Towards a Refined Depiction of Nature of Science

Applications to Physics Education
  • Igal GaliliEmail author
SI: nature of science


This study considers the short list of Nature of Science (NOS) features frequently published and widely known in the science education discourse. It is argued that these features were oversimplified and a refinement of the claims may enrich or sometimes reverse them. The analysis shows the need to address the range of variation in each particular aspect of NOS and to illustrate these variations with actual events from the history of science in order to adequately present the subject. Another implication of the proposal is the highlighting of the central role of science educators who, facing various strong claims of researchers in education and philosophy of science, often have difficulty in making a choice of what to teach about NOS. It is suggested that a representative variation with regard to the traditional NOS claims may be appropriate for a genuine understanding of the subject. In that, using the discipline-culture structure of the fundamental theories of physics and addressing the plurality of scientific methods may be helpful in the actual teaching and learning of NOS.


Nature of science Context of science education Conceptual variation Discipline-culture Science epistemology and method 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.


  1. AAAS. (1993). American Association for the Advancement of Science. Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Examining the sources for our understandings about science: enduring conflations and critical issues in research on nature of science in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 353–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agazzi, E. (2014). Scientific objectivity and its contexts (pp. 54–55). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Al-Khalili, J. (2010). Pathfinders. The golden age of Arabic science. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  5. Berry, A. (1961). A short history of astronomy. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  6. Berry, A., Friedrichsen, P., & Loughran, J. (Eds.). (2015). Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Betz, F. (2011). Origin of scientific method. In Managing science, innovation, technology, and knowledge management 9, 21. Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Birstein, V. (2001). The pervasion of knowledge. The true story of Soviet science. Cambridge, MA: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bohr, N. (1949). Discussion with Einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics. In P. A. Schilpp (Ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist (pp. 199–241). New York: Harper Torchbooks.Google Scholar
  10. Bunge, M. (1967a). Quantum theory and reality. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bunge, M. (1967b). Foundation of physics. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bunge, M. (1973). Philosophy of physics. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bunge, M. (2000). Energy: between physics and metaphysics. Science & Education, 9(5), 457–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carnap, R. (1971). Philosophical foundations of physics. an introduction to the philosophy of science. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  15. Cartwright, N. (1983). How the laws of physics lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cartwright, N. (1994). Fundamentalism vs the patchwork of laws. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 93(2), 279–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chalmers, A. F. (1976). What is this thing called Science? Milton Keynes, England: The Open University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Clough, M. P. (2007). Teaching the nature of science to secondary and post-secondary students: questions rather than tenets, The Pantaneto Forum, Issue 25,, January.
  19. Clough, M. P. & Olson, J. K. (2004). The nature of science: always part of the science story. The science teacher, 71(9), 28-31. Reprinted in Koulaidis, V., Apostolou, A. & Kampourakis, K. (Eds.) (2008). The nature of sciences: Didactical approaches (pp. 287-296).Google Scholar
  20. Clough, M. P., Berg, C. A., & Olson, J. K. (2009). Promoting effective science teacher education and science teaching: a framework for teacher decision-making. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(4), 821–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Couvalis, G. (1997). The philosophy of science. Science and objectivity. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Cushing, J. (1994). Quantum mechanics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Dagher, Z., & Erduran, S. (2014). Laws in biology and chemistry: Philosophical perspectives and educational implications. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1203–1233). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Darrigol, O. (2000). Electrodynamics from Ampere to Einstein. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Di Francia, G. T. (1976). The investigation of the physical world. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Dirac, P. A. M. (1958). The principles of quantum mechanics. Oxford: Calendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dreyer, J. L. E. (1953). A history of astronomy from Thales to Kepler. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  28. Duhem, P. (1982). The aim and structure of physical theory. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2109–2139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Einstein, A. (1918/2002). Principles of research. The collected papers of Albert Einstein: The Berlin years, 1918-1921 (pp. 42–45). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University press.Google Scholar
  31. Einstein, A. (1934a). On the method of theoretical physics. Philosophy of Science, 1(2), 163–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Einstein, A. (1934b). Address at Columbia University, New York, January 15. In In Albert Einstein, Essays in science. New York: Open Road Integrated Media.Google Scholar
  33. Einstein, A. (1949/1979). Autobiographical notes. In P. A. Schilpp (Ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-scientist. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  34. Einstein, A. (1952/1987). Letters to Solovine: 1906–1955 (May 7, 1952). NY: Open Road, Integrated Media.Google Scholar
  35. Einstein, A., & Infeld, L. (1938). Evolution of physics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Feyerabend, P. (1993). Against method. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  38. Feyerabend, P. (1999). Knowledge, science and relativism philosophical papers volume 3. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Feynman, R. (1985/2014). QED. The strange theory of light and matter. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. van Fraassen, B. C. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. French, A. (1968). Special relativity. MIT physics series. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  42. Galilei, G. (1638/1914). Dialogue concerning two new sciences [Discorsi]. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  43. Galili, I. (2012). Promotion of content cultural knowledge through the use of the history and philosophy of science. Science & Education, 21(9), 1283–1316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Galili, I. (2013). On the power of fine arts pictorial imagery in science education in science education. Science & Education, 22(8), 1911–1938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Galili, I. (2014). Teaching optics: A historico-philosophical perspective. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history and philosophy for science and mathematics education, pp. 97-128, Springer.Google Scholar
  46. Galili, I. (2017). Scientific knowledge as a culture – A paradigm of knowledge representation for meaningful teaching and learning science. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), History (Philosophy and Science Teaching Research. New Perspectives. Ch) (Vol. 8, pp. 203–233). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  47. Galili, I. (2018). Physics and mathematics as interwoven disciplines in physics class. Science & Education, 27(1–2), 7–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Galili, I., & Hazan, A. (2000). The influence of a historically oriented course on students’ content knowledge in optics evaluated by means of facets - schemes analysis. American Journal of Physics, 68(7), S3–S15.Google Scholar
  49. Galili, I., & Hazan, A. (2001). The effect of a history-based course in optics on students views about science. Science & Education, 10(1–2), 7–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Giere, R. N. (1985). Philosophy of science naturalized. Philosophy of Science, 52, 331–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Giere, R. N. (1995). The sceptical perspective: science without laws of nature. In F. Weinert (Ed.), Laws of nature: Essays on the philosophical, scientific and historical dimensions (pp. 120–138). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  53. Ginzburg, V. L. (2005). About science, myself and others. Bristol: Institute of Physics Publishing.Google Scholar
  54. Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: The Falmer Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Glashow, S. L. (1994). From alchemy to quarks. Physics as liberal art. Pasific Grove California: Brooks.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003). An introduction to the philosophy of science. Theory and reality. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Goodman, N. (1968). Languages of art. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. Quoted in Scheffler. I. (2009). Worlds of truth. A philosophy of knowledge, p. 130. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  58. Gorelik, G. (2012). How the modern physics was invented in the 17th century, part 1: the Needham question. Scientific American, April 6, 2012; (2108) Hessen’s explanation and the Needham question, or how Marxism helped to put an important question but hindered answering it. Epistemology and Philosophy of Science, 55(3), 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Gorelik, G., & Bouis, A. W. (2005). The world of Andrei Sakharov. A Russian physicist’s path to freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Gorelik, G., & Frenkel, V. Y. (1994). Matvei Petrovich Bronstein and Soviet theoretical physics in the thirties. Basel: Birkhauser Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Goren, E., & Galili, I. (2018). A summary lecture as a delay organizer of students’ knowledge of mechanics – a discipline-culture approach (Proceedings of the 11 th conference of the European Science education research association (ESERA)). Ireland: Dublin.Google Scholar
  62. Gorham, G., Hill, B., Slowik, E., & Waters, C. K. (Eds.). (2016). The language of nature. Reassessing the mathematization of natural philosophy in the seventeenth century. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  63. Gower, B. (1997). Scientific method. An historical and philosophical introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. Guisasola, J., Almudí, J. M., & Furió, C. (2005). The nature of science and its implications for physics textbooks. The case of classical magnetic field theory. Science & Education, 14(3–5), 321–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Gunstone, R. (2015). Encyclopedia of science education. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Hecht, E. (1998). Optics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  67. Heisenberg, W. (1948). Der Begriff Abgeschlossene Theorie in Der Modernen Naturwissenschaft. Dialectica, 2(3-4), 331–336 Quoted in Popper (1962, p. 113).Google Scholar
  68. Heisenberg, W. (1958). Physics and philosophy. The revolution in modern science. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  69. Heisenberg, W. (1965). Quantum mechanics and objectivity. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  70. Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  71. Hempel, C. G. (1983). Validation and objectivity in Science. In R. S. Cohen & L. Laudan (Eds.), Physics, philosophy and psychoanalysis essays in honor of Adolf Grilnbaum (pp. 73–100). Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Hessen, B. M. (1933). Socio-economical roots of Newton’s mechanics. Moscow: GTTI.Google Scholar
  73. Hodson, D. (2011). Looking to the future. Building a curriculum for social activism. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Hodson, D. & Wong, S. L. (2017). Going beyond the consensus view: broadening and enriching the scope of NOS-oriented curricula, Canadian journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(1), 3–17.Google Scholar
  75. Holton, G. (1985). Introduction to concepts and theories in physical science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Hoskin, M. (1997). The Cambridge illustrated history of astronomy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Huizenga, J. R. (1993). Cold fusion: The scientific fiasco of the century. University of Rochester Press.Google Scholar
  78. Hume, D. (1739/1978). A treatise of human nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Huygens, C. (1690/1912). Treatise on light. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  80. Josephson, P., & Sorokin, A. (2017). Physics moves to the provinces: the Siberian physics community and soviet power, 1917-1940. British Journal for the History of Science, 50(2), 297–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Kampourakis, K. (2016). The “general aspects” conceptualization as a pragmatic and effective means to introducing students to nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(5), 667–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Kampourakis, K. (2017). History and philosophy of science courses for science students. Science & Education, 26, 611–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Kepler, J. (1621/1972). Epitome of Copernican astronomy. In great books of the Western world (Vol. 15, p. 845). Chicago: Britannica.Google Scholar
  84. Khan Academy (2017). Scientific Method., retrieved December 3, 2017.
  85. Kierkegaard, S. (2009). Concluding unscientific postscript to the philosophical crumbs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Kockelmans. (1985). Heidegger and Science. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  87. Kuhn, T. (1957). The Copernican revolution. Planetary astronomy in the development of western thought. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Kuhn, T. (1969). Postscript 1069. In Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of the scientific revolution. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  89. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of the scientific revolution. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  90. Kuhn, T. S. (1977). Objectivity, value judgement, and theory choice. In T. S. Kuhn (Ed.), Essential tension (selected studies in scientific tradition and change) (pp. 320–339). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Kuhn, T. S. (2000). The road to science structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  92. Lakatos, I. (1980). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In J. Worrall & G. Currie (Eds.), Imre Lakatos philosophical papers: Vol. 1. The methodology of scientific research programs (pp. 8–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University press.Google Scholar
  93. Lakatos, I. (1998). Science and pseudoscience. In M. Curd & J. A. Cover (Eds.), Philosophy of science. Central Issues (pp. 20–26). New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  94. Lakatos, I. (1999). Lectures on scientific method. In Lakatos, I. & Feyerabend, P. (Auth.) For and against method. Chicago: The University of Chicago press.Google Scholar
  95. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  96. Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems. Berkley, LA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  97. Lederman, L. (1998). A response. Studies in Science Education, 31(1), 130–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Lederman, N. G. (2006). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp ix-xviii.Google Scholar
  99. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  100. Lederman, N. G., Wade, P. D., & Bell, R. L. (1998). Assessing understanding of the nature of science: A historical perspective. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 331–350). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  101. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). The development, use, and interpretation of nature of science assessments. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 974–978). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  103. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Schwartz, R. (2015). Measurement of NOS. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education (pp. 704–708). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  104. Levrini, O., Bertozzi, E., Gagliardi, M., Grimellini-Tomasini, N., Pecori, B., Tasquier, G., & Galili, I. (2014). Meeting the discipline-culture framework of physics knowledge: an experiment in Italian secondary school. Science & Education, 23(9), 1701–1731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Lévy-Leblond, J.-M. (2001). On the nature of Quantons. Science & Education, 12(5), 495–502.Google Scholar
  106. Lindberg, D. (2007). The beginning of western science. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  107. Longino, H. (1990). Science as a social knowledge. values and objectivity in science inquiry. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  108. Losee, J. (1993). A historical introduction to the philosophy of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  109. Mach, E. (1883/1989). The science of mechanics. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
  110. Mach, E. (1976). Knowledge and error. Sketches on the psychology of enquiry. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Marton, F., & Pang, M. F. (2006). On some necessary conditions of learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 193–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Marton, F., & Pang, M. F. (2013). Meanings are acquired from experiencing differences against a background of sameness, rather than from experiencing sameness against a background of difference: Putting a conjecture to test by embedding it into a pedagogical tool. Frontline Learning Research, 1(1), 24–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Matthews, M. R. (1994/2015). Science teaching. The contribution of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  114. Matthews, M. R. (2009). Teaching the philosophical and worldview components of science in science. Science & Education, 18, 697–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS). Chapter 1. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research: Concepts and methodologies (pp. 3–26). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. McComas, W. F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of Science: Dispelling the myths. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 53–70). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  117. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  118. Miller, A. I. (1981). Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  119. Miller, A. I. (1984). Imagery in scientific thought: creating 20th-century physics. Boston, MA: Birkhauser.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Miller, A. I. (Ed.). (1986). Frontiers of physics: 1900–1911. selected essays. Boston, MA: Birkhauser.Google Scholar
  121. Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science. New York: Harcocoart, Brace and World.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Needham, J. (2004). Science and civilization in China (Vol. 7, part 2). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  123. Nersessian, N. (1992). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in Science. In R. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of Science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  124. Neugebauer, O. (1993). The exact sciences in antiquity. New York: Barrens & Noble.Google Scholar
  125. Newton, I. (1670). Optical Lectures. In A. Shapiro (1984). Newton’s optical lectures. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  126. Newton, I. (1686/2016). Newton’s preface to the first edition. In the Principia (pp. 27-29). Oakland, California: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  127. Niaz, M. (2009). Critical appraisal of physical science as a human enterprise: Dynamics of scientific progress. Milton Keynes: Springer.Google Scholar
  128. Nozick, R. (2000). The objectivity and the rationality of science. In J. H. Fetzer (Ed.), Science, explanation, and rationality: Aspects of the philosophy of Carl G. Hempel (pp. 287–308). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  129. NRC. (1996). National Research Council. National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  130. NSTA (2000) National Science Teachers Association. Position statement: The nature of science.
  131. Osborne, J. (2017) Going beyond the consensus view: a response, Canadian journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(1), 53–57.Google Scholar
  132. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Radcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Panofsky, W. K. H., & Phillips, M. (1955). Classical electricity and magnetism. Reading: Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  134. Pedersen, O., & Pihl, M. (1974). Early physics and astronomy. London: McDonald & Janes.Google Scholar
  135. Persson, B. J. (1998). Sliding friction. Physical principles and applications. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Plato. (2003). The Republic. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  137. Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  138. Popper, K. R. (1962). Theories as instruments. In Conjectures and refutations. The growth of scientific knowledge. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  139. Popper, K. R. (1967). Quantum mechanics without “the observer”. In M. Bunge (Ed.), Quantum theory and reality (pp. 7–44). Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Popper, K. R. (1970). A realist view of logic, physics, and history. In W. Yourgrau & A. D. Breck (Eds.), Physics, logic, and history. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  141. Popper, K. R. (1975). Objective knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  142. Rabinowitz, M. (2017). Examination of wave-particle duality via two-slit interference. retrieved 14.12.2017.
  143. Read, J. (1995). From alchemy to chemistry. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  144. Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and prediction: An analysis of the foundations and the structure of knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  145. Reiss, J. (2014). Scientific objectivity. Retrieved on August 16, 2017.
  146. Roob, A. (2001). Alchemy & Mysticism. New York: Taschen.Google Scholar
  147. Russell, B. (1912/1990). The problems of philosophy. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co..Google Scholar
  148. Russell, B. (2009). Dewey’s new logic. In R. E. Egner & L. E. Denonn (Eds.), The basic writings of Bertrand Russell. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Russo, L. (2004). The forgotten revolution: how science was born in 300 B.C. and why it had to be reborn. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Schwab, J. J. (1978). Education and the structure of the disciplines. In J. J. Schwab (Ed.), Science, curriculum and liberal education. Chicago: The University of Chicago press.Google Scholar
  151. Science. (1999). Primary School Curriculum. Dublin: Government Publications Sale Office 2 Retrieved on September 8, 2018.Google Scholar
  152. Serway, R. A., Moses, C. J., & Moyer, C. A. (2005). Modern physics. Belmont, CA: Thomson, Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  153. Shapin, S. (1996). The scientific revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Shapiro, A. E. (1984). Experiment and mathematics in Newton’s theory of color. Physics Today, 37(9), 34–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Shapiro, A. E. (2004). Newton’s experimental philosophy. Newtonianism: Mathematical and experimental. Early Science and Medicine, 9(3), 185–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Sivin, N. (2005). Why the scientific revolution did not take place in China —or didn’t it?
  158. Slezak, P. (1994). Sociology of scientific knowledge and scientific education. Science & Education, 3, 265–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Sokal, A., & Bricmont, J. (1998). Fashionable nonsense. Postmodern intellectuals’ abuse of science. New York: Picador.Google Scholar
  160. Taylor, L. W. (1941). Physics. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  161. Thornton, S. (2016). Karl Popper. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved on August 18, 2017.
  162. Tipler, P. A. (1987). Modern physics. New York: Wort Publishers.Google Scholar
  163. Toulmin, S. (1972). Human understanding. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  164. Tseitlin, M., & Galili, I. (2005). Teaching physics in looking for its self: from a physics-discipline to a physics-culture. Science & Education, 14(3–5), 235–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Tseitlin, M., & Galili, I. (2006). Science teaching: What does it mean? - A simple semiotic perspective. Science & Education, 15(5), 393–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. Vinner, S. (1997). The pseudo-conceptual and the pseudo-analytical thought processes in mathematics learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 34(2), 97–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. Vygotsky, L. (1934/1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  168. Wallace, J. (2017) Teaching NOS in an age of plurality, Canadian journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17:1, 1–2.Google Scholar
  169. Weinberg, J. R. (1936). An examination of logical positivism. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co..Google Scholar
  170. Weinberg, S. (1974). Reflections of a working scientist. Daedalus, 103, 3.Google Scholar
  171. Weinberg, S. (2001). Facing up. Science and its cultural adversaries. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  172. Weinberg, S. (2015). To explain the world: The discovery of modern Science. New York: Harper Collins Publishes.Google Scholar
  173. Weizsäcker, C. F. (2006). The structure of physics. Springer.Google Scholar
  174. Wilczek, F. (2004). Whence the force of F = ma? Physics Today, 57(12), 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2009). From the horse’s mouth: what scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93(1), 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2010). More from the horse’s mouth: what scientists say about science as a social practice. International Journal of Science Education, 32(11), 1431–1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Mathematics and Natural SciencesThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations