Abstract
This paper draws attention to basic philosophical perspectives which are of theoretical and methodological interest for science education, general education and curriculum research. It focuses on potential contributions philosophy class can offer if philosophy education opens up for science and for a collaboration of teachers in the context of post-compulsory education. A central educational goal is to connect basic philosophical skills with any curricular intellectual practice. This implies the possibility of crossing disciplinary boundaries. Hence, the present paper questions the disciplinary rigidity of education and aims at bridging the artificial gap between teaching philosophy and teaching science in order to enrich the individual school subjects involved. Towards this end, this article sketches out a conceptual framework for the issue of interdisciplinarity with regard to philosophy and science in upper secondary school. This framework takes into account aspects of the nature of science (NOS), history and philosophy of science (HPS) and the critical thinking approach which have significant implications for teaching. It aims to facilitate a basic understanding of the significant positive impact philosophy could have on improving scientific literacy as well as decision-making in general. I set forth methods of cross-curricular teaching which can promote innovation in education as interdisciplinarity already does in research since there is growing appreciation of collaboration and partnership between philosophy and science.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Research about the relationship between mathematics and philosophy has a long tradition. For contemporary accounts, see the philosophical and didactical approach to mathematics by François and van Bendegem (2011) which intends to give room for a philosophy of mathematics in school curricula, and, moreover, corresponds to a “movement away from an implicit philosophy of mathematics towards an explicit philosophy in mathematics” (2011, 5). However, suggestions for how to include philosophy in mathematics education had not been reflected in classroom practice consequently (cf. Prediger 2011).
Project 2061 is a long-term research and development initiative that began its work in 1985. It focuses on improving science education and emphasizes the understanding of key concepts and principles of science.
An example for philosophy’s impact on science has been given by Laplane (2016); the critical examination of the concept of cancer stem cells and the philosophical analysis of the historical roots of the cancer stem cell theory showed that this theory emerged laden with conceptual ambiguities. It sheds new light on the nature of normal and malignant stem cells. On philosophy’s influence of stem cell biology and life sciences (Philosophy of Biology), see a series of articles offering philosophical perspectives: https://elifesciences.org/collections/7efbfb7a/philosophy-of-biology. On the relationship of philosophy and physics, cf. Rovelli (2018).
In this context, the term “science” is used in the very broad usage of “science” as it is represented in the German term “Wissenschaft”. It includes not only the natural sciences but also mathematics, social sciences and humanities. I focus on the nature of science in a more general sense driven by the question “what is science?”. Following this question, it is not asked for necessary and sufficient criteria of science or one essential common feature but rather for family resemblances as Wittgenstein put this idea forward in his Philosophical Investigations. We find a series of overlapping similarities, none of which is completely general.
For the understanding of philosophy (class) as a contribution to analyze concepts and grammar, to apply logic and to bridge sciences, cf. Lampert (2019b). Teaching material that addresses historical, ethical and philosophical questions related to science is offered, for example, by Swinbank and Taylor (2007), Potochnik et al. (2019) and Lampert (2019a).
Perspectival realism is committed to both the existence of mind-independent things and to the historical and cultural situatedness of scientific knowledge (cf. Massimi 2018).
Cf. Popper (1952, 125): “We are not students of subject matter but students of problems. And problems may cut right across the borders of any subject matter or discipline.”
Being interested in “aspects of scientific explanation”, Hempel (1965) distinguishes between reason-seeking why-questions and explanation-seeking why-questions.
Assessing students’ use of argument has been seen as a future challenge for science education research (Henderson et al. 2018) and, furthermore, is an important task in the interest of general education.
Cf. Hoyningen-Huene (2013), providing a comprehensive philosophical account of the nature of science.
Boghossian (2006, 4). Boghossian states that the influence of contructivist’s ideas hold in philosophy “is actually quite weak”, “at least within the mainstream of analytic philosophy departments within the English-speaking world” (Boghossian 2006, 7). However, anti-scientific ideas within the field of philosophy have damaged the philosophical aspiration among scientists. Their fear of relativism and modern scepticism might be one reason for tending to have a distanced stance towards philosophy.
Zemplén (2007) analyzes this textbook for TOK by Alchin thoroughly. He reminds us that “a textbook is not only a transmitter of knowledge but also a transmitter of a mode of inquiry, of questioning and of finding answers” (Zemplén 2007, 177). Alchin’s TOK book offers a rather popular image of science and, in a way, neglects the individual critical investigation and evaluation of the students.
There is empirical evidence that indicates favourable results in the use of HPS, for instance, in the conceptual learning in physics (Teixeira et al. 2012). On the other hand, there is empirical evidence that indicates obstacles that prevent a successful integration of HPS into science class (Höttecke and Silva 2011; Henke and Höttecke 2015).
Viennot (2019) presents a synthesis of some investigations concerning the co-development of conceptual understanding and critical attitude in university students. The results strongly suggest that it is not fruitful to envisage conceptual and critical developments separately.
Curriculum development, team teaching, political stakes in curriculum innovation and a basis for a common conception of interdiciplinary education across the educational spectrum including integrative processes are examined in Klein (2002). Sampson and Blanchard (2012) who build their study on the work of Duschl and Osborne (2002) state that opportunities for students to participate in authentic argumentation inside the science classroom are rare even though students’ engagement in scientific argumentation can improve the teaching and learning of science. They found that teachers struggle to engage students in scientific argumentation. Erduran (2019) offers practical guidelines for teachers, curriculum developers and teacher educators being concerned with argumentation in everyday chemistry classrooms as an important process for building knowledge and understanding in the scientific community. Furthermore, the Family Resemblance Approach to NOS, proposed by philosophers of science (Irzik and Nola 2011) and reconceptualized by Erduran and Dagher (2014), provides an ambitious and practical vision for NOS and a more comprehensive framework (Erduran, Dagher & McDonald 2019).
Cf. Hand and Winstanley (2009) who cite in the beginning of their introduction to Philosophy in Schools John Humphrys from BBC Radio: “Over the last week or so we have been asking you for ideas about what subject ought to be taught in schools but are not taught. Now, there have been many suggestions: basic conversation skills, that was one of them; how to change a plug; map-reading, could be useful for some; but the overwhelming winner – you may be surprised by this – was philosophy. (John Humpreys, Today, BBC Radio 4, broadcast on 26/08/04).” The contributors of Philosophy in Schools and other researchers believe that it is time to put philosophy in the school curriculum.
Grüne-Yanoff (2014) points out that within the European Commission’s Quality Framework a “critical understanding of theories and principles” for bachelor degrees and “critical awareness of knowledge issues in a field” for master degrees are considered to belong centrally to any scientific education (Grüne-Yanoff 2014, 121). Bachelor degree holders are required to take “responsibility for decision-making in unpredictable work or study contexts”. Furthermore, graduates are supposed to have “critical awareness of knowledge issues ... at the interface between different fields” and “to integrate knowledge from different fields”. Grüne-Yanoff follows: “These requirements stress the need for applying knowledge and skills outside of the contexts in which they were acquired” (121). He advocates specifically designed courses of philosophy of science for science students at university.
Gurgel et al. (2017) consider the narrative to be of great interest to science education. Thought experiments have been employed in philosophy and science for educational and various other purposes (most famous are thought experiments, for instance, by Galilei, Stevin, Maxwell and Schrödinger).
Osborne and Reigh recommend a schema that classifies questions in terms of their epistemic function as “a vital tool for highlighting the importance of questions in the classroom” (Osborne and Reigh 2020, 207).
References
Alchin, N. (2003a). Theory of knowledge - teacher’s book. London: John Murray.
Alchin, N. (2003b). Theory of knowledge. London: John Murray.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ballew, T., Leiserowitz, A., et al. (2019). Climate change in the American mind: data, tools, and trends. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 61(3), 4–18.
Bergeron, L., & Rogers, L. (2019). Investigating the perspective of Theory of Knowledge teachers in International Baccalaureate World Schools. Journal of Research in International Education, 18(2), 169–185.
Blachowicz, J. (2009). How science textbooks treat scientific method: a philosopher’s perspective. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 60(2), 303–344.
Boghossian, P. A. (2006). Fear of knowledge. Against relativism and constructivism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cartieri, F., & Potochnik, A. (2013). Toward philosophy of science’s social engagement. Erkenntnis, 79(5), 901–916.
Cole, D. R., Ullman, J., Gannon, S., & Rooney, P. (2015). Critical thinking skills in the international Baccalaureate’s “theory of knowledge” subject: findings from an Australian study. Australian Journal of Education, 59(3), 247–264.
Dewey, J. (1922). Education as politics. In J. A. Boydsen (Ed.), The middle works of John Dewey, vol. 13 (1921–1922), essays on philosophy, education, and the orient (pp. 329–334). Carbonale: Southern Illinois Universitiy Press.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educational process. Lexington/Mass: D. C. Heath and Company.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science & Education, 84(3), 287–312.
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39–72.
Ennis, R. H. (1962). A concept of critical thinking. Harvard Educational Review, 32(1), 81–111.
Ennis, R. H. (1979). Research in philosophy of science bearing on science education. In P. D. Asquith & H. E. Kyburg (Eds.), Current research in philosophy of science (pp. 138–170). East Lansing: PSA.
Erduran, S. (2007). Breaking the law: promoting domain-specificity in chemical education in the context of arguing about the periodic law. Foundations of Chemistry, 9(3), 247–263.
Erduran, S. (Ed.). (2019). Argumentation in chemistry education. Research, policy and practice. Croyden: The Royal Society of Chemistry.
Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptionalizing the nature of science for education. Scientific knowledge, practice and other family categories. Dordrecht: Springer.
Erduran, S., & Kaya, E. (2019). Transforming teacher education through the epistemic core of chemistry. Empirical evidence and practical strategies. Cham: Springer.
Erduran, S., Dagher, Z. R., & McDonald, C. V. (2019). Contributions of the family resemblance approach to nature of science in science education. A review of emergent research and development. Science & Education, 28(3–5), 311–328.
Feigl, H. (1953). The scientific outlook: naturalism and humanism. An essay on some issues of general education as a critique of current misconceptions regarding scientific method and the scientific outlook in philosophy. In H. Feigl & M. Brodbeck (Eds.), Readings in the philosophy of science (pp. 8–18). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc..
Feigl, H. (1955). Aims of education for our age of science: reflections of a logical empiricist. In N. B. Henry (Ed.), Modern philosophies and education: the fifty-fourth yearbook of the national society for the study of education (pp. 304–341). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Feigl, H. (1967). The “mental” and the “physical”: the essay and a postscript. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
François, K., & van Bendegem, J. P. (Eds.). (2011). Philosophical dimensions in mathematics education. New York: Springer.
Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2014). Teaching philosophy of science to scientists: why, what and how. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 4(1), 115–134.
Grygier, P., Günther, J. & Kircher, E. (Eds.) (2004). Über Naturwissenschaften lernen. Vermittlung von Wissenschaftsverständnis in der Grundschule. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren.
Gurgel, I., Pietrocola, M., & Cardoso, D. (2017). The role of narrative thinking in learning scientific concepts. In M. Pietrocola & I. Gurgel (Eds.), Crossing the border of the traditional science curriculum. Innovative teaching and learning in basic science education (pp. 207–225). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Hacker, P. M. S. (2015). Some remarks on philosophy and on Wittgenstein’s conception of philosophy and its misinterpretation. Argumenta, 1(1), 43–58.
Hand, M., & Winstanley, C. (Eds.). (2009). Philosophy in schools. London/New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation. New York: Free Press.
Henderson, J. B., & Osborne, J. F. (2019). Using computer technology to support the teaching and learning of argumentation in chemistry. In S. Erduran (Ed.), Argumentation in chemistry. Research, policy and practice (pp. 79–105). Croyden: The Royal Society of Chemistry.
Henderson, J. B., McNeill, K. L., González-Howard, M., et al. (2018). Key challenges and future directions for educational research on scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(1), 5–18.
Henly, C., & Sprague, J. (2020). Theory of knowledge. Skills for success, fourth edition, London: Hodder Education.
Henke, A., & Höttecke, D. (2015). Physics teachers’ challenges in using history and philosophy of science in teaching. Science & Education, 24(4), 349–385.
Hoffmann, M. H. G., Schmidt, J. C., & Nersessian, N. J. (2013). Philosophy of and as interdisciplinarity. Synthese, 190(11), 1857–1864.
Hössle, C., Hötteke, D., & Kircher, E. (Eds.). (2004). Lehren und Lernen über die Natur der Naturwissenschaften. Wissenschaftspropädeutik für die Lehrerbildung und die Schulpraxis. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren.
Höttecke, D. (2012). HIPST – history and philosophy in science teaching: a European project. Science & Education, 21(9), 1229–1232.
Höttecke, D., & Silva, C. C. (2011). Why implementing history and philosophy in school science education is a challenge – an analysis of obstacles. Science & Education, 20(3–4), 293–316.
Howard, D. (2005). Albert Einstein as a philosopher of science. Physics Today 58. American Institute of Physics, 34–40. https://www3.nd.edu/~dhoward1/vol58no12p34_40.pdf. Accessed 18 Nov 2019.
Hoyningen-Huene, P. (2013). Systematicity: the nature of science. New York: Oxford University Press.
Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science. Science & Education, 20(7), 591–607.
Klein, J. T. (Ed.). (2002). Interdisciplinary education in K-12 and college: a foundation for K-16 dialogue. New York: College Board Publications.
Lampert, Y. (2019a). Was ist Wissenschaft? Norderstedt: BoD.
Lampert, Y. (2019b). What is a philosophical problem? A plea for an analytical, cross-curricular approach. Journal of Didactics of Philosophy, 3(1), 19–30 www.philosophie.ch/jdph.
Laplane, L. (2016). Cancer stem cells: philosophy and therapies. Cambridge/Mass: Harvard University Press.
Lord, B. (1994). Teachers’professional development: critical colleagueship and the role of professional communities. In N. Cobb (Ed.), The future of education: perspectives on National Standards in America (pp. 175–204). New York: College Board Publications.
Massimi, M. (2018). Four kinds of perspectival truth. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 96(2), 342–359.
Massimi, M., & McCoy, C. D. (Eds.). (2020). Understanding perspectivism. Scientific challenges and methodological prospects. New York: Routledge.
Matthews, M. R. (2000). Cross-disciplinary teaching about time and the pendulum. In R. M. Matthews (Ed.), Time for science education: how teaching the history and philosophy of pendulum motion can contribute to science literacy (pp. 293–320). New York: Springer.
Matthews, M. R. (2004). Idealization and Galileo’s pendulum discoveries: historical, philosophical and pedagogical considerations. Science & Education, 13(7–8), 689–715.
Matthews, M. R. (2014a). Discipline-based philosophy of education and classroom teaching. Theory and Research in Education, 12(1), 98–108.
Matthews, M. R. (2014b). Pendulum motion: a case study in how history and philosophy can contribute to science education. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 19–56). Dordrecht: Springer.
Matthews, M. R. (Ed.). (2014c). International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching. Dordrecht: Springer.
Matthews, M. R. (2018). New perspectives in history, philosophy and science teaching: an introduction. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), History, philosophy and science teaching. New perspectives (pp. ix–xxv). Dordrecht: Springer.
McDonald, C. V., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (Eds.). (2017). Representations of nature of science in school science textbooks: a global perspective. New York: Routledge.
Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: science education for the future. London: King’s College London.
National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington: National Academies Press.
OECD. (2003). The PISA 2003 assessment framework - mathematics, reading, science and problem solving knowledge and skills. Paris: OECD.
Osborne, J., & Reigh, E. (2020). What makes a good question? In L. P. Butler, S. Ronfard, & K. H. Corriveau (Eds.), The questioning child. Insights from psychology and education (pp. 281–300). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pietrocola, M. (2017). Curricular innovation and didactic-pedagogical risk management: teaching modern and contemporary physics in high schools. In Pietrocola, M. & Gurgel, I. (Eds.), Crossing the border of the traditional science curriculum. Innovative teaching and learning in basic science education (pp. 1–14). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
PISA-Consortium Germany (Ed.). (2001). PISA 2000. Basiskompetenzen von Schülerinnen und Schülern im internationalen Vergleich. Opladen: Leske & Budrich.
Popper, K. R. (1952). The nature of philosophical problems and their roots in science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 3(10), 124–156.
Potochnik, A. (Ed.) (2014). Socially engaged philosophy of science, vol. 79 of a special issue of Erkenntnis.
Potochnik, A. (2017). Idealisation and the aims of science. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Potochnik, A., Colombo, M., & Wright, C. (Eds.). (2019). Recipes for science: an introduction to scientific methods and reasoning. New York: Routledge.
Prediger, S. (2011). Philosophical reflections in mathematics classroom – changes and reasons. In K. François & J. P. van Bendegem (Eds.), Philosophical dimensions in mathematics education (pp. 43–58). New York: Springer.
Rovelli, C. (2018). Physics needs philosophy. Philosophy needs physics. Foundations of Physics, 48(5), 481–491.
Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1122–1148.
Schilpp, P. A. (Ed.). (1949). Albert Einstein: philosopher-scientist. Chicago: Evanston.
Sprague, J. (2017). Theory of knowledge. Skills for success. London: Hodder Education.
Swinbank, E., & Taylor, J. (Eds.). (2007). Perspectives on science: the history, philosophy and ethics of science. Harlow: Heinemann.
Teixeira, E. S., Greca, I. M., & Freire, O. (2012). The history and philosophy of science in physics teaching: research synthesis of didactic interventions. Science & Education, 21(6), 1–26.
Toplis, R. (Ed.). (2011). How science works: exploring effective pedagogy and practice. London/New York: Routledge.
van de Lagemaat, R. (2015). Theory of knowledge for the IB diploma (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Viennot, L. (2019). Conceptual development and critical attitude in physics education: a pathway in the search for coherence. In M. Pietrocola (Ed.), Upgrading physics education to meet the needs of society (pp. 189–198). Cham: Springer.
Wittgenstein, L. (1984). Logisch-philosophische Abhandlung/Tractatus logico-philosophicus (1918). G. E. M. Anscombe, G. H. von Wright & R. Rhees (Eds.), Wittgenstein. Werkausgabe in 8 Bänden. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, Bd. 1, 7–85.
Zemplén, G. Á. (2007). Conflicting agendas: critical thinking versus science education in the international Baccalaureate theory of knowledge course. Science & Education, 16(2), 167–196.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lampert, Y. Teaching the Nature of Science from a Philosophical Perspective. Sci & Educ 29, 1417–1439 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00149-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00149-z