Krish Parikh Week 15 - An Ode to the History of Science
I spent Spring Break 2022 relaxing and exploring, and I developed a fascination with rocket science during this time. After constantly seeing the book Ignition!: An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants in my "Top Picks for You" section of the Amazon website, I finally decided to give this classic a read.
The book is a joy to read, largely thanks to author John D. Clark's dry sense of humor and god-given ability to connect the ramblings of crazy Russian scientists to industry-wide movements. Every chapter is filled to the brim with chemistry knowledge and gold nuggets of trivia for a space exploration enthusiast such as myself. Yet, the preface of the book still managed to stand out to me: Clark states that at the time of writing his book, little has been documented of the story of rocket propellants, and the space exploration industry of today should learn of their ventures; he explains, “I have discovered that [the professional engineer in the rocket business] is frequently abysmally ignorant of the history of his own profession, and, unless forcibly restrained, is almost certain to do something which, as we learned fifteen years ago, is not only stupid but is likely to result in catastrophe.”
Before reading the book, I had never thought that studying the history behind disciplines of science would prove useful. However, as Clark repeatedly brings to mind accidents in modern space exploration which could've been avoided knowing of past decisions and processes, its importance became clear to me. In science courses today, we are often told of the knowledge and practices at the cutting edge of a discipline. Yet, we neglect much of the past theories and ideas that were discarded as time has gone on. We talk about what works, but we never talk about what hasn't worked. As technology continues to advance, the impossible becomes possible, and the theories of old may be modified to defeat the state of the art.
For instance, take the neural network—the underlying algorithm which powers much of modern artificial intelligence today. Though its theory was promising, the computing ability at the time could not take advantage of its full potential, and it fell to obscurity until rediscovered nearly half a decade later. If computer science classes at the time discussed prior models of machine learning, instead of solely focusing on what the discipline does today, perhaps AI technology would be further along today.
It is important to remember the steps and missteps of science. Failing to do so, as Clark writes about in his book, can hamper the advancement of mankind and even lead to explosions.
Hi Krish,
ReplyDeleteYou know, I always wondered why typical public schools never really focused on the question of "why?" and just taught us the basic foundation of what we needed to know. I remember a period in my chemistry class last year where my teacher kept bringing up the ever-so-common exceptions present in the field of chemistry; my first instinct was to ask "how did they figure these out" followed by "why does this happen"? Granted, with time being a main concern, it is probably most productive to refrain from deviating off a tried and true curriculum; that being said, in my opinion, a school's job is to garner an interest for learning and exploration in students. Perhaps the deep dive into the complete picture (mistakes and successes) that you mentioned would result in a better education for American youth.
Sincerely,
Sean Wang
Hi Krish,
ReplyDeleteYou make a very good point that technology and computer science classes today tend to focus on the present and not the past. The "past" of computer science, and how it has transformed greatly into a field that essentially runs our daily life, is something that should be contained and not forgotten, for the reasons you mentioned. This reminds me of the emphasis American schools have on history classes, primarily United States history (which makes sense, I guess). Understanding the true "evolutions" of technology may be very helpful.
To me studying the history behind sciences is like trying to prove all of the formulas we were given in calculus. I just have to memorize a rule and understand a rule to be able to work through the numbers and get the formula. At one point, I thought that if we could emulate the mindsets of these incredible mathematicians or physicists we can derive all of the formulas and solve all of the physics problems on the AP test. I also get the sense that having a broader field of knowledge is one of the ideas that you are communicating. I keep saying my mom said this and my mom said that but she always talks about how everything fits like a puzzle piece and how sometimes the human mind reflects the basic laws of the universe. If that were the case, can we derive everything from the basics of how we operate?
ReplyDeleteHi Krish,
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that we tend to not think about the history of science, but history is so important that it is taught in our everyday classes. The entire point of history class is so we learn from our past mistakes and make sure not to recreate them. I feel as if this should more often than not be applied to science, since repeating a mistake in a scientific experiment is not only an inefficient and unprogressive way of studying, but also that it could lead to something incredibly dangerous that could have been avoided if we had just paid attention to it. In all, I agree that the history of science is important.
Hey Krish, I completely agree. In order for us to move forward in rocket science (and in life in general), we must learn to look back on the past simply for information that may be of use in the current situation. Something may have gone wrong, but maybe they were on the right track and just needed to build on it more. I really think this way of thinking can do the science world some good, as well as everyday people. Thanks for sharing!
ReplyDeleteHi Krish,
ReplyDeleteI remember in AP Physics C we really did just get equations thrown at us and then we would use them. We actually derived many of the equations while learning about them (many because some derivations are way too complicated). I think deriving the equations is a lot more helpful than just memorizing the equations as it helps you understand where it came from. In the second semester, we briefly talked about how microwaves and induction cooktops work, and after learning that, I gained a much better understanding of the topics.
Sincerely,
Vivan Waghela
Hi Krish,
ReplyDeleteYour blog brings to mind an interesting experience I had in AP Psychology class. We had been studying the theories of Sigmund Freud, who, although some turned out to be right, had many more be completely wrong. He had many absurd theories, among which contained the psychosexual stages of development. The entire class was left wondering why we were learning such obviously incorrect theories. The teacher then showed a video explaining that although it is important to recognize that Freud was wrong on many accounts, it is equally important to learn the history of psychology and recognize the process in which he arrived to his correct theories. This helped me develop a much better grasp on why we learn the material we do in class.
Sincerely,
Raymond Yu
Hey Krish!
ReplyDeleteThis is super interesting and now that you mention it, I can't stop thinking about how strange it is that we know nothing of the history of STEM subjects taught at school. We simply just have facts shoved down our throats to senselessly cram and regurgitate on the chapter or unit tests. We learnt about this in psych but things are only stored well in our memory if we tie meaning to it, which probably explains why we forget all the formulas for a specific test soon after. I think your insight goes to illustrate what is wrong with the school system, as if this week of AP testing hasn't already. This was a really cool takeaway that I will definitely continue to think about in my classes. Thank you for sharing and good luck on your AP tests this week<3
Hi Krish,
ReplyDeleteYou know, I've always had a pretty strong distaste towards nonfiction books. I just feel like in nonfiction, there isn't much story to be told. However, the way you describe the novel, the narrator seems to be pretty witty and self aware that his topic isn't the most thrilling in the world. I can't help but draw a similarity to my POAS novel, "You Never Forget Your First," by Alexis Coe. Not unlike your novel, Coe was aware that the genre of Washington biographies is extremely oversaturated, so her writing was more self aware, witty, and overall more entertaining.
Yi-Kuan C.