Advertisement

Science & Education

, Volume 26, Issue 3–4, pp 215–245 | Cite as

Belief, Knowledge and Understanding

How to Deal with the Relations Between Different Cultural Perspectives in Classrooms
  • Frederik Moreira-dos-Santos
  • Charbel N. El-Hani
Article

Abstract

This article discusses how to deal with the relations between different cultural perspectives in classrooms, based on a proposal for considering understanding and knowledge as goals of science education, inspired by Dewey’s naturalistic humanism. It thus combines educational and philosophical interests. In educational terms, our concerns relate to how science teachers position themselves in multicultural classrooms. In philosophical terms, we are interested in discussing the relations between belief, understanding, and knowledge under the light of Dewey’s philosophy. We present a synthesis of Dewey’s theory of inquiry through his naturalistic humanism and discuss its implications for the concepts of belief, understanding, and knowledge, as well as for the goals of science teaching. In particular, we highlight problems arising in the context of possible conflicts between scientific and religious claims in the school environment that result from totalitarian positions. We characterize an individual’s position as totalitarian if he or she takes some way of thinking as the only one capable of expressing the truth about all that exists in the world, lacks open-mindedness to understand different interpretative perspectives, and attempts to impose her or his interpretation about the facts to others by violent means or not. From this stance, any other perspective is taken to be false a priori and, accordingly, as a putative target to be suppressed or adapted to the privileged way of thinking. We argue, instead, for a more fallibilist evaluation of our own beliefs and a more respectful appraisal of the diversity of students’ beliefs by both students and teachers.

Keywords

Science Education Science Teacher Science Classroom Scientific Idea Religious People 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Philip Kitcher, José Crisóstomo de Souza, Claudia Sepulveda, Waldomiro José da Silva-Filho, Flávia Rezende, Fernanda Ostermann, and David Wong, who made valuable criticisms and comments on a previous version of this paper, which greatly contributed to its improvement. The paper also benefited a lot from the thoughtful comments of three anonymous reviewers from Science & Education. We are thankful to the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) for the support to the research that led to this paper, through Grant no. 301259/2010-0 (CNEH), and to the Brazilian Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) for PhD Fellowship (FMS).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors report no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abrantes, P. C. (1998). Imagens de natureza, imagens de ciência. Campinas: Papirus.Google Scholar
  2. Abrantes, P. C., & Bensusan, H. (2003). Conhecimento, ciência e natureza: cartas sobre o naturalismo. In S. Simon (Ed.), Filosofia e conhecimento: das formas platônicas ao naturalismo (pp. 273–333). Brasília: Editora da UnB.Google Scholar
  3. Arendt, H. (1951). The origins of totalitarianism. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  4. Atran, S. (2002). In gods we trust: the evolutionary landscape of religion. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bagdonas, A., & Silva, C. C. (2015). Enhancing teachers’ awareness about relations between science and religion. Science & Education, 24, 1173–1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baptista, G. C., & El-Hani, C. N. (2009). The contribution of ethnobiology to the construction of a dialogue between ways of knowing: a case study in a Brazilian public high school. Science & Education, 18, 503–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barbour, I. G. (2000). When science meets religion. San Francisco, CA: Harper.Google Scholar
  8. Bernstein, R. J. (2014). Engaged fallibilistic pluralism. In: Columbia Pragmatism Colloquium. Retrieved from http://columbiapragmatism.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/ engaged-fallibilistic-pluralism.pdf., accessed October 16th 2015.
  9. Blaisdell, H. F. (1969). The philosophical fisherman. Boston, NJ: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  10. Bloomfield, L. A. (2009). How things work: the physics of everyday life (4th ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  11. Borgdorff, H. (2010). The production of knowledge in artistic research. In H. Karlsson & M. Biggs (Eds.), The Routledge companion to research in the arts (pp. 44–63). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Boyer, P. (2001). Religion explained. The evolutionary origins of religious thought. New York, NY: Basic books.Google Scholar
  13. Campanario, J. M. (2002). The parallelism between scientists’ and students’ resistance to new scientific ideas. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1095–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cobern, W. W. (1996). Worldview theory and conceptual change in science education. Science Education, 80, 579–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cobern, W. W. (2000). The nature of science and the role of knowledge and belief. Science & Education, 9, 219–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cobern, W. W. (2004). Apples and oranges: a rejoinder to Smith and Siegel. Science & Education, 13, 583–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cobern, W. W., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1998). Cultural aspects of learning science. In B. J. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 39–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Daston, L., & Galison, P. (2010). Objectivity. Brooklyn, NY: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  19. Davson-Galle, P. (2004). Understanding: ‘knowledge’, ‘belief’, and ‘understanding’. Science & Education, 13, 591–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. De Caro, M., & Macarthur, D. (2010). Introduction: science, naturalism, and the problem of normativity. In M. De Caro, D. Macarthur, & D. (Eds.), Naturalism and normativity (pp. 1–22). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Dewey, J. (1925). Experience and nature. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  22. Dewey, J. (1929). The quest for certainty. New York, NY: Minton, Balch.Google Scholar
  23. Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: the theory of inquiry. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  24. El-Hani, C. N., & Mortimer, E. F. (2007). Multicultural education, pragmatism, and the goals of science teaching. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2, 657–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. El-Hani, C. N., & Sepulveda, C. (2010). The relationship between science and religion in the education of protestant biology preservice teachers in a Brazilian university. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5, 103–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. El-Hani, C. N., Silva-Filho, W. J., & Mortimer, E. F. (2014). The epistemological grounds of the conceptual profile theory. In E. F. Mortimer & C. N. El-Hani (Eds.), Conceptual profiles: a theory of teaching and learning scientific concepts (pp. 35–65). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fay, B. (1996). Contemporary philosophy of social science: a multicultural approach. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  28. Faye, J. (2014). The nature of scientific thinking. On interpretation, explanation and understanding. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ferm, V. (1950). Varieties of naturalism. In V. Ferm (Ed.), History of philosophical systems (pp. 429–441). Paterson, NJ: Littlefield, Adams.Google Scholar
  30. Freire, P. (1979). Educação e mudança (3ª ed.). Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.Google Scholar
  31. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2002). Dewey on naturalism, realism and science. Philosophy of Science, 69, 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gould, S. J. (1999). Rocks of ages: science and religion in the fullness of life. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  33. Grimm, S. R. (2011). Understanding. In S. Bernecker & D. Pritchard (Eds.), The Routledge companion to epistemology (pp. 84–94). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Haack, S. (2003). Defending science—within reason. Between scientism and cynicism. Amherst, MA: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  35. Habermas, J. (1992). Transcendence from within, transcendence in this world. In D. S. Browning & F. S. Fiorenza (Eds.), Habermas, modernity, and public theology (pp. 226–250). New York, NY: Crossroad.Google Scholar
  36. Heering, P. (2000). Getting shocks: teaching secondary school physics through history. Science & Education, 9, 363–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2010). 10 ideas clave: competencias en argumentación y uso de pruebas. Barcelona: Graó.Google Scholar
  38. Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychological Science, 22, 545–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lacey, H. (1996). On relations between science and religion. Science and Education, 5, 143–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Matthews, M. R. (2015). Science teaching: the contribution of history and philosophy of science (20 th anniversary revised and expanded edition). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. McCain, K. (2015). Explanation and the nature of scientific knowledge. Science & Education, 24, 827–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McKinley, E., & Stewart, G. M. (2012). Out of place: Indigenous knowledge (IK) in the science curriculum. In B. Fraser, C. McRobbie, & K. Tobin (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 541–554). New York and London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mendieta, E. (Ed.). (2002). Religion and rationality. Essays on reason, God, and modernity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Mortimer, E. F. (2000). Linguagem e formação de conceitos no ensino de ciências. Belo Horizonte: Editora UFMG.Google Scholar
  45. Myers, W. T., & Pappas, G. F. (2004). Dewey’s metaphysics: a response to Richard Gale. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 40, 679–700.Google Scholar
  46. Omnès, R. (1999). Quantum philosophy: understanding and interpreting contemporary science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Poole, M. (1996). For more and better religious education. Science & Education, 5, 165–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Peirce, C. S. (1877). The fixation of belief. Popular Science Monthly, 12(November), 1–15 Retrieved from http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html, accessed 27 Dec 2016.Google Scholar
  49. Putnam, R. A. (2010). Dewey’s epistemology. In M. Cochran (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Dewey (pp. 34–54). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schweber, S. S. (1986). The empiricist temper regnant: theoretical physics in the United States, 1920-1950. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 17, 55–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sinatra, G., Southerland, S. A., McConaughy, F., & Demastes, J. W. (2003). Intentions and beliefs in students’ understanding and acceptance of biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 510–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Slaton, A., & Barton, A. C. (2012). Respect and science learning. In B. Fraser, C. McRobbie, & K. Tobin (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 513–525). New York and London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Smith, M. U., & Siegel, H. (2004). Knowing, believing, and understanding: what goals for science education? Science & Education, 13, 553–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tom, A. R. (1980). Teaching as a moral craft: a metaphor for teaching and teacher education. Curriculum Inquiry, 10, 317–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zagzebski, L. (2001). Recovering understanding. In M. Steup (Ed.), Knowledge, truth, and duty: essays on epistemic justification, responsibility, and virtue (pp. 235–256). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidade Federal do Recôncavo da Bahia (UFRB)Feira de SantanaBrazil
  2. 2.National Institute of Science and Technology in Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Studies in Ecology and Evolution (IN-TREE) and History, Philosophy, and Biology Teaching Lab (LEFHBio), Institute of BiologyUniversidade Federal da Bahia (UFBA), BrazilSalvadorBrazil

Personalised recommendations