Abstract
In contrast to Thomas Kuhn, the work of Ludwik Fleck, a Polish-born physician, microbiologist, and epistemologist, is conspicuously absent from the science education literature. His originally obscure monograph first published in German in 1935, Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, anticipates a number of views explicated by contemporary philosophers of science, cognitive psychologists, and learning theorists, and Fleck’s main thesis is, is many respects, strikingly similar to the oft-cited thesis developed later by Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Fleck’s work is perhaps the best example of the social influence on scientific commitment and thinking and is one of the first works to suggest different scales or varieties of change in science. At the same time as Fleck’s work gains recognition, momentum, and force in philosophical circles, some educators are calling for a critical appraisal of Kuhn’s impact on science education. This climate provides an ideal opportunity to assess (or perhaps in some cases reassess) the value of Fleck’s work in a science education context. The primary aim of this article, therefore, is to introduce educators in general, and science educators in particular, to the main ideas developed by Fleck in his Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Throughout this article, Fleck’s ideas are compared and contrasted to those of Thomas Kuhn—arguably one of the most popular referents in nature of science studies over the past decade. As will be discussed, many of the ideas developed by Fleck anticipate central issues and perspectives in philosophy, epistemology, sociology, education, and cognitive psychology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This search was performed by the second author on both journals on January 4, 2012 using the online “Full Text and Abstract” search tool (Science Education) and “Find” search tool (Science & Education) with no date restrictions. The search was performed using two variations of Fleck’s first name (Ludwig and Ludwik). A sample of the 592 Kuhn references was cursorily scanned to determine if only the Thomas Kuhn of interest (there are others) was identified. Although these counts are only crude estimates, they provide some measure of the disparate frequencies that each author is utilized in the science education literature.
See the classic work by Eldredge and Gould (1972) and Gould (2002) for a contemporary example of this phenomenon in evolutionary biology. Eldredge and Gould’s iconoclastic interpretation of allopatric (geographic) speciation via punctuated equilibrium theory challenged the then dominant view and theory of phyletic (Darwinian) gradualism. Like most “fringe” views, punctuated equilibrium theory was initially ostracized and criticized largely because it went against established thought despite the fact that it was a logically construed view.
This perspective was a core requirement in Giambatisto Vico’s (1984/1744) model of meaningful historical examination and study. Vico believed that historians should not judge the past using contemporary values and standards and that a meaningful examination of the past should account for the historical context of the period under investigation. This act, Vico argued, requires skilled imagination on the part of the historian, as the historian needs to realize he views the past in the present.
Parenthetically, Aristotle’s philosophical views were combined with the doctrines of Christianity during the medieval times (Ladyman 2002), which provide another sterling example of how different epistemological standards are subject to amalgamation.
References
Allchin, D. (2004). Pseudohistory and pseudoscience. Science Education, 13(3), 179–195.
Ashcraft, M. H. (2002). Cognition (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Ayde, F. (1995). Lexicon of psychiatry, neurology, and the neurosciences. Baltimore: William-Wilkins.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.
Carifio, J. (1977). ‘Piaget’s Need for a Construct of Metaphoric Operativity’, paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
Carifio, J. (2005). An integrated information processing theory of learning. Proceedings of the Eighth International History, Philosophy & Science Teaching Conference, Leeds, England, 101–173.
Carifio, J., & Perla, R. (2009). A critique of the theoretical and empirical literature on the use of diagrams, graphs and other visual aids in the learning of scientific–technical content from expository texts and instruction. Interchange, 41(4), 403–436.
Cohen, R. S., & Schnelle, T. (Eds.). (1986). Cognition and fact—materials on Ludwik Fleck. Dordrecht: Springer.
Duschl, R. A. (1985). Science education and philosophy of science: twenty-five years of mutually exclusive development. School Science and Mathematics, 85(7), 541–555.
Duschl, R. A. (1994). Research on the history and philosophy of science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 443–465). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Eldredge, N., & Gould, S. J. (1972). Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. In J. M. Schopf (Ed.), Models in paleobiology (pp. 82–115). San Francisco: Freeman.
Feyerabend, P. K. (1981). Problems of empiricism: philosophical papers volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fleck, L. (1935/1976). Genesis and development of a scientific fact, F. Bradley & T. Trenn, Trans, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Frank, P. (1949). Modern science and its history. New York: Braziller.
Gould, S. J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Kreis, S. (2002). The history guide: lectures on modern European intellectual history, Giambattista Vico (1168–1744). Recovered from the worldwide web at http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/lecture10a.html on April 4, 2005.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962/1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). Logic of discovery or psychology of research? In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 1–23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The essential tension: selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1979). Forward to Ludwik Fleck’s Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. F. Bradley & T.J. Trenn, Trans, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Ladyman, J. (2002). Understanding philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programs. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 309–330). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems: toward a theory of scientific growth. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Levine, A. (2007). Educating researchers. Education Schools Project. Princeton: Woodrow Wilson Foundation.
Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: the role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
Matthews, M. R. (2004a). Thomas Kuhn’s impact on science education: what lessons can be learned? Science Education, 88(1), 90–118.
Matthews, M. R. (2004b). Reappraising positivism and education: the arguments of Phillip Frank and Herbert Feigl. Science Education, 13(1–2), 7–39.
Monk, M., & Osborne, J. (1997). Placing the history and philosophy of science on the curriculum: a model for the development of pedagogy. Science Education, 81, 405–424.
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: Academic.
Perla, R. J., & Carifio, J. (2005a). Pseudoscience, metaphoric operativity and scientific change. Proceedings of the Eighth International History, Philosophy & Science Teaching Conference, Leeds, England. 310–375.
Perla, R. J., & Carifio, J. (2005b). The nature of scientific revolutions from the vantage point of chaos theory: toward a formal model of scientific change. Science and Education, v1.2, 1–28.
Perla, R., & Carifio, J. (2010). Toward a general and unified view of educational research and educational evaluation: bridging philosophy and methodology. Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Evaluation, 5(11), 38–55.
Perla, R., & Carifio, J. (2011). Theory creation, modification, and testing: an information-processing model and theory of the anticipated and unanticipated consequences of research and development. Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Evaluation, 7 (16), July, 84–110.
Popper, K. R. (1969). Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge.
Preece, P., & Baxter, J. H. (2000). Skepticism and gullibility: the superstitious and pseudo-scientific beliefs of secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 1147–1156.
Quine, W. V. O. (1953/1961). From a logical point of view. New York: Harper & Row.
Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and prediction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Schick, T. (Ed.). (2000). Readings in the philosophy of science: from positivism to postmodernism. Mountain View: Mayfield.
Thagard, P. (1988). Computational philosophy of science. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Thompson, M. (2001). Teach Yourself Philosophy of Science. Lincolnwood: McGraw-Hill.
Trenn, T. J. (1979). Preface to Ludwik Fleck’s Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. F. Bradley & T.J. Trenn, Trans, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, E. Souberman, & S. Scribner (Eds.), Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wolniewicz, B. (1986). Ludwik Fleck and Polish philosophy. In R. S. Cohen & T. Schnelle (Eds.), Cognition and fact—materials on Ludwik Fleck (pp. 217–221). Boston: Reidel.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
There is neither a first nor second author for this work, as this work is a co-authored interdisciplinary work to which each author has contributed equally.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Carifio, J., Perla, R.J. Not Just a “Fleck” on the Epistemic Landscape: A Reappraisal of Ludwik Fleck’s Views of the Nature of Scientific Progress and Change in Relation to Contemporary Educational and Social Issues. Res Sci Educ 43, 2349–2366 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9361-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9361-2