The history of science is extremely broad and covers many areas. Although it’s a relatively new area, the subject itself has been around for centuries. History relates to the past events, retelling the achievements, downfalls and presentation of said events. Keep track of the history of science is a tremendous task. But, it must be done in order to keep organization and clarity to human history. When an author, doctor, or physicist publishes a work, it must contain some piece of thought of the era and have some importance. But, that thought or importance might diminish or time or the idea might gain strength over time. Historians should record all the theories that valid and discarded theories. The mind is always learning. There is no reason to limit the growth of the mind.
There are many contributors to science since the beginning of time, so it becomes extremely difficult to pinpoint what is important and what isn’t. When a historian or scientist discovers an invalid theory it shouldn’t be thrown out altogether. There still could be much to learn from the old manuscripts of research and observations. Bringing new people to look at old observations and theories provide new light to the interpretations to the subject. Thus, causing the mind to grow and be challenged at the same time.
Take for example, Descartes’ World; Descartes describes his three laws of nature that govern all life (Descartes 25-29). Some aspects of each of law had been found invalid through the work of Newton and modern physicists; however his base of ideals provided the base so that Newton was able to correct Descartes laws. “The first is that each particular part of matter always continues in the same state unless collision with others forces it to change its state” (Descartes 25). This first law gives almost a perfect definition of law of inertia described by Isaac Newton. So does that mean Descartes law is useless? Not the slightest bit. All past works provide much insight to the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document