NCB Science advice paper comment Pt 1

I am writing as an ex-teacher. I taught Science, Mathematics and Information Technology in both public and private schools at the secondary level (years 8-12) in South Australia and the Northern Territory for six years. I am also writing as a parent. I have four children (junior primary age and younger) who have been home educated for several years under my tutelage. Thus my response takes into account both my experiences as a teacher of Science and my hopes for the future educational experiences of my children.

I. [pp5-6] "... a science curriculum could be well based on three key elements:
1. Science as a way of knowing through inquiry...
2. Science as a human endeavour...
3. Scientific knowledge"

A. The purpose of scientific inquiry is to explain what is observed, using the “scientific method”. To explain is not the same as to know. As the paragraph under (1) states, scientific explanations change. Hence it is erroneous to state that science is a way of knowing. Rather, it is a way of explaining. One of the first things I learnt in my first year of university lectures in Science is that scientific experimentation cannot never tell us what is so, it can only tell us what is not so . The scientific method is a form of inductive formal logic, and as such, while it applies the laws of probablitity and possibility, it cannot prove anything for certain. There is a danger, to my mind, of referring to the academic discipline of Science as “a way of knowing”, because this can lead students to believe that the scientific method is the only way of determining the facts of a matter. In contrast, the methods of informal logic (critical thinking) and formal, deductive logic (Aristotelian use of categorical syllogisms and modern symbolic or propositional logic) provide other means of analysing and arranging evidence for or against an explanation of an observation. This misunderstanding, that scientific endeavour provides the only way to identifying the facts, is quite common and could be avoided if Science is taught as one way of formulating and justifying an explanation for observations, rather than as “a way of knowing”.

B. I find the inclusion of the second point, “science as a human endeavour” superfluous to the definition of a science curriculum. If students are taught that science is one mode of inquiry, they will certainly understand that those who make these inquiries are human beings. There is nothing else capable. Likewise, if students are taught even a small portion of the body of accepted scientific theory, they will see that the application of these theories has obvious ramifications for human society. If things change, they cannot stay the same. It is unnecessary to specify a key element of science to be the nature of it as a human endeavour, because study of the other two elements will necessitate the coverage of this factor.

C. Furthermore, I object to the placement of “scientific knowledge” at the end of this list of key elements. It is clear from this placement, and the lack of emphasis throughout the paper on building a foundation of scientific knowledge, that the writers of this paper do not feel that knowledge of the current body of scientific knowledge is of high value. Appendix 1 highlights this denigration. Given that the purpose of scientific inquiry is to build a body of reasonable explanations about our observations, it is of utmost importance to teach the results of previous scientific endeavour. Otherwise, our educational systems will merely produce students who are capable of applying a method, but who then have to use that method to re-establish the validity of the most fundamental ideas that already underpin our technological society. If students are not taught which theories held by scientists in the past have been refuted, we cannot expect to move forward in our theories; instead, we will be doomed to continually cover the same ground. At best, this system will produce students who lack the scientific understanding to embark on further academic study in this discipline, let alone become research scientists. The study of “scientific knowledge” must be of prime importance in the science curriculum if the students of the future are to graduate with a foundation of knowledge sufficient to allow them to understand further scientific developments that will have marked impacts on their lives, and to make wise decisions about their own practices as a result.