NST2601
STUDY
GUIDE
(SUMMARY
STUDY
NOTES 2022)
,SCIENCEFOR
CLASSROOM2
NST2601
D e p a r t m e n t o f S c i e n c e a n d Te c h n o l o g y E d u c a t i o n
University of South Africa
Pretoria
, CONTENTS
Page
Study unit 1: Science in the context of society and the environment 1
Study unit 2: Matter and materials: Approaches, resources and case studies
12
Study unit 3: Energy and change: Approaches, resources and case studies
34
REFERENCES 71
...........
iii N S T 26 01/1
, STUDY UNIT
1
1
Science in the context of society and the
1
environment
I. SCIENTISTS PAST AND PRESENT
The history of science is full of great works that have marked a turning point
in the development of a branch of knowledge, and in which the proposals for
a new theoretical frame of reference or a new systematization of the known
facts were preceded by an extensive historical introduction consisting in the
evolution of the topic up to that moment. From the 18th Century on, with the
growing specialization in science that gave rise to new disciplines, and with
the acceleration of the changes in theories and scientific method, the number
of works of this kind has grown considerably. Particularly in the 19th Century,
there were many scientists who were conscious of the profoundly innovative
character of their work, and who did not hesitate to draw self-justifying historical
pictures which promoted appreciation of the significance of their own contribu-
tions. Cuvier, Humboldt, Ritter, Lyell, Darwin, Comte, and many others who
made decisive contributions, were not only aware of being genuine creators
and the force behind new scientific developments, they also took active part
in contemporary controversies and felt the need, to a greater or lesser extent,
to convince the general public of the innovative character of their work.
This led them to write, or rewrite, the history of the discipline, to reveal the
obstacles that had been put in the way of the development of that science,
whose final manifestation was now assured–and to point out those forerunners
who had prepared the way.
The case of Lyell is particularly significant. In the long historical introduction
to his Principles of Geology (1830) (1), Lyell created the myths which allowed
him to set himself in a privileged position in the Pantheon of Geology. He
did this both by claiming to be the true creator of the basic principles of that
science, and also by pointing out the barriers which had hitherto impeded its
development: religion, philosophical speculation, and the anthropomorphic
world view (2). In spite of these obstacles, the way towards a positive and
uniformitarian geology had in fact been discovered gradually, but in talking
about this Lyell hands out praise, blame (and silence) in a way that exaggerates
the originality of his own contribution. His introduction presents the history of
geology as an oversimplified dichotomy between biblical catastrophism and
uniformitarianism with its classical roots. Moreover, and not surprisingly given
the epoch, he offers a selective, partial vision of the past, decontextualising it
...........
1 N S T 26 01/1
STUDY
GUIDE
(SUMMARY
STUDY
NOTES 2022)
,SCIENCEFOR
CLASSROOM2
NST2601
D e p a r t m e n t o f S c i e n c e a n d Te c h n o l o g y E d u c a t i o n
University of South Africa
Pretoria
, CONTENTS
Page
Study unit 1: Science in the context of society and the environment 1
Study unit 2: Matter and materials: Approaches, resources and case studies
12
Study unit 3: Energy and change: Approaches, resources and case studies
34
REFERENCES 71
...........
iii N S T 26 01/1
, STUDY UNIT
1
1
Science in the context of society and the
1
environment
I. SCIENTISTS PAST AND PRESENT
The history of science is full of great works that have marked a turning point
in the development of a branch of knowledge, and in which the proposals for
a new theoretical frame of reference or a new systematization of the known
facts were preceded by an extensive historical introduction consisting in the
evolution of the topic up to that moment. From the 18th Century on, with the
growing specialization in science that gave rise to new disciplines, and with
the acceleration of the changes in theories and scientific method, the number
of works of this kind has grown considerably. Particularly in the 19th Century,
there were many scientists who were conscious of the profoundly innovative
character of their work, and who did not hesitate to draw self-justifying historical
pictures which promoted appreciation of the significance of their own contribu-
tions. Cuvier, Humboldt, Ritter, Lyell, Darwin, Comte, and many others who
made decisive contributions, were not only aware of being genuine creators
and the force behind new scientific developments, they also took active part
in contemporary controversies and felt the need, to a greater or lesser extent,
to convince the general public of the innovative character of their work.
This led them to write, or rewrite, the history of the discipline, to reveal the
obstacles that had been put in the way of the development of that science,
whose final manifestation was now assured–and to point out those forerunners
who had prepared the way.
The case of Lyell is particularly significant. In the long historical introduction
to his Principles of Geology (1830) (1), Lyell created the myths which allowed
him to set himself in a privileged position in the Pantheon of Geology. He
did this both by claiming to be the true creator of the basic principles of that
science, and also by pointing out the barriers which had hitherto impeded its
development: religion, philosophical speculation, and the anthropomorphic
world view (2). In spite of these obstacles, the way towards a positive and
uniformitarian geology had in fact been discovered gradually, but in talking
about this Lyell hands out praise, blame (and silence) in a way that exaggerates
the originality of his own contribution. His introduction presents the history of
geology as an oversimplified dichotomy between biblical catastrophism and
uniformitarianism with its classical roots. Moreover, and not surprisingly given
the epoch, he offers a selective, partial vision of the past, decontextualising it
...........
1 N S T 26 01/1
