Science is a discipline that I have been fascinated with since early childhood. I remember laying in my bed late at night, when I was six or seven, pondering the size of the universe and the particles that composed matter. Science gave me the insight to ask my parents tough questions as a child like how was the earth formed? How old is the earth? What was the first organism? Are there other planets like earth in a parallel universe? I was not one of the first people to wonder about the world around them. This line of questioning has occurred since the time of the early philosophers and theologians.
“I wonder why…” The philosophy of science
Science’s earliest roots date back to Greek philosopher, Aristotle, who laid the groundwork for the scientific process when he stated that inductive and deductive reasoning was necessary to build upon earlier knowledge (Shuttleworth, 2009). Philosopher Francis Bacon, an advocate of Aristotle’s work, adapted Aristotle’s views of the scientific process at a time when there wasn’t a great division between science and philosophy. Bacon contributed to the history of the philosophy of science the idea of experimental science which would be used to test the validity of real world observations (Shuttleworth, 2009). Science and philosophy began to shift away from theology to other principles to explain the cosmos.
Along with philosophers and early scientists like Bacon and Descartes, Galileo further explained the importance in empirical evidence and idealized models as a tool of discovery (Shuttleworth, 2009). This is when mathematical theory blended with empirical evidence and math became the language of science. Huygens, a philosopher in the 18th century, argued that what makes science completely different from math is that science cannot prove something emphatically but only give a certain probability that it is true (Shuttleworth, 2009). This is what sets math and science into two different disciplines.
Science alone could not give all the answers when it came to understanding the universe and many scientists during the 18th century relied on theology to explain unanswered questions like the ones I constructed as a child (Benson, 1989). It was not until the twentieth century that science and religion began to disentangle. Philosophers of science like, Popper, tried to delineate science from nonscience and successfully isolated science into a separate discipline with it’s own language (Norris, 1992). The desire to classify science as falsifiable and separate from other fields also lead to the development of a specialized scientific process utilized by a specific group of people to solve scientific problems (Norris, 1992). Unfortunately, most schools today teach science as a segregated discipline and leave out the rich history of the early philosophers and theologians who played a role in the development of scientific theories.
“Why do I need to know this?” The goal of science
According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2011), science is defined as:
The investigation of natural phenomena through observation, experimentation, and theoretical explanation. Science makes use of the scientific method, which includes the careful observation of natural phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis, the conducting of one or more experiments to test the hypothesis, and the drawing of a conclusion that confirms or modifies the hypothesis.
The definition of science stated above concurs with the views from the early philosophers of science mentioned in the last section. However, there is no mention of mathematical applications that were once seemless in the study of science or the values needed in the choosing and designing of topics to research. This definition portrays science to be a specialized field isolated from other disciplines. I wonder what Aristotle or Bacon would think of this definition.
The definition of science does convey the general process of the scientific method, however, it does not reveal the reasoning involved or purpose of conducting experiments. It also does not convey the amount of time that the scientific process requires to build upon previous experiments. As Kuhn (1962) stated, “That is why a new theory, however special its range of application, is seldom or never just an increment to what is already known. Its assimilation requires the reconstruction of prior theory and the re-evaluation of prior fact, an intrinsically revolutionary process that is seldom completed by a single man and never overnight” (p. 7). The scientific method is a lot messier than the definition implies.
The scientific method suggests that the goal of science is to continually make progress in uncovering the “truths” of the natural world. What is unique to science is the notion that what may be known as “truth” today may be different tomorrow after more evidence is gathered or after another scientist conducts more experimentation. Kuhn (1962) advocated that the philosophy of science needed to look at the history and evolution of science and view science as an accumulation of paradigm shifts leading from one scientific revolution to the next. Science, according to Kuhn (1962) is more than the scientific method and scientific progress is no different than progress made in other disciplines. Kuhn compared the evolution of science to biological evolution and stated:
The entire process [science] may have occurred, as we now suppose biological evolution did, progress through Revolutions without benefit of a set goal, a permanent fixed scientific truth, of which each stage in the development of scientific knowledge is a better exemplar. Anyone who has followed the argument this far will nevertheless feel the need to ask why the evolutionary process should work. What must nature, including man, be like in order that science be possible at all? (p. 172)
By comparing the process of science to biological evolution, Kuhn questions what the goal of science is or if it is meant to have one. “Does a field make progress because it is a science, or is it a science because it makes progress?” (Kuhn, 1962, p.162). Unfortunately, progress is determined subjectively which makes this question even more difficult. As pointed out by Kuhn, science seeks answers to questions to better understand the world. Whether the answers to those questions lead to further progress or larger goal is not that important. The goal of science is to come up with the questions to answers that without science would not have been considered previously.
“Who? What? Why? How?” Key questions in science
As mentioned in the previous section, one of the goals of science is to ask questions. Birch, Looi, and Stuart (2013) address some of the big questions in science, “What is the universe made of? How did life begin? Are we alone in the universe? What makes us human? What is consciousness? Why do we dream? Why is there stuff (matter)? Are there other universes? What’s at the bottom of a black hole? Will we ever be able to cure cancer?” Although scientists have made some progress in collecting evidence to answer these questions, they continually drive scientists to continually design experiments and work collaboratively to seek more knowledge and a better understanding of the fundamental pieces to explore the big ideas. Interestingly, these were many of the questions that I struggled with as a child and continue to keep me interested in science.
“What do scientists do?” Skills needed in science
In order to seek the answers to the big questions in science, scientists need to possess the necessary skills. According to Norris (1992), there needs to be more ethnographic studies of scientists so that students learn what scientists really do rather than what is done in the classroom. These studies would highlight the practical reasoning necessary in the production of scientific knowledge. Practical reasoning would involve making choices based on values, which is a view that becomes distorted in science curriculum. This distortion may happen because science is now separated from philosophy or religion in the classroom.
Bybee, Powell & Trowbridge (2014) have listed five categories of skills that science students should possess. Students should be acquisitive when gathering information from experiments. Possess organizational skills when collecting and analyzing data. Utilize creative processes when designing new approaches or ways of thinking. Students should have manipulative skills when working with equipment or scientific instruments and clearly and accurately communicate with others through oral, written, and graphic interpretations.
The NGSS framework (NGSS Lead States, 2013) determined that there are eight practices of science and engineering for all students including 1) Asking questions (for science) and defining problems (for engineering) 2) Developing and using models 3) Planning and carrying out investigations 4) Analyzing and interpreting data 5) Using mathematics and computational thinking 6) Constructing explanations (for science) and designing solutions (for engineering) 7) Engaging in argument from evidence and 8) Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information. All of these skills need to be practiced in order to be learned. If these skills are necessary to “do” science then a goal of science education would be to provide the experiences to practice these skills.
“What do scientists think?” Famous researchers/educators in science
As mentioned earlier by Norris (1992), the best way to learn about science is, to study what scientists “do”. Richard Feynman (1966) , who was a well known theoretical physicist and educator, gave a well known speech at the National Science Teachers Association stating, “If you are going to teach people to make observations, you should show that something wonderful can come from them. I learned then what science was about: it was patience. If you looked, and you watched, and you paid attention, you got a great reward from it — although possibly not every time.” He went on to say that science, “teaches the value of rational thought as well as the importance of freedom of thought; the positive results that come from doubting that the lessons are all true.” I learned from Feynman that science is about being patient, skeptical, and having creative freedom.
Another famous scientist, Carl Sagan, well known in pop culture as the host of the PBS series Cosmos, revealed that “science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge” (Head, 2006). Astrophysicist, Neil deGrasse Tyson, was inspired by Carl Sagan and followed in his footsteps by remaking the Cosmos series in 2014. Tyson is also a well known scientist that has appeared on popular talk shows and social media. In an interview with Stephen Colbert, Tyson described science as, “a way of equipping yourself with the tools to interpret what happens in front of you” (Popova, 2012). As a strong advocate for the teaching of scientific literacy, Tyson claims that the education system has it wrong by rewarding students who know a lot of stuff. Rather than having students who can ramble off facts, students should be able to figure out how something works without ever seeing it before (Popova, 2012). Tyson further explained in the interview his thoughts on science education stating, “ I would undervalue grades based on knowing things and find ways to reward curiosity. In the end, it’s the people who are curious who change the world” (Popova, 2012).
“What I think…” Reflection
After much research on the philosophy of science and studying the view of science from famous scientists and educators, I believe the goal of science is to question all observations, become curious about those things that can not be seen by the human eye, and design research to gain a better understanding of how the natural world works. Science is not about memorizing terms and processes, it is about learning new ways of interpreting observations, analyzing data, and having the ability to patiently conduct research to uncover the answers to the big questions of life. This is the science I have always wanted to be apart of and what should be taught in the classroom. As Tyson was quoted above, in order for students to become change agents, they will need curiosity that can be flourished from studying science rather than be given grades for regurgitating facts.
References
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved July 23 2015 from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/science
Benson, G. D. (1989). The misrepresentation of science by philosophers and teachers of science. Synthese, 80(1), 107-119.
Birch, H., Looi, M.K., & Stuart, C. (2013). The big questions in science:The quest to solve the great unknowns. Andre Deutsch.
Bybee, R.W., Powell, J.C., & Trowbridge, L.W. (2014). Teaching Secondary School Science: Strategies for Developing Scientific Literacy, Pearson Allyn Bacon Prentice Hall,
p. 230-231.
Feynman, R. (1966). What is Science? presented at the fifteenth annual meeting of the National Science Teachers Association.
Head, T. (2006). Conversations with Carl Sagan. Univ Press of Mississippi.
Kuhn, T.S.(1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC; National Academies Press.
Norris, S.P.(1992) Chapter 7: Practical reasoning in the production of scientific knowledge. In Duschl, R. A., & Hamilton, R. J. (Eds.). Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice. (pp. 195-223) Suny Press.
Popova, M. (2012). Neil degrasse Tyson on scientific literacy, education, and the poetry of the cosmos. Retrieved on July 25, 2015 from brainpickings.org:
http://www.brainpickings.org/2012/09/24/neil-degrasse-tyson-colbert/
Shuttleworth, M. (2009). Philosophy of Science History. Retrieved Jul 24, 2015 from Explorable.com: https://explorable.com/history-of-the-philosophy-of-science