Abstract
The traditional conception of science and science education considers that objectivity of scientific statements is ensured as these are based on experimental facts. History of science, however, shows that this inductivist stance is at best a fantasy. Objectivity consists in the willingness to abandon a set of preferences when faced with contrary evidence. Although objectivity is not synonymous with truth or certainty, it is often used as a synonym for scientific. The notion of an absolute scientific objectivity is a myth. Any change in science textbooks or curricula is difficult as the inductivist vision is rigid and does not contemplate “transgressions” of objectivity. One way of understanding objectivity is precisely a historical reconstruction of scientific progress in which controversies are highlighted. This historical perspective reveals the evolving nature of objectivity. Daston and Galison (2007) constructed the evolving nature of scientific judgment (objectivity) through the following phases: truth-to-nature (eighteenth century), mechanical objectivity (nineteenth century), structural objectivity (late nineteenth century), and finally trained judgment (twentieth century). This reconstruction shows the need to distinguish between how science needs to be practiced from how it is actually practiced. This book is based on the premise that a historical reconstruction facilitates a perspective that is conducive toward an evolving nature of objectivity. A major objective of this book is to explore the presentation of objectivity in different sources (journals, handbook, encyclopedia, and textbooks) of interest to science educators.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Examining the sources for our understandings about science: enduring conflations and critical issues in research on nature of science in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 353–374.
Agazzi, E. (2014). Scientific objectivity and its contexts. Heidelberg: Springer.
American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: project 2061. Washington: Oxford University Press.
Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority, ACARA. (2015). Australian curriculum: science F-10. Sydney: Commonwealth of Australia.
Berger, J. O., & Berry, D. A. (1988). Statistical analysis and the illusion of objectivity. American Scientist, 76(2), 159–165.
Campbell, D. T. (1988a). Can we be scientific in applied social science? In E. S. Overman (Ed.), Methodology and epistemology for social science (pp. 315–333). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (first published in 1984).
Campbell, D. T. (1988b). The experimenting society. In E. S. Overman (Ed.), Methodology and epistemology for social science (pp. 290–314). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cawthron, E. R., & Rowell, J. A. (1978). Epistemology and science education. Studies in Science Education, 5, 51–59.
Chang, Y.-H., Chang, C.-Y., & Tseng, Y.-H. (2010). Trends of science education research: an automatic content analysis. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19, 315–331.
Council of Ministers of Education, CMEC. (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes K to 12: Pan-Canadian protocol for collaboration on school curriculum. Toronto: Council of Ministers of Education.
Daston, L., & Galison, P. L. (1992). The image of objectivity. Representations, 40, 81–128. (special issue: Seeing Science).
Daston, L., & Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.
Deng, F., Chai, C. S., Tsai, C.-C., & Lin, T.-J. (2014). Assessing South China (Guangzhou) high school students’ views on nature of science: a validation study. Science & Education, 23, 843–863.
Galison, P. (2015a). The journalist the scientist and objectivity. In F. Padovani, A. Richardson & J. Y. Tsou (Eds.), Objectivity in science. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science. Dordrecht: Springer.
Giere, R. N. (1999). Science without laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Giere, R. N. (2006a). Perspectival pluralism. In S. H. Kellert, H. E. Longino & C. K. Waters (Eds.), Scientific pluralism (pp. 26–41). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Giere, R. N. (2006b). Scientific perspectivism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Giere, R. N. (2010). Naturalism. In S. Psillos & M. Curd (Eds.), The Routledge companion to philosophy of science (pp. 213–223). London: Routledge.
Gould, S. J. (1995). Dinosaur in a haystack: reflections in natural history. New York: Crown Trade Paperbacks.
Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harding, S. (2015). Objectivity and diversity: another logic of scientific research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hodson, D., & Wong, S. L. (2014). From the horse’s mouth: why scientists’ views are crucial to nature of science understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 36(16), 2639–2665.
Hoffmann, R. (2012). In J. Kovac & M. Weisberg (Eds.), Roald Hoffmann on the philosophy, art, and science of chemistry. New York: Oxford University Press.
Holton, G. (1969). Einstein and the ‘crucial’ experiment. American Journal of Physics, 37, 968–982.
Holton, G. (1978a). Subelectrons, presuppositions, and the Millikan-Ehrenhaft dispute. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 9, 161–224.
Holton, G. (1978b). The scientific imagination: case studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holton, G. (2014a). The neglected mandate: teaching science as part of our culture. Science & Education, 23, 1875–1877.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14–26.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (2nd ed.).
Kuhn, T. (1977). Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice. In T. Kuhn (Ed.), The essential tension (pp. 320–339). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (first presented as a Lecture at Furman University in 1973).
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programs. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–195). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497–521.
Machamer, P., Pera, M., & Baltas, A. (2000). Scientific controversies: an introduction. In P. Machamer, M. Pera & A. Baltas (Eds.), Scientific controversies: philosophical and historical perspectives (pp. 3–17). New York: Oxford University Press.
Machamer, P., & Wolters, G. (2004). Introduction: science, values and objectivity. In P. Machamer & G. Wolters (Eds.), Science, values and objectivity (pp. 1–13). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies (pp. 3–40). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Medawar, P. B. (1969). Induction and intuition in scientific thought. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.
Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science: problems in the logic of scientific explanation. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc..
National Research Council, NRC. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). Washington: National Academies Press. (http://www.nextgenscience.org).
Niaz, M. (2009). Critical appraisal of physical science as a human enterprise: dynamics of scientific progress. Dordrecht: Springer.
Niaz, M. (2012). From ‘Science in the Making’ to understanding the nature of science: an overview for science educators. New York: Routledge.
Niaz, M. (2016). Chemistry education and contributions from history and philosophy of science. Dordrecht: Springer.
Phillips, D. C., & Burbules, N. C. (2000). Postpositivism and educational research. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Resnik, D. B. (2010). Ethics of science. In S. Psillos & M. Curd (Eds.), The Routledge companion to philosophy of science (pp. 149–158). London: Routledge.
Schwab, J. J. (1974). The concept of the structure of a discipline. In E. W. Eisner & E. Vallance (Eds.), Conflicting conceptions of curriculum (pp. 162–175). Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corp..
Shapin, S. (1996). The scientific revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (2008). A multi-year program developing an explicit reflective pedagogy for teaching pre-service teachers the nature of science by ostention. Science & Education, 17, 219–248.
Smith, M. U., Siegel, H., & McInerney, J. D. (1995). Foundational issues in evolution education. Science & Education, 4(1), 23–46.
Smolicz, J. J., & Nunan, E. E. (1975). The philosophical and sociological foundations of science education: the demythologizing of school science. Studies in Science Education, 2, 101–143.
Tsou, J. Y., Richardson, A., & Padovani, F. (2015). Introduction. In F. Padovani, A. Richardson & J. Y. Tsou (Eds.), Objectivity in science. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science. Dordrecht: Springer.
Vesterinen, V.-M., & Aksela, M. (2013). Design of chemistry teacher education course on nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2193–2225.
Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2009). From the horse’s mouth: what scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93, 109–130.
Ziman, J. (2000). Real science: what it is, and what it means. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Niaz, M. (2018). Introduction: Understanding Objectivity within a Historical Perspective. In: Evolving Nature of Objectivity in the History of Science and its Implications for Science Education. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, vol 46. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67726-2_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67726-2_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-67725-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-67726-2
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)