Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Thought Experiments in Science and in Science Education

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching

Abstract

This chapter will discuss the role of thought experiments in science and in science teaching. The constructive and destructive roles played by thought experiments in the construction of scientific theories can be used in science teaching to help students to understand the processes of science. In addition, they have potential to be used as a teaching tool for developing students’ conceptual understanding. The use of thought experiments can also increase students’ interest in science and help them in understanding situations beyond their everyday experiences. It has been reported elsewhere that the use of thought experiments in science teaching may be challenging for both teachers and students. Despite the recent increase in research activities with respect to thought experiments in science education, further systematic research work is still needed for the most effective methods to be discovered of how best to use thought experiments in science teaching. Of particular importance will be studies that focus on science teachers’ understanding of thought experiments and their actual use in a classroom environment.

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

Access this chapter

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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A scientific experiment can be either a thought experiment performed in thought or a physical experiment performed in the laboratory.

  2. 2.

    See, e.g. Newton (1728), Newton (1863), Gendler (1998), Palmieri (2003), Palmier (2005), Hall (2000), and Norton (1991).

  3. 3.

    Racher Cooper (2005) and Tamara Szabó Gendler (1998, 2004) are also supporters of this kind of mental model account.

  4. 4.

    Epistemic recourses are processes and tools that we use to decide that we know something or to create knowledge (Redish 2004, p. 31).

  5. 5.

    States of affairs that are not observationally distinct should not be distinguished by the theory (Norton 1991, p. 135).

  6. 6.

    Stevin’s TE discusses the forces that are needed to keep a weight on an inclined plane (see, e.g. Gilbert and Reiner 2000).

  7. 7.

    If a man is in a windowless elevator, he cannot tell whether the sensation of weight is due to gravity or acceleration.

  8. 8.

    Intuition can be defined as a capacity for attaining direct knowledge or understanding without the apparent intrusion of rational thought or logical inference (Sadler-Smith and Shefy 2004).

  9. 9.

    The books analysed were Breithaupt’s Understanding Physics for Advanced Level and Ohanion’s Physics and Conceptual Physics by Hewitt.

  10. 10.

    The books were either written in Greek or translated into Greek from English. The study aimed at finding out how the books represented the 11 most essential thought experiments in the domains of relativity and quantum mechanics. A total of 25 books were included in the study.

  11. 11.

    The six elements of a TE: (1) posing a question or a hypothesis, (2) creating an imaginary world, (3) designing the TE, (4) performing the TE mentally, (5) producing an outcome of the TE, and (6) drawing a conclusion.

  12. 12.

    See, e.g. Velentzas et al. (2007), Lattery (2001), Velentzas and Halkia (2011), and Velentzas and Halkia (2012).

  13. 13.

    Stannard, R. (1991). Black Hole and Uncle Albert. London: Faber and Faber Ltd.

  14. 14.

    See Galili (2009), Velentzas et al. (2007), and Velentzas and Halkia (2011, 2012).

  15. 15.

    See, e.g. Gilbert and Reiner (2000), Velentzas et al. (2007), and Lattery (2001).

  16. 16.

    See, e.g. Reiner and Burko (2003), Reiner and Gilbert (2008), and Velentzas and Halkia (2011, 2012).

References

  • Arthur, R. (1999). On thought experiments as a priori science. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 13(3), 215–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bokulich, A. (2001). Rethinking thought experiments. Perspectives on Science, 9(3), 285–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. R. (1986). Thought experiments since the scientific revolution. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 1(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J.R. (1991). Thought experiments: A Platonic account. In T. Horowitz and G.J. Massey (Eds.), Thought experiments in science and philosophy (pp. 119–128). Unspecified. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/3190. Accessed June 7th 2012.

  • Brown, J.R., & Fehige, Y. (2010). Thought experiments. In E.N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/thought-experiment/. Accessed November 1st 2011.

  • Buzzoni, M. (2009). Empirical thought experiments: A trascendental-operational view. In Thought experiments: A workshop (Toronto, May 22–23, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. (2005). Thought experiments. Metaphilosophy, 36(3), 328–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A.A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2 & 3), 105–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A.A. (2002). Why “Conceptual Ecology” is a good idea. In M. Limón & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 28–60).

    Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A.A., Gillespie, N.M, & Esterly, J.B. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force, Cognitive Science, 28(6), 843–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A.A. & Sherin, B.L. (1998). What changes in conceptual change? International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1155–1191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1994). Young people’s understanding of science concepts: implications of cross-age studies for curriculum planning. Studies in Science Education, 24(1), 75–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duhem, P. (1990). Logical examinations of physical theory. Synthese, 83, 183–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, A. (1918) “Dialog über Einwände gegen die Relativitätstheorie”, Die Naturwissenschaften, 48, 697–702. English translation: Dialog about objections against the theory of relativity. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog_about_objections_against_the_theory_of_relativity. Accessed June 1st 2012.

  • Galili, I. (2009). Thought experiments: Determining their meaning. Science & Education, 18, 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gendler, T. S. (1998). Galileo and the indispensability of scientific thought experiment. British Journal of Philosophy of Science, 49, 397–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gendler, T. S. (2004). Thought experiments rethought – and reperceived. Philosophy of Science, 71(5), 1152–1163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C. & Rutherford, M. (1998). Models in explanations, Part 1: Horses for courses? International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 83–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K. & Reiner. M. (2000). Thought experiments in science education: potential and current realization. International Journal of Science Education, 22(3), 265–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, A.R. (2000). Isaac Newton, adventurer in thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennessy, S., Wishart, J., Whitelock, D., Deaney, R., Brawn, R., la Velle, L., McFarlane, A.m Ruthven, & K., Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pedagogical approaches for technology-integrated science teaching, Computers & Education, 48(1), 137–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, D. L. (1998). Science as a process: an evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, D. L. (2001), Science and Selection. Essays on Biological Evolution and the Philosophy of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Häggqvist, S. (1996). Thought experiments in philosophy. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irvine, A. D. (1991). Thought experiments in scientific reasoning. In T. Horowitz and G. Massey (Ed.), Thought experiments in science and philosophy (pp. 149–165).

    Google Scholar 

  • King, P. (1991). Medieval thought-experiments: the metamethodology of medieval science. In T. Horowitz and G. Massey (Eds.), Thought experiments in science and philosophy (pp. 43–64). Unspecified. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/3190. Accessed June 7th 2012.

  • Klassen, S. (2006). The science thought experiment: How might it be used profitably in the classroom? Interchange, 37(1–2), 77–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R.B.T & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 949–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lattery, M.J. (2001). Thought experiments in physics education: A simple and practical example. Science & Education, 10, 485–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehavi, Y. & Galili, I. (2009). The status of Galileo’s law of free-fall and its implications for physics education. American Journal of Physics, 77(5), pp. 417–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, K.E. (2002). An analysis of elementary teachers’ beliefs regarding the teaching and learning of science. Science Education, 86(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mach, E. (1976). On thought experiments. In W.O. Price and W. Krimsky (translated and adopted), Knowledge and Error (pp. 449–457).

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M.R. (1988). Ernst Mach and thought experiments in science. Research in Science Education, 18, 251–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M.R. (1990). Ernst Mach and contemporary science education reforms. International Journal of Science Education, 12(3), 317–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M.R. (1992). History, philosophy, and science teaching: The present rapprochement, Science & Education, 1(1), 11–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAllister, J.W. (2004). Thought experiments and the belief in phenomena. Philosophy of Science, 71, 1164–1175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, L.C. (1993). How we teach and how students learn. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 701, 9–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian, N.J. (1989). Conceptual change in science and in science education. Synthese, 80, 163–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian, N.J. (1992). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. In R. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive Models of Science (pp. 3–44). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian, N.J. & Patton, C. (2009). Model-based reasoning in interdisciplinary engineering, in A. Meijers (Ed.) Handbook of the Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences (pp. 687–718). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, I. (1728). A treatise of the system of the world. Printed for F. Fayram.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, I. (1863). Newton’s principia. Sections I. II. III. Cambridge and London: McMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, J. D. (1991). Thought experiments in Einstein’s work. In T. Horowitz, & G. Massey (Eds.), Thought experiments in science and philosophy (pp. 129–148). Unspecified. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/3190. Accessed June 7th 2012.

  • Norton, J. D. (1996). Are thought experiments just what you thought? Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 26(3), 333–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, J. D. (2004a). On thought experiments: Is there more to the argument? Philosophy of Science, 71, 1139–1151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton, J. D. (2004b). Why thought experiments do not transcend empiricism. In C. Hitchcock (Ed.), Contemporary Debates in the Philosophy of Science. Bodmin: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozdemir, O. F. (2009). Avoidance from thought experiments: Fear of misconception, International Journal of Science Education, 31(8), 1049–1068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmieri, P. (2003). Mental models in Galileo’s early mathematization of nature. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 34, 229–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmieri, P. (2005). Spuntar lo scoglio piu` duro: did Galileo ever think the most beautiful thought experiment in the history of science? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 36, 223–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peierls, R. (1980). Model-making in physics. Contemporary Physics, 21, 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radhakrishnamurty, P. (2010). Maxwell’s demon and the second law of thermodynamics. Resonance, June, 548–560.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redish, E. F. (2004). A theoretical framework for physics education research: Modeling student thinking. In E.F. Redish & M. Vicentini (Eds.), Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi”, Course CLVI, Research on Physics Education, volume 156 (pp. 1–63). Bologna: Societa Italiana di Fisica/IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiner, M. (1998). Thought experiments and collaborative learning in physics, International Journal of Science Education, 20(9), 1043–1058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiner, M. (2006). The context of thought experiments in physics learning. Interchange, 37(1), 97–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiner, M., & Burko, L. M. (2003). On the limitations of thought experiments in physics and the consequences for physics education. Science & Education, 12, 365–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiner, M. & Gilbert, J.K. (2008). When an image turns into knowledge: The role of visualization in thought experimentation. In Gilbert, J.K., Reiner, M. & Nakhleh, M. (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education (pp. 295–309). Surrey: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiner, M., Pea, R.D., & Shulman, D.J. (1995). Impact of simulator-based instruction on diagramming in geometrical optics by introductory physics students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(3), 199–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rescher, N. (1991). Thought experiments in presocratic philosophy. In Horowitz and Massey (Eds.), Thought Experiments in Science and Philosophy (pp. 31–42).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler-Smith, E., & Shefy, E. (2004). The intuitive executive: Understanding and applying ‘gut feel’ in decision making. Academy of Management Executive, 18, 76–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlesinger, G.N. (1996). The power of thought experiments. Foundations of Physics, 26(4), 467–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrödinger, E. (1935). Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik. Die Naturwissenschaften, 23, 823–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen, R.A. (1992). Though experiments. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stannard, R. (1991). Black holes and uncle Albert. London: Faber and Faber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velentzas, A. & Halkia, K. (2010). The use of thought and hands-on experiments in teaching physics. In M. Kalogiannakis, D. Stavrou & P. Michaelidis (Eds.) Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Hands-on Science. 25–31 July 2010, Rethymno-Crete, pp. 284–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velentzas, A., & Halkia, K. (2011). The ‘Heisenberg’s Microscope’ as an example of using thought experiments in teaching physics theories to students of the upper secondary school. Research in Science Education, 41, 525–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velentzas, A., & Halkia, K. (2012). The use of thought experiments in teaching physics to upper secondary-level students: Two examples from the theory of relativity, International Journal of Science Education. DOI:10.1080/09500693.2012.682182

    Google Scholar 

  • Velentzas, A., Halkia, K., & Skordoulis, C. (2007). Thought experiments in the theory of relativity and in quantum mechanics: Their presence in textbooks and in popular science books. Science & Education, 16(3–5), 353–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change, Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 45–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S., Vamvakoussi, X., & Skopeliti, I. (2008). The framework theory approach to the problem of conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change (pp. 3–34). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yore, L.D. (1991). Secondary science teachers’ attitudes toward and beliefs about science reading and science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 55–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeilinger, A. (1999). Experiment and the foundations of quantum physics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 71(2), S288–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

 We wish to thank Mick Nott, Tarja Kallio, John A. Stotesbury, and also the anonymous reviewers for their helpful critical comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physics and Mathematics, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland

    Mervi A. Asikainen & Pekka E. Hirvonen

Authors
  1. Mervi A. Asikainen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pekka E. Hirvonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mervi A. Asikainen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

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

    Michael R. Matthews

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Asikainen, M.A., Hirvonen, P.E. (2014). Thought Experiments in Science and in Science Education. 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_38

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation