How great is the disagreement about the nature of science: A response to Alters

Abstract

In a recent JRST article, Alters (1997) surveyed philosophers of science to determine how much they disagree about the nature of science (NOS). Finding considerable disagreement, he asks how we should teach the NOS if there is no consensus on the matter. We have several concerns with this study and disagree strongly with its conclusions.First, our primary concern is with the design of Alters' survey. The 15 NOS tenet statements included were those most often selected by a panel of philosophers as those "on which they believed philosophers of science would not agree" (p. 43, emphasis added). This procedure clearly stacks the deck to make the disagreement among respondents appear greater than it is. This study therefore does not give a clear picture of how much philosophers of science do agree about the NOS, because the tenets most likely to be uniformly accepted were purposely omitted from the study. Alters' focus on disagreement about the NOS is in fact reminiscent of people who argue about teaching evolution because scientists do not agree about what evolution is and how it works when there is, of course, remarkable agreement about the fundamental concepts in evolutionary theory (although there is disagreement about some peripheral issues.) Second, there are significant problems with the wording of many statements included in the Alters survey. For example, Item 10 states, "Science rests on an assumption that the natural world cannot be altered by a supernatural being" (p. 49). Inclusion of this statement strongly suggests item selection biased against agreement because modern philosophers and scientists almost universally agree that science deals with things in nature and takes no position whatsoever on the "supernatural" (e.g., Shideler, 1966). We suggest that the surprising 42% agreement JOURNAL

Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues

“…Two additional aspects of the nature of science addressed by the VNOS include the understandings that scientific knowledge is the product of observation and inference, and the functions of, and relationships among theories and laws. These aspects of the nature of science are emphasized in current science education reform documents, including Project 2061: Science for All Americans (AAAS, 1990) and National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996), as well as in recent literature pertaining to the nature of science (Lederman, Wade, & Bell, 1998;Smith et al, 1997). To provide in-depth assessment of the participants' understandings of these aspects of the nature of science, individual items requested that participants justify their answers and support them with relevant examples.…”

“…Additionally, the seven aspects of the nature of science that comprised the interpretive framework for this investigation should not be viewed as exhaustive. Rather, they are a subset of the multifaceted tenets that make up the nature of science construct, albeit a subset that is consistent with the recommendations of science educators (e.g., Duschl, 1990;Hodson, 1985Hodson, , 1988Lederman et al, in press;Robinson, 1965;Smith et al, 1997), recent science education reform documents (AAAS, 1989(AAAS, , 1993NRC, 1996), and the writings of science philosophers (e.g., Feyerabend, 1978;Giere, 1984;Kuhn, 1970;Lakotos, 1978;Popper, 1963Popper, , 1988). However, it is possible that other representations of the nature of science could be more salient to decision making than the one used in this investigation.…”

Portraying epistemology: School science in historical context

“…Over the past 10 years there has been a rapidly growing interest in the nature of science in schools among science education researchers, science studies scholars, and policymakers (see, e.g., AAAS, 1990;Costa, Hughes, & Pinch, 1998;Jenkins, 1996;Lederman, 1992;Matthews, 1994;McGinn & Roth, 1999;NRC, 1996;Turner & Sullenger, 1999). The technical work of revising curricula, designing instruction, developing assessments, probing student and teacher conceptions, and so on, in order to realize the renewed emphasis on scientific processes in schools as well as to come to terms with the challenges of increasing cultural diversity has stimulated much discussion and no small measure of disagreement regarding just how the scientific enterprise should be represented in all this (e.g., Alters, 1997aAlters, , 1997bBrickhouse & Stanley, 1995a, 1995bEflin, Glennan, & Reisch, 1999;Good, 1995;Lederman, 1995;Lewis & Aikenhead, 2001;Smith et al, 1997;Smith & Scharmann, 1999;Stanley & Brickhouse, 1994;Suchting, 1995Suchting, , 1996. Perhaps this is to be expected as researchers struggle to define and clarify the foundations of their research program.…”

The “general aspects” conceptualization as a pragmatic and effective means to introducing students to nature of science

“…For an older, similar discussion, see Alters () and Smith, Lederman, Bell, McComas, and Clough (), as well as Eflin et al (), Rudolph (), and Elby and Hammer ().…”