The Nature of Science

This week I read two writings by my professor, Jerrid Kruse.  The first was What Makes Up Stuff?, a short story about the history of the discovery of matter and particles given in a way that children might understand.  It's interesting to me because I think that a teacher could go even further with the story and maybe write a short reader's theater script for students to act out.  It could be a fun way to combine reading with science history.

The story of how people favored Aristotle's idea of four elements because he was famous is annoying to me, but not shocking.  It reminds me of the history of astronomy and the many different theories that lasted simply because they were popular or easy to pair with cultural ideas.

I like the very last question Kruse asked, "What does this story tell you about people who do science?" because it might help students to think that scientists are regular people with flaws and that they might be able to be scientists too.

The second story I read was also by Jerrid Kruse, Studying Animals.  This short story is about the history of ecologists and the different ways they have studied animals.  The story is interesting but I think the questions are more important because they require the student to think more about the nature of scientists and how they work.  It would hopefully challenge their ideas of what scientists do and lead them to ask more questions as well as read more about people like Charles Darwin and Jane Goodall.  I also like the metaphor of "science" being a puzzle that scientists are trying to piece together.  I'm not sure how others would look at it, but it makes me wonder what the "big picture" might look like when all put together.

The third writing I read this week was Keys to Teaching the Nature of Science by William F. McComas; in the article he discusses The National Science Education Standards and nine core nature of science (NOS) ideas that students in the K-12 setting need to learn.

• Science demands and relies on empirical evidence.
• Knowledge production in science includes many common features and shared habits of mind. 
• McComas goes on to state that, "in spite of such commonalities there is no single step-by-step scientific method by which all science is done."  I am a big fan of the scientific method because I feel that it helps to rule out some types of bad data and inaccurate conclusions so I am not sure how I feel about this.
• Scientific knowledge is tentative but durable. 
• Laws and theories are related but distinct kinds of scientific knowledge.
• Science is a highly creative endeavor. 
• I've always considered myself a creative person but this concept is a difficult one for me.  I acknowledge that the initial spark of inspiration is creative but I am still unsure that, "The knowledge generation process in science is as creative as anything in the arts."  One thing I like about science is that it's logical, being creative tends to make things "messy."
• Science has a subjective element.  
• I get this because PEOPLE are subjective and fallible.  This is also one of the reasons that I appreciate the scientific method.
• There are historical, cultural, and social influences on science.
• Science and technology impact each other, but they are not the same.
• Science and its methods cannot answer all questions.  
• My first reaction to this statement was of strong disagreement, but then I thought about it for a moment.  Science can't say why certain colors are my favorite or why people like different kinds of music.  It also can't say why people think the things that they do.  It isn't to say that science is "wrong" it's just that there are certain things that scientists can't study.