Looking
into the past history of science will undoubtedly help us steer
the course for the future. But to be true to ourselves, and most
importantly, true to the History of Science, we need to have the
fortitude to separate facts from fiction, and fiction from
myths.
It is perhaps part of human nature, to
have heroes, idols, and beliefs that appear to be larger than life
and which have little or no resemblance to reality or to historic
facts. We stick by our heroes, idols, and myths, and put them high
on a grand pedestal of history, as they appear to represent the
best of all of us. We are shattered when we are faced with the
brute reality that many of our heroes and idols were no different,
at best, than any of us, and, at worst, were far below. The
History of Mankind and Civilization is saturated with such
examples from ancient to modern times. The current History of
Science as it is taught and presented, on the other hand, does not
come, even close, to providing us with the same level of scrutiny
and abundance of such critical examples --in fact, it is almost
completely silent on critical views. Why does this silence exist?
It is as if a historian of science would be crucified if he or she
were to "dig" into historic facts which could lead to a different,
uncomplimentary portrayal of a famous scientist. It is as if the
greater the fame, the greater the protection from historic
scrutiny towards such a scientist is. And this apparent
protectionism from legitimate historic scrutiny is bothersome if
the History of Science is to become at parity with the study of
the General History of Mankind. It is imperative that the search
for the Historic Truth be made the core of all research and
studies of the History of Science, if this branch of learning is
to be credible, respectable, and independent.
This climate in which the History of
Science has not gained its proper independent status within the
realm of academic studies is troublesome. The History of Science
needs to be elevated as a stand alone discipline and not merely as
an auxiliary or extension to Science disciplines. Its methods and
standards on historic scrutiny should be on parity with the ones
employed by the general historians studying mankind. Only then,
through unbiased historical filters, can Sciences be set free from
biased representations of its members. Our Historic Scrutinies
section will attempt to do just that, although we recognize the
tremendous opposition with which we may be faced.
H i s t o r i c a l
S c r u t i n i e s 
What's New In
Site Overview
Of
