Final Comments

Abstract

Over the course of this book I have tried to provide you with a sense of some of the major historical developments associated with Eurocentric science while addressing features of the nature of that science. Eurocentric science is the science most national education standards, including the National Science Education Standards in the US, and international testing programs, such as the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) call science. But as you might have noticed as you read through this book there are many forms of systematic knowledge that share some elements with Eurocentric science but which typically are not called science. Some historians of science argue that a defining characteristic of Eurocentric science is its use of structures, especially theories and models, to explain observed phenomena. But activities such as finding patterns in dice faces and deriving models within black boxes indicate that experience and measurement of phenomena already implies a facility with theoretical concepts or constructs. As you examined in Chapter 5, observations can never be theory-free. Even as 17th experimental philosophers were trying to adhere their interpretation of the philosophy of Francis Bacon they acknowledged the value of theorizing for making sense of phenomena. If theory remains a key element of science then it surprises me when I learn that courses in chemistry or biology or physics can be offered to high school students without any reference being made to scientific theories that are central to each of these sciences. I wonder how students can be expected to learn biology without reference to the scientific theory of evolution or chemistry without reference to kinetic molecular theory (particle model).