SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Sender:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
"A. M. C. Waterman" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:16:23 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Reply-To:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (14 lines)
When I was at school in the 1940s, preparing for university entrance 
exams in science, we were advised to read Faraday's notebooks (by 
then in print) and other classic 19th C papers in physics, chemistry 
and biology, because it was supposed -- rightly in my opinion -- that 
we should thereby get an insight into the way the scientific mind 
works. And in the 18th C, as every student of HET well knows, 
undergraduates at Cambridge and the Scottish universities reading for 
an Honours degree were required to work through Newton's Principia in 
order to become better 'philosphers'. I am therefore inclined to 
demur from Kates's bold assertion that the study of one's great 
predecessors' can not make one a better scientist.

Anthony Waterman

ATOM RSS1 RSS2