Sci & Educ (2011) 20:397–399 DOI 10.1007/s11191-010-9273-8 BOOK REVIEW
M. Niaz: Critical Appraisal of Physical Science as a Human Enterprise: Dynamics of Scientific Progress Springer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2009, ISBN 978-1-4020-9624-9, 215 pp, price: 79,95 € Sibel Erduran
Published online: 18 June 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010
The book is organized in 14 chapters and includes references, an author index and a subject index. Except for Chapter 1: Introduction and Chapter 14: Conclusion: Inductive Method as a Chimera as well as Chapter 2: Quantitative Imperative versus the Imperative of Presuppositions where some key themes are outlined, the remaining chapters take on particular episodes from the history of physical sciences to illustrate the key premise of this book: that controversies and rivalries among scientists play a key role in the progress of science and that scientific endeavor is not merely based on accumulation of experimental data. The first two chapters outline the conceptual landscape of the book by making explicit the key concepts of the monograph. Here the author is aiming to establish the role of presuppositions, controversies, contradictions and dilemmas in scientific progress. There are a great many examples in these chapters to illustrate such concepts with historical case studies of scientific debates. Subsequently Chaps. 3–12 illustrate a more in-depth analysis of these case studies. These include Maxwell’s presuppositions on kinetic theory (Chap. 4); the Periodicity of Elements in relation to Mendeleev and Moseley’s arguments (Chap. 5); perspectives from Thomson, Rutherford and Bohr on the modern atomic theory (Chap. 6) as well as key debates around elementary electric charge by Millikan and Ehrenhaft (Chap. 7); photoelectric effect by Millikan and Einstein (Chap. 8); bending of light by Einstein and Eddington (Chap. 9); the covalent bond with Lewis (Chap. 10); quantum mechanics with Bohr and Bohm (Chap. 11); wave-particle duality with De Broglie, Einstein and Schrodiger (Chap. 12); and finally quarks with Perl (Chap. 13). The book is finalized with a chapter titled ‘‘Inductive Method as a Chimera’’ (Chap. 14). The book is replete with detailed examples from physical sciences where ‘historicity’ of science is problematised. The author presents a very convincing case that the establishment of a scientific fact is not immune to speculation and tension, and that scientific progress is not a straightforward accumulation of facts. There is reference to the work of some key scientists including Newton, Thomson, Bohr and Einstein; of philosophers and historians of science including Lakatos, Kuhn, Popper as well as of philosophically-minded S. Erduran (&) University of Bristol, Bristol, UK e-mail:
[email protected]
123
398
S. Erduran
educationalists like Schwab. The book follows a case-study approach where particular ‘discoveries’ (often portrayed as caricaturized folk tales in textbooks in chronological order) are aimed at being situated within their historical context—an immense task for historians and philosophers alike. The book does an excellent job in bringing to the foreground the complexity that surrounds the development of ideas in science. Another stylistic feature of the monograph is a range of strategies the author is using to make his case from not only the relevant historical and philosophical approaches but also from the perspective of how scientific knowledge gets taught in schooling in the first place. There are plenty of references to research on the analysis of textbooks carried out primarily by the author and his research team. The pedagogical slant of the book is apparent in its treatment of some debates. A very interesting example is on pages 38–39 where the author presents a hypothetical dialogue between Duhem and Lakatos based on actual excerpts from these authors’ work. This is reminiscent of Socratic dialogues and works well in establishing the key issues in a clear and exemplary fashion, itself embodying the very argumentative nature of science that the author wants to highlight as being crucial in the progress of physical sciences. The immediately striking feature of this book is its intentional emphasis on physical sciences. This is not surprising as the author has set out to illustrate that the ‘‘quantitative imperative’’—that is so pervasive in the physical sciences—needs to be questioned. There is a very useful illustration in Chap. 2 of the role of quantification and measurement in relation to the conceptualization of ‘science’. The logical positivist assumptions and idealizations of the nature of science are reviewed with an eye towards illustrating how and why scientists from across a range of research domains in the physical sciences have also relied on speculations and heuristics. For example, the author discusses the case of Newton’s law of gravitation and whether or not it could have solely be generated on the basis of experimental observations. There is reference to the work of Kuhn, among others, illustrating that it was indeed ‘‘Newton’s theoretical contributions that facilitated the construction of the apparatus capable of facilitating experimental evidence’’ (p. 15). There is plenty of illustration of how even current science textbooks often convey knowledge that is contradictory to historical records such as those on Newton’s law of gravitation. One of the strengths of this book is the way in which it contextualizes some well-known work of philosophers of science in illustrating how such authors came to the conclusions that they did, an aspect of the contextualization approach that is dominant throughout the book. There is reference to Lakatos’s PhD thesis where his recognition of the intellectual sources of Polya’s mathematical heuristics, Hegel’s dialectic and Popper’s fallibilism have played a crucial role. Indeed the very persona of some of the intellectuals whose ideas have shaped the discourse around the nature of science in the past two centuries are presented explicitly. For instance, there are almost 2 pages dedicated to the factors shaping the life and career of Duhem (pp. 28–29). The approach of ‘personalising’ philosophy of science philosophers, then, results in illustrating how controversies, presuppositions, contradictions and inconsistencies found a place in the work of philosophers and scientists alike. It is important to note that this is not only the author’s own interpretation. At times, the author selects episodes from the work of some philosophers to illustrate how they themselves have articulated problems of contextualisation. For example, Duhem is quoted as saying ‘‘those who have a deeper insight into the history of physical theories know that in order to find the germ of this doctrine of universal gravitation, we must look among the systems of Greek science… They do not forget the doubts and gropings through which Newton himself passed before producing a final system.’’ (p. 35).
123
Book Review
399
The book has considerable the coverage about how the author has taken into consideration philosophical and historical analyses of science and has incorporated them into his own research program and teaching. For instance, there is reference to a course designed and taught to in-service teachers where the focus was on historical controversies. The author argues, then, that science education should not only present the empirical dimension of science to students but also the heuristic principles that enable the progress of science: ‘‘science curricula and textbooks, by emphasizing the historical context in which ideas, hypotheses and theories develop, can be particularly helpful in facilitating conceptual understanding’’ (p. 25). Empirical evidence from research on the author’s own students suggest that the author’s own intervention with students to implement such heuristicallydriven pedagogies is effective on students’ learning. The link of philosophy of science to science education is made throughout the book, for instance in the context of kinetic molecular model of gases (p. 50) educational implications of the Thomson model (p. 80), the Rutherford model (p. 87) and the Bohr model of the atom (p. 93). Despite its emphasis on educational implications of key historical debates, it is surprising that the book does not acknowledge the related issue of ‘argumentation’ which has been the most prevalent territory of research in science education in recent years (Lee et al. 2009). The key principles of argumentation rely on the notion of problematising claims, evidence and interpretations in scientific inquiry (Erduran and Jimenez-Aleixandre 2008). Argumentation sits at the heart of the main agenda of this book: that scientific progress is not a benign process but rather proceeds through rivalries, controversies and debates. Similar also to the key cautionary point, the acknowledgment of the argumentative face of science does not hinder its establishment of objectivity but rather enriches its very objectivist foundation. A tighter link to research evidence in science education on the role of argumentation in science and science education would have better situated the book in contemporary efforts to bring about innovative reform at the level of schooling. Overall, the book is a valuable contribution in illustrating a face of science that is often ignored. In its emphasis on ‘‘science-in-the-making’’ as opposed to ‘‘final-form-science’’ as Richard Duschl would say, it challenges particularly how textbooks should be revised to present scientific knowledge in its wider historical and philosophical contexts. In so doing, it aims to present science as being ‘faithful’ to its own nature. The case studies present complexity but are accessible with clear guidelines for educational implications, if anyone wishes to import such case studies for pedagogical purposes. The book will be useful for academics, researchers and students in history, philosophy and education of science.
References Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.). (2008). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer Academic Publishers. 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.
123
