UNIT 3: EARTH AND BEYOND
Applications in real life situations
PURPOSE
The main purpose of this unit is to assist students in developing an
understanding of the nature and processes of science by exploring the
epistemological aspects of knowledge production in science. Students are
exposed to the socio-cultural influences in science as well as the implications of
differing worldviews and the role of indigenous knowledge systems in the
teaching and learning of science in a multicultural classroom.
LEARNING OUTCOMES
On successful completion of this unit, you will be able to:
ï articulate clearly an acceptable understanding of what science is and its
relationship to world views and culture.
ï demonstrate clearly acceptable understandings of inductivist and
falsificationist approaches to understandings of the nature of science and how
these approaches differ as well as relate these to the concept of paradigms.
ï demonstrate clearly acceptable understandings of how science progresses
and social influence on the generation of new knowledge.
ï show that you are acquainted with the major scientific paradigm shifts
that have taken place over the past 500 years in scientific knowledge.
ï understand and demonstrate that you are aware of the role of differing
worldviews with particular reference to the role of indigenous knowledge
systems.
ï show how some of the major theories of science have been influenced by
the Nature of Science and various World Views.
ï relate philosophical positions on the Nature of Science to the way science
is taught in school classrooms and issues of curriculum design.
ï communicate your ideas clearly and effectively in verbal and written form.
CORE CONTENT
• The status of “truth” in science.
• Differing world views and socio-cultural influences in science.
• The role of indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) in the teaching
and learning of science.
• Epistemological assumptions in science – Inductivism or
Falsification?
• Scientific paradigms and paradigm shifts.
• The nature of scientific theories – Examples of some of the “big”
theories in science.
• Implications for teaching – Inquiry-based science teaching.
Learning Unit 3.1
The Truth of Science: Physical Theories and Reality
The Truth of Science: Physical Theories and Reality
R.G. Newton
Harvard University Press, 1997
(viii + 260 pages)
ISBN 0 674 91092 3
Review by Brian D. Josephson
Scientific knowledge is abstract (in the case of physics particularly), and linked
only very indirectly to the world we perceive with the senses. To what extent is
science concerned with a truth independent of the activities of scientists, and to
what extent is it merely a 'social construction', consisting of the activities of a
particular culture?
Such questions are the fundamental concern of this book, largely driven by
disquiet at the claims of sociologists who have advocated the social construction
point of view. Unfortunately (it seems to me), the author is neither enough of a
philosopher nor enough of a sociologist to appreciate the issues fully, so that the
book becomes rather of the nature of an apologia for science (but a interesting
and instructive apologia nevertheless).
What is it about scientific 'truths', over and above social processes, that entitles
us to consider them as true? Newton discards as too simple-minded the idea that
scientific assertions are simply 'assertions of how things are', so an alternative is
required. His alternative is the coherence or overall consistency of a large and
complex body of scientific knowledge. As an illustration of this coherence
(exemplified by the fact of the non-existence of an engine that runs without the
input of energy) he asserts that 'when a well-corroborated theory implies that a
phenomenon will never occur, it will, indeed, not happen'.
The problem with this particular line is that the history of science contains a
number of examples of laws that appeared at one time to be universally obeyed
but which later were found to have exceptions. All of chemistry appeared to
confirm the law that elements could not be transmuted, while the physics of the
past seemed to imply that space and time were absolute. The moral to be drawn
is that no matter how coherent a scientific system may be, there is no guarantee
that facts that are inconsistent with it will not emerge in the future. In the end
Newton acknowledges this, and shifts to the idea that science, 'Kuhn
notwithstanding', makes progress, and approaches the truth ever more closely
over the course of time.
The reference to Kuhn is one to a statement of his that science does not move
towards anything such as truth, but simply evolves. Attacking this position, the
author quotes Shimony, who uses a supposed analogy between the deciphering
of a coded text and the problem of understanding nature to argue that there
could not be progress in science without there being some unambiguous truth
that this progress was being made towards. But the analogy is unconvincing; it is
like saying if a society continually makes progress then there must be some
unique perfect society that is the limit of this progress (or more mathematically,
that if we have an ascending sequence of integers there is some integer that is
the limit of that sequence). The whole notion of scientific truth is so troublesome
that it seems much better to avoid it, and to discuss the nature of scientific
progress instead.
What of the idea, which Newton seems to detest, that science is an 'endeavour
to construct reality'? One cannot argue with the idea itself; the objection is to the
idea that that is all there is to science: Newton wants there to be something
independent of the scientist that underlies the outcome of such endeavours. But
it is not clear that relativism in itself excludes that possibility. If I stand on a
mountain, I see things that have an existence independent of myself, and yet
what it is possible for me to see depends on where I stand.
Some of Newton's criticisms of Pickering's glosses on relativism I can accept.
Nevertheless Pickering arguably is right in contexts such as string theory, where
different versions of theories that claim to be descriptions of reality come and go
like fashions. Here objectivity fights against the human desire to profit from the
latest ways of thinking, as (to quote Pickering) scientists attempt to do the thing
that will bring them as individuals the greatest gain.
A better book could have been written if the central theme had been not
scientific truth but scientific progress, and the question of what it is about
science and its methods that allows it (sometimes) to make clear progress by
resolving inconsistencies in a widely acceptable manner. What is important in
this context, as is made clear, is that the methods of science (such as making
experiment rather then theory the ultimate arbiter of the truth) leave less room
for personal opinion to determine what is correct than may be the case in some
other disciplines (though some scientists seem endemically given to
underestimating the degree of rigour of other disciplines, particularly in the
humanities, and to elevating science to a status of uniqueness that it perhaps
does not deserve).
As a final point that I feel is instructive, Newton seems to think in the case of
parapsychology that its 'incoherence with the rest of accepted science' is a good
reason for ignoring the experimental evidence. As has already been explained it
seems not, in the light of the history of science, to be a very good reason. But
the fact that scientists are inclined nonetheless to see it as a good reason seems
to demand a sociological explanation (e.g. in terms of taboo). The saga of
parapsychology refutes the suggestion that 'science is objective to the extent it
avoids bias ... because the public character of science produces a balance with
that effect.' The public character of science can help foster a view consistent
with revealed reality, but can sometimes instead produce blinkers that help
inhibit such a state of affairs.
I do not think that Newton has made the case that he hoped to have made, but
the book nevertheless makes very interesting reading for its analyses of how
science works. It is also provides for the scientist particularly a useful
introduction to relativist ideas.
________________________________________
from Endeavour Vol. 22(2) 1998, p. 83
Copyright © 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reser
Learning Unit 3.2
How Does Culture Influence Science?
Understand the relationship between culture and science, exploring how
scientific discoveries can be influenced by cultural factors.
Angélica Salomão
21/03/2023
The concept of how culture influences science explores how cultural beliefs,
values, and practices can structure scientific research, knowledge, and practices.
Culture can have a significant impact on the way that scientists do research
questions, interpret data, and communicate their findings to others.
A question nowadays is: How does culture influence science? Well, different
cultures may have different ways of understanding and classifying phenomena,
which can affect the development of scientific theories and models. Cultural
values and beliefs can modify the way scientific research is funded, prioritized,
and communicated to the public, which can in turn affect the impact and
accessibility of scientific knowledge.
The involvement and representation of diverse cultures in science are crucial for
promoting innovation and advancing scientific understanding. Recognizing and
embracing cultural diversity in science can lead to an inclusive scientific inquiry
and bring more effective solutions to scientific problems.
What are the results of interactions between science and culture?
The results of interactions between science and culture can be both positive and
negative. Cultural beliefs, values, and practices can influence the direction and
focus of scientific research, leading to discoveries and innovations that are more
relevant. For example, traditional ecological knowledge can inform scientific
research on biodiversity conservation, while cultural practices and traditions can
inspire the development of new technologies and medicines.
On the other hand, cultural influence and stereotypes can also affect the
interpretation of scientific data and the development of new technologies.
Conflicts between science and culture can arise when scientific discoveries
challenge deeply-held cultural beliefs and practices. For example, debates over
evolution in schools can be a contentious issue in some cultures.
Recognizing how culture can influence science is important for ensuring that
scientific research is inclusive and objective. This requires a commitment to
diversity, equity, and inclusion in scientific research and education, as well as a
willingness to engage in dialogue and collaboration across cultural boundaries.
The integration of diverse perspectives and knowledge systems can lead to more
effective scientific research that benefits society.
Cultural factors in science
Cultural factors in science are how cultural beliefs, values, and practices can
influence scientific research and practices. Some examples of cultural factors in
science include:
Worldviews and beliefs: Scientists are influenced by their own beliefs and cultural
backgrounds, which can impact the types of research questions they ask and the
methods they use to answer those questions. For example, a scientist who
believes in a holistic approach to health may focus on alternative therapies
rather than Western medicine.
Cultural Stereotypes: Cultural stereotypes can affect the interpretation of
scientific data and the development of new technologies. For instance, gender
biases can lead to the underrepresentation of women in scientific research, while
cultural stereotypes about race and ethnicity can lead to health disparities in
medical research and treatment.
Traditional knowledge: Traditional knowledge and practices can stagnate
scientific research and innovation while new practices can inspire the
development of new research and results, for example, new medicines.
How can cultural evolution shape science?
Culture and science are closely interrelated. Science is not just a product of
individual scientists and their discoveries, it is also shaped by the culture in
which it is practiced. Cultural evolution, which refers to the process by which
cultural traits, ideas, and practices are transmitted and modified over time, can
have a significant impact on how science develops.
Here are some ways in which cultural evolution can shape science:
Values and beliefs
Science is influenced by the values and beliefs of the culture in which it is
practiced. For example, a culture that values material progress may invest more
resources in scientific research that can lead to technological advancements.
Historical context
The historical context in which science develops can also shape its trajectory. For
instance, the scientific revolution of the 17th century was shaped by the
Renaissance humanist movement, which accentuated the importance of reason
and empirical observation. Another example, during World War II, there was a
significant push for research in the fields of physics and chemistry to support the
war effort.
Social norms
Social and cultural norms can impact the participation and inclusion of different
groups in scientific research. For example, if a society has a gender or racial
biases, those may affect who is encouraged to pursue a career in science and
who is provided with research opportunities.
Communication and dissemination of scientific knowledge
Cultural norms and values can also influence the way scientific knowledge is
communicated and disseminated to the public. For example, if society places a
high value on individualism, scientific research may be presented in a way that
emphasizes individual achievement rather than collective efforts.
So, how does culture influence science? Another answer to that question, is that
cultural evolution plays a significant role in shaping the questions we ask, the
way we conduct scientific research, and how we communicate and disseminate
scientific knowledge. Understanding these cultural influences is important for
creating a more inclusive and scientific community.
Learning Unit 3.3
Indigenous Knowledge Systems: implications for natural science and
technology
teaching and learning
Jerome-Alexander van Wyk
CCD of Vista University, P.O. Box 156, Athlone, Cape Town, 7760 South Africa
javw@mweb.co.za
Given the growing multicultural composition of South African classrooms,
educators of science and technology, like educators across the spectrum of all
learning areas, are increasingly challenged to reflect how they and their learners
conceive of and, as a result, construct knowledge. The reality is that in an
expanding globalised world, learners can easily become alienated from what is
taught in science and technology, as well as the way it is taught. Indigenous
Knowledge Systems (IKS), as a broad framework of thinking about our local
context,seeks to problematise the insufficient integration of the cultural-social
and the canonical-academic dimensions of natural science and technology
education. In this article I conceptualise and clarify IKS vis-à-vis knowledge
production, particularly towards educational
transformation in which educators may assume that all learners are the same in
terms of identity and cultural dynamics. Natural science and technology, in
particular, have assumed a definite culture of power, which has marginalized the
majority of learners in the past. IKS strategically wishes to transform this view
and therefore holds valuable implications for educators in the learning areas of
natural science and technology.
Context
It would have been extremely useful if educators were able to grasp the detail
and depth of how subjective meanings mediate the micro-social processes
involved in everyday classroom interactions. In our 'global times', Yon (2000:1)
observes the renewed interest among people to explore how cultural and other
identity dynamics play out among learners in schools, and therefore argues:
On the one hand the closing decade of the twentieth century is marked by
openings and possibilities for reaching out across differences, by transnational
and post-national identities that accompany aspiration toward global
citizenship ... on the other hand these times are also marked by closures, identity
politics, social aggression, and civic strife. As in the rest of the world, South
Africa is in the midst of global historical transformation, as Castells (1998:1)
explains:
As all major transformations in history, it is multidimensional: technological,
economic, social, cultural, political, geopolitical. Yet, in the end, what is the real
meaning of this extraordinary mutation for social development, for people's life,
and well-being. Notwithstanding the complexity of racial, ethnic, cultural as well
as urban-rural poverty challenges we may face (Marx, 1996; Vale, 1994;
Wentworth, 1994), South Africa's new political democracy, in addition to global
transformation, seems to require even greater attempts to effect meaningful
change and social cohesion. Moreover, given the increasingly multicultural and
multilingual composition of South African classrooms, educators may have to
address the complex challenges in terms of how they would give effect to, and
are in fact affected by both the content and quality of interactions encountered
in intercultural learning and teaching (Banks, 1991; Macpherson, 1983; Weil &
Joyce, 1978). Effecting change may well require committed, albeit critical
educators to rethink how they would strategically construct opportunities and
spaces in which they will be able to recognise and build on learners' knowledge
and experience (Elstgeest, 1992:14; Odora-Hoppers, 2001:2) and, as such,
ensure that such learners are able to insert themselves into the democratic
processes (Prakash & Esteva, 1998:23) in the curriculum. Learners act upon
knowledge, even as it acts upon them. As a result, Schostak (2000:48) argues:
There can be no grand narrative concerning what is 'good for all'. Standardisation
... to create the curriculum is patently absurd in a context of change that is so
fast, so diverse and so technologically and culturally creative. Standardisation of
the curriculum generally tends to imply that schools exist "... in a vacuum
hermetically sealed off from the outside" (Brighouse & Woods, 1999:99). Such a
curriculum could prove to be rather alienating than invitational in that it primarily
seeks to satisfy the state, curriculum developer or teacher, instead of converging
with the needs of learners in their respective personal and social contexts
(Odora-Hoppers, 2001:2). At best we may have considered the gloss teachers
have painted over the social dimension of knowledge construction (Roth,
1998:11). After all, we all interpret behaviours, information, and situations
through our own cultural lenses, below the level of conscious awareness, making
it seem that our own view is simply "the way it is" (Delpit, 1995:151).
In a context of constant change, the learning and teaching of natural science and
technology, therefore cannot unilaterally continue to operate as if knowledge can
still be regarded as an objective mirroring or reality (Elliott, 2000:181). On the
other hand, individuals participate in the process of culture, including knowledge
production, not just in webs of culture and tradition, but also in ways that may
exceed the culturally given or expected (Yon, 2000:5). Herein resides the gist of
this article, i.e. how do educators expand and integrate a wider, in fact more
flexible and a more authentic perspective of culture and identity in knowledge
construction, particularly in the learning and teaching of natural science
(henceforth we will just refer to 'science') and technology. Educators, in a
collaborative way, may have to strategically rethink the curriculum challenges in
terms of how scientific and technological knowledge will be constructed (Hawes,
1982; Russell, 1991; Scott, 1999).
A critical contributing factor, which impacts on the dynamics in science and
technology knowledge construction, is that of globalisation and its diverse
implications (Esland, 1996:13). One of the many key aspects of globalisation is
the emergence of the knowledge or network society (Castells, 1998) in which all
social organisation and knowledge production inevitably become increasingly
interdependent activities, and which could hopefully lead to expanded levels of
understanding and change in our society (Subotsky, 2001), as well as us
becoming aware of the "cultural flows" and "deterritorialization of culture"
(Appadurai, 1997:15). If it is generally accepted that the nature of knowledge
production is constantly shifting, this would require a critical mindset towards
paradigm shifts (Kuhn, 1962) on the part of all educators of science and
technology, to shape and validate not only factual content of their disciplines but
also to critically conceptualise and integrate personal and social skills, processes
and information that learners may bring, and which may ultimately adjust,
reconfigure or reconstruct knowledge content (Beetlestone, 1998; Harlen,1992b;
Larochelle et al., 1998; Newman, Griffin & Cole, 1989).
In many schools there may be the tacit or maybe expressed belief that
standards, to reinforce the tendency towards an imitation and reproduction of
the status quo (Gomez, 2000:126), may be compromised. Delpit (1995:141)
argues that in mainstream educational thinking, many teachers feel that they are
losing control if learners do not fit in with their traditional teaching content and
teaching methodology. Roth (1998:19) refers to the reality of mainstream
understanding of science and technology, which is well-established and
paradigmatic in nature and application of canonical knowledge. Elliott (2000:201)
acknowledges this reality, but argues for a more critically-responsive curriculum:
Standards-driven change is surface reform and largely reinforces the time-
warped character of schooling at a time when schools need to become more
responsive to social change in the wider society. Greater responsiveness to social
change would decidedly be a key challenge for science and technology in that
educational change depends on what teachers do and think — it's as simple and
complex as that (Fullan, 1991:117). Amidst the local and global complexities of
educational change, educators would have to adopt a particularly cross-fertilising
(Kraak, 2001:4) perspective in science and technology knowledge production in
local contexts, i.e. being mindful of the fact whether or not the artefacts and
activities of the setting allow students to engage in practices that bear
resemblance with those in out-of school communities (Roth, 1998:14).
South African Journal of Education
Copyright © 2002 EASA Vol 22(4) 305 – 312
