Advertisement

Science & Education

, 18:985 | Cite as

Understanding Scientific Methodology in the Historical and Experimental Sciences via Language Analysis

  • Jeff DodickEmail author
  • Shlomo Argamon
  • Paul Chase
Article

Abstract

A key focus of current science education reforms involves developing inquiry-based learning materials. However, without an understanding of how working scientists actually do science, such learning materials cannot be properly developed. Until now, research on scientific reasoning has focused on cognitive studies of individual scientific fields. However, the question remains as to whether scientists in different fields fundamentally rely on different methodologies. Although many philosophers and historians of science do indeed assert that there is no single monolithic scientific method, this has never been tested empirically. We therefore approach this problem by analyzing patterns of language used by scientists in their published work. Our results demonstrate systematic variation in language use between types of science that are thought to differ in their characteristic methodologies. The features of language use that were found correspond closely to a proposed distinction between Experimental Sciences (e.g., chemistry) and Historical Sciences (e.g., paleontology); thus, different underlying rhetorical and conceptual mechanisms likely operate for scientific reasoning and communication in different contexts.

Keywords

Scientific method Historical science Experimental science Language Computational linguistics Scientific reasoning Cognition 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Martha Evens, Peter Greene, Richard Schultz, and the late Nambury Raju for helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.

References

  1. Abrams E, Wandersee JH (1995) How does biological knowledge grow? A study of life scientists’ research practice. J Res Sci Teach 32(6):643–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990) Science for all Americans. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993) Benchmarks for science literacy. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Argamon S, Whitelaw C, Chase P, Hota SR, Garg N, Levitan S (2007) Stylistic text classification using functional lexical features. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 58(6):802–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Argamon S, Dodick J, Chase P (2008) Language use reflects scientific methodology: a corpus-based study of peer-reviewed journal articles. Scientometrics 75(2):203–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker VR (1996) The pragmatic roots of American quaternary geology and geomorphology. Geomorphology 16:197–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baker VR (2000) Conversing with the earth: the geological approach to understanding. In: Frodeman R (ed) Earth matters: the earth sciences, philosophy and the claims of the community. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, pp 2–10Google Scholar
  8. Ben-Ari M (2005) Just a theory: exploring the nature of science. Prometheus Books, Amherst, NYGoogle Scholar
  9. Biber D, Conrad S, Reppen R (1998) Corpus linguistics: investigating language structure and use. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Bond-Robinson J, Stucky AP (2005) Grounding scientific inquiry and knowledge in situated cognition. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual cognitive science society, Stresa, Italy, July 21–24Google Scholar
  11. Bowen GM, Roth MW (2002) The socialization and enculturation of ecologists in informal and formal settings. Electron J Sci Educ 6(3):1–25Google Scholar
  12. Bowen GM, Roth MW (2007) The practice of field ecology: insights for science education. Res Sci Educ 37:171–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bucher R, Stelling JG (1977) ‘Becoming professional’, Sage library of social research, vol 46. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CAGoogle Scholar
  14. Cartwright N (1999) The dappled world: a study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Cleland C (2001) Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method. Geology 29(11):987–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cleland C (2002) Methodological and epistemic differences between historical science and experimental science. Philos Sci 69:474–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  18. Collins HM (1985) Changing order: replication and induction in scientific practice. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Collins HM, Pinch TJ (1982) Frames of meaning: the social construction of extraordinary science. Routledge and Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Cooper RA (2002) Scientific knowledge of the past is possible: confronting myths about evolution and the nature of science. Am Biol Teach 64:476–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cooper RA (2004) Teaching how scientists reconstruct history: patterns and processes. Am Biol Teach 66(2):101–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cristianini N, Shawe-Taylor J (2000) An introduction to support vector machines and other Kernel-based learning methods. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. DeBoer GE (1991) A history of ideas in science education. Teachers College Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Diamond J (2002) Guns, germs and steel: the fates of human societies. W.W. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Dodick J, Argamon S (2006) Rediscovering the historical methodology of the earth sciences by understanding scientific communication styles. In: Manduca CA, Mogk DW (eds) Earth and mind: How geologists think and learn about the earth. Geological Society of America, Special Paper 413, pp 105–120Google Scholar
  26. Dodick J, Flash-Gvili I (2007) Challenges to graduate student research in the historical based sciences. In: Proceedings of the annual meeting of the national association of research in science teaching. March 30–April 2, 2008, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  27. Dodick JT, Orion N (2003) Introducing evolution to non-biology majors via the fossil record: a case study from the Israeli high school system. Am Biol Teach 65(3):185–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dunbar K (1995) How scientists really reason: scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In: Sternberg RJ, Davidson J (eds) Mechanisms of insight. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp 365–395Google Scholar
  29. Dunbar K (1997) How scientists think: online creativity and conceptual change in science. In: Ward TB, Smith SM, Vaid S (eds) Conceptual structures and processes: emergence, discovery and change. APA Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  30. Dunbar K (1999) The scientist in vivo: how scientists think and reason in the laboratory. In: Magnani L, Nersessian N, Thagard P (eds) Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery. Plenum Press, New York, pp 85–99Google Scholar
  31. Dunbar K (2000) What scientific thinking reveals about the nature of cognition. In: Crowley K, Schunn CD, Okada T (eds) Designing for science: implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings. Lawrence Elbaum and Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 115–140Google Scholar
  32. Dunbar K (2002) Science as category: implications of in vivo science for theories of cognitive development, scientific discovery, and the nature of science. In: Stich S, Carruthers P (eds) Cognitive models of science. Cambridge University Press, pp 154–170Google Scholar
  33. Dunbar K, Blanchette I (2001) The in vivo/in vitro approach to cognition: the case of analogy. Trends Cogn Sci 5:334–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dunbar K, Schun CD (1990) The temporal nature of scientific discovery: the roles of priming and analogy. In: The proceedings of the twelfth annual meeting of the cognitive science society. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  35. Frodeman R (1995) Geological reasoning: geology as an interpretive and historical science. Geol Soc Am Bull 107:960–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Giere RN (1988) Explaining science: a cognitive approach. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  37. Gooding D (1992) The procedural turn. In: Giere RN (ed) Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science: vol 15. Cognitive models of science. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 45–67Google Scholar
  38. Graves HB (2005) Rhetoric in(to) science. Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJGoogle Scholar
  39. Goudge TA (1961) The ascent of life: a philosophical study of the theory of evolution. University of Toronto Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  40. Gould SJ (1986) Evolution and the triumph of homology, or why history matters. Am Sci 74(January–February): 60–69Google Scholar
  41. Gould SJ (1989) Wonderful life. Hutchison Radius, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Gould SJ (2002) The structure of evolutionary theory. Belknap Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Halliday MAK (1994) An introduction to functional grammar. Edward Arnold, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Halliday MAK, Martin JR (1993) Writing science: literacy and discursive power. Falmer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  45. Holmes L (1985) Lavoisier and the chemistry of life: an exploration of scientific creativity. University of Wisconsin Press, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  46. Hull DL (1975) Central subjects and historical narratives. Hist Theory 14:253–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Israeli Ministry of Education (1991) Syllabus of biological studies (7th–12th grade), 3rd edn (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  48. Karp PD (1989) Hypothesis formation as design. In: Shrager J, Langley P (eds) Computational models of discovery and theory formation. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp 275–315Google Scholar
  49. Kitcher P (1993) The advancement of science. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. Klahr D, Dunbar K (1988) Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cogn Sci 12:1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Klayman J, Ha Y (1987) Confirmation, disconfirmation and information in hypothesis testing. Psychol Rev 94:211–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Knorr Cetina K (1981) The manufacture of knowledge: an essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford, Pergamon PressGoogle Scholar
  53. Knorr-Cetina K, Mulkay MJ (1983) Science observed: perspectives on the social study of science. Sage Publications, SageGoogle Scholar
  54. Latour B, Woolgar S (1979) Laboratory life: the social construction of scientific facts. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  55. Law J, Williams R (1982) Putting facts together: a study of scientific persuasion. Soc Stud Sci 12:535–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lynch M (1985) Art and artifact in laboratory science: a study of shop work and shop talk in a research laboratory. Routledge & Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  57. Lynch M (1993) Scientific practice and ordinary action: ethnomethodology and social studies of science. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  58. Mahoney MJ, DeMonbruen BG (1977) Psychology of the scientist: an analysis of the problem solving bias. Cogn Ther Res 1:229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Matthiessen C (1995) Lexicogrammatical cartography: English systems. International Language Sciences Publishers, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  60. Mayr E (1985) How biology differs from the physical sciences. In: Depew DJ, Weber BH (eds) Evolution at the crossroads: the new biology and the new philosophy of science. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 43–46Google Scholar
  61. McEnery T, Wilson A (1996) Corpus linguistics. Edinburgh University Press, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  62. Mitchell T (1997) Machine learning. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  63. Mitroff II (1974) The subjective side of science. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  64. National Research Council (1996) National science education standards. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  65. National Research Council (2000) Inquiry and the national science education standards. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  66. Nersessian NJ (1992) How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. In: Giere RN (ed) Cognitive models of science. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, pp 5–22Google Scholar
  67. Nersessian NJ (2005) Interpreting scientific and engineering practices: integrating the cognitive, social, and cultural dimensions. In: Gorman M, Tweney R, Gooding D, Kincannon A (eds) Scientific and technological thinking. Erlbaum Press, New York, Erlbaum Press, pp 17–56Google Scholar
  68. Nersessian NJ, Newstetter WC, Kurz-Milcke E, Davies J (2003a) A mixed-method approach to studying distributed cognition in evolving environments. In: Proceedings of the international conference on learning sciences, pp 307–314Google Scholar
  69. Nersessian NJ, Kurz-Milcke E, Newstetter WC, Davies J (2003b) Research laboratories as evolving distributed cognitive systems. In: Proceedings of the 25th annual conference of the cognitive science society, pp 857–862Google Scholar
  70. Nersessian NJ, Kurz-Milcke E, Davies J (2005) Ubiquitous computing in science and engineering research laboratories: a case study from biomedical engineering. In: Kuzoulis et al (eds) Knowledge in the new technologies. Peter Lang Publishers, Berlin, pp 167–198Google Scholar
  71. Nisbett RE, Wilson TD (1977) Telling more than we know: verbal reports on mental processes. Psychol Rev 84:231–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Ochs E, Jacoby S (1997) Down to the wire: the cultural clock of physicists and the discourse of consensus. Lang Soc 26(4):479–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. O’Hara RJ (1988) Homage to Clio, or, toward an historical philosophy for evolutionary biology. Syst Zool 37(2):142–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pickering A (1995) The mangle of practice: time, agency and science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  75. Platt J (1998) Sequential minimal optimization: a fast algorithm for training support vector machines. Microsoft research technical report MSR-TR–98-14, Redmond, WAGoogle Scholar
  76. Roth MW, Bowen GM (2001a) ‘Creative Solutions’ and ‘Fibbing Results’: enculturation in field ecology. Soc Stud Sci 31(4):533–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Roth MW, Bowen GM (2001b) Of disciplined minds and disciplined bodies: on becoming an ecologist. Qual Sociol 24(4):459–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Rudolph JL, Stewart J (1998) Evolution and the nature of science: on the historical discord and its implication for education. J Res Sci Teach 35:1069–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Schumm SA (1999) To interpret the earth: ten ways to be wrong. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  80. Sternberg RJ (2003) What is an expert student? Educ Res 32(8):5–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Stucky AP, Bond-Robinson J (2004) Empirical studies of scientists at work: analysis of authentic inquiry experiences. In: Proceedings of the annual meeting of the national association of research in science teaching. Vancouver, BC, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  82. Tai R, Fan X (2004) Project crossover: a study in transition from student to scientist. Draft copy of summary text and references in response to NSF-ROLE RFAGoogle Scholar
  83. Tamir P, Stavy R, Ratner N (1998) Teaching science by inquiry: assessment and learning. J Biol Educ 33:27–32Google Scholar
  84. Traweek S (1988) Beamtimes and lifetimes: the world of high energy physics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  85. Turner D (2005) Local undetermination in historical science. Philos Sci 72:209–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Tweeney RD (1985) Faraday’s discovery of induction: a cognitive approach. In: Gooding D, James F (eds) Faraday rediscovered. Stockton Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science TeachingThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceIllinois Institute of TechnologyChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations