Reflecting on Diversity of Views About the Nature of Science (NoS)

Many people believe that fields of science are highly logical, systematic (e.g., following the ‘scientific method‘ (e.g., Losee, 2001) and closely-adhering to Merton’s Norms of ethical practice (e.g., skeptical about one’s own & others’ research). Although Merton was aware scientists often struggled to adhere to his norms, he advised following them; e.g., to protect science from outside interference (e.g., from Nazis). This, in turn, contributed to isolationist & ‘foundationalist’ (science –> engineering) conceptions of science like that depicted here & here (Ziman, 1984). Such views have, however, been contested by much STS scholarship. Paul Feyerabend (1975), for instance, concluded that scientists often benefit from not following Merton-like norms of practice. In that vein, Latour & Woolgar (1987) suggested that – as in studies of Mendel’s preferences for theory over data – that scientists’ claims often are socially ‘constructed.’ Similarly, Kuhn (1970) and Lakatos (1970) suggested that scientists often are more influenced by colleagues and dominant theories than by available data. Indeed, there is much STS research to suggest that science often is highly influenced by sociological factors – such as with claims that integrity of many fields of science/STEM are compromised when privately funded (e.g., Ziman, 2000). Given diversity of NoS views like those described at right/below (and here), based on constructivist pedagogy, it seems necessary to first help students to clarify their varied personal positions prior to exposing them to alternatives. In that regard, teachers have had some successes using the NoS Card Exchange Game using statements like these.