Abstract
Although there is universal consensus both in the science education literature and in the science standards documents to the effect that students should learn not only the content of science but also its nature, there is little agreement about what that nature is. This led many science educators to adopt what is sometimes called “the consensus view” about the nature of science (NOS), whose goal is to teach students only those characteristics of science on which there is wide consensus. This is an attractive view, but it has some shortcomings and weaknesses. In this article we present and defend an alternative approach based on the notion of family resemblance. We argue that the family resemblance approach is superior to the consensus view in several ways, which we discuss in some detail.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
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.
Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 39–55.
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.
Cobern, W., & Loving, C. (2001). Defining “Science” in a multicultural world: Implications for science education. Science Education, 85, 50–67.
Duhem, P. (1962). The aim and structure of physical theory. New York: Atheneum.
Eflin, J. T., Glennan, S., & Reisch, G. (1999). The nature of science: A perspective from the philosophy of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 107–116.
Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method. London: NLB.
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.
Hacking, I. (1996). The disunities of the sciences. In P. Galison & D. Stump (Eds.), The disunity of science (pp. 37–74). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
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(5), 912–935.
Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York: Free Press.
Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 395–418.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1977). Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice. In The essential tension (pp. 320–339). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Laudan, L. (1996). Beyond positivism and relativism: Theory, method and evidence. Boulder: Westview.
Laudan, L., Donovan, A., Laudan, R., Barker, P., Brown, H., Leplin, J., et al. (1986). Scientific change: Philosophical models and historical research. Synthese, 69, 141–223.
Leakey, R. (1981). The making of mankind. New York: E. P. Dutton.
Lederman, N. G. (2004). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. ix–xviii). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Longino, H. (1997). Cognitive and non-cognitive values in science: Rethinking the dichotomy. In L. H. Nelson & J. Nelson (Eds.), Feminism, science, and the philosophy of science. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Matthews, M. R. (1998). In defense of modest goals when teaching about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Education, 35(2), 161–174.
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.
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.
Merton, R. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Needham, R. (1975). Polythetic classification: Convergence and consequences. Man, 10(3), 349–369.
Nola, R., & Irzık, G. (2005). Philosophy, science, education and culture. Dordrecht: Springer.
Nola, R., & Sankey, H. (2007). Theories of scientific method. Acumen: Stocksfield.
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(7), 692–720.
Pitt, J. C. (1990). The myth of science education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 10, 7–17.
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.
Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Popper, K. R. (1975). Objective knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rosenberg, A. (2008). Biology. In S. Psillos & M. Curd (Eds.), The Routledge companion to philosophy of science (pp. 511–519). London: Routledge.
Searle, J. (1995). The construction of social reality. London: Allen Lane Penguin Press.
Shapin, S. (2001). How to be antiscientific. In J. A. Labinger & H. Collins (Eds.), The one culture (pp. 99–115). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
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(4), 493–509.
Stanley, W. B., & Brickhouse, N. W. (2001). Teaching science: The multicultural question revisited. Science Education, 85, 35–49.
Van Fraassen, B. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge and teaching. Synthese, 80, 121–140.
Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations. Blackwell: Oxford.
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.
Ziman, J. (2000). Real science: What it is and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the three anonymous referees for their useful comments from which we have benefited. Gurol Irzik also acknowledges the support of the Turkish Academy of Sciences.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Irzik, G., Nola, R. A Family Resemblance Approach to the Nature of Science for Science Education. Sci & Educ 20, 591–607 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9293-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9293-4