Advertisement

The Epistemological Grounds of the Conceptual Profile Theory

  • Charbel N. El-Hani
  • Waldomiro José da Silva-Filho
  • Eduardo F. Mortimer
Chapter
Part of the Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education book series (CTISE, volume 42)

Abstract

In this chapter, we discuss the charge that the conceptual profile theory would be relativist. After contrasting rationalism and relativism, we elaborate the epistemological grounds of the theory in terms of an objective pragmatism, drawing on Peirce’s and Dewey’s philosophies, and discuss the differences between this philosophical position and relativist views. For a pragmatist, there is no problem in comparing different ways of thinking, provided that this comparison is not made in abstract, but always with a clear connection to concrete situations in which we should make decisions and act. From this we derive one of the learning goals in the profile theory: to become aware of the several modes of thinking available in a sociocultural circumstance and of the domains in which their application shows pragmatic value.

Keywords

True Belief Theory Choice Problematic Situation Dialectical Relationship Epistemological Ground 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bauer, H. H. (1994). Scientific literacy and the myth of the scientific method. Urbana/Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bloor, D. (1992). Knowledge and social imagery. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Boghossian, P. (2002). Fear of knowledge: Against relativism and constructivism. Oxford/New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Borradori, G. (1991). The American philosopher. London/Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Burge, T. (1993). Content preservation. The Philosophical Review, 102, 457–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buxton, C. A. (2006). Creating contextually authentic science in a “low-performing” urban elementary school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 695–721. doi: 10.1002/tea.20105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chalmers, A. F. (1993). O Que é Ciência Afinal? [What is science after all?]. São Paulo: Brasiliense.Google Scholar
  8. Cobern, W. W., & Loving, C. C. (2001). Defining “science” in a multicultural world: Implications for science education. Science Education, 85, 50–67. doi: 10.1002/1098-237X(200101) 85:1<50::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-G.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davidson, D. (1984). Inquiries into truth and interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  10. Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Henry Holt. Retrieved March 31, 2013, from http://archive.org/details/logicthetheoryof000467mbp
  11. Dewey, J. ([1950]2001). Democracy and education. Hazleton: The Pennsylvania State University, Electronic Classic Series. Retrieved March 31, 2013, from http://library.um.ac.id/images/stories/ebooks/Juni10/democracy%20and%20education%20-%20john%20dewey.pdf
  12. Dretske, F. (1971). Conclusive reasons. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 49, 1–22. doi: 10.1080/00048407112341001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dretske, F. (1981). Knowledge and the flow of information. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. El-Hani, C. N., & Bandeira, F. P. S. F. (2008). Valuing Indigenous knowledge: To call it “science” will not help. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3(3), 751–779. doi: 10.1007/s11422-008-9129-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. El-Hani, C. N., & Mortimer, E. F. (2007). Multicultural education, pragmatism, and the goals of science teaching. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2, 657–702. doi: 10.1007/s11422-007-9064-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. El-Hani, C. N., & Pihlström, S. (2002). Emergence theories and pragmatic realism. Essays in Philosophy, 3(2), article 3. Retrieved September 24, 2006, from http://commons.pacificu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=eip
  17. Goldman, A. (1967). A causal theory of knowing. Journal of Philosophy, 64(12), 355–372.Google Scholar
  18. Goldman, A. (1986). Epistemology and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Goldman, A. ([1976]2000). Discrimination and perceptual knowledge. In S. Bernecker & F. Dretske (Eds.), Knowledge: Readings in contemporary epistemology (pp. 86–102). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Goldman, A. ([1979]1993). What is justified belief? In M. F. Goodman & R. A. Snyder (Eds.), Contemporary readings in epistemology (pp. 89–104). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  21. Goodman, N. (1978). Ways of worldmaking. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hare, P. H. (1995). Pragmatic theory of truth. In T. Honderich (Ed.), The Oxford companion to philosophy (pp. 709–710). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Heise, U. K. (2004). Science, technology, and postmodernism. In S. Connors (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to postmodernism (pp. 136–167). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hookway, C. (1995). Charles Sanders Peirce. In T. Honderich (Ed.), The Oxford companion to philosophy (pp. 648–651). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. New York, NY: Longmans, Green and Co. Retrieved April 6, 2008, from http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/James/James_1907/James_1907_toc.html
  27. James, W. (1909). The meaning of truth: A sequel to “pragmatism”. New York, NY: Longmans, Green, and Co. Retrieved March 31, 2013, from http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/James/James_1911/James_1911_toc.html
  28. Kant, I. ([1789]1955). Critique of pure reason. London: Henry G. Bohn.Google Scholar
  29. Kawagley, A. O., Norris-Tull, D., & Norris-Tull, R. A. (1998). The indigenous worldview of Yupiac culture: Its scientific nature and relevance to the practice and teaching of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 133–144. doi:  10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199802) 35:2<133::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-T.
  30. Kirk, R. (1999). Relativism and reality: A contemporary introduction. London/New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Kuhn, T. S. (1977). Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice. In The essential tension (pp. 320–339). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. LePore, E., & Ludwig, K. (2007). Donald Davidson’s truth-theoretic semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lynch, M. P. (1998). Truth in context. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Margolis, J. (1991). The truth of relativism. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  35. Margolis, J. (2009). Introduction. In J. Margolis & J. R. Shook (Eds.), A companion to pragmatism (pp. 1–10). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  36. Mitchell, S. D. (2003). Biological complexity and integrative pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moore, G. E. (1922). William James’ “Pragmatism”. In Philosophical studies (pp. 97–146). New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & Co. Retrieved March 31, 2013, from http://ia600409.us.archive.org/26/items/philosophicalstu008406mbp/philosophicalstu008406mbp.pdf
  38. Mounce, H. O. (1997). The two pragmatisms: From Peirce to Rorty. London/New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Nozick, R. (1981). Philosophical explanations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Ogawa, M. (1995). Science education in a multiscience perspective. Science Education, 79, 583–593. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730790507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peirce, C. S. (1931–1935). The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Charlottesville: Intelex Corporation [Here referred as CP, followed by volume and paragraph number.].Google Scholar
  42. Pereira, A. M. (1998). Lendo Rorty lendo Davidson [Reading Rorty, Reading Davidson]. In P. R. M. Pinto, C. Magro, E. P. F. Santos, & L. Guimarães (Eds.), Filosofia Analítica, Pragmatismo e Ciência (pp. 265–275). Belo Horizonte: Editora UFMG.Google Scholar
  43. Pihlström, S. (1996). Structuring the world: The issue of realism and the nature of ontological problems in classical and contemporary pragmatism. In Acta Philosophica Fennica (Vol. LIX). Helsinki: The Philosophical Society of Finland.Google Scholar
  44. Pires, M. S. A. (2013). Epistemologia e verdade no pragmatismo de William James [Epistemology and truth in the William James’ pragmatism]. Master’s thesis, Federal University of Bahia, Graduate Studies Program in History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching, Salvador.Google Scholar
  45. Pomeroy, D. (1992). Science across cultures: Building bridges between traditional Western and Alaskan native cultures. In S. Hills (Ed.), History and philosophy of science in science education (Vol. 2, pp. 257–268). Kingston: Queen’s University.Google Scholar
  46. Popper, K. ([1962]2002). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge (2nd ed.). London/New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach (Rev. ed.). Oxford/New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Putnam, H. (1990). Realism with a human face. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Quine, W. (1969). Ontological relativity and other essays. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Ramsey, F. ([1929]1990). Knowledge. In D. H. Mellor (Ed.), Philosophical papers (pp. 110–111). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Reisch, G. A. (2005). How the Cold War transformed philosophy of science: To the icy slopes of logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rescher, N. (1995). Pragmatism. In T. Honderich (Ed.), The Oxford companion to philosophy (pp. 710–713). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Rorty, R. (1991). Nonreductive physicalism. In Objectivity, relativism, and truth: Philosophical papers (Vol. 1) (pp. 113–125). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Rorty, R. (1999). Philosophy and social hope. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  55. Roth, W.-M. (1995). Authentic school science. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Russell, B. (1910). Pragmatism. In Philosophical essays (pp. 87–126). London: Longmans, Green, and Co. Retrieved March 31, 2013, from http://ia700303.us.archive.org/1/items/philosophicaless00russ/philosophicaless00russ.pdf
  57. Shrader-Frechette, K., & McCoy, E. D. (1994). Applied ecology and the logic of case studies. Philosophy of Science, 61, 228–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sprigge, T. L. S. (1997). James, aboutness, and his British critics. In R. A. Putnam (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to William James (pp. 125–144). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Swoyer, C. (2003). Relativism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2010 ed.). Retrieved March 30, 2013, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/relativism/
  60. Thayer, H. S. (1980). Meaning and action: A critical history of pragmatism (2nd ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
  61. Tulviste, P. (1991). The cultural-historical development of verbal thinking (M. J. C. Hall, Trans.). New York, NY: Nova Science.Google Scholar
  62. Tytler, R., Symington, D., Kirkwood, V., & Malcolm, C. (2008). Engaging students in authentic science through school—community links: Learning from the rural experience. Teaching Science, 54(3), 13–18.Google Scholar
  63. Unger, P. (1979). Ignorance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Van Eijick, M., & Roth, W.-M. (2009). Authentic science experiences as a vehicle to change students’ orientations toward science and scientific career choices: Learning from the path followed by Brad. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4, 611–638. doi: 10.1007/s11422-009-9183-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vygotski, L. S. (1934/2001). A construção do pensamento e da linguagem [The construction of thought and language] (P. Bezerra, Trans.). São Paulo: Martins Fontes.Google Scholar
  66. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Winch, P. (2007). The idea of social science and its relation to philosophy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  69. Wittgenstein, L. (1969). On certainty. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charbel N. El-Hani
    • 1
  • Waldomiro José da Silva-Filho
    • 2
  • Eduardo F. Mortimer
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of BiologyFederal University of BahiaSalvadorBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Philosophy and Human SciencesFederal University of Bahia (UFBA)SalvadorBrazil
  3. 3.Faculty of EducationFederal University of Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil

Personalised recommendations