Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Importance of Understanding the Nature of Scientific Knowledge

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Nature of Scientific Knowledge

Part of the book series: Springer Undergraduate Texts in Philosophy ((SUTP))

  • 166k Accesses

Abstract

This chapter explains and motivates the importance of understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. The chapter begins by briefly exploring some of the recent science education literature and some of the ways that the literature might benefit from stronger philosophical foundations. Roughly, it will be noted that since scientific knowledge is just a special instance of knowledge, understanding the nature of knowledge in general can provide key insights into the nature of scientific knowledge. These insights into knowledge in general and scientific knowledge in particular seem to hold promise for bolstering the effectiveness of the science education literature on the nature of science. It is because of this that it is important to understand the basics of key debates in epistemology. Also, it is noted that challenges to our general knowledge of the world around us are equally challenges to our scientific knowledge. After briefly explaining the relevance of understanding scientific knowledge this chapter provides an overview of the remaining chapters of the book.

“Science without epistemology is—

insofar as it is thinkable at all—

primitive and muddled”

(Einstein 1949, p. 683)

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    It is worth noting that Irzik and Nola make it clear that this view is largely the result of work by Lederman along with his various collaborators. See, for example, Abd-El-Khalick (2004), Bell (2004), Cobern and Loving (2001), Flick and Lederman (2004), Hanuscin et al. (2006), Khishfe and Lederman (2006), McComas et al. (1998), McComas and Olson (1998), Osborne et al. (2003), Schwartz and Lederman (2008), Smith and Scharmann (1999), and Ziedlier et al. (2002).

  2. 2.

    For particularly clear expressions of the consensus view see Lederman (1999), Swartz and Lederman (2008) and Irzik and Nola (2011).

  3. 3.

    See Allchin (2011), Rudolph (2000), Irzik and Nola (2011).

  4. 4.

    See Elby and Hammer (2001), Erduran and Dagher (2014), Irzik and Nola (2011, 2014), Matthews (2015), and van Dijk (2011, 2014).

  5. 5.

    See Abd-El-Khalick (2012), McCain (2015), and Schwartz et al. (2012) for responses to some of these objections for the consensus view .

  6. 6.

    Also see Irzik and Nola (2011, 2014) and Erduran and Dagher (2014) for defense of this sort of view.

  7. 7.

    For example, there is ongoing debate concerning what the proper goal of teaching various scientific theories, such as evolution, should be. Some, e.g., Goldman (1999), argue that belief is the primary goal of science education. Others, e.g., Smith and Siegel (2004), argue that belief, while important, should not be the goal of science education. Instead, they maintain that understanding should be the primary goal of science education with belief as a potentially desirable outcome. Getting clearer on such epistemological concepts as ‘belief’, ‘knowledge’, and ‘understanding’ can shed light on this debate over the primary goals of science education.

  8. 8.

    These five benefits are closely based on those put forward by Driver et al. (1996). See Lederman (2007) and Feng Deng et al. (2011) for further discussion.

  9. 9.

    Carey and Stauss (1968) also recommended the inclusion of philosophy of science courses in undergraduate science curricula as a means to enhancing understanding of NOS .

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2004). Over and over and over again: College students’ views of nature of science. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 389–426). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: The impact of a philosophy of science course on preservice teachers’ views and instructional planning. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 15–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 353–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95, 518–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. (2004). Perusing Pandora’s box: Exploring the what, when, and how of nature of science. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 427–446). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey, R. L., & Stauss, N. G. (1968). An analysis of the understanding of the nature of science by prospective secondary science teachers. Science Education, 52, 358–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Central Association for Science and Mathematics Teachers. (1907). A consideration of the principles that should determine the courses in biology in secondary schools. School Science and Mathematics, 7, 241–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobern, W., & Loving, C. (2001). Defining “Science” in a multicultural world: Implications for science education. Science Education, 85, 50–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young peoples’s images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, A. (1949). Remarks concerning the essays brought together in this co-operative volume. In P. A. Schilpp (Ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-scientist (pp. 665–688). Evanston: The Library of Living Philosophers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85, 554–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eurydice Network. (2011). Science education in Europe: national policies, practices and research. Brussels: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feng Deng, D. C., Tsai, C., & Chai, C. S. (2011). Student’s views of the nature of science: A critical review of research. Science Education, 95, 961–999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (2004). Introduction. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. ix–xviii). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, A. I. (1999). Knowledge in a social world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hanuscin, D. L., Akerson, V. L., & Phillipson-Mower, T. (2006). Integrating nature of science instruction into a physical science content course for preservice elementary teachers: NOS views of teaching assistants. Science Education, 90, 912–935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science and Education, 20, 591–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 999–1021). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kampourakis, K. (2014). Understanding evolution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 667–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 395–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimball, M. E. (1967). Understanding the nature of science: A comparison of scientists and science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 110–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, B. B. (1991). Beginning teachers’ knowledge of and attitudes toward history and philosophy of science. Science Education, 75, 135–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 916–929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., & Niess, M. L. (1997). The nature of science: Naturally? School Science and Mathematics, 97, 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS). In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research (pp. 3–26). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. (2015). Science teaching: The contribution of history and philosophy of science (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCain, K. (2015). Explanation and the nature of scientific knowledge. Science & Education, 24, 827–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 41–52). Hingham: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 3–40). Hingham: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, P. E. (1963). A comparison of the abilities of secondary teachers and students of biology to understand science. Iowa Academy of Science, 70, 510–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, 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 Education, 40, 692–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph, J. L. (2000). Reconsidering the ‘nature of science’ as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32, 403–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, R., & Lederman, N. G. (2008). What scientists say: Scientists’ views of nature of science and relation to science context. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 727–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, R., Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). A series of misrepresentations: A response to Allchin’s whole approach to assessing nature of science understandings. Science Education, 96, 685–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators. Science Education, 83, 493–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. U., & Siegel, H. (2004). Knowing, believing, and understanding: What goals for science education? Science & Education, 13, 553–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, E. M. (2011). Portraying real science in science communication. Science Education, 95, 1086–1100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, E. M. (2014). Understanding the heterogeneous nature of science: A comprehensive notion of PCK for scientific literacy. Science Education, 98, 397–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziedler, D. N., Walker, K. A., & Ackett, W. A. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA

    Kevin McCain

Authors
  1. Kevin McCain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

McCain, K. (2016). The Importance of Understanding the Nature of Scientific Knowledge. In: The Nature of Scientific Knowledge. Springer Undergraduate Texts in Philosophy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33405-9_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation