European Journal for Philosophy of Science

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 115–134 | Cite as

Teaching philosophy of science to scientists: why, what and how

Original paper in Philosophy of Science

Abstract

This paper provides arguments to philosophers, scientists, administrators and students for why science students should be instructed in a mandatory, custom-designed, interdisciplinary course in the philosophy of science. The argument begins by diagnosing that most science students are taught only conventional methodology: a fixed set of methods whose justification is rarely addressed. It proceeds by identifying seven benefits that scientists incur from going beyond these conventions and from acquiring abilities to analyse and evaluate justifications of scientific methods. It concludes that teaching science students these skills makes them better scientists. Based on this argument, the paper then analyses the standard philosophy of science curriculum, and in particular its adequacy for teaching science students. It is argued that the standard curriculum on the one hand lacks important analytic tools relevant for going beyond conventional methodology—especially with respect to non-epistemic normative aspects of scientific practice—while on the other hand contains many topics and tools that are not relevant for the instruction of science students. Consequently, the optimal way of training science students in the analysis and evaluation of scientific methods requires a revision of the standard curriculum. Finally, the paper addresses five common characteristics of students taking such a course, which often clash with typical teaching approaches in philosophy. Strategies how best to deal with these constraints are offered for each of these characteristics.

Keywords

Methodology Science education Philosophy of science curriculum 

References

  1. Allchin, D. (2001). Error types. Perspectives on Science, 9, 38–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blachowicz, J. (2009). How science textbooks treat scientific method: a philosopher’s perspective. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 60(2), 303–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bird, A. (1998). Philosophy of science. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bortolotti, L. (2008). An introduction to the philosophy of science. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  6. Cable, M. (2005). Calibration: A technician’s guide. ISA.Google Scholar
  7. Chalmers, A. F. (1999). What is this thing called science? (3rd ed.). Brisbane: University of Queensland Press.Google Scholar
  8. COPE. (2011). Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors. http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf. Accessed June 12th, 2013.
  9. Curd, M., & Cover, J. A. (2012). Philosophy of science: The central issues (2nd ed.). New York: WW Norton.Google Scholar
  10. Doran, P. (2006). Cold, hard facts. The New York Times. July 27, 2006.Google Scholar
  11. Ennis, R. (1979). Research in philosophy of science bearing on science education. In P. Asquith & H. Kyburg (Eds.), Current research in philosophy of science (pp. 138–170). East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
  12. European Commission. (2008). The European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning (EQF). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. http://ec.europa.eu/education/pub/pdf/general/eqf/broch_en.pdf. Accessed May 15th, 2013.
  13. Grayson, D. J. (2006). Rethinking the content of physics courses. Physics Today, 59(2), 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003). Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hansson, S. O. (2012). Risk. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition). <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/risk/>. Accessed June 15th, 2013.
  16. Hertwig, R., & Ortmann, A. (2001). Experimental practices in economics: a methodological challenge for psychologists? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(3), 383–403.Google Scholar
  17. Hillerbrand, R., & Ghil, M. (2008). Anthropogenic climate change: scientific uncertainties and moral dilemmas. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 237(14), 2132–2138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hodson, D. (1991). Philosophy of science and science education. In M. Matthews (Ed.), History, philosophy, and science teaching (pp. 19–32). Toronto, ON: OISE Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hoover, K. D., & Perez, S. J. (2000). Three attitudes towards data mining. Journal of Economic Methodology, 7(2), 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. IPCC. (2007). Summary for policymakers. In S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor, & H. L. Miller (Eds.), Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Israel, M., & Hay, I. (2006). Research ethics for social scientists. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Limited.Google Scholar
  22. Kitcher, P. (2003). Science, truth and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Ladyman, J. (2002). Understanding philosophy of science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Lehtinen, A., & Kuorikoski, J. (2007). Computing the perfect model: why do economists shun simulation? Philosophy of Science, 74, 304–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Macrina, F. L. (2005). Scientific integrity. Washington, DC: ASM Press.Google Scholar
  26. Martin, M. (1976). The relevance of philosophy of science for science education. In R. Cohen, C. A. Hooker, A. C. Michalos, & J. van Evra (Eds.), PSA 1974 (pp. 293–300). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Matthews, M. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  29. Medawar, P. B. (1963). Is the scientific paper a fraud. The Listener, 70(12), 377–378.Google Scholar
  30. Medawar, P. B. (1969). Induction and intuition in scientific thought. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Okasha, S. (2002). Philosophy of science: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ontario Council of Academic Vice Presidents (OCAV). (2008). Guidelines for university undergraduate degree level expectations. http://www.uwo.ca/univsec/handbook/general/OCAV_Guidelines_2005.pdf. Last accessed May 16th, 2013.
  33. Prather, C. M., Choate, D. M., Michel, M. J., & Crowl, T. A. (2009). Putting the “Ph” back into “PhD”: framing graduate research in a theoretical context. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(7), 389–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rosenberg, A. (2005). Philosophy of science a contemporary introduction (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Salmon, M. H., Earman, J., Glymour, C., Lennox, J., Schaffner, K. F., Salmon, W. C., et al. (1999). Introduction to the philosophy of science: A text by members of the department of the history and philosophy of science of the University of Pittsburgh. Indianapolis, IN: Hacket Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  36. Schickore, J. (2008). Doing science, writing science. Philosophy of Science, 75(3), 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2009). Responsible conduct of research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Siegel, H. (1989). The rationality of science, critical thinking, and science education. Synthese, 80(1), 9–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stigler, S. (2008). Fisher and the 5 % level. Chance, 21(4), 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Turner, S. (2001). What is the problem with experts? Social Studies of Science, 31(1), 123–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Varian, H. R. (1997). How to build an economic model in your spare time. The American Economist, 41, 3–10.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and History of TechnologyRoyal Institute of Technology (KTH)StockholmSweden
  2. 2.Finnish Centre of Excellence in the Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Helsinki (TINT)HelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations