Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: how science works



Debbie Leedy in her Biopi-L post "how science works" of 26 Sep 2001
13:11:56 -0700, wrote:

"I was showing this. . .(the criticisms of Wegener's theory of
continental drift). . . . to my husband and telling him how this is
actually a good way to show how science works through lots of
bickering. When someone criticizes you that makes you want to gain
more evidence, etc. It is sort of how science progresses, almost
necessary."

To which Richard Tuli replied in a Biopi-L post of 27 Sep 2001 12:15:58 -0400:

"We in the biological sciences draw upon Barbara McClintock's work
and the similar spate of criticism that she received. . . . (see
e.g.,
<http://www.accessexcellence.org/AB/BC/Barbara_McClintock.html>). . .
How do you teach students this aspect of the nature of science? It
seems like these kinds of conceptual leaps fly in the face of how the
nature of science is typically presented."

A physics counterpart of geology's Wegener and biology's McCLintock
is Ludwig Boltzmann‰, who had the wild idea that all matter was made
up of atoms. The near universal rejection of this absurdity probably
contributed to his suicide; see e.g., Cercignani, C. 1998 and the
short biography at
<http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Boltzmann.html>.

Yes, as Debbie says "science works through lots of bickering," so as
to finally arrive at a "community map." In Hake (2001a), I give a
capsule description of the "scientific method" as practiced by most
research scientists (rather than "as typically presented"):

(1) "EMPIRICAL: Systematic investigation . . . (by quantitative,
qualitative, or any other means) . . . of nature to find reproducible
patterns in the structure of things and the ways they change
(processes).

(2) THEORETICAL: Construction and analysis of models representing
patterns of nature." (Hestenes 1999).

(3) "Continual interaction, exchange, evaluation, and criticism so as
to build a . . . . community map." (Redish 1999).

Richard Tuli's asked "How do you teach students this aspect . . .
(conceptual leaps). . . of the nature of science?"
Or, more generally, one might ask: "How do you teach students the
nature of science?"

I think it has to start in the early grades with interactive
engagement methods of science instruction (Lopez & Schultz 2001; Hake
2001b; Moore 1993a,b, 1995), and continual questions of the "How do
we know. . . ?" Why do we believe . . . ? and "What is the evidence
for . . . ?" type. (Arons 1990).

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
<rrhake@earthlink.net>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>

"If in some cataclysm, all scientific knowledge were to be destroyed,
and only one sentence passed on to the next generation of creatures,
what statement would contain the most information? I believe it is
the "atomic hypothesis". . . .that all ALL THINGS ARE MADE OF ATOMS.
. . ."
Richard Feynman in "Lectures on Physics," vol. 1, Addison Wesley 1963.



REFERENCES
Arons, A. B. 1990. "A Guide To Introductory Physics Teaching" (Wiley,
1990); reprinted with minor updates in "Teaching Introductory
Physics" (Wiley, 1997); see especially the twelve hallmarks of
scientific literacy in Chap. 12 "Achieving Wider Scientific
Literacy", and also reproduced in Hake 2000, pages 5-7.

Cercignani, C. 1998. "Ludwig Boltzmann: The Man Who Trusted Atoms".
Oxford University Press,see esp. "The tragic fate of a great
scientist" pages 34-37.

Hake, R.R. 2000. "The General Population's Ignorance of Science
Related Societal Issues: A Challenge for the University," AAPT
Announcer 30(2), 105 (2000); on the web as ref. 11 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/>
[GuelphSocietyG.pdf, 8/22/00, 2100K] (62 References). It is argued
(with tongue only partially in cheek) that the failure of
universities THROUGHOUT THE UNIVERSE to properly educate pre-college
teachers is responsible for our failure to observe any signs of
extraterrestrial intelligence.

Hake, R.R. 2001a. "Lessons from the Physics Education Reform Effort,"
to appear shortly in "Conservation Ecology" (a "peer-reviewed journal
of integrative science and fundamental policy research") at
<http://www.consecol.org/Journal/vol5/iss2/index.html>; also online
as ref. 10 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>:
[ConEc-Hake-O081901b.pdf], 8/19/01, 284K, 241 references, 123
hot-linked URL's.

Hake, R.R. 2001b. "Physics for Ninth Graders" Phys-L post of 26 Sep
2001 16:19:07 -0700; online at
<http://mailgate.nau.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0109&L=phys-l&O=D&P=68335>.

Hestenes, D. 1999. The scientific method. Am. J. Phys. 67(4):274.

Lopez, R.E. & T. Schultz, "Two Revolutions in K-8 Science Education."
Physics Today 54(9): 44-49; online at
<http://physicstoday.org/pt/vol-54/iss-9/p44.html>.

Moore, J.A. 1993a. "We need a revolution - teaching biology for the
twenty-first century," Bioscience 43(11), 782-786 (1993).

Moore, J.A. 1993b. "Science as a Way of Knowing: The Foundations of
Modern Biology (Harvard University Press, 1993).

Moore, J.A. 1995. "Cultural and Scientific Literacy" Molecular
Biology of the Cell 6, 1-6 (1995).

Redish, E.F.. 1999. Millikan lecture 1998: building a science of
teaching physics. Am. J. Phys. 67(7):562-573. online at
<http://www.physics.umd.edu/rgroups/ripe/perg/cpt.html>.