Experiments in Science
and in Science Education:
Some Historical and
Philosophical Considerations
Michael R. Matthews,
School of Education,
University of New South Wales
m.matthews@unsw.edu.au
Learning About Science
(Harvard C’tee 1945)
# the comparison of
scientific with other modes
of thought,
# the relations of science
with its own past and with
general human history,
# and of science with
problems of human
society.
Learning About Science
(AAAS 1990)
“The teaching of science
must explore the
interplay between
science and the
intellectual and cultural
traditions in which it is
firmly embedded.
Science has a history
that can demonstrate the
relationship between
science and the wider
world of ideas and can
illuminate contemporary
issues.”
Learning About Science
(NRC 1996)
# That scientific literacy
also includes
understanding the nature
of science, the scientific
enterprise, and the role of
science in society and
personal life.
# What science is, what
science is not, what
science can and cannot do,
and how science
contributes to culture.
(NRC 1996, p.2
from
Learning About Science
to
Nature of Science (NOS)
in many national curricula
Adding Experiment to NOS Lists
• “From Nature of
Science (NOS)
to Features of
Science (FOS)”
(Matthews 2012)
Khine (2012)
A Common NOS List
(Norm Lederman & colleagues)
(1) Empirical basis
(2) Difference between
laws and theories
(3) Creative
(4) Observation is theory
dependent
(5) Cultural embededness
(6) Scientific method
(7) Tentativeness of
scientific knowledge
• Lederman 2002, 2004,
2007
• Thousands of citations
• Pros and cons of any
NOS list
Adding Experiment to NOS Lists
(Matthews 2012)
From NOS to
Features of Science (FOS)
(8) Experimentation
(9) Idealisation
(10) Models
(11) Values
(12) Mathematisation
(13) Technology
(14) Explanation
(15) Worldviews
(16) Theory choice
Khine (2012)
Early (1980) recognition
of experiment
“Science, or the search for
truth, is itself practical. We
identify problems, design
experiments, conduct
research, make choices,
manipulate materials and
instruments.
A scientific experiment is a
highly constrained, and in
many ways artificial, situation.
Nature is invariably ‘tortured’
in order to expose its secrets.”
(p.83)
Matthews (1980)
Matthews (1980)
“The result of an experiment is not just another
observation among many we might have got by
walking around with our eyes open. It is the controlled
attempt to isolate and manipulate in the real the
objects and processes which we have utilised and
defined in our theoretical discourse …
“Our instruments and measuring devices are not just
to enable better observation, they are, rather, to
connect with and ‘plug into’ processes in the real and
be causally acted upon by these processes.
…..an ammeter ‘indicates’ current by being one
physical system which is causally interacting with
another, and ultimately a needle moves on a graduated
scale. (p.112)
Galilean-Newtonian
Experimental Tradition (1994)
Galileo was a technician and an
experimentalist. He put great
effort into devising, making, and
popularizing novel technical
instruments.
He was responsible for creating
the pulsilogium, the bilancetta,
the compasso di proporzione, the
thermoscopium, the telescope,
and he drew workable plans for
the pendulum clock … He also
measured and made calculations
of pendulum swings. ..
Matthews 1994
Galilean Idealisations
“But his measurements and experimentation were
directed; they were measurements of behavior in
circumstances dictated by his theoretical
conceptualizations.
Further, as we have seen in his debate with del Monte,
the theoretical conceptualization enabled him to identify
"accidental" departures from the ideal. Once this was
done, allowances could be made, and the experiment
refined.
Galileo’s Law of Chords
In 1602 Galileo made
this assertion that “The
time of descent along any
chord of a vertical circle
to its lowest point
remains the same,
regardless of the length
and slope of the chord.”
Basis for isochronic
motion of pendulum
claims
Galileo’s Law of Chords
Problem statement
Galileo’s Proof
Experimental Proof
Guadagni (1764) Pavia University (2010)
Galilean Experiment as Exemplar
of the Scientific Revolution (2000)
“I claim that the 17th century’s
analysis of pendulum motion is
a particularly apt window
through which to view the
methodological heart of the
scientific revolution. More
particularly, the debate
between the Aristotelian
Guidobaldo del Monte and
Galileo over the latter’s
pendular claims, represents, in
microcosm, the larger
methodological struggle
between Aristotelianism and
the new science. “
Matthews 2000
Galilean Experiment as Exemplar
of the Scientific Revolution
• I see this struggle as being over the
legitimacy of idealisation in science, and the
utilisation of mathematics in the
construction and interpretation of
experiments.
Guidabaldo del Monte
• Great 16th century
mathematician and engineer
• Translator of Archimedes
work
• Director of the Venice arsenal
• Patron of Galileo ; securing
Galileo’s first position as
teacher of mathematics at
Pisa University (1588-1592),
and his second academic
position as a lecturer in
mathematics at Padua
University (1592-1610)
Science & Metaphysics: First
Aristotelian Obstacle to Experiment
I. Science, epistēmē, was to be of things that
moved naturally; that had their principle of
movement within themselves. There could be
no science of accidental or violent motion, of
things whose movement came from without.
‘There is no science which deals with the
accidental’ Metaphysics Bk.VI, 2
Science & Metaphysics: Second
Aristotelian Obstacle to Experiment
2. ‘Science came from observation:
‘Knowledge of nature is ….always and properly
given by perception’ (De Caelo 306a)
‘If we cannot trust the eye, what can we trust?’
Galileo and the New Science rejected both
principles.
Continuing science education concern with
observation, and debates about objective and
subjective observation, betray a lingering
Aristotelianism
Historical Recognition
of Experiment
Historical Recognition of Experiment
Francis Bacon (1620)
Francis Bacon
Our logic instructs the understanding and trains it, not
(as common logic does) to grope and clutch at abstracts
with feeble mental tendrils, but to dissect nature truly,
and to discover the powers and actions of bodies and
their laws limed in matter.
Hence this science takes its origin not only from the
nature of the mind but from the nature of things;
and therefore it is no wonder if it is strewn and
illustrated throughout with observations and
experiments of nature as samples of our art.
•
Historical Recognition of Experiment
Immanuel Kant (1787)
Immanuel Kant
When Galileo caused balls, the weights of which he had
himself previously determined, to roll down an inclined
plane; when Torricelli made the air carry a weight which
he had calculated beforehand to be equal to that of a
definite volume of water … a light broke upon all students
of nature.
They learned that reason has insight only into that which it
produces after a plan of its own, and that it must not allow
itself to be kept, as it were, in nature’s leading-strings, but
must itself show the way with principles of judgment based
upon fixed laws, constraining nature to give answer to
questions of reason’s own determining.
Immanuel Kant
• Accidental observations, made in obedience to no
previously thought-out plan, can never be made to
yield a necessary law, which alone reason is concerned
to discover. … It is thus that the study of nature has
entered on the secure path of a science, after having
for so many centuries been nothing but a process of
merely random groping.
(Kant 1787/1933, p. 20)
Historical Recognition of Experiment
Antonio Gramsci (1933)
Antonio Gramsci (1933)
There can be no doubt that the rise of the experimental
method separates two historical worlds, two epochs, and
initiates the process of dissolution of theology and
metaphysics and the process of development of modern
thought whose consummation is in the philosophy of praxis.
Scientific experiment is the first cell of the new method of
production, of the new form of active union of man and
nature. The scientist-experimenter is also a worker, not a
pure thinker, and his thought is continually controlled by
practice and vice versa, until there is formed the perfect unity
of theory and practice. (Gramsci 1971, p.446)
Marxist tradition’s recognition of the material/practical side of
experimentation
Historical Recognition of Experiment
Gaston Bachelard (1934)
Scientific observation is always
polemical; it either confirms or
denies a prior thesis, a preexisting
model, an observational protocol.
It shows as it demonstrates; it
establishes a hierarchy of
appearances; it transcends the
immediate; it reconstructs first its
own models and then reality.
And once the step is taken from
observation to experimentation,
the polemical character of
knowledge stands out even more
sharply.
(Bachelard 1934/1984, p. 13)
Bachelard
Now phenomena must be
selected, filtered, purified,
shaped by instruments;
indeed, it may well be the
instruments that produce
the phenomenon in the first
place.
And instruments are
nothing but theories
materialized.
The phenomena they
produce bear the stamp of
theory throughout.
(Bachelard 1934/1984, p. 13)
When one has fully
comprehended … that
experimentation is always
dependent on some prior
intellectual construct, then it
is obvious why one should
look to the abstract for
proof of the coherence of the
concrete.
(Bachelard 1934/1984, p. 41)
Historical Recognition of Experiment
Alexandre Koyré (1953)
Alexandre Koyré
• … observation and experience – in the meaning of brute,
common-sense observation and experience – had a very
small part in the edification of modern science; one could
even say that they constituted the chief obstacles that it
encountered on its way. …
the empiricism of modern science is not experiential; it is
experimental.
(Koyré 1968, p. 90)
• To what degree is this recognised in science education
research?
Historical Recognition of Experiment
Richard S. Westfall (1988)
• Beyond the ranks of historians of
science, in my opinion, the
scientific revolution is frequently
misunderstood.
A vulgarized conception of the
scientific method, which one
finds in elementary textbooks,
a conception which places
overwhelming emphasis on the
collection of empirical
information from which theories
presumably emerge
spontaneously, has contributed to
the misunderstanding
Richard S. Westfall
In fact medieval philosophy asserted that observation is the
foundation of all knowledge, and medieval science (which
certainly did exist) was a sophisticated systematization of
common sense and of the basic observations of the senses.
Modern science was born in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries in the denial of both. (Westfall 1988, p. 5)
To what degree has this been recognised in science education
research?
Philosophers Neglect
of
Experiment
[random anthologies]
Philosophers Neglect of Experiment
Brody (1970)
43 chapters
zero on experiment
Philosophers Neglect of Experiment
Klemke et al (1988)
• 28 chapters
zero on experiment
Philosophers Neglect of Experiment
Balashov et al (2002)
• 27 chapters
zero on experiment
Philosophers Neglect of Experiment
Lange (2007)
38 chapters
zero on experiment
Philosophers Neglect of Experiment
Boyd et al (1991)
41 chapters
1 on experiment (Hacking)
Philosophers Neglect of Experiment
55 chapters
1 on experiment (T. Arabatzis)
“The philosophy of
experimentation reflects a
promising shift from the
exclusive philosophical
preoccupation with the end
products of scientific activity
to a systematic investigation of
that activity itself.
This shift has led to a novel
view of science …the
implications of this more
inclusive point of view are not
fully worked out.” (p.168)
Psillos & Curd (2008)
Experiment and School
Laboratory Work
Woolnough (1991)
• We need to be clear about
worthwhile aims for
practical work, and to ask
hard questions about its
efficacy.
• Authors have accepted the
importance of a holistic
approach to practical work,
moving away from the doing
of standard practical
exercises to verify some
theory towards the tackling
of investigational tasks to
solve problems. (p.xiv)
Leach & Paulsen (1999)
Wellington (1998)
Purposes of school lab work:
Derek Hodson review (1993)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Motivation, by stimulating interest and enjoyment
The acquisition of laboratory skills
Promoting the learning of scientific knowledge
Providing an insight into scientific method and developing
expertise in using it.
Developing certain ‘scientific attitudes’, such as openmindedness, objectivity and a willingness to suspend
judgement.
Modest success: ‘It seems that all that can be safely
concluded …is that some teachers are able to use practical
work successfully, with some students, to achieve some of
their goals’
Is understanding experiment itself a goal?
What is there to understand about experiment?
Hodson, D.: 1993, ‘Re-Thinking Old Ways:
Towards a More Critical Approach to
Practical Work in Science’, Studies in Science
Education 22, 85-142.
Hodson, D.: 1996, ‘Laboratory Work as
Scientific Method: Three Decades of
Confusion and Distortion’, Journal of
Curriculum Studies 28, 115-135.
Students failure to understand scientific
experiment (Schecker 1992)
Hans Schecker asked 254
high school students to
comment upon the following
statement:
•
In physics lessons there are
often assumptions or
experiments of thought,
which obviously cannot be
realized in actual
experiments, like completely
excluding air resistance and
other frictional effects or
assuming an infinitely
lasting linear motion.
•
• Eleven percent said it was
useless, "Why should I
consider something that does
not exist?";
a large group, up to fifty
percent said it was useful,
but only for physics because
physics did not deal with
reality, "I don't need to refer
everything to reality. I am
simply interested in physics."
Only about twenty-five
percent had any
comprehension of the
method of idealization in
science.
Schecker, H.: 1992, ‘The Paradigmatic
Change in Mechanics: Implications of
Historical Processes on Physics Education’,
Science & Education 1(1), 71-76.
Students failure to understand scientific
experiment (Leach 1999)
Leach et al. (1998) surveyed 721 European science students aged
16-20 with a view to finding out, amongst other things, the ways in
which the students thought of scientific knowledge claims as being
related to data. ….(p.141) …
“The second major representation noted amongst older science
students was not noted amongst younger students.
It involved a radical relativist view where the process of drawing
conclusions in experimental work is viewed as inherently
problematic to the extent that, at the end of the experiment, it is
up to every individual to believe what they want to as data cannot
be used to judge any view as better or worse than any other
…21% of upper-secondary students, 6% of university students.”
(p.142)
Leach, J.: 1999, ‘Learning Science in the
Laboratory: The Importance of
Epistemological Understanding’.
In J. Leach & A.C. Paulsen (eds.) Practical
Work in Science Education: Recent Research
Studies, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht, pp.134-147.
Students failure to understand scientific
experiment (Gyllenpalm & Wickman 2011)
32 students from six well-known Swedish universities. …
“The term experiment was found to be conflated with
laboratory task and referred to as primarily a pedagogical
activity in contrast to a research methodology …
The notion of controlled experiment was unfamiliar to most
students and had not been explicitly discussed in terms of
research methodology during their teacher education.
A prerequisite for students to learn about the characteristics
of scientific inquiry is that their teachers provide them with
the tools necessary to explicitly discuss and reflect upon
instances of scientific inquiry.”
• Gyllenpalm, J. & Wickman, P.-O. (2011).
“Experiments” and the inquiry emphasis
conflation in science teacher education.
Science Education, 95(5), 908-926.
David Geelan
• “If Aristotle’s impetus theory of motion
explains our everyday experiences better
than Newton’s or Einstein’s schemes, then
we ought to teach it…Aristotle would be
taught, not as a historical curiosity for
ridicule or background, but as a viable,
useful model for understanding what
happens around us.”
Recent HPS Studies
of Experiment
Recent HPS Studies of Experiment
Hacking (1983)
Cartwright (1983)
Recent HPS Studies of Experiment
Franklin (1986)
Franklin (1999)
Recent HPS Studies of Experiment
Gooding et al. (1989)
Galison (1987)
Recent HPS Studies of Experiment
• This book explores some
truths behind the truism that
experimentation is a hallmark
of scientific activity.
Scientists’ descriptions of
nature result from two sorts of
encounters: they interact with
each other and with nature.
Philosophy of science has, by
and large, failed to give an
account of either sort of
interaction. (p.xi)
Gooding (1990)
Gooding (1990)
To treat [science’s] most elegant theoretical achievements as if
these epitomize the whole of science demeans the intellectual
dimension as well as the others, because it fails to address the
problem of how embodied intellects grapple with a real world.
Besides its philosophical interest, that problem is important to
science education as well. (p.xii)
This book proposes an alternative view based on aspects of
scientific work largely neglected by modern, especially analytical,
philosophy. These are the agency of observers and the way their
observation of nature is mediated by their interactions with each
other, with their instrumentation and with the material world.
Empirical access is a cognitive and social process. (xii)
Philosophizing about Experiment
“In experimentation we
actively intervene in the
material world.
In one way or another,
experimentation involves
the material realization of
an experimental process
(the objects of study, the
apparatus, and their
interaction).”
Radder (2003)
Radder (2003)
“The question then is this:
What are the implications of this action and
production character of scientific
experimentation for philosophical debates on
ontological, epistemological, and
methodological issues about science?” (p.4)
•
Radder (2003)
“The interventionist character of
experimentation engenders epistemological
questions as well. An important question is
whether scientists, on the basis of artificial
experimental interventions, can acquire
knowledge of a human-independent nature.
According to Harré, such back inferences,
from the artificial laboratory systems to their
natural counterparts, are possible in a number
of cases, but their justification is different for
different types of apparatus. (p.5)
• In other words, what can be learn
about NOS from careful reflection on
and analysis of experiment in science?
Priestley’s Experiments
Priestley’s Manufacture
of Soda Water
Priestley’s Pneumatic
Experiments
Hadron Collider
Hadron Collider
Nesati & data
Some NOS implications
of experiment
Ontology: there is an external world whose existence
does not depend on humans
Causality: causal processes are natural, constant and are
not influenced by agent’s desires or thoughts.
Essentialist, or generative powers, account of causation
is required.
Experiments can be repeated with same result.
Epistemology: knowledge comes from manipulation with
instruments/artifacts
Data, Phenomenon distinction: theories do not
explain the data, they explain the phenomenon
From Nature to Science
of Nature
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Fundamental
Laws and
Mechanisms
eg. Gravitational
Attraction
Simple
Harmonic Motion
Phenomena,
eg. Four Pendulum
Scientific Models, Laws; Kepler’s laws
Idealisations,
Data
scattered points on
a L/T graph
Observation,
Perceptual
experience of
swinging pendulum
Objects, Events
eg. Weight
and Processes in swinging on end of
world
cord
From a falling autumn leaf to
gravitational attraction
Level 5 is the real event of a falling autumn leaf; this
might be called everyday phenomenon;
Level 4 is someone’s observation of the falling leaf;
Level 3 is the recorded data in the form of
time/displacement graphs, trajectory plots, etc; this will
be completely chaotic;
Level 2 is the identification of the scientific phenomenon
being displayed, namely free fall under various
influences (gravity, resistance, turbulence, etc);
Level 1 is the appropriate theory or mechanism, namely
the law of gravitational attraction, to explain level 2, .
The Educational Value of
Historical Experiments
The Contribution of History &
Philosophy to Science Teaching
•
INTERNATIONAL HISTORY,
PHILOSOPHY & SCIENCE TEACHING
GROUP
WWW.IHPST.NET
m.matthews@unsw.edu.au