Nature of Science or Nature of the Sciences?

Abstract

ABSTRACT:The present essay examines the emerging issue of domain-general versus domain-specific nature of science (NOS) understandings from a perspective that illuminates the value of domain-specific philosophies of science for the growth and development of the NOS educational field. Under the assumption that individual sciences do have their own character, we address the unique ontological, methodological, and epistemological features of Newtonian physics and evolutionary biology and we articulate the important differences that exist between the worldviews associated with these scientific fields, namely, the Newtonian and the neo-Darwinian scientific worldviews. The former worldview is consistent in many respects with assumptions that are grounded on positivism, whereas the latter worldview provides an alternative understanding of NOS, which is predominately based in the techniques of hermeneutics and historical sciences. We subsequently attempt to present the current inadequacies and weaknesses that the NOS field is challenged with as a result of not incorporating the differences between the Newtonian and neo-Darwinian worldviews into its research or instructional agenda. In addition, we outline the heuristic power for the NOS field that may accompany a potential shift from a homogeneous view of NOS to a view more informed by the specificities of any particular science or scientific field.

Identifying Demographic Variables Influencing the Nature of Science (NOS) Conceptions of Teachers

“…There is a high consensus in the education community about the importance of introducing students to an accurate portrayal of science, which is consistent with the contemporary interpretations of science [59,60,61]. On the other hand, what characteristics of science reflect its authentic character is a controversial topic among scholars from different fields (e.g.…”

Black & white or shades of grey : teachers perspectives on the role of nature of science in compulsory school science teaching

“…These activities are in line with suggestions in Ault and Dodick (2010) and Schizas et al (2016) who argue that NOS is deeply discipline and context specific, which means that the specificities of time, place, and individuals need to be taken into account. Examples of contextualized activities are:…”

“…As the VNOS instruments are connected to "the tenets", the critique is entangled with the critique of these tenets (see section 3.1.1). Thus, as mentioned previously, one important part of the critique has to do with the broad and general nature of the questions, 37 which, as argued by and Schizas et al (2016), does not leave room for exploring important differences among various scientific disciplines or context bound specificities. Furthermore, calls VNOS a "post-Positivist manifesto" (p. 526) and argues that it expresses dogmatic ideas of what is wrong and right in a debate that, in fact, has deep philosophical and sociological roots.…”

“…Another argument is that the tenets describe science in a too general and unspecific way with regards to the specificities of different contexts and scientific disciplines (Ault & Dodick, 2010;Wong & Hodson, 2010). The differences between scientific disciplines go well beyond the practicalities of how things are done, to also include discourses and epistemological underpinnings (Rudolph, 2000;Knorr-Cetina, 1999;Schizas et al, 2016).…”

“…There are different ways of defining theories and laws dependent on your scholarly belonging, and the terms do not seem to be relevant for all scientific disciplines or at all times. According to Schizas et al (2016), laws may, for example, be important to discuss in relation to Newtonian physics, but are not applicable to evolutionary biology since researchers in this area look for the concrete, specific and unique rather than generalizations. Through interviewing scientists, found that to scientific practitioners themselves it is of very little relevance to be able to draw a clear line between theories and laws.…”