Controversy as a Blind Spot in Teaching Nature of Science

Science & Education 26 (5):451-482 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

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.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,202

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Is the blind spot blind?C. R. Garvey - 1933 - Journal of Experimental Psychology 16 (1):83.
How do we see in the blind spot?H. Helson - 1934 - Journal of Experimental Psychology 17 (5):763.
The responsiveness of the blind spot.H. B. Desilva & A. Weber - 1932 - Journal of Experimental Psychology 15 (4):399.
Blindsight in the blind spot.K. Kranda - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):762-763.
Un Ecart Infime (Part III): The blind spot in Foucault.Leonard Lawlor - 2005 - Philosophy and Social Criticism 31 (5-6):665-685.
The reductionist blind spot.Russ Abbott - 2008 - Complexity 14 (5):10-22.
Sensitive Controversy in Teaching to Be Critical.Michelle Forrest - 2009 - Paideusis: Journal of the Canadian Philosophy of Education Society 18 (1):80-93.
Dretske's Blind Spot.D. C. Dennett - 1994 - Philosophical Topics 22 (1):511-517.

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-02-15

Downloads
18 (#781,713)

6 months
6 (#417,196)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?