Science Curriculum-Instruction-Assessment that includes historical vignettes & case studies,
humor, discrepant event demonstrations, real-world applications (including mathematics) and
STS issues/controversies sends a message that science should be considered a “FUNdaMENTAL
humanity.” That is, science has been and continues to be a very human endeavor carried out by
an ethnically, politically, and personally diverse group of individuals united by a common “need
to know &/or create” drive. If presented this way, science invites students to participate in the
ongoing process by opening their minds and increasing their motivation to do the “hard work”
necessary to be involved in the “game of scientific play.” The following references can help you
show your students that science is a human adventure worth pursuing as either a vocation or
avocation and “a” useful lens through which to view both human history and the natural world.
For an extensive listing of live links to Internet resources on these same topics, go to the
Binghamton University, SEHD, Center for Science, Mathematics and Technology Education
website: http://csmte.binghamton.edu/links.html
******************************************************************************
REFERENCES ON THE NATURE OF SCIENCE, SCIENTIFIC (IL)/LITERACY,
SCIENCE vs (?) RELIGION, PSEUDOSCIENCE & TEACHING
Dr. Thomas O’Brien (tobrien@binghamton.edu or 607-777-4877)
Binghamton University, School of Education & Human Development
Many (but certainly not all) science misconceptions and societal “debates” surrounding the
philosophical and/or religious implications of science can be linked to fundamental
misunderstandings or misrepresentations of the nature of science both as a product and a
historical and ongoing process. Regrettably, pseudoscience is propagated not only by science
ignorant novices and profit-focused hucksters, but also by some overly zealous scientists pushing
their personal, ascientific beliefs (e.g., atheistic evolutionists who claim science disproves the
“hypothesis” of a “god” & individual souls) and textbook authors and teachers who present
science as “wisdom from on high to be ‘believed’ without question.” Science relies on empirical
data, logical argument and skeptical review (NAS, 1996; NSES); it combines both creative and
critical thinking and remains forever open to revision. “t”ruth is pursued by successive
generations “standing on the shoulders” of their predecessors (& sometimes reworking
fundamental “t”ruths ). Science education needs to accurately represent the nature of science by
attending to both its historical and philosophical foundations and its real-world STS implications.
Alexander, Denis. (2001). Rebuilding the Matrix: Science and Faith in the 21st Century.
Oxford, England: Lion Publishing. Critical re-examination of the reality of the historical
conflict.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for Science
Literacy. NY: Oxford University Press. Online: http://project2061.aaas.org/tools/index.html
Aiken, Frederick. (1991/1984). The nature of science. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Aron, R, et. al, “The Persistence of Selected Geographic Misperceptions: a Survey of Junior
High through Undergraduate College Students.” Journal of Geography Vol. 93 1993. pp. 247253.
Baker, V. (2004). Beyond appearance: Students' misconceptions about basic chemical ideas:
A report prepared for the Royal Society of Chemistry:
http://www.chemsoc.org/pdf/LearnNet/rsc/miscon.pdf
Cerf, C. & Navasky, V. (200?). The Experts Speak. 1000+ “expert” mistakes &
miscalculations. See also books by Coffey and Youngson (history section of this bibliography)
Comins, N. (2001). Heavenly Errors: Misconceptions about the Real Nature of the
Universe. NY: Columbia University Press.
Cromer, Alan. (1993). Uncommon sense: The heretical nature of science. NY: Oxford.
University Press. (1997). Connected knowledge: Science, philosophy, and education.
DeBoer, G. (1991). A history of ideas in science education. Teachers College Press.
Derry, Gregory N. (1999). What science is and how it works. Princeton Univ. Press.
Driver, R, et al., (1994). Making sense of secondary science: research into children’s ideas.
NY: Routledge. Summary of research on mis/alternative conceptions.
Duschl, Richard. (1990). Restructuring Science Education: The Importance of Theories and
Their Development. NY: Teachers College Press. 155pp demonstrate how the history and
philosophy of science (i.e., discovery & justification of theories) can be applied by teachers and
curriculum writers to the effective teaching of science.
Duschl, Richard & Hamilton, Richard J. (eds.). (1992). Philosophy of science, cognitive
psychology and educational theory and practice. Albany, NY: State Univ. of New York Press.
Ehlrich, Robert. (2003). Eight Preposterous Porpositions from the Genetics of homosexuality
to the Benefits of Global Warming. PrincetonUniv. Press. 360pp. Turns a skeptical eye to the
evidence-based merits of far-out, supposedly scientific idea such as placebo cures, global
warming. extraterrestrial life, psychokinesis, the dangers of cholesterol, intelligent design as a
scientific alternative to evolution, the genetics basis for homosexuality, and the rise/decline
average inintelligence. In each case, Ehrlich shows readers how to use the tools of science to
judge the accuracy of strange ideas and the trustworthiness of ubiquitous "experts;" as
entertaining as it is instructive. See also earlier book:
(2002). Nine Crazy Ideas in Science. 256pp. Some of the crazy ideas relate to our lives:
AIDS, gun control, sun and radiation exposure. Others are further out there, such as the double
sun theory, the possibility of time travel, and the theory that oil, coal, and gas have abiogenic
origins. For each, Ehrlich scrutinizes who the idea's proponents are and what their agendas might
be. He looks for internal consistency, misapplication of statistics, how open the proponents are
with their data and methods, and more.
Gardner, Martin. (1983). Science: Good, bad and bogus. Oxford University Press.
Giere, Ronald N. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Univ. of Chicago
Press. A study of scientific progress & judgment that argues that the development of science
(including case studies of contemporary nuclear physics & plate tectonics) is analogous to
biological evolution; it is shaped by cognitive choices of individual scientists choosing among
rival theories. Challenges fundamental presuppositions & relativism inherent in modern
philosophies & sociology of science.
Gilovich, Tom. (1991). How we know what isn’t so: The fallibility of human reason in
everyday life. NY: Free Press. 216pp with numerous examples where statistics shows human
reasoning to be faulty.
Gould, Stephen Jay. (1999). Rock of ages: Science and religion in the fullness of life. NY:
Ballantine. Examines the “conflict” between science & religion by shedding light on the widely
accepted pseudo-history of cases such as Galileo, flat earth, Darwin & Huxley, Scopes Trial &
modern day creationists’ legal battles and argues eloquently for mutual respect & dialogue
between these two nonoverlapping magisteria (NOMA)
Gross, Paul & Levitt, Norman. (1994). Higher superstition: The academic left and its
quarrels with science. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. ... and Lewis, Martin,
eds. (1996). The flight from science and reason. NY: NY Academy of Sciences.
Guillen, Michael. (2004). Can a smart person believe in God? Nashville, TN: Thomas
Nelson. 170pp book by (Christian) theoretical physicist & former ABC News science
correspondant; presents a personal view of complementary nature of scientific IQ and religious
SQ/spiritual quotient.
Hazen, Robert M. & Trefil, James. (1990). Science matters: Achieving scientific literacy.
NY: Doubleday.
Haught, John F. (2000). God after Darwin: A theology of evolution. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press. The director of the Georgetown (University’) Center for Science & Religion argues that
both the Darwinian evolutionists and the Christian apologists underestimate the importance of
novelty (relative to “design & order”) as a necessary component of evolution & the essence of
the unfolding of the divine mystery. As such, evolutionary biology can enrich theological
convictions, & vice versa.
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1972/2nd ed). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of
Chicago Press. Groundbreaking book on history & philosophy of science; introduced the idea of
paradigms.
Kurtz, Paul, Karr, Barry, & Sandhu, Ranjit (ed.). (200x). Science and religion: Are they
compatible? 39 essays by distinguished scientists that delve into the history & philosophy of
science & religion. Some will dismiss many of the essays as arrogant and contentious, but they
nevertheless present important and provocative voices too often drowned out by the move to
assert complete compatibility between science and religion. See also books by Alexander,
Gould, Guillen, and Singham.
Malone, John. (2001). Unsolved mysteries of science [21 unanswered ?]. NY: John Wiley &
Sons.
Matthews, M.R. (1994). Science Teaching: The Role of History and Philosophy of Science.
NY: Routledge.
Miller, J.B. (1998). An Evolving Dialogue: Scientific, Historical, Philosophical, and
Theological Perspectives on Evolution. Washington, DC: American Association for the
Advancement of Science.
Miller, Kenneth R. (1999). Finding Darwin’s God: A scientist’s search for common ground
between God and evolution. HarperCollins. Cell biologist & textbooks author argues that
properly understood, evolution adds depth & meaning to both strictly scientific and spiritual
views of the world.
National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences. (1996). National Science
Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. .
Park, Robert. (2000). Voodoo science: The road from foolishness to fraud. NY: Oxford
University.
Paulos, J.A. (1988). Innumeracy: Mathematical illiteracy and its consequences. NY: Hill &
Wang/Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Plait, P. (2002). Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed. NY: John Wiley.
277pp by the creator of http://www.badastronomy.com.
Popper, K. (1959/1968). The logic of scientific discovery. NY: Harper Torchbooks.
[philosophy] (1962). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. NY:
Basic Books.
Raymo, Chet. (1998). Skeptics and true believers: The exhilarating connections between
science and religion. NY: Walker & Co.
Rothman, Milton A. (1992). The science gap: Dispelling myths & understanding the reality
of science. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
Rutherford, F. James & Ahlgren, Andrew. (1990). Science for all Americans: Scientific
literacy, What is it? Why America needs it & How we can achieve it. Oxford Univ.Press.
Sagan, Carl. (1996). The demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark. NY:
Ballatine Book.
Shamos, M. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ.
Shermer, Michael. (2003). How we believe: Science, skepticism, and the search for God.
Henry Holt & Co. (2001). The borderlands of science: Where science meets nonsense. NY:
Oxford Univ. Press. (1997). Why people believe weird things: Pseudoscience, superstition, and
other confusions of our time. NY: W.H. Freeman & Co.
Singham, Mano. (2000). Quest for Truth: Scientific Progress and Religious Beliefs.
Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa. A theoretical physicist delves into the philosophy of science
& ways of knowing. See also books by Alexander, Guillen, Kurtz, and Shermer. 184pp.
Stavy, Ruth & Tirosh, Dina. (2000). How students (mis-)understand science and
mathematics: Intuitive rules. Teachers College Press. 128pp give a detailed framework for
predicting, explaining & addressing cognitive problems.
Stepans, Joseph. (2003/2nd ed). Targeting students’ science misconceptions: Physical
science concepts using the conceptual change model. 17 units: matter, density, buoyancy, air
pressure, liquids, forces, levers, motion, electricity, magnetism, heat waves, sound, light/color,
energy transformations, mental model building & geometry. Gr.5-12. 232pp. National Science
Teachers Assn.
Taber, K. (2002). Chemical misconceptions: prevention, diagnosis and cure (vols. 1 and 2).
London: Royal Society of Chemistry.
Tobias, Sheila. (1990). They’re not dumb, they’re different: Stalking the second tier.
Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation. See also: (1992). Revitalizing undergraduate science: Why
some things work and most don’t and with Tomizuka, C.T. (1992). Breaking the science
barrier: How to explore and understand the sciences. NY: College Entrance Exam.
Wolpert, Lewis. (1993). The unnatural nature of science: Why science does not make
(common) sense. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Youngson, Robert . (1998). Scientific blunders: A brief history of how wrong scientists can
sometimes be. NY: Carroll & Graf. 338pp..