Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching pp 1203–1233Cite as

Laws and Explanations in Biology and Chemistry: Philosophical Perspectives and Educational Implications

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

This chapter utilises scholarship in philosophy of biology and philosophy of chemistry to produce meaningful implications for biology and chemistry education. The primary purpose for studying philosophical literature is to identify different perspectives on the nature of laws and explanations within these disciplines. The goal is not to resolve ongoing debates about the nature of laws and explanations but to consider their multiple forms and purposes in ways that promote deep and practical understanding of biological and chemical knowledge in educational contexts. Most studies on the nature of science in science education tend to focus on general features of scientific knowledge and underemphasise disciplinary nuances. The authors aim to contribute to science education research by focusing on the characterisations of laws and explanations in biology and chemistry in the philosophical literature and illustrating how the typical coverage of biology and chemistry textbooks does not problematise meta-perspectives on the nature of laws and explanations. The chapter concludes with suggestions for making science teaching, learning and curriculum more inclusive of the epistemological dimensions of biology and chemistry.

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2011 IHPST conference and published in F. Seroglou, V. Koulountzos and A. Siatras (Eds), Science & culture: Promise, challenge and demand. Proceedings for the 11th International IHPST and 6th Greek History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Joint Conference. 1–5 July 2011, Thessaloniki, Greece: Epikentro

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   749.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   949.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   949.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See for example Duschl (1990), Hodson (1988), Matthews (1994/2014) and Schwab (1958, 1978).

  2. 2.

    For example, see Giere (1988), Harré (1988), Hesse (1970), Pitt (1988), Salmon (1987), and Scriven (1970).

  3. 3.

    The Latin ceteris paribus stands for ‘all things being equal’: ceteris paribus laws are laws that have exceptions, often contrasted with strict or ‘real’ laws (Garvey 2007).

  4. 4.

    In his review of early textbooks, Marks (2008) notes that, initially, Mendel’s Law was often presented in the singular in contrast to Galton’s Law of Ancestral Heredity as evident in Punnett’s 1905 textbook and most other genetics textbooks of the first generation. In his 1909 book, Bateson contrasted Galton’s Law against the Mendelian ‘’scheme’, ‘principles’, ‘phenomena’, ‘methods’, ‘analysis’, ‘facts”. (Marks 2008, p. 250). First references to Mendel’s Law of Segregation and Law of Independent Assortment appeared in Morgan’s second book in 1916 and were further detailed in his 1919 book The Physical Basis of Heredity.

  5. 5.

    The three textbooks reviewed in this section are BSCS (2003), Campbell et al. (2009), and SEPUP (2011).

References

  • Achinstein, P. (1983). The nature of explanation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2013). A ‘semantic’ view of scientific models for science education. Science & Education, 22(7), 1593–1611.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adúriz-Bravo, A. & Galagovsky L. (2001) Modelos y analogías en la enseñanza de las ciencias naturales. El concepto de modelo didáctico analógico, Enseñanza de las ciencias, 19, 231–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bird, A. (1998). Philosophy of science. London & New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bhushan, N. & Rosenfeld, S. (2000). Of minds and molecules: New philosophical perspectives on chemistry. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brigandt, I. (2011). Philosophy of biology. In S. French & J. Saasti (Eds.), The continuum companion to the philosophy of science (pp. 246–267). London, UK: Continuum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brito, A., Rodriguez, M.A. & Niaz, M. (2005). A reconstruction of development of the periodic table based on history and philosophy of science and its implications for general chemistry textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 84–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brock, W.H. (2000). The chemical tree: A history of chemistry. New York, NY: W. H. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T.L. (2003). The metaphorical foundations of chemical explanation. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 998, 209–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunge, M. (1961). Kinds and criteria of scientific laws. Philosophy of Science, 28 (3), 260–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BSCS. (2003). Biology: A human approach (Second Edition). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calcott, B. (2009). Lineage explanations: Explaining how biological mechanisms change. British Journal of Philosophy of Science, 60, 51–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, N., Reece, J., Taylor, M., Simon, E. & Dickey, J. (2009). Biology: Concepts and connections. San Francisco, CA: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, N. (1983). How the laws of physics lie. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. & Brown, D.E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christie, M. & Christie, J. (2003). Chemical laws and theories: a response to Vihalemm. Foundations of Chemistry, 5, 165–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christie, M. & Christie, J. (2000). “Laws” and “Theories” in Chemistry do not obey the rules. In N. Bhushan and S. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Of minds and molecules: New philosophical perspectives on chemistry (pp. 34–50). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christie, M. (1994). Chemists versus philosophers regarding laws of nature. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 25, 613–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clough, M. (1994). Diminish students’ resistance to biological evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 56(7), 409–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coulson, C.A. (1960). Present state of molecular structure calculations. Reviews of Modern Physics, 32, 170–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dagher, Z. & BouJaoude, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions of the nature of evolutionary theory. Science Education, 89, 378–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dagher, Z. & Cossman, G. (1992). Verbal explanations given by science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29 (4), 361–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Regt, H. (2011). Explanation. In S. French & J. Saasti (Eds.), The continuum companion to the philosophy of science (pp. 157–178). London: Continuum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhar, P.K. & Giuliani, A. (2010). Laws of biology: Why so few? Systems Synthetic Biology, 4, 7–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dictionary of Botany. (2003). Mendel’s laws. Retrieved on September 10, 2012 from http://botanydictionary.org/mendels-laws.html

  • Dodds, W. (2009). Laws, theories, and patterns in ecology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. (1990). Restructuring science education: the importance of theories and their development. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earley, J. E. (Ed.) (2003). Chemical explanation: Characteristics, development, autonomy. New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elgin, M. (2006). There may be strict empirical laws in biology, after all. Biology and Philosophy, 21, 119–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S. (2001). Philosophy of chemistry: An emerging field with implications for chemistry education. Science & Education, 10(6), 581–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S. (2005). Applying the philosophical concept of reduction to the chemistry of water: implications for chemical education. Science & Education, 14(2), 161–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S. (2007). Breaking the law: Promoting domain-specificity in science education in the context of arguing about the Periodic Law in chemistry. Foundations of Chemistry, 9(3), 247–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S. & Duschl, R. (2004). Interdisciplinary characterizations of models and the nature of chemical knowledge in the classroom. Studies in Science Education, 40, 111–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S. & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.). (2008). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. (1974). Special sciences and the disunity of science as a working hypothesis. Synthese, 28, 77–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garvey, B. (2007). Philosophy of biology. Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queens University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R.N. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R.N. (1999). Science without laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, W. M. (2008). Structural formulas and explanation in organic chemistry. Foundations of Chemistry, 10, 117–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanke, D. (2004). Teleology: The explanation that bedevils biology. In J. Cornwell (Ed.), Explanations: Styles of explanation in science (pp. 143–144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harré, R. (1988). Modes of explanation. In D. J. Hilton (Ed.), Contemporary science and natural selection: Common sense conceptions of causality (pp. 129–144). New York, NY: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harré, R. (2003). Structural explanation in chemistry and its evolving forms. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 988(1), 59–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, C. & Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15, 135–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hesse, M.B. (1970). Models and analogies in science. Milwaukee, WI: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (1988). Towards a philosophically more valid science curriculum. Science Education, 72, 19–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, R. (1998). Qualitative thinking in the age of modern computational chemistry–or what Lionel Salem knows. Journal of Molecular Structure, 424, 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horwood, R.H. (1988). Explanation and description in science teaching. Science Education, 72, 41–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, T., Chaniotakis, M., Carlisle, D. & Damelin, D. (2010). A natural approach to chemistry. Ronkonkoma, NY: Lab-Aids, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, D. (1973). Darwin and his critics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, C. (2001). Interdependent operations in chemical language and practice. HYLE-- International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 7(1), 31–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jungwirth, E. (1979). Do students accept anthropomorphic and teleological formulations as scientific explanations? Journal of College Science Teaching, 8, 152–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Justi, R. (2000). Teaching with historical models. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boutler (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 209–226). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kaya, E. & Erduran, S. (2013). Integrating epistemological perspectives on chemistry in chemical education: The cases of concept duality, chemical language and structural explanations. Science & Education, 22(7), 1741–1755.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R. & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). The influence of explicit reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Land, S.M. & Zembal-Saul, C. (2003). Scaffolding reflection and articulation of scientific explanations in a data-rich, project-based learning environment: An investigation of Progress Portfolio. Educational Technology Research & Development, 51(4), 65–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lange, M. (2005). Ecological laws: what would they be and why would they matter? Oikos, 110(2), 394–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, future. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahner, M. & Bunge, M. (1997). Foundations of biophilosophy. Berlin, Germany: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, J. (2008). The construction of Mendel’s laws. Evolutionary Anthropology, 17, 250–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (1994/2014). Science teaching. The role of history and philosophy of science. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E. (1961). Cause and effect in biology. Science, 134, 1501–1505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E. (2004). What makes biology unique? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 53–70). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. (2003). A textbook case of the nature of science: Laws and theories in the science of biology. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1(2), 141–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, L. (1997). Gould on laws in biological science. Biology and Philosophy, 12, 357–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. & Krajcik, J. (2012). Supporting Grade 5–8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence, and reasoning framework for talk and writing. Boston, MA: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J, Krajcik, J. & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McShea, D. & Brandon, R. (2010). Biology’s first law. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, S. (1997). Pragmatic laws. Philosophy of Science, 64, S468-S479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, S. (2000). Dimensions of scientific law. Philosophy of Science, 67(2), 242–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, S. (2009). Unsimple truths. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, M. (2000). Unifying scientific theories: Physical concepts and mathematical structures. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and World.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niaz, M. & Rodríguez, M.A. (2005). The oil drop experiment: Do physical chemistry textbooks refer to its controversial nature? Science & Education, 14, 43–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Örstan, A. (2007). Wilson’s fundamental laws of biology. Retrieved on March 25, 2011 from http://snailstales.blogspot.com/2007/01/wilsons-fundamental-laws-of-biology.html

  • Pitt, J. (Ed.) (1988). Theories of explanation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Press, J. (2009). Physical explanations and biological explanations, empirical laws and a priori laws. Biology & Philosophy, 24, 359–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, S. (2004). The biology of the future and the future of biology. In J. Cornwell (Ed.), Explanations: Styles of explanation in science (pp. 125–142). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, A. & McShea, D. (2008). Philosophy of biology: A contemporary introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruphy, S. (2003). Is the world really “dappled”? A response to Cartwright’s charge against “cross-wise reduction”. Philosophy of Science, 70, 57–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M. (1988). Philosophy of biology today. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A. & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A. & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, M.H., Earman, J., Glymour, C., Lennox, J.G., Machamer, P., McGuire, J.E., Norton, J.D., Salmon, W.C. & Schaffner, K.F. (1992). Introduction to the philosophy of science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, W. C. (1984). Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, W. C. (1987). Why ask, “Why?” An inquiry concerning scientific explanation. In A. J. Kourany (Ed.), Scientific knowledge: Basic issues in the philosophy of science (pp. 88–104). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scerri, E. (2000a). Philosophy of chemistry: A new interdisciplinary field? Journal of Chemical Education, 77, 522–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scerri, E. (2000b). The failure of reduction and how to resist disunity in the sciences in the context of chemical education. Science & Education, 9, 405–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scerri, E.R. (1999). A critique of Atkins’ Periodic Kingdom and some writings on electronic structure. Foundations of Chemistry, 1, 297–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scerri, E. & McIntyre, L. (1997). The case for the philosophy of chemistry. Synthese, 111(3), 213–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaffner, K.F. (1993). Discovery and explanation in biology and medicine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, J. J. (1958). The teaching of science as inquiry. Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 14, 374–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, J. J. (1978). Education and the structure of the disciplines. In J. Westbury & N. Wilk of (Eds.), Science, curriculum and liberal education: Selected essays (pp. 229–272). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, R., Lederman, N. & Crawford, B. (2004). Developing views of the nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(4), 610–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scriven, M. (1970). Explanations, predictions, and laws. In B. A. Brody (Ed.), Readings in the philosophy of science (pp. 88–104). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • SEPUP. (2011). Biology: Science and global issues. Berkley, CA: Lawrence Hall of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E. (2008). Evidence and evolution: The logic behind the science. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sterelny, K. & Griffiths, P. (1999). Sex and death: An introduction to the philosophy of biology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uzman, A. (2006). Four laws of biology. Retrieved on March 25, 2011 from http://hunblog.typepad.com/hunblog/2006/09/four_laws_of_bi.html

  • van Brakel, J. (1999). On the neglect of the philosophy of chemistry. Foundations of Chemistry, 1, 111–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Brakel, J. (2000). Philosophy of chemistry: Between the manifest and the scientific image. Louvain: University of Louvain Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vihalemm, R. (May 2003). Natural kinds, explanation and essentialism in chemistry. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 988(1), 59–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, J.D. (1968). The double helix: A personal account of the discovery of the structure of DNA. New York, NY: New American Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg, M., Needham, P. & Hendry, R.F. (2011). Philosophy of chemistry. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chemistry/

  • Woodward, J. (2001). Law and explanation in biology: Invariance is the kind of stability that matters. Philosophy of Science, 68, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wouters, A. (1995). Viability explanation. Biology & Philosophy, 10, 435–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wouters, A. (2007). Design explanation. Erkenntnis, 67, 65–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A. & Ginossar, S. (1998). Teleology and anthropomorphism in biology education—heretical suggestions. Science Education, 82, 679–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

 The authors wish to thank the five anonymous referees who provided valuable feedback on earlier versions of this chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

    Zoubeida R. Dagher

  2. Department of Education and Professional Studies, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

    Sibel Erduran

  3. Department of Primary Education, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Sibel Erduran

Authors
  1. Zoubeida R. Dagher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sibel Erduran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zoubeida R. Dagher .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    Michael R. Matthews

Appendix

Appendix

Source of potential confusion about structural explanations in a high school chemistry textbook (Reproduced from Hsu et al. 2010, p. 541).

figure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dagher, Z.R., Erduran, S. (2014). Laws and Explanations in Biology and Chemistry: Philosophical Perspectives and Educational Implications. In: Matthews, M. (eds) International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_37

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation