Abstract
This chapter explores the role of aims and values in science. In particular, the epistemic and cognitive aims and values are emphasized, as the social, political and cultural aims and values, are revisited in Chap. 7 in the context of the discussion on social contexts of science. To guide the discussion in this chapter, the following example questions are posed: What are the aims and values of science, and how do values function? For instance, what values come into play when scientists choose between theories? Do values apply similarly across different functions in science? How do values limit or expand scientific knowledge? The components of scientific aims and values are discussed as originally described by various philosophers of science and the review is extended to draw some implications for science education. Examples are drawn to show how scientific aims and values can be promoted in science lessons particularly in relation to assessment of a range of values. The discussion is contextualized in a contemporary curriculum standards document.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
AAAS. (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Allchin, D. (1999). Values in science. Science & Education, 8, 1–12.
Carrier, M. (2013). Values and objectivity in science: Value-ladenness, pluralism and the epistemic attitude. Science & Education, 22, 2547–2568.
Collins, J. J., Acquavella, J. F., & Friedlander, B. (1992). Reconciling old and new findings on dioxin. Epidemiology, 3(1), 65–69.
Douglas, H. (2000). Inductive risk and values in science. Philosophy of Science, 67(4), 559–579.
Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.). (2008). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Fingerhut, M. A., Halperin, W. E., Marlow, D. A., Piacitelli, L. A., Honchar, P. A., Sweeney, M. H., et al. (1991). Cancer mortality in workers exposed to 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-Dioxin. New England Journal of Medicine, 324, 212–218. doi:10.1056/NEJM199101243240402.
Gluud, L. L. (2006). Bias in clinical intervention research. American Journal of Epidemiology, 163(6), 493–501.
Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Harris, S. (2012). The moral landscape. London: Bantam Press.
Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York: Free Press.
Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science. Science & Education, 20, 591–607.
Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 999–1021). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Kolsto, S. D., & Ratcliffe, M. (2008). Social aspects of argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 117–136). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The essential tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lee, M.-H., Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2009). Research trends in science education from 2003 to 2007: A content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 1999–2020.
Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Longino, H. E. (1993). Essential tensions—Phase two: Feminist, philosophical, and social studies of science. In L. M. Antony & C. Witt (Eds.), A mind of one’s own. Feminist essays on reason and objectivity (pp. 257–272). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Longino, H. (1995). Gender, politics and the theoretical virtues. Synthese, 104, 383–397.
Longino, H. (1997). Feminist epistemology as a local epistemology. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 71(1), 19–36.
Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Machamer, P., & Douglas, H. (1999). Cognitive and social values. Science & Education, 8, 45–54.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states by states. Appendix H. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards
Popper, K. R. (1957). Science: Conjectures and refutations. In Conjectures and refutations. The growth of scientific knowledge (pp. 43–78). London: Routledge, 1963, 2002.
Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Popper, K. R. (1975). Objective knowledge. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
Resnick, D. (2007). The price of truth: How many affects the norms of science. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
van Frassen, B. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge and teaching. Synthese, 80, 121–40.
Wilholt, T. (2009). Bias and values in scientific research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 40, 92–101.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Erduran, S., Dagher, Z.R. (2014). Aims and Values of Science. In: Reconceptualizing the Nature of Science for Science Education. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, vol 43. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9057-4_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9057-4_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9056-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9057-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)