In this article, the argument is put forth that controversies about the scope and limits of science should be considered in Nature of Science teaching. Reference disciplines for teaching NOS are disciplines, which reflect upon science, like philosophy of science, history of science, and sociology of science. The culture of these disciplines is characterized by controversy rather than unified textbook knowledge. There is common agreement among educators of the arts and humanities that controversies in the reference disciplines should be represented (...) in education. To teach NOS means to adopt a reflexive perspective on science. Therefore, we suggest that controversies within and between the reference disciplines are relevant for NOS teaching and not only the NOS but about NOS should be taught, too. We address the objections that teaching about NOS is irrelevant for real life and too demanding for students. First, we argue that science-reflexive meta-discourses are relevant for students as future citizens because the discourses occur publicly in the context of sociopolitical disputes. Second, we argue that it is in fact necessary to reduce the complexity of the above-mentioned discourses and that this is indeed possible, as it has been done with other reflexive elements in science education. In analogy to the German construct Bewertungskompetenz, we suggest epistemic competency as a goal for NOS teaching. In order to do so, science-reflexive controversies must be simplified and attitudes toward science must be considered. Discourse on the scientific status of potential pseudoscience may serve as an authentic and relevant context for teaching the controversial nature of reflexion on science. (shrink)

Philosophy is defined as a versatile knowledge due to the fact that it approaches to multiple problems, but its methods are not unified by a science system. Meanwhile, authors as Michel Onfray promises a disciplinary revolution through his texts. This documentary research intends to weigh whether his pedagogical texts like Antimanual Philosophy, Counter-history of Philosophy and the Philosophical Community, would be a basis for building a new epistemological paradigm. Then, this paper analyzes paradigms of philosophy education and whether Onfray’s paradigm (...) will overcome them. However, the author perceives a bigger outlook than his rigor, because he ensures the absolute neutrality and the infallible method, incompatible terms with the progress of knowledge, after his critics about the present proposals. Therefore, his critics to the present pedagogy and his weak arguments are founding orientations to future epistemologies of philosophy education. (shrink)