Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:58:21.570Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Relevance of Philosophy of Science for Science Education

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Michael Martin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

What relevance - if any - does philosophy of science have for science education? Unfortunately, this question has been largely unexplored. To be sure a great deal has been written on the philosophy of science; perhaps even more has been written in science education. However, surprisingly little has been written on the relation between the two areas. In this paper I will suggest some ways in which philosophy of science can have relevance for science education.

Before one considers how philosophy of science can have relevance to science education it is important to consider what is meant by ‘philosophy of science’. Some contemporary philosophers of science have distinguished two different approaches to philosophy of science: analytic and speculative. However in recent years a view of the philosophy of science has become popular that does not seem easily to fit into either the analytic or speculative categories.

Type
Symposium: Science Education and the Philosophy of Science
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1974 , 1974 , pp. 292 - 300
Copyright
Copyright © 1976 by D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht-Holland

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 There have been a few works. See Martin, Michael, Concepts of Science Education: A Philosophical Analysis (Scott-Foresman, Glenview, III., 1972);Google Scholar Robinson, James T., The Nature of Science and Science Teaching (Wadsworth Publishing Co., Belmont, Cal., 1968).Google Scholar

2 For a similar contrast see Scheffler, I., Anatomy of Inquiry (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1963),Google Scholar Chapter 1; Brodbeck, May, ‘The Nature and Function of the Philosophy of Science’, Readings in the Philosophy of Science (ed. by Feigl, H. and Brodbeck, M.) (Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1953).Google Scholar

3 Martin, Michael, ‘Philosophy of Science and Science Education’, Studies in Philosophy and Education, 1972, pp. 210-225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 See for example, Barney M. Berlin and Alan M. Gaines, ‘Use Philosophy to Explain the Scientific Method’, The Science Teacher (1966) p. 52; see also Merritt E. Kimball, ‘Understanding the Nature of Science: A Comparison of Scientist and Science Teacher’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, (1967-68), pp. 110-120. Kimball's study showed that philosophy majors scored higher on The Nature of Science Scale than science majors.

5 See for example, Achinstein, Peter Law and Explanation (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1971), pp. 78-84.Google Scholar

6 Bruner, Jerome S., The Process of Education (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1961)Google Scholar. For an insightful critique of Bruner's views on structure see Hullet, James ‘Which Structure?’, Educational Theory 24 (1974), 68-72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Schwab, Joseph J., ‘Structure of the Disciplines: Meaning and Significance’, in G. W. Ford and Lawrence Pugno (eds.), The Structure of Knowledge and the Curriculum, (Rand McNally, Chicago, 1964).Google Scholar

8 Bruner, op. cit., p. 28.

9 Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, Biological Science: An Inquiry into Life (Harcourt, Brace and World, New York, 1968), p. 25.Google Scholar

10 See, for example, Hempel, Philosophy of Natural Science, pp. 22-28. See also Michael Martin, Concepts of Science Education, Chapter 2.

11 See for example, Hempel's discussion of Semmelweis, ibid., Chapters 2, 3. Also Martin, Concepts of Science Education, Chapter 2.

12 For an interesting discussion of flat earthers see Gardner, Martin, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science (Dover, New York, 1967)Google Scholar, Chapter 2. For a discussion of the use of pseudo-science in science education see Martin, Concepts of Science Education, Chapter 2.

13 Scheffler, Israel, Science and Subjectivity (Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, 1967), p. 86.Google Scholar

14 Martin, Michael, ‘Theoretical Pluralism’, Philosophia 2 (1972), 341-349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Such a position was suggested, although not called by this name, by Noretta Koertge in ‘Theoretical Pluralism, Criticism and Education’ in a paper read at the 1970 OISE Conference, ‘New Directions in Philosophy of Education’. See also her paper ‘Towards an Integration of Content and Method in the Science Curriculum’ Curriculum Theory Network 4 (1969-70), 26-43.