Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Science Thought Experiment: How Might it be Used Profitably in the Classroom?

  • Published:
Interchange Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is well established that thought experiments are both scientifically and philosophically significant, and even that they are pedagogically significant. However, the basis and methodology for their pedagogical use is not as well established. Pedagogical thought experiments are defined as mental simulations with special features to isolate certain conceptual elements. It is argued that thought experiments are made pedagogically effective through the process of re-enactment of the thought-experimental process. The process of re-enactment is best captured by rewriting thought experiments as stories. Several examples of thought experiments are analysed for their narrative content and an example is given of a pedagogical thought experiment re-written as a story. Recommendations are made as to how such thought experimental stories can be used effectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Atkinson, D. (2001). Experiments and thought experiments in natural science. Philosophy of Science Archives. Retrieved from: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/documents.

  • Barsalou, L.W. (1995). Storage side effects: Studying processing to understand learning. In A. Ram & D.B. Leake (Eds.), Goal-driven learning (pp. 407–419). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.

  • Brown, J.R. (1986). Thought experiments since the scientific revolution. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 1(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. R. (1991). The laboratory of the mind: Thought experiments in the natural sciences. New York: Routledge.

  • Brown, J.R. (1992). Why empiricism won’t work. Philosophy of Science Association, 1992, 2, 271–271.

  • Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunzl, M. (1996). The logic of thought experiments. Synthese, 106(2), 227–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, I.E. (1966). Franklin and Newton: An inquiry into speculative Newtonian experimental science and Franklin’s work in electricity as an example thereof. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  • Einstein, A. (1970). Autobiographical notes. In P.A. Schlipp (Ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-scientist (3rd ed., pp. 1–94). La Salle, IL: Open Court.

  • Galilei, G. (1954). Dialogues concerning two new sciences. (H. Crew & A. deSalvio, Trans.). New York: Dover Publications. Original work published 1638

  • Gooding, D.C. (1992). What is experimental about thought experiment? Metaphilosophy, 2, 280–290.

  • Hacking, I.(1992). Do thought experiments have a life of their own? Philosophy of Science Association, 1992, 2, 302–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, A. (1997). Philosophy and the arts: seeing and believing. Bristol, UK: Thoemes Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heilbron, J.L. (1979). Electricity in the 17th and 18th Centuries. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helm, H., Gilbert, J., & Watts, D.M. (1985). Thought experiments and physics education – Part II. Physics Education, 20, 211–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiebert, E. (1974). Mach’s conception of thought experiments in the natural sciences. In Y. Elkana (Ed.), The interaction between science and philosophy (pp. 339–348). Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.

  • Klassen, J.S. (2002). A theoretical framework for the incorporation of history in science education (Doctoral dissertation, University of Manitoba, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International 64(06), 2031.

  • Koyre, A. (1968). Metaphysics and measurement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Kujundzic, N. (1992). How does the laboratory of the mind work? Dialogue, 32, 573–578.

  • Kuhn, T.S. (1977). The essential tension. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  • Mach, E., (1926/1976), Knowledge and error: Sketches on the psychology of enquiry. Boston: Reidel.

  • Mach, E. (1888). Physikalische aufgaben: Denkaufgaben. Zeitschrift für den Physikalischen und Chemischen Unterricht, 2(5), 211.

  • Matthews, M. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.

  • McAllister, J.W. (1996). The evidential significance of thought experiment in cience. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 27(2), 233–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian, N. (1992). In the theoretician’s laboratory: Thought experimenting as mental modelling. Philosophy of Science Association, 1992, 2, 291–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, J. (1996). Are thought experiments just what you thought. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 26(3), 333–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohlsson, S. (2000). Falsification, anomalies and the naturalistic approach to cognitive change. Science & Education, 9, 173–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohlsson, S. (1992). The cognitive skill of theory articulation: A neglected aspect of science education? Science & Education, 1, 181–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohlsson, S. (1999). Theoretical commitment and implicit knowledge: Why anomalies do not trigger learning. Science & Education, 8,559–574.

  • Orsted, H.C. (1811). Naturvidenskabelige Skrifter, 3, 151–190.

  • Popper, K.R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson. Original work published 1934

  • Reiner, M. & Gilbert, J. (2000). Epistemological resources for thought experimentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 489–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiner, M. & Burko, L.M. (2003). On the limitations of thought experiments in physics and the consequences for physics education. Science & Education, 12, 365–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrigley, R.L., & Koballa, T.R. (1989). Anecdotes: What research suggests about their use in the science classroom. School Science and Mathematics, 89(4), 293–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stinner, A. (1990). Philosophy, thought experiments and large context problems in the secondary school physics course. International Journal of Science Education, 12(3), 244–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen, R. (1991). Thought experiments. American Scientist, 79, 250–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwitzgebel, E. (1999). Children’s theories and the drive to explain. Science & Education, 8, 457–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westbrook, S.L., & Rogers, L.N. (1996). Doing is believing: Do laboratory experiences Promote conceptual change? School Science and Mathematics, 96(5), 263–271).

    Google Scholar 

  • Winchester, I. (1990). Thought experiments and conceptual revision. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 10, 73–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witt-Hansen, J. (1976). H.C. Örsted, Immanuel Kant and the thought experiment. Danish Yearbook of Philosophy 13, 48–65.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physics, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Manitoba, CANADA, R3B 2E9

    Stephen Klassen

Authors
  1. Stephen Klassen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen Klassen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Klassen, S. The Science Thought Experiment: How Might it be Used Profitably in the Classroom?. Interchange 37, 77–96 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-006-8401-5

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-006-8401-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation