1 On behalf of NASA’s Mars Exploration Program, this lesson was prepared by Arizona State University’s Mars Education Program, under contract to NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a division of the California Institute of Technology. These materials may be distributed freely for non-commercial purposes. Copyright 2014; 2012; 2010; 2000. Last edited: April 24, 2014 Marsbound! Mission to the Red Planet

A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/5/110/206.full.pdf

The american psychological association.

Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Edited by I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave. Pp. viii, 282. £3·50, paperback £1. 1970. (Cambridge University Press.)

This article examines several methodological issues associated with combining qualitative and quantitative methods by comparing the increasing interest in this topic with the earlier renewal of interest in qualitative research during the 1980s. The first section argues for the value of Kuhn’s concept of paradigm shifts as a tool for examining changes in research fields such as social science research methodology. The next two sections consider the initial rise of the “metaphysical paradigm” that justified the renewed interest in qualitative research and the subsequent problems that have encouraged efforts to replace that paradigm. The final section of the paper advocates a “pragmatic approach” as a new guiding paradigm in social science research methods, both as a basis for supporting work that combines qualitative and quantitative methods and as a way to redirect our attention to methodological rather than metaphysical concerns.

/pdf/paradigms-lost-and-pragmatism-regained-methodological-5keqodw4fw.pdf

Paradigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained Methodological Implications of Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods

Basing its arguments in current perspectives on the nature of the scientific enterprise, which see argument and argumentative practice as a core activity of scientists, this article develops the case for the inclusion and central role of argument in science education. Beginning with a review of the nature of argument, it discusses the function and purpose of dialogic argument in the social construction of scientific knowledge and the interpretation of empirical data. The case is then advanced that any education about science, rather than education in science, must give the role of argument a high priority if it is to give a fair account of the social practice of science, and develop a knowledge and understanding of the evaluative criteria used to establish scientific theories. Such knowledge is essential to enhance the public understanding of science and improve scientific literacy. The existing literature, and work that has attempted to use argument within science education, is reviewed to show that classroom practice does provide the opportunity to develop young people's ability to construct argument. Furthermore, the case is advanced that the lack of opportunities for the practice of argument within science classrooms, and lack of teacher's pedagogical skills in organizing argumentative discourse within the classroom are significant impediments to progress in the field. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed84:287–312, 2000.

Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms

Debate over the nature of science has recently moved from the halls of academia into the public sphere, where it has taken shape as the "science wars." At issue is the question of whether scientific knowledge is objective and universal or socially mediated, whether scientific truths are independent of human values and beliefs. Ronald Giere is a philosopher of science who has been at the forefront of this debate from its inception, and Science without Laws offers a much-needed mediating perspective on an increasingly volatile line of inquiry. Giere does not question the major findings of modern science: for example, that the universe is expanding or that inheritance is carried by DNA molecules with a double helical structure. But like many critics of modern science, he rejects the widespread notion of science--deriving ultimately from the Enlightenment--as a uniquely rational activity leading to the discovery of universal truths underlying all natural phenomena. In these highly readable essays, Giere argues that it is better to understand scientists as merely constructing more or less abstract models of limited aspects of the world. Such an understanding makes possible a resolution of the issues at stake in the science wars. The critics of science are seen to be correct in rejecting the Enlightenment idea of science, and its defenders are seen to be correct in insisting that science does produce genuine knowledge of the natural world. Giere is utterly persuasive in arguing that to criticize the Enlightenment ideal is not to criticize science itself, and that to defend science one need not defend the Enlightenment ideal. Science without Laws thus stakes out a middle ground in these debates by showing us how science can be better conceived in other ways.

Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach

Most recent philosophical thought about the scientific representation of the world has focused on dyadic relationships between language‐like entities and the world, particularly the semantic relationships of reference and truth. Drawing inspiration from diverse sources, I argue that we should focus on the pragmatic activity of representing, so that the basic representational relationship has the form: Scientists use models to represent aspects of the world for specific purposes. Leaving aside the terms “law” and “theory,” I distinguish principles, specific conditions, models, hypotheses, and generalizations. I argue that scientists use designated similarities between models and aspects of the world to form both hypotheses and generalizations.

/pdf/how-models-are-used-to-represent-reality-5dxqzepi2c.pdf

How Models Are Used to Represent Reality

UNDERSTANDING SCIENTIFIC REASONING develops critical reasoning skills and works with students to improve their level of scientific and technological literacy. Giere teaches students how to understand and critically evaluate scientific information they encounter in popular and professional media. With its focus on science, Understanding Scientific Reasoning helps students learn how to examine scientific reports with a reasonable degree of sophistication. Giere explains how to reason through case studies using the same informal logic skills employed by scientists. Students sharpen their abilities to analyze a complex series of propositions and hypotheses in the same manner as scientists.

Understanding scientific reasoning

This text offers a mediating experience perspective on an increasingly volatile line of enquiry The author does not question major findings of modern science: for example, that the universe is expanding or that inheritance is carried by DNA molecules with a double helical structure But like many critics of modern science, he rejects the widespread notion of science - deriving ultimately from the Enlightenment - as a uniquely rational activity leading to the discovery of universal truths underlying all natural phenomena Ronald Giere argues that it is better to understand scientists as merely constructing more or less abstract models of limited aspects of the world Such an understanding makes possible a resolution of the issues at stake in the science wars The critics of science are seen to be correct in rejecting the Enlightenment idea of science and its defenders are seen to be correct in insisting that science does produce genuine knowledge of the natural world Giere argues that to criticize the Enlightenment ideal is not to criticize science itself and that to defend science one need not defend the Enlightenment ideal The book thus stakes out a middle ground in these debates by showing how science can be better conceived in other ways

Science without laws

This work resulted from a workshop on the implications of the cognitive sciences for the philosophy of science held under the auspices of the Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science. The workshop's theme was that the cognitive sciences - identified for the purposes of this project with three disciplinary clusters: artificial intelligence, cognitive psychology, and cognitive neuroscience - have reached sufficient maturity that they are now a valuable resource for philosophers of science who are developing general theories of science as a human activity. The emergence of cognitive science has by no means escaped the notice of philosophers or philosophers of science. Within the philosophy of science one can detect an emerging speciality, the philosophy of cognitive science, which would be parallel to such specialities as the philosophy of physics or the philosophy of biology. But the reverse is also happening. That is, the cognitive sciences are beginning to have a considerable impact on the content and methods of philosophy, particularly the philosophy of language and the philosophy of mind, but also on epistemology. The underlying hope is that the cognitive sciences might now come to play the sort of role within the philosophy of science that formal logic played for logical empiricism or that history of science played for the historical school. This development might permit the philosophy of science as a whole finally to move beyond the opposition between "logical" and "historical" approaches that has characterized the field since the 1960s. "Ronald N. Giere is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science at the University of Minnesota.".

Ronald N. Giere

Papers

Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach

How Models Are Used to Represent Reality

Understanding scientific reasoning

Science without laws

Cognitive models of science