al-mofhariz

All awesome—all FREE. Science. Live Bands. Comedy. The Secret Science Club opens Union Hall’s “Music at the Bridge” show with experimenter extraordinaire David Maiullo and his hair-raising “traveling physics road show.” Maiullo and his liquid nitrogen will shatter all your expectations… Plus three live bands—the French Kicks, Tiny Masters of Today, and Headlights—with comedian Dave Hill!! WHERE: Under the tent in the historic Tobacco Warehouse @ Brooklyn Bridge Park SPECS: Gates open at 6 pm. Rain or Shine. HOW DO YOU GET TO THE SHOW? It’s easy! Click here for directions to Brooklyn Bridge Park. CAN’T GET ENOUGH SCIENCE? Head over to Park Slope’s Union Hall (702 Union St. @ 5th Ave.) for a secret science lecture the very same evening. The doors of Union Hall's subterranean grotto will open at 8 pm. Pocket protectors suggested.

Clark A.Elliott, Belmont, Massachusetts (An essay in the " What's American About the History of Science in America? " series) The study of science in America has a history of its own and is relevant background to a discussion of the general topic. At the beginning of the post-World War II era and the related growth of history of science as a field of study, the focus was on European developments and, arguably, the emphasis was on so-called “internalist” history. American science was a side show to what had taken place across the Atlantic. The early generation of Americanists, for the most part, were (1) not disciplinary historians and (2) were especially interested in the nineteenth century. Given these conditions, the focus of Americanist interest was on the historic development of an infrastructure in support of scientific work, the emergence and character of a multi-layered scientific community, the development of a social and political ideology that granted scienc...

Hamilton Cravens, Iowa State University (An essay in the " What's American About the History of Science in America? " series) I became an Americanist for practical reasons. I thought that the entire world was interesting, but it seemed to me that if I wanted to do any research and writing in history, it was far easier to specialize in American history than in, say, modern European or classical history (two fields that tugged at me as an undergraduate). Yet I have retained my interest in European history and read widely in that vast terrain, especially in the history of France and of Germany. America, then, was to be my focus. More was involved, however. I also gravitated toward intellectual history, and the history of science and of religion (by contrast, I found political history as then practiced not to my liking). Among the influences on me at the University of Washington in these areas were the American colonial historian Max Savelle, whose Seeds of Liberty (1948) I ...

Alan I. Marcus, Mississippi State University (An essay in the " What's American About the History of Science in America " series.) Like virtually all historians of science before me, I entered the field from science; I had been a chemist. But unlike most science historians, I was never fully steeped in the scientific method as the only way of knowing or viewing natural phenomenon. I was too much of a sixties kid for that. Everything seemed more complex than what I had learned. Perspective seemed up for grabs. So when I was told that science knows no national borders, that scientific knowledge was an accumulation of data and facts that led to somewhere, I naturally felt dis-ease. I thought it quite cool how various practitioners of science in the past had figured things out, how they did whatever they did, but I never took it as a model for action, a model to be employed in some project to make the world a better place or to manufacture additional or new science. In that s...

The Forum is pleased to announce a new essay series on what it means to study science in an American context (broadly defined). Does awareness of the Americas as a place where science is practiced influence our understanding of that science? We are soliciting brief essays and comments (anywhere from 500-3,500 words) from scholars at all stages of their careers working any relevant discipline (not just history). Senior scholars might choose to reflect on how their understanding of science in America has changed over the years, if it has, while graduate students and recent Ph.D.s might discuss the relevance (or lack thereof) of the idea of American science to their research. Thirty years ago, the field of history of science was oriented almost entirely toward Europe. At about that time, a number of scholars consciously identified themselves as historians of science in America. During the years between then and now, research that was once marginal to the discipline has become central,...