Philosophy of Science 1

Q1: In your own words, what is science?

A1: Science is the route one takes in order to explain an unknown phenomena. Scientists use their senses and intuition to reach a conclusion about an unknown.

Q2: Science clearly differs from other disciplines like art, religion, and philosophy. What do you see as some of the most important features that distinguish science from other ways of understanding the world?

A2: Science goes beyond theory or faith and seeks answers using concrete evidence. While philosophers, artists, and scientists all attempt to explain the world around them, scientists must use empirical methods and fact to do so. Scientists go beyond speculation and seek real answers. 

Q3: Now let's consider science learning, and a particular scientific phenomenon: the expansion of gases when they are heated. What percent of local middle school students would you predict actually know that gases expand when heated? How do you think most learned this fact? What do you think most imagine a gas to be, and--were you to interview them carefully--how would they describe, at a molecular level, what happens to a gas as it is warmed?

A3: I would say that about half of middle school children know this fact. Besides what they have learned in school, many children would know this fact from personal observation. For example, hot air balloons rise when they are heated. I remember when I was that age, I thought of gasses as visible matter like smoke. I would not have referred to the air we breathe as a gas. On a molecular level, middle school students would not see gasses as collections of molecules, but rather as whole units. They would likely think that the gas molecules expand as a whole, rather than the distance between them increasing.

Q4: Now consider another phenomenon: the solubility of gases in water. What percent of local 10th graders would you predict know that gases are less soluble in warm water than in cold water? What experiences in life may have contributed to a student's misunderstanding about this concept? Why is understanding this concept important in the subject you plan to teach? What do you think students would need to do in your classroom to improve their understanding of this concept?

A4: I would predict that almost all young students would have a misconception about these phenomena because it is contrary to simple reasoning. In students lives they have seen that boiling water releases a lot of steam. Therefore, they must think that hot water contains a lot of gas. In Earth Science, this is an important concept in understanding the relationships between global carbon cycles and sequestration of CO2 in the oceans (just to name one). In order to understand this, students would need some background in Kinetic energy and heat. 

Q5: Most science teachers have students work in groups some of the time. Given the view of science you described in Questions 1 and 2, is group work more important in science class than in, say, art or English? Why or why not? Describe some types of group work that you think are much more common in science than in science classrooms. Is this difference a problem, in your opinion? Why or why not?

A5: Group work is important in science because the flow of ideas is necessary to reach a conclusion. Students would need to brainstorm possible explanations and reach an agreement on the best one. 
In English and Art, students often need to express themselves in a manner that there is no right or wrong. In science, many ideas are needed to come up with a single, plausible conclusion. 
In science, it is rare that one person does research without any outside help. Whether it is working with a team of experts, or looking up journal articles as references, scientists always use outside help. However, often in the science classroom, students are expected to come up with everything on their own. I feel this is not only a misrepresentation of science, but a problem when students eventually move on to higher levels of research.

Q6: One might argue that science achieves objectivity by using processes that minimize the importance of scientists' values, beliefs, and commitments. A laboratory report written in the third person typically doesn't even mention the scientist: the narrative centers on the objects of investigation because a scientific experiment--properly done--does not depend on the subject (that is, the investigator). What do you think of this view? And, whether you agree with it or not, critique it from an educational perspective.

A6: While science is more objective than English or Art, it still has its problems. Scientists are able to distort their findings through their interpretation of data. Students often find it necessary to get the "right" data, rather than the real data. As a result, I feel that the scientific method is often compromised because students do not understand that a failed experiment is not necessarily a bad thing. This does not lay a proper framework for future research.