Texas. Thank you jim. Id like to start by explaining how i came to write this and why i came to write this. And to that purpose ill read from, initial part of the preface. Im a physicist not a historian but over the years ive become increasingly fascinated by the history of science. My own handwriting is touch on history, its been mostly the modern history of physics and astronomy, roughly from the late 19th century to the present. Although in this era we learned many new things. The goals and since the physical size have not materially changed. The physicist of 1900 were somehow taught todays standard model of cosmology or of elementary particle physicist, they wouldve found much to amaze them at the idea of seeking mathematically formulated and experimentally validated impersonal principles that explain the wide variety of phenomena would have seen quite familiar. A while ago i decided i needed to dig deeper to learn more about an earlier era in the history of science and the goals a
To the present. Although in this era the goals and standards havent materially changed. It was somehow taught todays standard model of cosmology or elementary particle physics. They would have found much to amaze them with the idea of seeking the experimentally validated in perfect principles that explain a wide variety of phenomena would have seemed quite familiar. A lawyer with the latest i did that i needed to dig deeper to learn more in the goals and standards of science have not yet taken their present shape. Over the past decade at the university of texas, from time to time taught undergraduate courses of us dominated the students had no special background science, mathematics and history. This would be out of the courses. What i found from my experience in teaching and the reading i have to do somewhat surprised me not only did and we know what we knew, they didnt have the funniest idea of what there was to know about how to learn this. You shouldnt imagine the idea that i descr