Science Books from the 1950s, 60s, 70s and 80s

[Hunter]

When using science books from the mid and late 20th century, what things are outdated?

 

I am particularly looking at High School Subjects Self-Taught 1967 edition.

 

Here is a post by ElizabethB about the book.

 

I'm interested in using the science chapters as spines for high school science courses supplemented by library books and DVDs, for students pursuing a general/junior-college plan NOT a selective 4 year college-prep plan. I'm attracted to this text because the chapters are not cumulative, and do not systematically build on each other. They do not require mastery of previous sections, to move forward with the current section.

 

Other than the Eyewitness books I don't see anything more current that isn't cumulative or math focused, but still aimed at older students, and focused on an overview of biology, chemistry and physics.

[jar7709]

I personally would not use a science textbook that old for primary study. I might use it to compare/contrast how ideas about science change over time. I enjoy collecting antique geology textbooks for this reason, it is just another of my weird hobbies. :)

 

The concepts of plate tectonics and how that relates to most of the rest of geology was still really in its infancy in the 1960s. It wasn't until the 1970s that many textbooks started to include it, and it took a while after that for the observations of how it relates to types of volcanoes, lava, geologic mapping to be integrated into textbooks. The root causes of mountain building and volcanism as presented in pre-1970s and 1980s textbooks is really very different from current understandings.

 

For biology/chemistry/physics things that might not be wrong so much as have missing key modern concepts or nuance...things like many of the rare elements in the periodic table, "punctuated equilibrium," genetics, and other neo-Darwinian discussions of evolution, DNA sequencing, advances in science that have resulted from HIV/AIDs outbreak and research, etc. But I am not a biologist or physicist and I do not know how much those things might matter to you.

[regentrude]

You can use old materials for physics without problem, since everything is taught in high school physics has been known before 1960 and the most important concepts date back several centuries.

I would rather not use such old books for astronomy, because they would not include the important modern developments. Think about it: those books were written before manned space flight!

I would absolutely not use a biology curriculum this old because many new discoveries have been made that are taught as standard material. Also, the entire approach to biology has changed, and while the focus was heavily on organismas and classifications decades ago, it is not shifted towards cell biology.

I am not knowledgable enough about chemistry to voice an opinion.

 

One phrase in your post causes me great conern:

I'm attracted to this text because the chapters are not cumulative, and do not systematically build on each other. They do not require mastery of previous sections, to move forward with the current section.

 

To me, this would indicate that the text is not suitable for science study at high school level. To take physics, for example, it is completely impossible to study later parts of physics without a thorough understanding of the beginning material. Any curriculum that pretends to teach portions of physics independent of a mastery of the preceding material can not create the necessary understanding. Any curriculum that teaches parts of chemistry in isolation without a solid basis of the preceding material can not teach the more complex concepts.

Maynbe I am misunderstanding what you call a "chapter" (not being famliar with the book), but I consider a systematic approach necessary for high school science , not a patchwork of unrelated topics.

 

Also, while I like compact books, it seems unlikely that a book of the kind you describe (I read the quoted post) contains enough skill practice. Studying physics or chemistry can not be done without learning to solve actual problems; and it is through the problem solving that students develop an in depth understanding of the concepts. Nobody would consider it sensible to study math by just talking about math without actually doing math and solving problems - physics and chemistry also require problem solving and not just talking about stuff.

[Hunter]

Thank you both! This is all very helpful!

 

I don't want to get too off-topic of what is, and is not, appropriate "high school" science. But I have some students that will not be able to complete standard high-school texts. It's just NOT going to happen! Just...NOT :lol: I need to move FORWARD after "What Your _ Grader Needs to Know with something similar, because that is WORKING, really WORKING.

 

I need a spine to flesh out with middle school level trade books, magazines, and DVDs that are socially appropriate for teen and adult students. The Eyewitness books suggested in the 7th and 8th grade first edition TWTM are too busy for ADD students. I often find myself gravitating to the style of 1950s through 1980s black and white crisp texts, geared towards remedial adult students, for many different subjects, and would like to use them for science, too, if I can.

 

So back to 50s through 80s science--is the old biology WRONG? I know the priorities have changed and things need to be added, but is the old information WRONG? Nothing in a physics book would be WRONG? Nothing in Astronomy would be WRONG, just incomplete and easily supplemented with some good library books and DVDs? Especially some biographies of astronauts that my students always love?

 

I'll write more about geology and chemistry tomorrow.

[stripe]

Hunter, I completely get your love of old science books.

 

I would rather not use such old books for astronomy, because they would not include the important modern developments. Think about it: those books were written before manned space flight!

Then again, they don't count Pluto as a planet! "Everything old is new again," only not so much with all those moons of Jupiter!...but I have a book that has some vaguely optimistic statements about how one day man may go to the moon. Heh.

 

One thing I've noticed about the old books for anatomy / biology is that they are very coy about reproduction. I have one that depicts the male reproductive organ minus its, er, head; I posted about it at http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/350540-anthologies-the-childrens-hour-vs-young-folks-library-vs/page__st__50#entry3757566

. I have an All About book that mentions menstruation in detail, but nothing about reproduction beyond some hand waving. Even a book I have for teachers is very vague. This may or may not be an issue. Also I wouldn't expect anything or much about things like DNA. Some of them also seem to make a huge deal about different races. This seems to be in accord with what my parents recall from the their 1950s and 1960s education.

[Farrar]

I find that even in older biology and chemistry books for young kids that I see things that are simply wrong because our knowledge has changed. So I can only imagine that in an older high school level text, the problem would be amplified.

 

I don't know enough about the situation and your goals, Hunter. Or possibly about science... But if I was faced with students who needed some basic level of science knowledge but weren't going to do a "proper" high school course, I might have them read something more along the lines of Science Matters or a couple of more comprehensive popular fiction lay introductions to the science subjects.

[stripe]

I find that even in older biology and chemistry books for young kids that I see things that are simply wrong because our knowledge has changed.

That is just depressing. There is something about the old science books that I just love, but I can't quite articulate it.

[jar7709]

I find that even in older biology and chemistry books for young kids that I see things that are simply wrong because our knowledge has changed. So I can only imagine that in an older high school level text, the problem would be amplified.

 

I don't know enough about the situation and your goals, Hunter. Or possibly about science... But if I was faced with students who needed some basic level of science knowledge but weren't going to do a "proper" high school course, I might have them read something more along the lines of Science Matters or a couple of more comprehensive popular fiction lay introductions to the science subjects.

 

I definitely agree with the bolded. Some of these books are engaging, very good, and could provide good basic science understanding for an older student that doesn't need college-prep work. Off the top of my head, in addition to Science Matters, you could look at "The Canon" by Natalie Angier and/or Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" for general overviews. If you want to go this direction, we can probably come up with a list of subject-specific books as well. Maybe things like "Bad Astronomy" by Phil Plait and other books that talk about science in movies and media.

[kiwik]

I will keep my eyes open. You need uncluttered, not too busy, middle school level (is that 12-14 ish?). Presumably US/imperial units. With a section on each basic area?

[regentrude]

So back to 50s through 80s science--is the old biology WRONG?

 

 

Yes, there will be quite some stuff just wrong. Our understanding of cell biology has made huge leaps since the 1950s, so I would be very wary about accepting theories from back then.

The structure of the DNA was not discovered until 1953! So anything that has to do with molecural genetics will be incorrect in an old book. And epigenetics is so new that textbooks from the 90s will be wrong.

 

I know the priorities have changed and things need to be added, but is the old information WRONG? Nothing in a physics book would be WRONG?

 

 

In physics, nothing would be wrong. If you stick to mechanics and eletrodynamics, everything will be included. You won't get to any modern developments.

 

Nothing in Astronomy would be WRONG, just incomplete and easily supplemented with some good library books and DVDs? Especially some biographies of astronauts that my students always love?

 

 

There will be wrong stuff. Aside from superficial things (whether you classify Pluto as a planet or not is not actually science, since it changes absolutely nothing about what we know about Pluto, so it is completely irrelevant from a scientific point of view), I would suspect that the theories about the formation of the planetary system may be incorrect, and pretty much most of cosmology. The formation of elements within stars has not been understood until 1957. Quasars were discovered in the early 1960s. Cosmic microwave radiation was not discovered until 1965. The black hole in the center of our galaxy was not yet discovered in the 90s. And dark matter and dark energy are rather recent concepts - matter as we know it has been found to make up only 5% of the universe, which is quite mind boggling.

 

Btw, biographies of astronauts are not actually science; they may be nice, but actualy teach history.

[Arcadia]

I need to move FORWARD after "What Your _ Grader Needs to Know with something similar, because that is WORKING, really WORKING.

 

 

SAT study guides might work for your purpose. They are concise with worked examples and easy to borrow from the library.

[regentrude]

Then again, they don't count Pluto as a planet! "Everything old is new again," only not so much with all those moons of Jupiter!...but I have a book that has some vaguely optimistic statements about how one day man may go to the moon. Heh.

 

 

Whether Pluto is called a planet or not is actually NOT something to get hung up about because this fact, in itself, is not science. Nothing has changed about Pluto, it still goes in the same orbit we have known and has the same properties (only now we have found plenty of other little objects with similar properties, so his position is no longer special). This is merely a question of names and rather irrelevant as a scientific fact.

[stripe]

Whether Pluto is called a planet or not is actually NOT something to get hung up about because this fact, in itself, is not science. Nothing has changed about Pluto, it still goes in the same orbit we have known and has the same properties (only now we have found plenty of other little objects with similar properties, so his position is no longer special). This is merely a question of names and rather irrelevant as a scientific fact.

I understand that; I was joking around. But I am touched that Pluto warrants a male pronoun! :)

[Laura Corin]

Here's another thought: CGP books. Very cheap. Mostly black and white. This is their middle school science workbook with sample. This is their 'high school' (actually the first two age-years of US high school) books are on this page. There seem to be 'revision guides' and 'workbooks', so you'd have to work out how it all fits together.

 

Laura

[Hunter]

If anyone who knows about science, and enjoys reading vintage texts, wants to read a bit of High School Subjects Self-Taught, I'd love to hear any specific warnings about individual sections. This book is continually discussed here at this forum in the ultra-minimalism threads. People seem to favor the 1967 single volume.

 

I am lucky enough to also have a mint copy of the 1989 4 volume edition, but it's rare to find and too irreplaceable to use directly with students, and I'm not sure the updates were done responsibly. There is no Latin in the 1989 edition, but the answer key still has the Latin answers. :confused:

 

I really don't want to get into my general education philosophies in THIS thread. Like Stripe, I'm just really attracted to the vintage science texts and just want to learn when I can, and cannot use them, and how. And I know I'm not the only one that owns High-School Subjects Self-Taught.

 

I'm wondering if I even learned "correct" geology back in the early 80s when I look earth science, but know I've seen all sorts of good stuff on DVDs and in library books that didn't contradict what I learned. And some of the other topics mentioned are too advanced for logic level students so...I'm not sure if there is some underlying problems still, or if it's not an issue.

 

I may just rip out the science sections of HSSST and study them intensively along with some current books, and make it my new study project. There are reasons I prefer HSSST to the more current resources that have been so kindly mentioned in this thread, but my reasons are for another thread.

 

Whether it should be or not, this weeks obsession is HSSST and mid 20th century science books and encyclopedias.

[Hunter]

Are some of the children's texts more sanitized and dumbed down than "wrong"? Were some authors of a period worse authors than others, just like now? Should we write off a decade entirely for certain topics, or is it worth looking through the trash to find the treasures?

[8filltheheart]

I think it is really going to depend on the type of bk and the target age group. I don't own any old textbooks except for A Child's Geography of the World that was my oldest sister's. (It is a hoot bc Earth had never been seen from space......definite inaccuracies, but fun for them to realize just how short of a time has passed since our understanding of so much has changed!). But, we do implement a lot of older science books.

 

The Wonder Book of Chemistry, for example, I love. It does contain some errors and elements have not yet been discovered, but that does not negate its value. First of all, I read it to my kids improving on the translation. Second, its value lies in getting kids to think about scientific principles and simple chemical reactions. It is meant for younger kids.....I read it to 3rd to 5th graders. I don't care if it is up to date or 100% accurate in modern chemistry bc my goal at those ages is sparking enthusiasm and understanding the big picture not the minute details. I haven't found anything I like better.

 

For biology, again, for younger kids, old bks that are discussing ecosystems or individual animals, we use. For example, my dd has read the entire Our Living World of Nature series which was developed by the Dept of the Interior in the late 60s and 70s. The info is out of date in terms of certain animal population demographics, etc, but the habitat/ecosystem info is excellent if not completely up to date. Here is a review I read about The Life of the Forest before making the decision to let her read them (they were my parents and were given to me......I didn't go out seeking older books ;) ).

 

http://www.amazon.com/Forest-Living-World-Nature-Series/dp/0070448752/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_1

This is a great book. Amazingly, for a book with a 1966 copyright date, the information is still very pertinent today. I borrowed a copy of this book from one of our MetroParks visitor's centers and I knew that I had to find a copy of it. Being a Biologist, all of my text books and resources are on a professional level. This book will be helpful for making presentations to school groups. The information is very well organized and presented at a level for 5th grade through high school students.

 

Again, the purpose of reading a book like that is not learning about photosynthesis or cellular level plant biology. Her reading the series built an incredible understanding of various ecosystems. We also used these books as springboards for researching current info on various issues for her to present in writing assignments.......what does current research show compared to 40 yrs ago. Many times there was no significant difference.

 

Would I go this route for science in general? No. I approach older science books with caution and only use them after careful deliberation.

[TraceyS/FL]

I'm going to be on the hunt for science for "high school" that cannot be "high school". Heck, middle school might be too much - most of the logic materials I have looked at would be over her head at this point. There is a textbook company someone had mentioned that does "Hi-Lo" type of books, so material is on grade level but the reading level is wayyyyy lower. I plan to look at some of those this summer.

 

But, this child is so NOT going to do college level science of any sort, but I would like to have her exposed to various things. She does work well with a video format, so I am going to start trying to see what I can find that way. She is interested it in certain topics - but cannot process higher level material.

 

I have one curriculum bookmarked to look at too, but I will overall have a better feel for what we can and can't do after some physics this summer. http://www.lamppostpublishing.com/paradigm-integrated-chemistry-physics.htm

 

Hunter - one thing I did discover was that there were "readers" for texts that brought them down levels for struggling learners in a classroom. The one I saw was on Geography, I haven't investigated if there are more. I want to order this one to see what it actually has in it! http://amzn.com/0078653266

[8filltheheart]

I'm going to be on the hunt for science for "high school" that cannot be "high school". Heck, middle school might be too much - most of the logic materials I have looked at would be over her head at this point. There is a textbook company someone had mentioned that does "Hi-Lo" type of books, so material is on grade level but the reading level is wayyyyy lower. I plan to look at some of those this summer.

 

 

 

Walsh Power Basics cover typical high school level subjects on a much lower reading level and with only very basic coverage. http://walch.com/power-basics-text-books/

[Heathermomster]

AGS publishes high school science texts that are written at a lower reading level.

[TraceyS/FL]

Walsh Power Basics cover typical high school level subjects on a much lower reading level and with only very basic coverage. http://walch.com/pow...ics-text-books/

Thanks!!!

 

Bookmarked and added to the summer "to-do" list!!

 

Only 4.5 more weeks of school left (for me! LOL!!) then I can have "fun" :D

[regentrude]

But I am touched that Pluto warrants a male pronoun! :)

 

Chalk it up to me being from Germany where planets and pets with male names are referreded to with male pronouns - this is something I still instinctively do.

But yes, I do have a soft spot for poor Pluto who got demoted through none of his (its) own fault ;-)

[Hunter]

I've spent the morning comparing the 1967 and the 1989 edition. Just...shame on them. There isn't any point to using the newer edition. The portions that have been updated the most are out of date again anyway, like the geography and the addition of the research paper. Space travel and computers were not updated. They were so well done originally though, that I'm still impressed with them, despite being unusable. Portions of the book I'm just going to use as a scope and sequence.

[Farrar]

Are some of the children's texts more sanitized and dumbed down than "wrong"? Were some authors of a period worse authors than others, just like now? Should we write off a decade entirely for certain topics, or is it worth looking through the trash to find the treasures?

 

I think most errors are what you say, but I've seen some that are downright incorrect. There's a series from the 60's that my library still has called "What is a..." The entry was pretty much the only thing on atoms and I checked it out. Mostly incorrect by today's knowledge - and probably made worse by the attempt to dumb down complex information at the time. But I've seen other issues in that series where the information is wrong. On the other hand, we had the one out about electricity and it was basically fine. So... sure, I think it's worth looking for gems. That book about electricity wasn't one of them, but there are others. There's a very old geology text I saw here awhile back, for example. It's apparently fine if you're literally just focused on types of rocks and the rock cycle. You just couldn't use it for other topics in geology and earth science.

[Hunter]

 

I think most errors are what you say, but I've seen some that are downright incorrect. There's a series from the 60's that my library still has called "What is a..." The entry was pretty much the only thing on atoms and I checked it out. Mostly incorrect by today's knowledge - and probably made worse by the attempt to dumb down complex information at the time. But I've seen other issues in that series where the information is wrong. On the other hand, we had the one out about electricity and it was basically fine. So... sure, I think it's worth looking for gems. That book about electricity wasn't one of them, but there are others. There's a very old geology text I saw here awhile back, for example. It's apparently fine if you're literally just focused on types of rocks and the rock cycle. You just couldn't use it for other topics in geology and earth science.

 

 

I wish I knew as much about science as you do. I'm reading through the 1967 earth science and don't see anything other than what I have been taught, and don't know if that is a problem or not. :confused: I feel like maybe I should stay focused on the big picture and not go looking for trouble, at least for now. The drive to do it "right"can get me in more trouble than when I just go with the flow.

[jar7709]

Yes, it could be worth rooting through old books, if that is how you want to spend your time. IMO for most of the basic, descriptive science topics, like classifications of rocks or life cycles of birds or how electricity works or the parts of a cell, you might be ok with most older books, with a big exception for any topic that has really been advanced through more modern technology, like our understanding of most astronomy and anything that requires "remote sensing". Unfortunately, when it gets down to the WHY or the interactions between these basic topics, I think you are going to get on shaky ground rather quickly with these older books. And again IMO it is these whys and interactions are where true science understanding comes.

 

I have not seen copy of HSSST so I can't speak to the science in that one specifically, but I will keep my eyes out for one to appease my own curiosity.

[Farrar]

 

I wish I knew as much about science as you do. I'm reading through the 1967 earth science and don't see anything other than what I have been taught, and don't know if that is a problem or not. :confused: I feel like maybe I should stay focused on the big picture and not go looking for trouble, at least for now. The drive to do it "right"can get me in more trouble than when I just go with the flow.

 

 

Oh, I definitely don't know that much. I probably have more science literacy than most non-scientists, but I worry a lot too about missing errors. That's why I don't bother with older books that often - because I know I can only find the errors sometimes and older books are more likely to have them. New books are often full of them too though. For example, I saw a very new book that presented the old style Five Kingdoms of Life classification system as set in stone recently and my understanding is that scientists are currently changing that over a great deal - and it's still in flux. I was surprised to see it presented as "fact" in an almost brand new book. Though in a way, that may fall into the same category as whether or not Pluto is a planet. It's not that Pluto changed, it's that the way we classify and think about these things changed.

[Hunter]

 

Oh, I definitely don't know that much. I probably have more science literacy than most non-scientists, but I worry a lot too about missing errors. That's why I don't bother with older books that often - because I know I can only find the errors sometimes and older books are more likely to have them. New books are often full of them too though. For example, I saw a very new book that presented the old style Five Kingdoms of Life classification system as set in stone recently and my understanding is that scientists are currently changing that over a great deal - and it's still in flux. I was surprised to see it presented as "fact" in an almost brand new book. Though in a way, that may fall into the same category as whether or not Pluto is a planet. It's not that Pluto changed, it's that the way we classify and think about these things changed.

 

I'm not so quick to change how I classify and think, just because everyone else is. I can tend to be really oldschool, or just decide NONE of it must really matter if it's so changeable.

 

Some of the things I'm really trying to do lately are not throw out the baby with the bathwater, stay focused on the big picture, and even do some small things "wrong" if it's the most efficient way to get to the finish line. I can get so lost in the tiny details and my obsessions that my priorities get smothered. I'm not sure where the line is though.

 

I do NOT understand the whole push to do away with the old classification system. :confused: Is it a big enough topic for a new thread?

[regentrude]

I do NOT understand the whole push to do away with the old classification system. :confused: Is it a big enough topic for a new thread?

 

 

I am not a biologist, so I may be wrong here, but as far as I understand it, the new classifications arise because we are now able to establish relationships between species on a genetic level.

The old classification system is based on phenotype: morphology, structure and function of the organisms, things we can "see" and observe directly. But those apparent relationships and similarities may be superficial, and on a genetic level the organisms are related differently. Phylogenetics can reveal evolutionary relationships between species through molecular sequencing, and the modern classification system is attemtping to take those new findings into account.

[Arcadia]

I do NOT understand the whole push to do away with the old classification system. :confused: Is it a big enough topic for a new thread?

 

My 8 year old is learning that for his 4th grade science now. The three domain system is basically what my kids will be tested on. I am learning along with him :p

The diagram on this page is a quick overview of the five kingdom and three domain system http://www.mun.ca/bi...ee_Domains.html

This is an AP Biology 2009 question on phylogeny http://apcentral.col..._biology_q3.pdf and a 2011 question (#4) http://apcentral.col..._guidelines.pdf

Not sure how it is tested in SAT but it is covered in a SAT Biology 2013 prep book on page 187.

[kiwik]

Ds6 gets a lot of school readers on animals, earthquakes, vocanoes etc. They are about 2nd grade level but are quite informative. Most of them are by PM cengage learning.

[kiana]

I would be a lot more inclined to go with some of the more recently written books that are intended for high school age students who are not reading at a high school level. AGS and Power Basics are two of the best-known, and I know that they're available for purchase for homeschoolers.

 

I understand your love of old books -- I really do. I love and collect vintage textbooks of all kinds. But I just don't think that, when this is going to be a student's only exposure to the topic, using textbooks with un-updated information is going to be the best option.

[Hunter]

I understand your love of old books -- I really do. I love and collect vintage textbooks of all kinds. But I just don't think that, when this is going to be a student's only exposure to the topic, using textbooks with un-updated information is going to be the best option.

 

 

No, not the ONLY exposure. With added library books, DVDs, encyclopedia articles, youtube videos and anything else that I find that looks interesting and is available to me, just like I supplement the What Your _ Grader Needs to Know books.

[Hunter]

I pulled out my copy of Science Matters. It's certainly not a REPLACEMENT for HSSST, but it covers every topic we have been discussing, and will make a great SUPPLEMENT.

 

I tried using Science Matters as a spine back in the early 2000s, but the over focus on the newest developments instead of the basics wasn't working. SM used with HSSST after What Your _ Grader Needs to Know, is exactly what I'm looking for though. This one, two, three punch will get the job done, I think.

[Hunter]

I am not a biologist, so I may be wrong here, but as far as I understand it, the new classifications arise because we are now able to establish relationships between species on a genetic level.

The old classification system is based on phenotype: morphology, structure and function of the organisms, things we can "see" and observe directly. But those apparent relationships and similarities may be superficial, and on a genetic level the organisms are related differently. Phylogenetics can reveal evolutionary relationships between species through molecular sequencing, and the modern classification system is attemtping to take those new findings into account.

 

 

Science Matters say this:

 

The Five Kingdoms taxonomy is "based on the physical appearance of organisms". The Three Domains of Life is an "alternate division of life based entirely on chemical differences among organisms. ...there is no one 'correct' classification scheme. How you classify living things depends on what you want to do. The traditional species-based system would be appropriate for someone studying the ecology of a forest, while the RNA-based scheme might be appropriate for someone studying microbes in a hot pool."

 

I think this is explains why I'm often drawn to old books. The new "correct" ways are often not the best way to do what I want to do.

[Stephen Fennell]

LOOKING AT AQUIRING MY OLD SCIENCE TEXT BOOKS to support Home Schooling my granddaughter. The books for Grade 8 to 10 came in a series of three books(Jacaranda??). Black - Astronomy, Geology, Blue - Chemistry , Physics, Heat  , Red - Biology, I used these in QLD 1969 - 1971. ( De La Salle Scarborough) Would like to purchase or have a electronic copy cheers Stephen

[Melissa in Australia]

zombie