Thoughts on Wilhelm Ostwald's book Conversations on Chemistry?https://archive.org/details/conversationsonc01ostwrich
This book interests me for several reasons.I found the book through this German reader, which I like a lot. The first part of the reader is the original German text with notes.https://archive.org/details/scientificgerman0000georThe teaching method caught my attention. I have seen similar methods for language teaching, but never for other subjects, such as here for chemistry. It's something similar to the "nature method" found in books like Hans Ørberg's Familia Romana. I looked into it and found that this was not at all how chemistry was taught in schools at the time, but rather Conversations on Chemistry was, in addition to a book that teaches you chemistry, a deliberate critique of how teaching was done, and intended to show how it ought to be done.I looked into it further and found that Ostwald was critical of the school system at the time and wrote about it in many of his publications, for example in a book titled "Grosse Männer" (Great Men) which has not been translated into English partly due to its controversial content. In it he apparently talks about school deliberately suppressing creativity and genius.https://archive.org/details/grosse-mannerFurthermore there is an interesting philosophical discussion on page 7 of Conversations on Chemistry, see picrel.Conversations on Chemistry was published in two parts, the second of which is here:https://archive.org/details/conversationson05ostwgoog
>>25465685I guess I should have put this text in the OP, because people are just going to see in the catalog that it's a book about chemistry and not be interested. Oh well, whoever finds it finds it. Also, posts about general autodidactism and teaching methods are welcome, that topic never gains enough interest here to be its own thread anyway.>>>/wsg/6208773>>>/wsg/6214201
>>25465685Sounds more like philosophy than chemistry.
>>25465725It's an extremely easy read, why don't you read more than just one page?https://archive.org/details/conversationsonc01ostwrich/page/1/mode/1up
>>25465681Bump for OP. Looks interesting.
>>25465685Thank you for sharing anon, I’ve read the first five chapters and it’s been fun. It may turn out to be good preparation for my chemistry course next semester. Do you know how many of Ostwald’s ideas about chemistry still hold true?
Oh, cool stuff.>>25466514Presumably it all very largely holds true today, though the terminology or the standard approach may have shifted slightly. At worst he will declare some harmful substances harmless. I mean, unlike Physics (goes ever deeper) and Biology (observes ever more), Chemistry is pretty pinned down experimentally and describing real stuff that’s simply true. Mostly it stays true. The only scandalous shifts are when lead-in-gasoline or asbestos or forever-chemicals are at some point busted as super dangerous to organic life.
>>25466514His work on catalysis and crystallization holds up. Ostwald ripening is a real thing you can model and observe. I had no idea he also wrote philosophic works like this.
>>25465681BumpWill read this sometime this weekend and try to get back to this thread t. PhD in chemistry and work as a scientist
>>25466514>Do you know how many of Ostwald’s ideas about chemistry still hold true?No, I don't know.
>>25465681damn, this nigga is reminding me of my high school days where I had to stoodycel his dilution law among other things such as osmotic pressure, van't hoff factor and shiett. Philosopher scientist was indeed a thing back then alright
>>25465681I just got this cause of the thread and am finding the book quite enjoyable. Thank you, anon.
bump
>>>/sci/17036463
