As like an actual scientist with publications in Cell and other competitive journals I agree. But this is a history subreddit so prepare for downvotes🤷‍♂️

Or contort the meanings of "history" and "need" until reaching the desired answer. It is kinda open to interpretation

I'm having a very hard time linking your article to the many worlds interpretation in QM with any amount of rigour.

Nobody thinks (I hope) that postulating some vague assertions about "many worlds" is a novel 20th century idea. The importance in the physics world is, at most, the connection to understanding the wave function.

A lot of this thinking goes back to the Renaissance. Many of the myths that get parroted to this day are from that period since the people then were trying to portray themselves as being more 'enlightened' than the people that came before them.

[removed]

As someone who enjoys persistent world fantasy roleplaying, i love running into people who do not know about scientific history.

Whether it be astronomical tools, early conceptions of calculus and much more.

Reason much of that is obscure is because people kinda carries it all with them to the grave since it was good job security.

I believe you mean "academic" as the -ic does the work of the -al already, and has yet to reach the level of common parlance like redundancies such as "mythical", et al.

[removed]

[removed]

People don't like thinking of "premodern" people as being intelligent, or even as people. Aristotle is popular in modern times because it lets "modern" people jerk themselves off by going "ha ha look at the ancient Greek cavemen people who were too stupid to invent phones because they think space is made of aether." I'm surprised people give proper credit to all the varied and disparate examples of calculus being developed independently of each other.

Some of my favorite classes at university were part of a 6 class series called History of Science, Philosophy, and Literature. I took 4 or 5 of them and they were very good as they crossed multiple disciplines.

[removed]

Without understanding it’s history, science devolves.

I thought it more like this, in science, induction or single data points happen and then is part of the past and is analysed, and through getting an understanding of past events, you can start to try and predict future data points. History in this sense can be seen as instances of specific events that can be used to substantiate a claim or theory.

[removed]

And yet I was perma-banned from /r/AskPhysics for pointing out in an answer to a question about the many worlds interpretation that the topic of many worlds as a result of quantized matter goes back at least 2,500 years to the Epicureans.

I've found that while every Physics major knows Einstein was the first person to experimentally show that light was quantized (which he won the Nobel Prize for), there's a fair share of even particle physics PhDs that don't know the theory goes back at least as far as De Rerum Natura.

Your experience may have been different, but I too often see the teaching of the "history of Physics" only really covering Aristotle in antiquity, leading to people thinking the sciences in antiquity were just confidently incorrect hogwash, and never learning about the group that in hindsight nailed everything from quantized light to survival of the fittest, but had been suppressed by the religious as impious in favor of Plato and Aristotle's intelligent design.

The whole rediscovery of those naturalist ideas significantly contributed to the scientific revolution following the Renaissance, as was the subject of the 2012 Pulitzer winning book The Swerve. And yet we continue to teach the incorrect minds that were more popular because of their incorrectness while the group that nailed an almost unbelievable number of things still languishes in relative obscurity.

[removed]

Or when to go back to the fork in the road.

Louis Vuitton and Chanel survived the Nazi regime by becoming their supplier.

Aren't "history" and "collecting data" basically the same thing?

Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn deals with this directly.

You could argue science is a part of history. It was developed, and that process is registered in books; that process of development of scientific knowledge is history in itself.

Newton creating calculus is a part of maths history. Einstein coming up with relativity is a part of physics history, to name some examples.

[removed]

How about a journal of negative results? Or let's just keep trying all the experiments that didn't work for other people.

I read the article. It was more academical than that, but that was the upshot.

>Science absolutely needs history and history absolutely needs science.

It's such an obvious question to answer that I can't imagine the discussion being anything more than a three-second clip of the lady going "uh, duh?"