The nature of science: A perspective from the philosophy of science

Abstract

Unfortunately, as we all know, the philosophy of science is a very difficult subject of byzantine complexity and unplumbed depth. (Ziman, 1994, p. 27) !In a recent article in this journal, Brian Alters (1997) argued that, given the many ways in which the nature of science (NOS) is described and poor student responses to NOS instruments such as Nature of Scientific Knowledge Scale (NSKS), Nature of Science Scale (NOSS), Test on Understanding Science (TOUS), and others, it is time for science educators to reconsider the standard lists of tenets for the NOS. Alters suggested that philosophers of science are authorities on the NOS and that consequently, it would be wise to investigate their views of current NOS tenets. To that end, he conducted a survey of members of the Philosophy of Science Association, and, via various statistical techniques, made claims about the nature and extent of variation among philosophers of science regarding basic beliefs about the NOS. !As three philosophers of science, we laud Alters' attempt to understand philosophers of science' view on the NOS. We believe, however, that his techniques for investigating this question are inappropriate and that consequently, several of his conclusions are unwarranted. In this comment, we will substantiate these criticisms. In addition, we will address some of the important questions that motivate Alters' research and attempt to unravel the "byzantine complexity" of philosophical views about the NOS. We begin with our concerns regarding Alters' research. We then provide a taxonomy of philosophic issues; and finally, we suggest some roles for philosophy of science in science teaching and the education of science teachers.

Eliciting the Views of Prospective Elementary and Preschool Teachers about the Nature of Science

“…On the other hand, it seems that there has recently been an increasing tone of criticism directed towards the use of the consensus view as a pedagogical framework to design the instruction of NOS (e.g. Allchin, 2017;Eflin, Glennan & Reisch, 1999;Erduran & Dagher, 2014;Hodson & Wong, 2017;Irzik & Nola, 2011;Matthews, 2012;van Dijk, 2011). Despite the fact that a comprehensive discussion of the limitations of the consensus view is beyond the scope of this study, it is sufficient to mention here that the consensus view is criticized in terms of its failure to present a broader picture of science, to reflect the distinct characteristics of the various scientific disciplines, and to represent a systematic integrity among the items of the consensus list (Irzik & Nola, 2011).…”

Nature of Science Progression in School Year 1–9: a Case Study of Teachers’ Suggestions and Rationales

“…With a family resemblance approach to NOS teaching, both heterogeneity and resemblances between scientific disciplines are emphasized and structured within specific categories. (e.g., Eflin et al 1999;Erduran and Dagher 2014;Irzik and Nola 2011;van Dijk 2011). The framework of NOS themes used in the present study has its point of departure in the NOS tenets described in Lederman (2007).…”

A natureza da ciência por meio do estudo de episódios históricos: o caso da popularização da óptica newtoniana

“…Além disso, há a questão da veracidade ou falsidade das teorias científicas serem determinadas pelas características do mundo, independentemente dos cientistas. Alguns advogam que o mundoé quem determina o valor de uma teoria científica, enquanto outros afirmam que a naturezaé determinada pelas avaliações subjetivas dos cientistas [39].…”