? Have you tried doing so? I have. I have; it is insufferable. Newton takes pages upon pages of slow text and archaic geometric arguments to arrive at and explain a simple result when expressed using modern mathematical notation.

Sure, but I can assure you you will understand it better.

I can assure you that you will not. Newton's reasoning mostly took a long and tortured geometric path rather than a more direct and simpler algebraic path. That shouldn't be surprising; Newton lacked the tools that make the short and simple algebraic path possible. Amongst other things, Newton lacked the concept of limits (early 19th century), vector analysis (late 19th century), and modern algebraic notation (Newton's time to the mid 20th century) that make even simple mathematical and physical concepts much easier to describe and understand.

It comes down to a matter of time. It is no longer possible for one person to be well-versed in all subjects. A bachelors degree is supposed to take four years or so to obtain, not dozens. The large amount of material that needs to be covered in any undergraduate program necessitates that some peripheral material be given short shrift, or not even covered at all. Those students at St. Johns don't learn calculus until their junior year, and that which they do learn is sandwiched between a lot of other material. Mathematics and the sciences are given short shrift at St. Johns. St. Johns deserves a tip 'o the hat; most liberal arts colleges give even less consideration to mathematics and the sciences.

Most mathematics and physical science baccalaureate programs require students to take a significant number of liberal arts classes such as philosophy of science and history of science. These are worthwhile subjects. Then again, so are the fine arts, languages, humanities, social sciences, ... Not all can be covered in a four year technical education.

 

[ZapperZ]

Sure, but I can assure you you will understand it better. A lot of physics information gets lost when its all wrapped in equations. We really do take for granted what the equations mean.

There is a difference between learning physics, and learning ABOUT physics. You are confusing the two.

Furthermore, the physics curriculum, as it is, is already chokeful of a variety of subject matter that a student has to learn. One has to make sure the student has a solid foundation of physics before embarking on learning about physics. Besides, one can argue for the same towards those learning about physics. Why don't they also spend time learning physics? They ".. will understand it better...", rather than just some superficial idea of what physics is and then telling the rest of us to understand about something "fundamental", as if they know what they're talking about.

Zz.

 

[Jack21222]

It sounds like you never wanted to get into the fundamental questions of physics when you first started your degree? If that's the case, then how you were educated was probably good, but I would call it more like a vocational training.

The answers to fundamental questions of physics are inaccessible to people first starting their degree. You can't expect somebody fresh out of high school to learn tensor calculus to understand the current best theory of gravity.

 

[nonequilibrium]

Hm, prickly topic, but interesting!

First of all, let me say that books like Serway are an abomination. Okay, I'm not saying studying Newton's Principia is better, but there are degrees! Neither of these two extremes are good. Personally, I found it very frustrating how Serway was so good at fooling all my costudents in believing the book was actually giving them a thorough treatment of the basic concepts, but personally I found it a dreadful summation of facts you already knew, but then put in more tedious words, without making it at least tedious enough to be exact. Sorry for the rant. That being said, I believe my ideal professor would keep to a regular textbook (better than Serway, but not as historical as Newton) and would create interludes with some historical development, or at least advice the students on how concepts arose and most of all: be honest(!) That is what most looking of all, plain straightforwardness (admitted: I have only had one year of physics as of yet). But I'm a realist, and so I now use my summer holidays for reading up on the historical and interpretational side of what I've learned. If people are not motivated enough to get on it themselves, they won't like it being taught throughout the year anyway. As a little sidenote: we shouldn't blame too much on the university or the professors: I find the students themselves are often not motivated enough to even talk about physics after hours; personally it seems as though they just want to drink their Serway-blues away.

 

[lisab]

Sure, but I can assure you you will understand it better. A lot of physics information gets lost when its all wrapped in equations. We really do take for granted what the equations mean.

I disagree. As an analogy: when a person learns how to drive a car, they go straight to a car (or a simulation of a car). They don't start with a horse-drawn buggy. Further, I doubt that if a student did start with a buggy, that would not necessarily make them a better driver of a car.

 

[contramundum]

I disagree. As an analogy: when a person learns how to drive a car, they go straight to a car (or a simulation of a car). They don't start with a horse-drawn buggy. Further, I doubt that if a student did start with a buggy, that would not necessarily make them a better driver of a car.

Yes but most people take for granted that the car just works without understanding why or how it works. When the car doesn't work you take it to a mechanic because you don't know anything about how to fix it.

 

[Jack21222]

Yes but most people take for granted that the car just works without understanding why or how it works. When the car doesn't work you take it to a mechanic because you don't know anything about how to fix it.

Learning how to fix a horse-drawn buggy won't help you learn how to fix a car, either.

I'm not sure what point you just tried to make.

 

[nonequilibrium]

Man I hate analogies.

I'm surprised, though, that many people don't seem to acknowledge/agree that learning about the development of a theory gives you a better feeling with it, but of course, if you're not interested in the history for the sake of it, then the benefit of it won't be worth it: I don't think it should become a (greater) part of the curriculum, because then it'd be a part of what you have to learn and it becomes a list of dead facts that don't build anything if you're not interested in it, and if you are interested in it, then you can read the things yourself; of course I do welcome a professor that can advice on what to read into and plays some historical interludes for the fun of it :)

 

[Jack21222]

Man I hate analogies.

I'm surprised, though, that many people don't seem to acknowledge/agree that learning about the development of a theory gives you a better feeling with it

There's a chasm of difference between a brief mention of the development of a theory and reading Principia. The OP was talking about reading a long list of historical books in a physics program. That goes WAY beyond simply "learning about the development of a theory."

In my modern physics class, we spend half of a class on the history of the development of the quantum theory of light, leading up to Planck. I feel that gave me a little better of an understanding of Planck's law. But, that was less than an hour, not reading an entire book.

 

[nonequilibrium]

Well okay, when I say "learning about the development of a theory", I do mean reading the works or at least a couple of papers on those works; all the names you've heard of in QM have written enough books on the development of it. But okay, semantics ;)

EDIT: so what I called "of course I do welcome a professor that [...] plays some historical interludes for the fun of it :)" in my last post, references to what happened in your class

 

[thehacker3]

"[URL
Why do I deserve a B.S. in physics when these liberal arts students are the ones, based on their knowledge of these classics, more educated in certain respects of physics than I?

Because when you get hired at a job to solve problems, you'll know be able to do them better than the people who just know how to do them without having much experience actually solving them.

Well at least that's the US mentality about it..

 

[alxm]

Christ, it took years for Chandrasekhar, one of the greatest physicists of the last century, to translate, abridge, unravel and algebra-ify Newton's convoluted prose and tedious geometric arguments, as to put it into https://www.amazon.com/dp/019852675X/?tag=pfamazon01-20 a modern scientist could understand. I guarantee you, he did not gain any new insights into physics from doing so. He likely gained insight into how utterly confused (from today's perspective) and muddled the thinking on physics, and its terminology was in the 17th century.

Not only do I disagree with the sentiment the OP's expressing, I find it a distinctly anti-scientific attitude. It reeks of medieval scholasticism and its "ad fontes!"-ism, its worship of the past and insistence that true understanding could only come from studying the original sources. That is how the classics are studied, because it springs from this tradition where it was basically the only thing they allowed themselves to study. Which is what gave us Whitehead's famous assessment: "Western philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato".

Science started advancing the moment we started throwing out that attitude and realizing that we could figure stuff out for ourselves just as well as previous generations did. By realizing that as smart as Aristotle was, he may not have been right about everything, and that those of us living in the present might actually have something even more profound to contribute.

If you're interested in the history of ideas - which is not a bad thing for a scientist - you should also learn the history of the attitude you're expressing.

 

[Sankaku]

Science started advancing the moment we started throwing out that attitude and realizing that we could figure stuff out for ourselves just as well as previous generations did.

Yes!

 

[Andy Resnick]

Science started advancing the moment we started throwing out that attitude and realizing that we could figure stuff out for ourselves just as well as previous generations did. By realizing that as smart as Aristotle was, he may not have been right about everything, and that those of us living in the present might actually have something even more profound to contribute.

If you're interested in the history of ideas - which is not a bad thing for a scientist - you should also learn the history of the attitude you're expressing.

Well put.

 

[D H]

Man I hate analogies.

I'm surprised, though, that many people don't seem to acknowledge/agree that learning about the development of a theory gives you a better feeling with it, ...

Since you love analogies so much, let's try another: Did your readings about the early history of thermometers help you understand the modern concept of heat one iota ([thread=430875]this thread[/thread])?

A proper scientific reading of Principia takes a long, long time. As alxm already mentioned, it took Chandrasekhar years to wend his way through Newton's prose and geometric arguments. As any scientist or engineer can attest, reading speed of technical information, even well-written technical information (and the Principia, by modern standards is not well-written) is agonizingly slow. The very quick style of reading that must be done to survive in a liberal arts education is not going to teach any science. Those liberal arts students at St. Johns are not reading the Principia to gain one iota of scientific understanding. They are reading it to see how people thought and argued.

 

[Geremia]

Not only do I disagree with the sentiment the OP's expressing, I find it a distinctly anti-scientific attitude.

It depends how you define science. If you mean a chain of syllogisms from first-principles, I disagree. If you mean devising hypotheses that save appearances only, I agree.

Science started advancing the moment we started throwing out that attitude and realizing that we could figure stuff out for ourselves just as well as previous generations did.

So basically science "re-invents the wheel" each generation? What advantage does that bring?

By realizing that as smart as Aristotle was, he may not have been right about everything, and that those of us living in the present might actually have something even more profound to contribute.

Of course Aristotle was not 100% correct. Would you agree that modern science is based on some of his truer teachings, though, e.g., the methodology of his Posterior Analytics?

If you're interested in the history of ideas - which is not a bad thing for a scientist - you should also learn the history of the attitude you're expressing.

And what specifically about that history should I note? Thanks

 

[Geremia]

Those liberal arts students at St. Johns are not reading the Principia to gain one iota of scientific understanding. They are reading it to see how people thought and argued.

What makes you think that? I would think they know objective truth exists and can be known.