Nov 2008

Published on January 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 56 | Comments: 0 | Views: 298
of 36
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Group
NEWSLETTER November 2008

www.ihpst.org
CONTENTS
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Science & Education Latest Number (Vol.17 No.10) Feminist Theory and Science Education IHPST Tenth International Conference, June 2009 Science & Education Journal Report Darwinian Anniversary Year, 2009, Journal Special Issue, Call for Papers Applied HPS in the Classroom, Journal Special Issue, Call for Papers Public Acceptance of Evolution on a University Campus in Turkey Opinion: Theism vs Naturalism , Peter Slezak Community Web Portal for Science and Mathematics Knowledge XXIII International Congress of History of Science and Technology, 26 - 31 July, 2009, Budapest, Hungary Symposium: Educational Aspects of the History of Scientific instruments 28-29 November 2008, Athens, Greece 5th Greek Conference, History, Philosophy &Teaching of the Natural Sciences, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, 11-14 June 2009 Models and Simulations, Third Conference, March 5-7 2009 HOPOS Conference June 24 - 27, 2010, Budapest Book Notes
(i) Andreas Quale, 2008, Radical Constructivism. A Relativist Epistemic Approach to Science Education, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam (ii) John Clement, 2008, Creative Model Construction in Scientists and Students: The Role of Imagery, Analogy, and Mental Simulation, Springer, Dordrecht (iii) John Clement & M.A. Rea-Ramirez (eds.), 2008, Model Based Learning and Instruction in Science, Springer, Dordrecht (iv) Isabel Rivers & David Wykes (eds.), 2008, Joseph Priestley: Scientist, Philosopher, and Theologian, Oxford University Press, Oxford. (v) Andre K.T.Assiss, 2008, Archimedes, the Centre of Gravity, and the First law of Mechanics. Apeiron, Montreal. (vi) Michael Ruse, 2008, Charles Darwin, Blackwell, Oxford.

15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

Current Research Publications for Sale Coming Conferences IHPST Executive IHPST Graduate Students IHPST Email List Newsletter Items

1.

Science & Education Latest Number (Volume 17, No.10)
Women, Science Education, and Feminist Theory

Volume 17, Number 10 of Science & Education has been published and mailed to subscribers. Guest Editor: Cassandra L. Pinnick CASSANDRA L. PINNICK / Introduction: Women, Science Education, and Feminist Theory CASSANDRA L. PINNICK / Science Education for Women: Situated Cognition, Feminist Standpoint Theory, and the Status of Women in Science KRISTEN INTEMANN / Increasing the Number of Feminist Scientists: Why Feminist Aims Are Not Served by the Underdetermination Thesis IDDO LANDAU / Problems with Feminist Standpoint Theory in Science Education SHARON CRASNOW / Feminist Philosophy of Science: 'Standpoint' and Knowledge KRISTINA ROLIN / Gender and Physics: Feminist Philosophy and Science Education WARREN S. SCHMAUS / A New Way of Thinking about Social Location in Science DIMITRI JORDAN GINEV / Hermeneutics of Science and Multi-Gendered Science Education ROBERT KLEE / The Alleged Importance of Being Tough, Really Tough: A review essay of Christina Hoff Sommers and Sally Satel's, One Nation Under Therapy: How the Helping Culture Is Eroding Self-Reliance ROSS NEHM & REBECCA YOUNG / Sex Hormones" in Secondary School Biology Textbooks Contributors to this issue challenge many of the widespread beliefs concerning the value of feminist theory, specifically Standpoint Epistemology , for the advancement of women s interests in science. The above articles, and all published articles since Volume One, 1992, and all articles that are currently accepted and in print , are available on the web via Springer s journal site: www.springer.com/journal/11191 . Journal subscription (print version) can be effected at www.ihpst.org

2.

IHPST Tenth International Conference, June 2009

The University of Notre Dame's HPS Graduate Program and Reilly Center for Science, Technology, and Values will host the 2009 Tenth biennial IHPST meeting June 24-28, 2009 on the Notre Dame campus in South Bend, Indiana. It will continue the IHPST tradition of sustained and serious research being discussed in a collegial and convivial atmosphere.

The Springer Lecture will be given by Robert T. Pennock who is an associate professor in the Lyman Briggs College and the Department of Philosophy and the Department of Computer Science at Michigan State University. He received his PhD in History and Philosophy of Science from the University of Pittsburgh in 1991. Pennock's research focuses on epistemic and ethical values as they relate to scientific methodology, and also on using the behaviour of artificial life to examine processes of evolutionary change. He is the author of Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism (MIT Press, 1999), which provides a critical analysis of the significant developments in the creationist movement in the 1990's, and editor of Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics (MIT Press, 2001). Among Pennock s 2007 publications are articles on Investigating the Emergence of Phenotypic Plasticity in Evolving Digital Organisms , Learning Evolution and the Nature of Science using Evolutionary Computing and Artificial Life , Models, Simulations, Instantiations and Evidence: The Case of Digital Evolution , God of the Gaps: The Argument from Ignorance and the Limits of Methodological Naturalism and Biology and Religion the last in the Cambridge Companion to Philosophy of Biology. Apart from scholarly pursuits, Pennock is a staunch defender of proper and sound science education. He was an expert witness in the critical Kitzmiller et al v. Dover Area School Board trial of 2005; he is president of Michigan Citizens for Science; and chair of the Education Committee of the Society for the Study of Evolution; he has long been on the Editorial Committee and a reviewer for Science & Education. The submission date for conference proposals is Sunday March 15, 2009. Panel proposals on thematic topics are welcome; ideally planning for such panels should begin now. Questions in advance for the formal call for papers can be sent to the conference chair, Don Howard, Philosophy Department, University of Notre Dame, ([email protected]).

3.

Science & Education Journal Report

(a) Journal on the Web The journal Science & Education is now available on the web at: http://www.springerlink.com/ (then PUBLICATIONS, then S, then Science & Education ), or more directly at the journal s home page: www.springer.com/journal/11191. The home page has provision for signing up for Table of Contents Alert , which means each time an issue of the journal is published, the Contents are contents are conveyed by email. The articles can be accessed directly at: http://springerlink.metapress.com/content/1573-1901/ All articles can be downloaded as pdf files for free if the individual s institution subscribes to the relevant Springer journal package; otherwise they can be downloaded for a fee. Alternatively subscription renewals for printed journals and new subscriptions (USD100 pa, with discount for students, retired faculty and scholars from depressed economies), can be effected at the IHPST web site: www.ihpst.org

The Springer site is now linked to Google, and articles can be searched in Google by typing in author name and first words of title. This goes direct to the Springer site and the pdf file of the article. Approximately 3,000 institutions around the world have subscribed to the on-line version of the journal, while many institutions have subscriptions to both print and on-line versions. The on-line version is heavily used. In 2007 there were 37,593 article-downloads from the Springer site; this was a 60% increase over the 23,584 downloads in 2006. These figures make Science & Education one of the most utilised of all Springer education journals. The web site provides many services to researchers: # The On Line First section allows access to all accepted, forthcoming articles in the journal. As soon as an article is accepted for publication, a typeset pdf version of it is posted on the web and can be accessed by individual journal subscribers or by individuals whose institutions subscribe to a Springer package that includes Science & Education . The Contents of each issue of the journal, back to Volume 1 Number 1 in 1992, are available. These can be downloaded by subscribers and individuals whose institutions subscribe to the journal. They are also available, at a cost, to non-subscribers. Full details of the Editorial Board and Submission process are posted.

#

#

(b) Manuscript Submissions Scholars can submit manuscripts in file form direct to the journal at: www.editorialmanager.com/sced/ Thereafter they can check on its progress through the review process. Most submissions are reviewed by three senior scholars, usually involving a spread of educator, historian, philosopher or cognitive scientist. The submission site also has a guide to the journal s format and style conventions. (c) Copyediting Assistance for Manuscripts from Non-English Authors The journal publishes many works by scholars whose native language is not English. Copyediting of these papers is very time-consuming and assistance would be greatly appreciated. The papers would all be ones that have passed review and are in reasonable linguistic shape, but they do need refinement. Volunteers would be asked to copyedit no more than one paper per year. If any folk are able to assist in this important task, please just send an email to the editor.

4.

Darwinian Anniversary Year, 2009, a Journal Special Issue, Call for Papers

The year 2009 is a Darwinian double anniversary: 200 years since Darwin was born (12 February 1809) and 150 years since the publication of On the Origin of Species (24 November 1859). To celebrate the occasion a special multiple-issue of Science & Education will be published.

Researchers working on areas related to Darwinism and evolution education are invited to contribute to this special issue. Conceptual, theoretical, empirical or position-based manuscripts are welcome. Examples of topics may include (but are not limited to) the following: Darwinism in the history and philosophy of science Darwin's methodology and theorizing Historical treatments of The Origin Darwinism and politics Darwinism and religion Current status of evolutionary theory Public understanding and acceptance or rejection of evolution, especially in nonWestern cultures Evolutionary explanations Evolution and teleology Research in evolution education Evolution and the Nature of Science Creationism and Intelligent Design Cognitive barriers in understanding evolution Rationales and strategies for teaching evolution when it is controversial The teaching of evolution in cultures where Darwinism is rejected Other appropriate topics

A number of prominent scholars are contributing invited essays. These include: David Depew, History, University of Iowa: current historical studies of Darwinism. Thomas Glick, History, Boston University: the comparative reception of Darwinism, with special attention to its reception in non-western countries. Robert Pennock, Philosophy, Michigan State University: research relating to intelligent design and creationism Michael Ruse, Philosophy, Florida State University: on Darwinism from a philosophical perspective. Mike Smith, Medicine, Mercer University: contemporary science education research relating to the teaching and learning of evolution. Paul Thagard, Philosophy and Psychology, University of Waterloo: cognitive and social impediments to acceptance of natural selection. Submission Date: December 31, 2008 Anticipated Publication Date: November, 2009

Manuscripts, with Abstract, should be submitted for review direct to: www.editorialmanager.com/sced/ Notification of intention to submit and subject matter is appreciated as it assists coordination and planning of the issue. Questions and inquires should be directed to either of the guest editors: David W. Rudge Biological Sciences & The Mallinson Institute for Science Education, Western Michigan University, USA email: [email protected] Kostas Kampourakis Geitonas School, Athens, GREECE email: [email protected]

5.

Applied HPS in the Classroom, Journal Special Issue, Call for Papers

Research and discussion about the multiple contributions of history and philosophy of science (HPS) to science teaching has gone on for many years. This special issue will focus on research dealing with applied and innovative projects concerning the realization in the classrooms of the various proposals about the use of HPS in science teaching.

HPS has provided a fruitful background for developing Nature of Science (NOS) instructional units, materials and teaching approaches. At the same time, it has offered efficient resources to researchers and educators in order to develop and evaluate classroom activities concerning the interactions of Science and Culture. HPS also features in the many goals proposed for Scientific Literacy that can be found in current curricular materials. This special issue of Science & Education will offer to educators and researchers working in all the above areas (HPS, NOS, Science and Culture, Scientific Literacy) a forum to communicate their research, ideas, questions and worries concerning the application of HPS in classrooms. Conceptual, theoretical, empirical or position-based manuscripts are welcome. Accordingly, examples of topics may include (but are not limited to) the following: - Instructional material design inspired by history and philosophy of science - HPS didactical/instructional units - HPS programs, units and textbooks - HPS in teacher education proposals - HPS assessment in the classroom - HPS and ICT in classroom proposals - Cross-disciplinary approaches to HPS teaching in the classrooms - Identifying in the classroom new research question for HPS - Research methodology in the classroom concerning HPS - HPS action research The journal, founded in 1992, is published by Springer, and is associated with the International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Group. It is now the most downloaded of all Springer Education journals, with 37,600 articles downloaded in 2007. Information about the IHPST Group, and journal style and formatting conventions, can be found out at: www.ihpst.org Manuscripts, with Abstract, should be submitted for review direct to: www.editorialmanager.com/sced Submission date: March 1st, 2009. Further questions and inquiries, as well as intention to submit, should be directed to the guest editors: Fanny Seroglou School of Primary Education Faculty of Education Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Greece [email protected] Agustín Adúriz-Bravo CEFIEC Faculty of Science University of Buenos Aires Argentina [email protected]

6.

Public Acceptance of Evolution on a University Campus in Turkey

Miller, et al. (2006) studied the public acceptance of evolution throughout 32 countries in 2005. Turkey is the only country among those examined by Miller, et al, with a predominant Islamic population. In this survey we aimed to examine the public acceptance of evolution at our university, one of the larger western Turkish universites. The statement in the survey was; Human beings developed from earlier species of animals ; the choices were: true , false , not sure - don t know . A total of 1,131 individuals responded to our questionnaire (58% female) - 868 students, 74 faculty members and 82 administrative staff, 99 visitors. The results are summarized in the Table. Table. Acceptance of Evolution in a Turkish University (2008) Population Overall Female Male Students Faculty Admin.Staff True % 25.3 26.2 23.5 20.5 59.5 16.4 False % 53.7 50.3 58.6 56.5 28.7 71.2 Not Sure % 20.4 23.2 16.8 22.3 9.5 12.3 Unusable % 0.6 0.3 1.1 0.7 1.4 0.1

These results are similar to the findings of Miller et al. and are also self explanatory. But as Miller et al. give no further data about the educational level of the participants of their survey, our results show further insight. This data already shows that extensive studies are necessary to measure the awareness and these results need to be followed up and different socio-economic groups should be examined. Poitical influence of public awareness of scientific knowledge is evident in USA as well as in Turkey. In congruence with Edis (2008) we feel that sociocultural pressure is obvious and further courageous and diligent efforts of such studies and informative lectures about evolution are necessary to improve the awareness at the level before reaching university-level education. In addition, we think that evolution needs to be taught, both at high school and university level, using the scientific methodology, involving, relevant experiments allowing to make the final deductions. Today at the most, a timid approach to teaching evolution is present at schools, this topic being avoided in many eastern Turkish universities. References: J.D.Miller, E.C.Scott, S.Okamoto: 2006, Public Acceptence of Evolution Science Vol 313-315 Edis Taner: 2008, Islamic Creationism , History of Science Society Newsletter, Jan 2008 pp. 14-16 MAHMUT TOLON, SERDAR KURT & GÜL GÜNER Dokuz Eylul University, Institute of Health Sciences, Balçova Izmir, 35205, TURKEY [email protected]

7.

Opinion: Theism vs Naturalism *

Dr. Peter Slezak, School of History & Philosophy, University of New South Wales, Sydney Email: [email protected] Perhaps the clearest symptom of the incompatibility of religion and science is the repeated effort to prove otherwise. Recently in Australia, Professor John Lennox of Oxford University suggested that it is too "simplistic" to see a conflict between science and religion since "there are brilliant scientists who believe in God". However, it is a poor substitute for argument and evidence to cite the people who hold certain views. Arthur Koestler once listed all the Nobel Prize winners and Fellows of the Royal Society who believed in ESP, but if there were persuasive grounds, it would be unnecessary to cite the credentials of eminent believers. From the fact that brilliant scientists believe in God, Lennox infers that there are alternative 'world views' and, therefore, a choice between two "metaphysical" options - naturalism and theism. The air of profundity in such pronouncements produces a vacant illusion of explanation but disguises sophistry. Indeed, the leading Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga suggests that the question of the clash between faith and reason is "enormously difficult" requiring "penetrating grasp of the relevant theological and philosophical issues" as well as the complex science. However, this is sheer bluff since the arguments don't depend on any such arcane knowledge. Lennox says it is a mistake to apply scientific principles to questions of metaphysics and he asserts "there are essentially two options" the mindless matter of naturalism or else "there is a creator." However, even if we are to talk this way, it remains obscure why the Christian theistic "metaphysics" is the only alternative to the "naturalistic" one. One could presumably find or invent many others that would have equal status as alternatives to naturalism, having nothing to recommend them. The very idea that we have a choice among 'metaphysics' is an illusion. There is no alternative to our best theories other than worse ones. Naturalism is just the picture provided by our current science and is, therefore, the best we've got. Fancy philosophical talk of 'metaphysical' options can't change the fact that naturalism is the only game in town since it is simply the totality of our theories in physics, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, geology and so on. Does Christian theism provide a better account of quantum physics, cosmology or the structure of DNA? These theories constitute our best understanding of the phenomena in each domain. 'Naturalism' is just shorthand for the overall picture they present. Accordingly, it is empty rhetoric to talk as Lennox does of a theistic alternative on the grounds that the universe is not a closed system "but a creation, initiated and maintained by God." This is hardly an alternative "metaphysics" compatible with science, since it is a substantive claim about the nature of the universe and the causal influence of a purported being. At best, it is unsupported by evidence. At worst, such claims are incompatible with our current physics of 'big-bang' cosmology that rules out causes and times before the existence of the universe itself. There simply is no rational alternative to our best scientific theories until they are superseded. It is a seductive but meaningless metaphor to talk of "outside" the universe or a form of inquiry that might transcend our limited science. To pretend that we have a meaningful choice between our best current science and some "metaphysical" alternative is philosophical bluff that seeks to dignify doctrines that have no rational warrant. Of course, Lennox is not alone, and his arguments have been proposed by leading Christian philosophers. However, their sophisticated writings serve as a smoke-screen for the most egregious claims. For example, Peter van Inwagen defends his preference for Christian doctrines because he

has an "incommunicable insight." I confess to having had a few incommunicable insights - as a student smoking illicit substances. And, of course, psychiatric wards are full of people who profess unshakeable, incommunicable insights. Of course, Christians also appeal to the facts of history portrayed in the Biblical Gospels to warrant their beliefs. We may, for the sake of argument, even concede the official story of the canonical scriptures despite uncertainties in the history of early Christianity revealed by the Qmran Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Gnostic documents. But granting the facts portrayed in the Gospels is not yet to concede the Christian explanation in terms of miracles. Long before the sensation of 'The da Vinci Code' by Dan Brown, there has been a tradition of alternative, non-miraculous explanations of the evidence. Indeed, any explanation of the Gospel story that is consistent with our scientific laws is more plausible and to be preferred over the official miraculous accounts. As one might expect, historians of early Christianity such as Geza Vermes, Robert Eisenman and Elaine Pagels insist on distinguishing the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith. However, Christian philosophers are unwilling to make this obvious distinction. Amid the fancy philosophical footwork, it is not difficult to discern the question-begging reliance on the very doctrines at stake. Plantinga asks the relevant question: In approaching the evidence, is it legitimate for a Christian scripture scholar to employ assumptions or beliefs that are based on his Christian faith? That is, can you assume in advance what you are trying to prove? Astonishingly, Lennox's Oxford colleague Richard Swinburne, Fellow of the British Academy and Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion says that if New Testament scholars inquire into their subject matter without introducing any theological claims "I can only regard this as a sign of deep irrationality." Plantinga, too, answers his own question by saying it would be "merely perverse" for a Christian scholar not to bring his conviction that Jesus was divine to his scholarship "If what you want, in scholarship, is to reach the truth." He says when we approach the Bible and other texts, it is only "commonsense" that the Christian philosopher should bring Christian convictions to bear on the study. However, these answers characterise any delusional or self-certifying belief while pretending that it is the objectivity of disinterested inquiry that is "outrageous" or "preposterous" and "theological tomfoolery." Plantinga gives elaborate arguments for a "new epistemology" but this is just philosophical code for belief without evidence. These philosophers confirm the obvious: Contrary to the usual apologetic propaganda, the Gospels only support Christianity if you already believe it. If that's the best that philosophers can offer, it's hard to see how Christian theism could provide a "metaphysical" alternative to the naturalism of our best science. Particularly disturbing is the rhetoric reversing commonsense standards of objective inquiry, characterising these as perverse, outrageous and preposterous. However, we should have confidence in the norms of ordinary rational thought, and we may follow Einstein who described even the most esoteric science as just commonsense writ large. Galileo, too, wrote his famous Dialogue on the Copernican 'world view' in the Italian vernacular rather than the scholars' Latin because the ordinary folk would appreciate the force of his arguments better than the learned philosophers steeped in scholastic doctrines. Ultimately, more important than private religious belief is the danger of applying the Christian philosophers' model of rational inquiry outside the sphere of theology. It is not difficult to think of examples in political and social life where we see the pernicious effects of ignoring available evidence and assuming what is supposed to be proved. * This piece originally appeared in The Australian newspaper, 19.11.2008

Opinion pieces on topics that bear upon the overlap of history, philosophy and science teaching are welcome. They should be sent as word attachments to the editor. Maximum length 2,000 words.

8.

Community Web Portal for Science and Mathematics Knowledge

The gnowledge.org lab of Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education, Mumbai, India, has launched a new community portal to make concept maps of all areas of knowledge, particularly science and mathematics knowledge. We are beginning with establishing dependency relations between concepts and activities. Soon we will extend the site for TypeMap, PartMap, InteractionMap, ProcessMap etc. Soon, a version of SELF Platform will be made that will automatically create structure of courses based on the dependency map. While working on this project, we see a surprising result. The result is after adding the prerequisites, the map is aligning automatically in such a way that it shows is not only a sequence for learning, but also the sequence of history of ideas. It is turning out to be an empirical evidence for the ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny hypothesis. Since the graph automatically arranges cognitively difficult concepts later, it demonstrates that discovery is a form of learning. This can be seen already with barely 400 concepts. from this map: http://www.gnowledge.org/dp/147_depmap.png. When we add more concepts the evidence will be more compelling. Since we can measure the distance between concepts using this graph objectively, it may eventually become an excellent tool for historians as well. The site is waiting for community contributions and suggestions at http://www.gnowledge.org/. Nagarjuna G. [email protected] http://www.gnowledge.org/

9.

XXIII International Congress of History of Science and Technology, July 28 August 2, 2009, Budapest, Hungary

The Hungarian National IUHPS Committee is pleased to invite you to attend and take an active part in the XXIII International Congress of History of Science and Technology in Budapest between 26 and 31 July, 2009. The XXIII International Congress of History of Science and technology will be supported by the Hungarian Government, the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the Budapest City Council, the Federation of Technical and Scientific Societes and other local institutions and organisations. The World Academy of Young Scientists (with its seat in Budapest) will contribute to wide participation of young people from all over the world.

Budapest is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful metropoles in the world. The warm hospitality of the people, excellent food and wine, relaible and frequent public transportaion, vivid culturallife, rich museums attract millions of visitors every year. Budapest is easy in reach, by air and on the ground, visitor-friendly visa policy, value-for-the-price services and goods, pleasant climate also make Hungary one of the most Popular meeting venues world-wide. Important Dates: Deadline for determination of the symposia programs Deadline for abstract submission Deadline for early registration Deadline for hotel reservation Opening of the Congress Details available at: http://www.conferences.hu/ichs09/ 15 December, 2008 15 January, 2009 15 March, 2009 30 April, 2009 26 July, 2009

10.

Symposium: Educational Aspects of the History of Scientific instruments 28-29 November 2008, Athens, Greece

The Teaching Commission of the Division of History of Science and Technology, a division of the UNESCO-affiliated International Union of History and Philosophy of Science is staging this Symposium, and inviting contributions and participation. In the last 30 years one aim for sociology, history, and philosophy of science has been to investigate and to understand natural sciences as practical work: a work of minds, of hands and as a social process. Within this context the History of Scientific Instruments might contribute into science teaching, since the study of the interaction between the contexts of manufacture and utilization reveals both the cultural and human nature of science and the latter s interaction with society, while it facilitates teaching and learning science at the same time. There are many aspects to consider in examining the design and function of instruments. Scientific observation is determined by the human sensory system, which generally relies on instruments that serve as mediators between the world and the senses. Thus, instruments can be considered as a reinforcement of the senses, providing a great capacity for penetrating the mysteries of nature, increasing the power of observation and making induction processes easier. Furthermore, scientific instruments constitute a major factor in the establishment of speculations and hypotheses, as well as in the calculation of measures in an abstract mathematical way which allows checking, refuting or changing previously established theories. Many pedagogical aspects are related to the study of historical scientific instruments. These instruments make it possible to understand science as a practical work that takes place, mainly, in laboratories. It enables learners to get an idea of the meaning of experimentation in the history of science. This comprises the difficulties of experimenting, the development of experimental skills as well as the possibility of sensuous experiences. Selected scientific instruments will be the epistemological connection between a determined practical question, inserted in a determined era and with all the political, economical, religious, cosmological conditionings, etc, that are inherent to it on one hand and, on the other some kind of theoretic knowledge, such as Geometry, Mechanics, Chemistry, etc.

More specifically, the study of the History of Scientific Instruments is expected to introduce students to the philosophy and process of measurement, while the information on their historical evolution is decisive for perceiving the historical time concept. Furthermore, information on scientific instruments characteristics like: country of origin, manufacturer, period of manufacturing, manufacturing materials and their usage, leads students to know the scientific and technological development of their country and other countries, as well as scientists lives and activities, who left their mark on the history of humanity. Activities, such as reconstructing the instruments and methods used in historical discoveries, permits the student of discovery to re-experience the processes of generating and interpreting the original data in its physical context, thereby casting light on the difficulties faced by the original investigators in arriving at the meaning of what they saw. Studying the history of Scientific Instruments learners have the opportunity to find out more about historical ways of experimenting. They can experience and reflect on themselves as part of experiments. By using scientific instruments, in real or computational environment, students will be able to redo historical experiments and, in this way, experiences become self-experiences. Students can also work with historical instruments that possibly are out of use today, in order to develop several skills to succeed in a replicated experiment. Within this context, they can use scientific instruments in order to interpret their data, discover unexpected results, confirm the validity of their data, make predictions about their solutions and check for errors. These and other pedagogical aspects of scientific instruments and their history can be presented in this symposium and the experts may contribute to the enlargement and development of the field. For further details contact: Professor Constantine Skordoulis, Secretary of the DHST-Teaching Commission, School of Education, University of Athens, Greece [email protected]; [email protected] PROGRAMME, Friday November 28 --9.30am Opening Address by Efthymios Nicolaidis (Secretary General of the DHST) Constantine D. Skordoulis (Secretary of the DHST- Teaching Commission) Aims and Scope of the Seminar SESSION A (10 am 2 pm), MATHEMATICAL INSTRUMENTS

Maria G. Bartolini Bussi (Dipartimento di Matematica - Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia): Mathematical machines: From History to a Mathematical Laboratory (Research funded by Miur and the University of Modena & Reggio Emilia, within the Project PRIN on Instruments and
representations in the teaching and learning of mathematics: theory and practice)

Francesca Martignone (Dipartimento di Matematica - Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia): Exploration of Machines from the History of Mathematics: Didactical and Cognitive Studies (Research funded by Miur and the University of Modena & Reggio Emilia, within the Project PRIN on Instruments and representations in the teaching and learning of mathematics: theory
and practice)

Dimitris Chassapis (Faculty of Early Childhood Education, University of Athens) Learning Geometry as mastering the Use of Instruments: A Case Study

Vassilis Tsitsos, Anna Chronaki, Charoula Stathopoulou (University of Thessaly): A deliberate transformation of an artifact into a scientific and didactical instrument : the case of pinhole camera Yannis Bitsakis (Department of Education, University of Athens): The Antikythera Mechanism: one century of Research and efforts for Public Understanding SESSION B (4 pm 8 pm), SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS

Manolis Kartsonakis (Hellenic Open University): Measuring and Interpreting Nature: Scientific Instruments in the History of Science George N. Vlahakis, Maria Terdimou (National Hellenic Research Foundation): The Role of Scientific Instruments for Teaching Physics in Greece during the 18th-19th centuries Flora Paparou (Department of Chemistry, University of Athens): The First Days of Electricity (Teaching the History of Electricity through the use of a Historical Scientific Instruments collection) George Fassoulopoulos, George Epsimos and Vassilis Tselfes (Faculty of Early Childhood Education, University of Athens): Instructional use of History of Science in the reproductive structures of compulsory education: the case of thermoscope / thermometer Ioannis L. Parkosidis, Constantine D. Skordoulis (Department of Education, University of Athens): Studying historical instruments of Navigation through software simulations for teaching spatial skills

11.

5th Greek Conference, History, Philosophy &Teaching of the Natural Sciences, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, 11-14 June 2009

The main subject of the Conference of the Philosophy, History and Teaching of Natural Sciences that will take place in Cyprus, in June 2009, is determined as "The interaction of the Great Scientific Theories in the Teaching of the Natural Sciences". The conference, has as main target, to reveal the interaction between the great scientific theories, pointing out questions as the impact of the characteristics of the Darwinian theory in our general perception for the scientific theories. An example is the degree in which the contemporary discussions, concerning the universality of the scientific laws, the limits of their application and the type of explanation that they give in the scientific phenomena, have been influenced by the structure of the Darwinian theory. Another example is the teaching of the scientific theories as a medium for explanation and prediction of phenomena which are characterized by limited fields of application and are continuously being critisized and revised. The History of Science reveals that the theoretical pluralism is the most important sign of the development of Science. Undoubtedly, the scientific theories are created, developed and declined as a lot of other products of the human mind. However, a small number of scientific theories is characterized by extraordinary resistance in time. One from these theories, is the "Theory of Evolution" of Darwin. This theory was firstly presented in 1859 in the book "The Origin of Species". In 2009, 150 years will have been completed from the first publication of the book and 200 years will have been completed from the birth of Darwin. This anniversary provides the opportunity to all of us to think about the reason for which these great theories (eg, Darwinian,

Newtonian, Quantum, Mechanics, Relativity) are diachronic and constituting an integral part of our Scientific Education. In Greece, a small community of researchers and teachers has been already been created and since 2001 organized the conference of History, Philosophy and Teaching of the Natural Sciences. The present conference is the 5th conference in the row and has as basic target, like the previous conferences had, to promote an in-depth examination in relevance with the nature as well as the characteristics and the content which the history and the philosophy can obtain into the frame of the Natural Sciences. The organizing committee of 5th Conference intends to broaden the character of the conference by inviting not only the Greek scientists and researchers but by inviting as well as scientists and researchers from all over the world to participate. A first step to this direction will be the lectures by distinguished foreign scientists as well as the organisation of an English-speaking symposium, that will take place during the conference. For full conference details see: www.ucy.ac.cy/htp2009

12.

Models and Simulations, Third Conference, March 5-7 2009

The Third Models and Simulations Conference will be held at Charlottesville, Virginia, March 5-7 2009. It will be the first such conference in North America, following the successful MS1 in Paris and MS2 in Tilburg, The Netherlands. This is an international conference and those outside North America are encouraged to attend. The focus of the conference is on the philosophical and methodological aspects of simulations and models, broadly construed, and papers on any aspect of these topics are welcome from both philosophers and scientists. In addition to papers directly addressing simulations or models, MS3 welcomes submissions on related topics such as representations, artificial life, complexity theory, logic, agent based modeling, the truth status of models, the relations between theories, simulations, and models, neural nets, and other subjects. The keynote speakers for 2009 will be Mark Bedau and Patrick Suppes. Initial submissions should be in the form of a 1000 word abstract and all submissions are refereed. The deadline for submissions is September 15 2008. Research on models in science and in science teaching has had a prominent place in science education research see contributions to the special issue of Science & Education vol. 16 (7-8), 2007. This conference should be useful for such researchers. Details of the conference and instructions for paper submissions are available at: http://people.virginia.edu/~pwh2a/MS3.htm

13.

HOPOS Conference June 24 - 27, 2010, Budapest

The eighth international congress of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science (HOPOS) will be sponsored by the Central European University (CEU), Eötvös Loránd University (ELTE), and the Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BME), with

financial support of the Rector of Central European University. The conference venue will be Central European University, Budapest, Hungary. The conference is open to scholarly work on the history of philosophy of science from any disciplinary perspective. Keynote speakers will be announced and a call for papers will be issued summer 2009. HOPOS, The International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, is devoted to promoting serious, scholarly research on the history of the philosophy of science. We construe this subject broadly, to include topics in the history of related disciplines and in all historical periods, studied through diverse methodologies. We aim to promote historical work in a variety of ways, but especially through encouraging exchange among scholars through meetings, publications, and electronic media. Information is available at http://www.hopos.org <http://www.hopos.org/> . Conference committee (pro tempore) Karl Hall (Local Organizing Committee) [email protected] William H. Krieger (Executive Secretary, HOPOS) [email protected] Eric Palmer (Treasurer, HOPOS & Allegheny College) [email protected] Laura J. Snyder (President 2009-2010, HOPOS) [email protected] Gábor Á. Zemplén (Local Organizing Committee) [email protected] Details at: http://www.hopos2010.ceu.hu <http://www.hopos2010.ceu.hu/>

14.

Book Notes

(i) Andreas Quale, 2008, Radical Constructivism. A Relativist Epistemic Approach to Science Education, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam. 218pp, ISBN 978 90 8790 610 8 This is a carefully written and clear exposition of Radical Constructivism (RC) as a theory of science and of science education. Quale has previously published articles on theoretical physics, physics textbooks, and articles on educational topics, including two in Science & Education (Quale 2002, 2007). Quale is explicit in acknowledging Ernst von Glasersfeld as his own philosophical inspiration, and as the founder of RC. One might see Quale as labouring in von Glasersfeld s vineyard in much the same way as John Locke s spoke of being a gardener in Newton s vineyard . Quale is not alone in his debt to von Glasersfeld. In Peter Fensham s recent study of 80 major international science educators, von Glasersfeld was repeatedly mentioned as one of the two major philosophical influences on the researchers, the other being Thomas Kuhn (Fensham 2004).

There have been numerous expositions of RC theory and studies of its application to science and mathematics pedagogy (Tobin 1993, Fosnot 1996, Larochelle et al. 1998, Steffe & Thompson, 2000, Glasersfeld 1995, 2007) and there is a whole journal devoted to explicating RC theory (Constructivist Foundations) that has devoted a special double issue to von Glasersfeld s work (vol.2 nos.2-3 http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/). Although not a philosopher, Quale does take philosophical issues of epistemology and ontology seriously; he does offer, uncharacteristically for science education literature, extended discussions of these matters. There are chapters on Truth , on Reality , on Philosophy of Physics , on Ontology . He also takes philosophy of education seriously, and the final chapter on The What and Why of Science Education provides an exposition of liberal educational theory and some detailed arguments to justify the teaching of science in general education. The book cites about 120 references, including twelve of von Glasersfeld s publications. The remainder include most of the science education researchers who have addressed, both critically and approvingly, the theory and practice of RC, and a good many philosophers whose work bears upon the claims of RC. Radical Constructivism Quale acknowledges Social Constructivism as the main constructivist alternative to RC, but rejects the former before passing to his elaboration of the latter. He identifies the central epistemological claim of social constructivism as the claim that science is completely conventional and determined solely through social negotiation , and that observational tests play no part in determining the results (p.62) and comments that this position seems rather absurd to anyone with even a little understanding of scientific matters (p.62). In contrast RC requires valid scientific knowledge to be such as to fit with the constraints of experience (p.62). Following von Glasersfeld, Quale asserts the core RC doctrines to be: RC1 Knowledge is not passively received, but is actively constructed by the cognizing subject. RC2 The function of cognition is adaptive, and serves the subject s organization of the experiential world, not the discovery of objective ontological reality. (p.54) The Kantian Programme These doctrines are redolent of Piaget, and before him of Kant. Kant s individualism, phenomenalism, and insistence on the unknowability of the thing-in-itself lead directly to RC. Kant is close to being an ontological idealist, saying in his first critique that it is a scandal of philosophy.. that we must admit merely on faith the existence of things outside ourselves . If faith is required merely to assert that objects and processes in the world exist, then any claim to knowledge of such objects and processes can be no better than faith, and must be illusory. Kant s position concerning external objects was close to Bishop Berkeley s ontological idealism: for the Bishop, to exist is to be seen . It is not coincidental that von Glasersfeld hails Berkeley as one of the first, and few, figures in Western philosophy who clearly enunciated RC philosophy. Quale recognises and embraces the Kantian provenance of RC (p.67) but tries desperately to hold on to the existence of an external experiential world , not an external objective world of the realist tradition in philosophy and in science. He says that for any individual person reality is the totality of everything that can be experienced or imagined by that person and that there is no sense in talking of realities beyond the realities (experiential) of individuals. (p.64) Thus RC rises or falls with the Kantian programme. Whereas Kant speaks of belief in an external world being a matter of

faith, Quale says it is a matter of non-cognitive knowledge (p.68); a sort of personal preference that people can elect to make or not to make. Quale takes this position very seriously. He says it is the external experiential world that is shared between knowers and that this is the object, so to say, of scientific investigation as understood by RC. He talks of the decision to accept the external experiential world as being there ..as noncognitive knowledge. It forms part of [a subject s] ontological core. (p.68) He argues that realist belief in an objective, subject-independent, knowable world is a non-cognitive belief and consequently unjustifiable. Claims about an experiential world are as good as humans can achieve. Other such non-cognitive and unjustifiable beliefs are ethical ones and religious ones (pp.175-189). Knowledge and Learning Early in the book, Quale takes the oft-travelled road of identifying learning with knowledge: If a subject learns something, then it is knowledge. Philosophers since Plato recoil at such a move, but it is stock-standard in educational psychology, where researchers simply regard children s beliefs as synonymous with children s knowledge , and where study of conceptual change is regarded as study of knowledge growth. For educational psychologists, learning theory is epistemologically neutral: the theory of how people learn un-truths will be the same as the theory of how they learn truths; the mental processed involved in learning astrology are the same processes as are involved in learning astronomy. Quale says learning is the process through which we gain knowledge and knowledge is the product of the learning process (p.45). He of course recognises, with Plato and the bulk of the philosophical and commonsensical tradition, that it is possible to learn things that are not true (p.45); but this is not a bother to him because such an association of knowledge with truth is not made in constructivism (p.45). Learning for RC involves two processes: perception (the reception by the subject of sensory or emotive input) and reflection (the processing of such input by the mind), with reflection having many elements, including interpersonal interaction, exchange and discussion (p.46). Quale optimistically says that such reflection will ultimately result in a generation of knowledge in the learner (p.46). Teachers, who are not on the list of ten elements contributing to reflection, can only wish that knowledge acquisition is so inevitable. But merely saying that there is no problem in identifying learning with knowledge does not mean that there is none; in children s books a threat might go away because a person closes their eyes, but this comforting event seldom happens in the real world, or in the world of philosophical argument. Everyday, all around the world, people learn all sorts of stupid, idiotic, mistaken and plainly false things regarding both the natural and social worlds. Think of what children learn everyday about the solar system by just watching the sun go around the earth. Think of lessons in Taliban schools, in North Korean re-education camps, in fundamentalist school biology classes, in AIDS-denying South African communities, and so on. Think of the millions who, not so long ago, were taught and assiduously learnt Chairman Mao thought, Stalinist dialectics and National-Socialist science. Pretty much all of what was learnt in these foregoing examples was wrong, but for Quale and RC adherents, it is nevertheless knowledge in virtue of it being learnt. But if, by definition, such learning constitutes knowledge, then there is a problem for liberal education which is predicated on the belief that education should strive to produce knowledgeable citizens. If in all the above cases, people are already knowledgeable, then what role is left for teachers other than to embrace the existing knowledge? Viability as the Criterion of Knowledge

Quale does go to some trouble to spell out the oft-repeated claim of RC that the hallmark, or test of knowledge, is viability. Critics have oft pointed out that all sorts of beliefs can be personally viable and fit well with people s experiential world; and that many of these beliefs are not only intellectual junk but morally and politically pernicious think of Nazi beliefs about sub-human races, or the Indian caste system that condemns millions to wretched and unspeakable lives. In these cases the beliefs are perfectly viable, at least for the ruling powers. Quale acknowledges the force of such criticism and tries to elaborate a defensible account of viability. In doing this he introduces a distinction between mere knowledge and good knowledge (p.77). When such normative distinctions are introduced, philosophers prick up their ears, as they expect that the identification of good knowledge will most likely require something categorically different from the epistemology that has defined mere knowledge. Platonists might well expect to see recourse to truth and good reasons as the differentia of good knowledge. Rejection of Truth To his credit, at least for consistency, Quale resolutely refuses to embrace truth as an epistemological category; he recognises that to so embrace this category would be to give up RC (p.85). Instead good knowledge consists of those beliefs that (i) do not conflict with observational data, and that (ii) respects the rules of the game , that is the rules defining the kind of knowledge that is being sought (p.77). He acknowledges that on RC grounds we can construct any world model that suits our fancy, prejudices, or personal purpose: This freedom of the individual knower, to choose her own epistemic position according to personal preference, is fundamental to the relativism that lies at the heart of radical constructivism. And note that this kind of choice is an instance of non-cognitive knowledge (p.85). But he says that we cannot then claim that the resulting model represents good scientific knowledge, unless it is viable for us in the context of science (p.78). Thus fundamentalist belief in special creation is knowledge - it is personally viable but it is not good scientific knowledge as it violates the rules of the scientific game (p.79). For a realist the rules of the scientific game , to use this revelatory RC expression, are related to truth-finding. The rules are not simple conventions like the rules of chess, football or poker all of which can be changed at will to suit whatever commercial or personal purpose we want. For the realist, we have the scientific rules that we have because they have proved conducive to finding out how the natural and social worlds function; and for the realist these rules change over time because some are judged more truth-conducive than others; and where there is controversy about rules, the controversy is not about convention but about truth-conduciveness. At one time natural philosophy had rules such as do not contradict the Bible or do not contradict the Koran ; at another time natural philosophy adopted the deductive syllogism as the template for its methodology; these rules proved not conducive to finding how the world worked, so they were changed. Science as Story Telling Quale rejects such realist accounts, and says Rather, we should present the advance of scientific knowledge as a progression in the kind of stories we tell about nature (p.119). He cites Kuhn and Feyerabend in support of this view that science does not need an objective reality to support the knowledge that it offers (p.121). As a physicist and as an individual who utilises all the benefits of modern science, Quale does ask: Is it not fantastic that this seemingly ragged method [of science] actually works so well, and provides us with such a powerful tool for understanding and controlling the world? (p.201). The question is well asked, but is not well answered. Hilary Putnam some many years ago aptly said that Scientific realism is the only philosophy of science that does not make the success of science a miracle (Putnam 1975, p.73). Quale s book would have been considerably improved by a more persistent engagement with the philosophical

arguments, before and after Putnam, on this matter (Leplin 1984, Aronson, Harré & Way 1995, Psillos 1999). As much as he offers by way of answer to the question that he himself poses is the observation that the world we experience will always be more complicated than any science that purports to describe it! (p.200) This is simply a gross misunderstanding of the game of science . Science, ever since Galileo s inclined plane and pendulum experiments has built into its practice the processes of abstraction and idealisation; it is precisely not concerned to exhaustively describe the world we experience. We experience falling red apples under the influence of air resistance and against the backdrop of rural vistas. We experience and might be fascinated by the chaotic trajectory of the falling autumn leafs. The science of mechanics ignores the rural vista, the lovely reds and autumnal colours, and the perturbations of air resistance; it describes the path of a falling point mass governed just by gravitational force. It entirely leaves out our aesthetic response to the blissful circumstances. So in this sense Quale is certainly correct: Our experience is more complicated than science can describe. But science does not purport to so describe experience; it is not part of the scientific rules; and it does not bear upon the truthfulness of science. We can have the truth without having the whole truth, and nothing but the truth . Between relativism (the RC position) and absolutism (the fanatics position) lies fallibilism. Realists can be at home and comfortable with the latter; it is consistent with a modest realism (see Matthews 1994, pp.174-77). Pedagogy Quale s final chapter deals with pedagogy and educational theory and is one of the best such treatments that the RC tradition has provided. Earlier in the book he says that for RC there is no detailed prescription here that dictates how the [scientific] story is to be told: i.e. whether the teacher should lecture (or, on the contrary, avoid lecturing), to what extent she should encourage her students to work in groups (or else engage them in individual project assignments). Put in another way: Radical constructivism does not tell teachers how to teach (p.116). Nevertheless he sees RC as an educational theory, and something that needs be taught to neophyte teachers. Instead of telling them how to teach It provides a background stage , as it were, for the act of teaching: reminding teachers that what they are doing is essentially telling a story, and calling on them to use whatever instruments (lecturing, group assignments ) that they feel is best suited for connecting with their audience (p.116). Concerning, for instance the competence to solve quadratic equations, Quale says a teacher can push [students] into acquiring this ability, by demonstrating the procedures, assigning exercises to be solved, etc. But you cannot tell them to understand that is something they must construct for themselves (p.107). This is a modest, realistic, and respectful position; it is consistent with the whole tradition of liberal education whose goal is the promotion of understanding. Quale s pedagogical position allows teachers to do whatever their experience suggests is informative and effective for students. He does not allow slogans such as knowledge cannot be transferred to get in the way of good educational practice. He thus avoids the unmitigated classroom disasters of unguided discovery and let children be scientists that have been widely spawned in the name of constructivism (Kirschner, Sweller & Clark 2006). But his account also has a downside: if education is just story telling, then there are countless erroneous and deleterious stories out there to be told, and are being told everyday in classrooms, newspapers and on television screens around the world. These stories can certainly be made interesting and engaging, and RC-inspired teachers can connect well with their students. There are Creationist stories to be told, Racist stories to be told, Weapons-of-Mass-Destruction stories to be told, until a short while ago there were Free Market economic stories to be told. In the USSR there

were Our Glorious Communist Party stories to be told, while at the same time in the USA there were Manifest Destiny stories to be told. As the Tom Paxton song asks: What did you learn in school today Dear little boy of mine? What did you learn in school today Dear little boy of mine? I learned that Washington never told a lie, I learned that soldiers seldom die, I learned that everybody s free, That s what the teacher said to me, And that s what I learned in school today, That s what I learned in school today. To identify knowledge with learning, and to then reduce teaching to story telling, lets too much onto the educational agenda. For most in the liberal tradition there needs to be a curriculum filter. Teachers in the liberal tradition need to first be satisfied that what children are learning is true, or at least the best approach to truth that we currently have; and second, they need to teach in such a way that children cultivate a critical attitude to what they are taught, that they ask serious questions of their teachers. As Bertrand Russell, echoing John Stuart Mill, put it: The aim of education is not to have children think what their teachers think, but to have them think . Quale s story telling account has the positive virtue of at least giving teachers a role in education, and he dissociates his version of RC from the children must create their own knowledge excesses of many constructivists. But it has the downside of giving no guidance about what kind of stories to tell; and no indication of how and why children should adopt a critical attitude to the stories they are told. One way to cultivate a critical attitude is to have children routinely ask Is the story true? , but as Quale points out, this question cannot be posed in the RC framework. Without recourse to this question, the critical attitude which is so essential for a liberal education is difficult to cultivate. Educational Theory Concerning educational theory, Quale nicely canvasses various arguments that have been put forward for compulsory science education the democratic, the economic, and the utilitarian and comes down in favour of the cultural argument: science has formed our culture and all citizens need to understand this (p.202), not by just telling students that this is so, but by having them experience the cultural contributions of say, Einstein and Darwin (p.202). Such teaching should be engaging and enjoyable, but pleasingly he says this is not synonymous with entertaining (p.203). Quale doubtless would agree that to appreciate the cultural contribution of scientists, scientific theory and scientific practice, then something of the science and the methods need to be understood. All of this is consistent with good, liberal, realist-inspired, education. But teachers in this latter tradition can say that Einstein and Darwin s scientific works (and add Galileo s, Newton s, Mendel s, Planck s, etc) have made a contribution to culture precisely because the methods of investigation that they follow are truth-conducive, and further they have latched on to some fundamental aspects of how the world works; without such connections, the cultural contributions are ill-grounded and easily rejected. Quale s RC position allows him to endorse a descriptive version of the cultural argument (science has had such and such impacts on culture, therefore children should learn about this), but RC denies the possibility of a normative version of the cultural argument. The latter argument goes back to the Enlightenment whose adherents said that the methods and outlooks of the New Science should be

embraced because they will have a beneficial effect on other areas of study history, politics, ethics, theology - and an improving effect on cultural life more generally. This was the version of the cultural argument put forward by John Dewey (1910) and by many subsequent defenders of science and liberal education including, recently, Neil Postman (1999). Border Crossing That Quale cannot endorse this Enlightenment version of the cultural argument for compulsory science education is tellingly shown when he approvingly quotes Glen Aikenhead s bordercrossing view that science is a repository to be raided for what it can contribute to the achievement of practical ends (p.20); and thus in Quale s words, such raids may be carried out without any need to relinquish the values of one s own cultural background (p.200). So the game of science is restricted to the laboratory. India can join the space race whilst leaving a caste society untouched by the intellectual methods that gets its rocket off the launch pad; China can support advanced scientific research centres whilst denying its population access to basic information about its own history and the workings of its ruling political class; Iran can develop a nuclear reactor while denying free expression to its own citizens; Malaysia can build the world s highest office towers whilst jailing citizens who renounce Islam; the United States can develop the technology and weapons system to launch a Shock and Awe invasion of Iraq whilst 70% of its population believe that angels and spirits are active in the world (Pew Report 2007), and so on. In all of these cases, the Enlightenment s view of the cultural benefit of science is simply thwarted; and Quale s RC account of science prevents citizens from appealing to science and scientific method to challenge the ruling orthodoxies (for just the Indian case, see Nanda 2003). The Role of Criticism Finally, to Quale s credit he does mention the views of critics of RC. Works by Good, Grandy, Irzik, McCarty, Matthews, Nola, Osborne, Phillips, Slezak and Suchting are all cited in the text and listed in the References. Some readers might have wished for more engagement with their arguments. Nearly twenty years ago, for example, the philosopher Wallis Suchting wrote a long, 30 page, line-by-line, devastating critique of a core RC paper of von Glasersfeld. Suchting concluded with the claim that: First, much of the doctrine known as constructivism ... is simply unintelligible. Second, to the extent that it is intelligible ... it is simply confused. Third, there is a complete absence of any argument for whatever positions can be made out. ... In general, far from being what it is claimed to be, namely, the New Age in philosophy of science, an even slightly perceptive ear can detect the familiar voice of a really quite primitive, traditional subjectivistic empiricism with some overtones of diverse provenance like Piaget and Kuhn. (Suchting, 1992, p. 247) This critique has been ignored by the many enthusiasts of von Glasersfeld and RC. Surprisingly it is not mentioned, let alone answered, in von Glasersfeld s own 1995 and 2007 books. Quale at least mentions Suchting and others, but he fails to engage with their arguments. In large part this failure of engagement flows from the very principles of RC which lead Quale to say that There is no correct way to read the work of Glasersfeld (or any other authority for that matter) (p.174). And disarmingly he asserts that Radical constructivism does not claim to hold the true or correct epistemic position; it presents itself as a possible stance to adopt, for whoever may find that it resonates with her own thinking! (p.175) In the same vein, Kenneth Tobin a leading advocate of RC and contributor of an appreciation to Glasersfeld s 2007 book, wrote:

To become a constructivist is to use constructivism as a referent for thoughts and actions. That is to say when thinking or acting, beliefs associated with constructivism assume a higher value than other beliefs. (Tobin 1991, p. 1) This is a comforting philosophical position: If counter arguments do not resonate with your own thinking, then just ignore them, or claim that your own commitments have a higher value . Conclusion To repeat, Quale s book is a carefully written and clear exposition of Radical Constructivism as a theory of science and of science education. There are detailed accounts of the philosophy of physics and mathematics; sophisticated accounts of Time, Modelling, Metaphor and Conventions. He does avoid the common sin of soft focus writing, and thus there are fairly detailed arguments presented for the positions he advocates. Realists will judge most of the epistemological arguments as flawed, and liberal educational theorists will wish more care was taken with his pedagogical suggestions, but even so, Quale s formulation of philosophical and pedagogical arguments is a considerable contribution to the nearly thirty years of debate about constructivist theory in education. References Aronson, J.L., Harré, R. & Way, E.C.: 1995, Realism Rescured: How Scientific Progress is Possible, Open Court Publishing, Chicago. Dewey, J.: 1910, Science as Subject-Matter and as Method , Science 31, 121-127. Reproduced in Science & Education, 1995, 4(4), 391-398. Fensham, P.J.: 2004, Defining an Identity: The Evolution of Science Education as a Field of Research, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Fosnot, C.T. (ed.): 1996, Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice, Teachers College Press, New York. Glasersfeld, E. von: 1995, Radical Constructivism. A Way of Knowing and Learning, The Falmer Press, London. Glasersfeld, E. von: 2007, Key Works in Radical Constructivism, (M. Rochelle ed.), Sense Publishers, Rotterdam. Kirschner, P., Sweller, J. & Clark, R.E.: 2006, Why Minimally Guided Learning Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Discovery Learning, Problem-Based Learning, Experiential Learning and Inquiry-Based Learning , Educational Psychologist 41(2), 75-96. Larochelle, M., Bednarz, N. & Garrison, J. (eds.): 1998, Constructivism and Education, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Leplin, J. (ed.): 1984, Scientific Realism, University of California Press, Berkeley. Matthews, M.R.: 1994, Science Teaching: The Role of History and Philosophy of Science, Routledge, New York. Nanda, M.: 2003, Prophets Facing Backward. Postmodern Critiques of Science and Hindu Nationalism in India, Rutgers University Press. Postman, N.: 1999, Building a Bridge to the 18th Century: How the Past can Improve Our Future, Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Psillos, S.: 1999, Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth, Routledge, London. Putnam, H.: 1975, Philosophical Papers Volume I, Cambridge University Press. Quale, A.: 2002, The Role of Metaphor in Scientific Epistemology: A Constructivist Perspective and Consequences for Science Education , Science & Education 11(5), 423-441. Quale, A.: 2007, Radical Constructivism and the Sin of Relativism , Science & Education 16(3-5), 231-266.

Steffe, L. & Thompson, P. (eds.): 2000, Radical Constructivism: Building on the Pioneering Work of Ernst von Glasersfeld, Routledge/Falmer, London. Suchting, W.A.: 1992, Constructivism Deconstructed , Science & Education 1(3), 223-254. Tobin, K. (ed.): 1993, The Practice of Constructivism in Science and Mathematics Education, AAAS Press, Washington DC. Tobin, K.: 1991, Constructivist Perspectives on Research in Science Education , paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Lake Geneva, Wisconsin. [Michael R. Matthews, School of Education, UNSW, Australia]

(ii) John Clement, 2008, Creative Model Construction in Scientists and Students: The Role of Imagery, Analogy, and Mental Simulation. Dordrecht: Springer. ISBN: 978-1-4020-6711-2. 630pp. Detailed annotated table of contents at: http://www.springer.com (search at top for Clement construction ). This book presents a series of case studies that examine processes of creative model construction in scientists. It investigates the largely uncharted domain of non-formal reasoning in science, using transcripts from video tapes of scientifically trained experts thinking aloud. These capture experts in the act of using processes such as analogical reasoning, mental model construction, imagistic simulation, physical intuition, imaginative spatial transformations, and advanced techniques such as thought experiments. Some historians and philosophers of science believe that these nonformal, creative reasoning processes play a crucial role in original discoveries in science even though those processes can be well hidden from sight in published scientific articles and presentations. However, others are quite skeptical that such nonformal methods can play a legitimate role in scientific thinking.

This book documents these methods being used, through the analysis of scientists thinking while solving unfamiliar explanation problems. This method also allows the analysis of insight episodes where a subject makes a conceptual breakthrough accompanied by "Aha"-type exclamations, and another goal of the book is to better understand how such creative insights occur. Experts are depicted constructing progressively deeper theories, not just in terms of equations or formal principles, but also in terms of dynamically imageable models. They appear to be creative inventors of these imageable models rather than simply being logical manipulators of linguistic symbols. Subsequently a larger theory of productive creativity built from these component processes is described at several levels: (1) the perceptual (and often motor) processing that makes imagistic simulations possible; (2) the nonformal reasoning operations mentioned above that utilize

imagistic simulations; (3) abductive model evolution cycles of model generation, evaluation, and modification; and (4) a partially decentralized control process with modulated divergence. Interesting features of the analysis include: the leverage gained on understanding the mechanisms of creativity by analyzing processes used at each of the above levels, from small processes to rather large ones; the use of depictive gestures and other data to provide evidence for imagery; the way that advantages of grounding in imagistic simulation processes at the lowest level can percolate up to provide advantages at the higher levels of scientific model construction and application; once higher level models become grounded in this way, they in turn can become runnable building blocks for grounding and assembling even more sophisticated theories (including the transition from a qualitative to a quantitative model); the analysis of schema driven imagistic simulations begins to provide an answer to the question of the origins of conviction in thought experiments; punctuated model evolution allows for both small improvements and sudden insights in Aha phenomena; these processes can be balanced and modulated, so as to provide varying proportions of volatile divergence or convergence at different stages of the solution. The analysis of expert protocols leads to an expanded model of conceptual change processes in science. This also has implications for science education. Students are shown to have natural abilities for many aspects of these inquiry processes, and to be able to do others with scaffolding from a teacher. The results on imagery, analogy, and model construction can be used to envision a variety of new instructional strategies. Thus the theory of nonformal reasoning developed for experts has applications in expanding our theories of conceptual change and inquiry for education. Readers of the book would also find valuable model-related research in the special issue of Science & Education devoted to the subject of Models in Science and in Science Education , vol.16 nos.78, 2007. (iii) Clement, J. & Rea-Ramirez, M. A. (eds.): 2008, Model Based Learning and Instruction in Science. Dordrecht: Springer. 286 pp. ISBN: 978-1-4020-6493-7 Hardcover http://www.springer.com This book describes new, model based teaching methods for science instruction. It presents research that describes these new methods in a very diverse group of settings: middle school biology, high school physics, and college chemistry classrooms. Mental models in these areas such as understanding the structure of the lungs or cells, molecular structures and reaction mechanisms in chemistry, or causes of current flow in electricity are notoriously difficult for many students to learn. Yet these lie at the core of conceptual understanding in these areas. The studies focus on a variety of teaching strategies such as discrepant questioning, analogies, animations, model competition, and hands on activities. Extensive examples and descriptions of the strategies are included. Each of the classrooms studied by the authors used recently developed curricula that fostered unusually active learning processes. The curricula were designed to produce flexible mental models in students as a key source of understanding. A pressing need is to address the problem that many of today s teachers feel pulled in two different directions: on the one hand they are urged to teach content in a broader and deeper way as

measured by standardized tests; on the other hand they are urged to adopt student centered inquiry methods. Teachers often feel that these goals are incompatible. The strategies studied here are midway between pure discovery and lecture approaches and provide important models for teachers facing this dilemma. Six different levels of organization for teaching strategies are described, from those operating over months (design of the sequence of units in a curriculum) to those operating over minutes (teaching tactics for guiding discussion minute by minute). Contents: Introduction. 1. Student/Teacher Co-Construction Of Visualizable Models In Large Group Discussion. 2. An Instructional Model Derived From Model Construction And Criticism Theory. 3. Determining Target Models And Effective Learning Pathways For Developing Understanding Of Biological Topics. 4. Co-Construction And Model Evolution In Chemistry. 5. Target Model Sequence And Critical Learning Pathway For An Electricity Curriculum Based On Model Evolution. 6. Case Study Of Model Evolution In Electricity: Learning From Both Observations And Analogies. 7. A Competition Strategy And Other Discussion Modes For Developing Mental Models In Large Group. 8. What If Scenarios For Testing Student Models In Chemistry. 9. Applying Modeling Theory To Curriculum Development: From Electric Circuits To Electromagnetic Fields. 10. Developing Complex Mental Models In Biology Through Model Evolution. 11. Role Of Discrepant Questioning Leading To Model Element Modification. 12. Using Analogies In Science Teaching And Curriculum Design: Some Guidelines. 13. Model Based Reasoning Among Inner City Middle School Students. 14. Six Levels Of Organization For Curriculum Design And Teaching. Readers of the book would also find valuable model-related research in the special issue of Science & Education devoted to the subject of Models in Science and in Science Education , vol.16 nos.78, 2007.

(iv) Rivers, I. & Wykes, D.L. (eds.): 2008, Joseph Priestley: Scientist, Philosopher, and Theologian, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 252pp, ISBN 978-0-19-921530 This is a very welcome collection of seven informative articles, plus a 20pp Introduction by the editors. It has excellent primary and secondary bibliographical details spanning the subject matters of each chapter: Priestley s life as a minister and teacher (David Wykes), as a natural philosopher and experimentalist (W.H. Brock), as a philosopher and metaphysician (James Dybikowski), as a political philosopher and reformer (Martin Fitzpatrick), as a Dissenting critic of Anglicanism (G.M. Ditchfeld), as a secular and religious historian (Alison Kennedy), and finally as a public figure in the early years of the USA (Jenny Graham). All contributors are well-published experts in Priestley matters. Joseph Priestley (1733-1804) was a polymath whose life spanned the core years of the European Enlightenment. As with all Enlightenment figures, he was inspired by the achievements and writings of

the New Science of Bacon, Galileo, Huygens, and above all Isaac Newton. He was a person who in the particular religious, philosophical and scientific circumstances of eighteenth-century England formed a worldview that embraced ontology, epistemology, anthropology, politics, ethics and theology. Sadly, in science education Priestley is most commonly known as the disputed discoverer of oxygen; and, due largely to Thomas Kuhn s characterisation, as a dogmatic obscurantist who kept believing in discredited phlogiston long after any sensible scientist would have adopted Lavoisier s oxygen account of combustion and oxidation. But Priestley is deserving of a far better repute than this. The Rivers and Wykes anthology goes some way towards providing readers with an appreciation of the intellectual, spiritual and political depths and acumen of the man. Priestley while a student at the Dissenting Daventry Academy (Oxford and Cambridge universities were barred to Dissenters, Roman Catholics and atheists) read Newton and Locke and their major expositors, and there began developing his particular variant of the Enlightenment worldview. His was a particular Enlightenment niche: He was a devout Christian, not a Deist, but he developed a rationalist and materialist worldview which was consistently brought to bear upon his scientific and other investigations, and was in turn reinforced by these investigations. Towards the end of his life, in 1800, he wrote to Lynde Oliver saying: I rejoice to find that in you that philosophy is joined to Christianity, from which it is too much separated. With me this is a primary object, and philosophy, much as I have attended to it, only a secondary one, as my writings here [USA] as well as in Europe will show. (Schofield 1966, p.302) Priestley published over 250 books, pamphlets, and articles across the range of Theology, Church History, Natural Philosophy, Metaphysics, Politics, History of Science, Education, Grammar and Ethics. To each field he made substantial contributions that had ramifications long after his death. Priestley did not just have amazingly wide interests: he explicitly sought for coherence and intellectual unity in his scholarly, personal, religious and political activity. He was an ontological monist; rejecting all dualisms in natural philosophy, psychology and religion. He did not believe there were a multiplicity of kinds of substance in the world: recourse to imponderable fluids , including Lavoisier s caloric, to explain magnetic, electric, optical or heat phenomena was both unnecessary (as they explained nothing, and the phenomena could be explained by suitable movement of particles), and fanciful as no such entities (non-material fluids ) existed. Also there were no Forms and no Essences as postulated by Aristotelian philosophy. Additionally the world contained no souls, no minds and no spirits. In his elaboration of Hartley s psychology, Priestley wrote: when, agreeably to the dictates of reason, as well as the testimony of scripture rightly understood, we shall acquiesce in the opinion that man is an homogeneous being, and that the powers of sensation and thought belong to other arrangements of matter, the whole fabric of superstition, which had been upon the doctrine of a soul and of its separate conscious state, must fall at once. (Priestley 1790, p.83) Nor did he believe in a multiplicity of Gods; there was just one God, the creator and sustainer of the world Priestley s God was structurally more akin to that of Judaism and Islam, than the God of the Christian Nicean Creed. Thus for Priestley knowledge was not compartmentalised: his epistemology (sensationalism) related to his ontology (materialist monism), both related to his theology (Unitarianism) and to his psychology (Associationism). All the foregoing bore upon his political and social theory

(Liberalism). He was a consciously synoptic or systematic thinker: knowledge and life was a whole, whose parts had to relate consistently. Whether Priestley achieved the coherence he sought has been a matter of considerable debate, beginning with his first publications joining ontological materialism with Christian belief. Commendably he was adamant that worldviews had to be internally consistent. Faith and Reason could not be divorced; there could not be one epistemology and ontology for science and different epistemologies and ontologies for religion; there could not be one ethics for private life and a different one for politics; there could not be one anthropology for men or whites and another for women or blacks. As he often wrote: propositions could not be true in philosophy but false in theology, and vice versa. This of course was a long-held, and still current, view in the Christian Church and also in the Islamic tradition, but frequently it meant philosophy adjusting its truths to match independently arrived at, or decreed, religious truths. Priestley, in his youthful 1772 Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion, wrote: Reason, whereby we are capable of thinking, reflecting, comparing, and judging of things in nature .. should be used as well in understanding religion ..for both proceed from the same God. They cannot, therefore, be contrary to one another, but must mutually reinforce and illustrate one another. Besides, how can we distinguish one scheme of religion from another, so as to give the preference to that which is most deserving of it, but by the help of our reason and understanding. (Rutt 1817-32, vol. II, p.384) One senses that all the contributors to this anthology would agree with Frederic Harrison who in his Introduction of a nineteenth-century edition of Priestley s Scientific Correspondence, wrote that: If we choose one man as a type of the intellectual energy of the eighteenth century, we could hardly find a better than Joseph Priestley, though his was not the greatest mind of the century. His versatility, eagerness, activity, and humanity; the immense range of his curiosity in all things, physical, moral, or social; his place in science, in theology, in philosophy, and in politics; his peculiar relation to the Revolution, and the pathetic story of his unmerited sufferings, may make him the hero of the eighteenth century. (Bolton 1892, Introduction) Indeed, one contributor, William Brock, who has written many pieces on the history of science education, wrote in his acclaimed Fontana History of Chemistry that Priestley was one of the most engaging figures in the history of science (Brock 1992, p.99). This is no idle claim. The challenge for educators, especially science teachers, is to find ways in which students can be productively engaged with the life, times and achievements of Priestley whilst learning modern science. The problem is not insurmountable. All science curricula include topics on The Composition of the Atmosphere , Oxidation and Combustion , Photosynthesis and, of course, The Nature of Science . Priestley made significant contributions to all these areas, and thus should be accorded mention in their teaching. At the simplest level and suitable for the curriculum at any level is the presentation by students or teachers of a brief historical vignette concerning Priestley. At a minimal level this is designed to put a human face on chemistry and biology lessons and to indicate something of the history of the subject. Such vignettes can be tailored to the interests, sophistication and grade level of the class. Topics might include Priestley s religion, his politics, his educational theory and practice, his marriage and family life, his support of the French Revolution, his dealings with Lavoisier, his creation of soda water, his opposition to the new oxygen theory of combustion, his opposition to colonisation and the slave trade, his influence on the Founding Fathers of the USA, and so on.

Additionally vignettes might be presented on the wider scientific, political, social, religious, and intellectual circumstances of Priestley s time: the practice of religious discrimination, the intertwining of religion and state in Europe and England, the role of science in the French and English Enlightenments, the state of parliamentary government, European colonisation, the impact of the French Revolution, the social effects of embryonic capitalist production in England, the role of science in the furtherance of navigation, commerce and industry. Vignettes can take the form of individual or group essays that might be presented to the class as talks or power-point presentations. They can contribute to better understanding of scientific content, to better appreciation of the scientific tradition, to increased interest in science, to more general educational goals. A more rigorous way of bringing Priestley to the classroom is to try to wed laboratory classes to historical stories; that is, to follow along the path of experimental science; to follow in the footsteps of the masters, as one might say. While doing this, it is possible to reproduce something of the intellectual puzzles and scientific debates that originally prompted the experiments. Participation in this sort of journey can give students a much richer appreciation of the achievements, techniques, and intellectual structure of science, whilst developing their own scientific knowledge and competence. This was the approach famously taken in Conant s Harvard Case Studies in Experimental Science (Conant 1948). Chapter Two is titled The Overthrow of the Phlogiston Theory: The Chemical Revolution of 1775-1789 , while Chapter Five is titled Plants and the Atmosphere . The chapters provide historical texts, glossaries, details of experimental apparatus, and so on. In recent times Nahum Kipnis has promoted this historical-experimental approach in publications in Science & Education and elsewhere (Kipnis 1996, 1998). Another current example of this historical-investigative approach is at the University of Chester where John Cartwright has taught an elective history of science course that has a 4-6 week component on The Discovery of Oxygen. The course and its Student Guide (Cartwright 2004) are a nice example of a wider, contextual approach to the teaching and learning of chemistry. It could provide a template for a comparable course on The Discovery of Photosynthesis. Priestley s intellectual engagements were wide-ranging Chemistry, Theology, Education, Politics, History, Philosophy - it is unrealistic to think that all this can be covered in a science course. But it is not unrealistic to hope that some coordination between subject areas can be achieved in a school, or college, and thus for teachers in related fields to work together on the big picture presented by Priestley s work. Such coordination is of course almost unheard of in school systems. History, science, mathematics, music, social studies, literature, philosophy all go their own way, with barely a passing curricular nod to each other. From the students point of view, and even from the teacher s, knowledge is truly fragmented. However, well chosen themes such as The Restoration of Air that are heuristically rich, can organise a curriculum to maximise the degree to which the interdependence of knowledge becomes more transparent. It may be, minimally, a matter of looking at existing independently generated curricula and simply pulling the related parts together and arranging for some coordination and cross-referencing. But it can be more than this. A praiseworthy example, and potential model, of coordination between disciplines occurs at the Oberstufen Kolleg of the University of Bielefeld, Germany. The college utilises a HistoricalGenetical Approach to Science Teaching . At the Oberstufen Kolleg:
there is attention given to the historical, social and philosophical dimension of science. Frequently, historical examples are presented in a rather anecdotal fashion in courses of science, in order to motivate students for the real thing , the scientific content. History and philosophy are

merely instrumentalised and serve to sell the product . Our intention differs: we consider the historical and philosophical dimension to be an essential part of science and of instruction in science, that aims to present science in a social and historical context. (Misgeld, Ohly & Strobl 2000)

Selections from the range of Priestley s work on photosynthesis, on methodology, on philosophy, and theology, would make excellent material for such cooperative endeavours. All the chapters in this anthology, Joseph Priestley: Scientist, Philosopher, and Theologian, provide rich material for school and university teachers, and they constitute simply a good read for anyone interested in the unfolding dynamic of the European Enlightenment, especially the fascinating complex of science and religion in the period. Hopefully the anthology will go some little way to restoring the intellectual reputation of a richly deserving figure whose arguments for experimentalism, the application of scientific method in the investigation of the natural, mental and social worlds, open-mindedness, personal liberty, religious freedom, and public debate unfettered by either Church or State, are as relevant today as they were over two hundred years ago when Priestley advanced them.

References Bolton, H.C. (ed.): 1892, Scientific Correspondence of Joseph Priestley, New York. Cartwright, J.: 2004, The Discovery of Oxygen: Student Guide, Department of Chemistry, University of Chester. Conant, J.B. (ed.): 1948, Harvard Case Histories in Experimental Science, 2 vols., Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Kipnis, N.: 1996, The Historical-Investigative Approach to Teaching Science , Science & Education 5(3), 277-292. Kipnis, N.: 1998, A History of Science Approach to the Nature of Science: Learning Science by Rediscovering It . In W.F. McComas (ed.) The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 177-196. Misgeld, W., Ohly, K.P. & Strobl, G.: 2000, The Historical-Genetical Approach to Science Teaching at the Oberstufen-Kolleg , Science & Education 9(4), 333-341. Priestley, J.: 1790, Introductory Essays to Hartley s Theory of Mind. In Rutt 1817-31, vol.III. Rutt, J.T. (ed.): 1817-32, The Theological and Miscellaneous Works of Joseph Priestley. 25 vols., London. (Kraus Reprint, New York, 1972) Schofield, R.E. (ed.): 1966, A Scientific Autobiography of Joseph Priestley (1733-1804): Selected Scientific Correspondence, MIT Press, Cambridge. [Michael R. Matthews, School of Education, UNSW, Sydney, Australia] (v) Andre K.T. Assis, Archimedes, the Center of Gravity, and the First Law of Mechanics, Apeiron, Montreal, 2008. 187 pages, ISBN: 978-0-9732911-6-2, US$ 20.00. The book is available in PDF format (2 Mb) at: http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Archimedes.pdf

This book is written for students and teachers of science, physics, and mathematics. It can be utilized in high schools or universities, depending on the level at which each aspect is analyzed and explored. The book presents the basic phenomena of mechanics through simple experiments performed with inexpensive materials. The fundamental experiments on falling bodies, equilibrium and oscillations around equilibrium positions are thus presented. It is shown how the theoretical concepts are formed and modified during this process, just as occurred in the formulation of the basic laws of mechanics. Although describing simple phenomena and experimental set-ups, the book deals with the most fundamental aspects of physics.

The book describes the main events in the life of Archimedes and the content of his works. It goes on to discuss a large number of experiments relating to equilibrium of suspended bodies under the influence of Earth s gravitational force. All experiments are clearly described and performed with simple, inexpensive materials. These experiments lead to a clear conceptual definition of the center of gravity of material bodies and illustrate practical procedures for locating it precisely. The conditions of stable, neutral, and unstable equilibrium are analyzed. Many equilibrium toys and games are described and explained. The book is rich in historical information, which gives the context in which some laws were discovered, and also different approaches taken in discovering them. It is careful about in formulating concepts and physical principles. It shows, for example, how difficult is to find the correct words to precisely define the center of gravity so that this concept can encompass a whole series of experiments. The text distinguishes clearly between definitions, postulates, experimental results, and physical laws. It also distinguishes explanations from descriptions of phenomena. These aspects illustrate the sociological and human aspects of the formulation of physical laws. The book also explains how to build and calibrate precise balances and levers. Several experiments are performed leading to a mathematical definition of the center of gravity and the first law of mechanics, also called the law of the lever. Consequences of this law and different explanations of it are described at the end of the book, together with an exhaustive analysis of the works of Euclid and Archimedes. [Andre Koch Torres Assis was born in Brazil and educated at the State University of Campinas UNICAMP, BS (1983), PhD (1987). He spent the academic year of 1988 in England with a postdoctoral position at the Culham Laboratory (United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority). He spent one year in 1991-92 as a Visiting Scholar at the Center for Electromagnetics Research of Northeastern University (Boston, USA). From August 2001 to November 2002 he worked at the Institute for the History of Natural Sciences, Hamburg University (Hamburg, Germany) with a research fellowship awarded by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation of Germany. He is the

author of Weber s Electrodynamics (1994), Relational Mechanics (1999), Inductance and Force Calculations in Electrical Circuits (with M. A. Bueno, 2001), and The Electric Force of a Current (with J. A. Hernandes, 2007). He has been professor of physics at UNICAMP since 1989, working with the foundations of electromagnetism, gravitation, and cosmology.]

(vi) Ruse, M.: 2008, Charles Darwin, Blackwell, Oxford. 338pp, ISBN978-1-4051-4913-6 This book appears in the Blackwell Great Minds series after others on Kant, Augustine, Descartes and with books on Plato, Spinoza, Wittgenstein, Hobbes and Locke scheduled to appear in the near future. Everyone else is a philosopher, so one might ask why is Darwin, a scientist, in the same series?

Michael Ruse provides a lucid, detailed and informative answer to this question: Darwin was one of the greatest scientists, but he was also a person with life-long philosophical interests, who wrote on philosophical topics and whose science has had enormous philosophical and cultural influence. That great scientists were also philosophers, and that their science had philosophical impact, is a case that should not need to be made. For instance, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Huygens and Descartes all contributed to science and to philosophy (Matthews 1989). Nearly all of the significant physicists of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries contributed directly to both fields, and their scientific work had immediate and lasting impact on questions of epistemology, ontology and metaphysics with which philosophers engage. Just some examples are: Boltzmann (1905/1974), Helmholtz (1995), Mach (1883/1960), Planck (1932), Eddington (1939), Jeans (1943/1981), and Heisenberg (1962). Chemists and biologists also contributed to this genre of scientific philosophy or philosophical science (Haldane 1928). Serious philosophers simply could not discuss questions of Creation, Design, Teleology, Vitalism, Mechanism, Determinism, Knowledge, Free Will, Theism, Soul, or Ethics without recourse to what contemporary scientists were arguing in the relevant fields. John Randall in three volume history of philosophy states the obvious: From this sketch it will be apparent that modern philosophy is here seen as primarily the response to challenging new scientific ideas to Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Freud, Franz Boas and the like. During the modern period, it has been chiefly science that has driven men to the searching thought that is philosophy. This is true even of those philosophers who have tried to escape from science like the romantic idealists and the present-day existentialists (Randall 1962, p.viii). A great pity for science education is that for the most part, the science taught is cut off from its rich philosophical context, and thus the education of science students is diminished. The work of the International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Group, and research published in Science & Education constitutes small attempts to rectify this deficiency. Some of the arguments for a more

philosophically sensitive and informed approach to science teaching are canvassed in Matthews (1994). Michael Ruse in this particular book makes a very clear case for the importance of Darwin as a philosopher, and for the significant impact of Darwin and Darwinism on philosophical discussion. This is a case he has been arguing in different publications for nearly forty years (Ruse 1973, 1989, 2004). As he writes of this book that it is written for those who want to know about [Darwin] and his work and their connections with, and implications for, philosophy (p.x). Given this purpose, Ruse concentrates his exposition of Darwin on just two works, Origin of Species and Descent of Man. After chapters that give a clear exposition of Darwin s science, he has separate chapters on human origins, epistemology, morality and religious belief. Concerning the latter, Ruse concludes that My own suspicion is that one can (if one wants) be both a Darwinian and a Christian (p.264). Science teachers will find much of value in this work; it should assist them in having classrooms where the rich philosophical and cultural import of science is apparent to students. References Boltzmann, L.: 1905/1974, Theoretical Physics and Philosophical Problems, Reidel, Dordrecht. Eddington, A.: 1939, The Philosophy of Physical Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Haldane, J.S.: 1928, The Sciences and Philosophy, Hodder & Stoughton, London. Heisenberg, W.: 1962, Physics and Philosophy, Harper & Row, New York. Helmholtz, H. von: 1995, Science and Culture: Popular and Philosophical Essays, (edited with Introduction by David Cahan) Chicago University Press, Chicago. Jeans, J.: 1943/1981, Physics and Philosophy, Dover Publications, New York. Mach, E.: 1883/1960, The Science of Mechanics, Open Court Publishing Company, LaSalle Il. Matthews, M.R. (ed.): 1989, The Scientific Background to Modern Philosophy, Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis. Matthews, M.R.: 1994, Science Teaching: The Role of History and Philosophy of Science, Routledge, New York. Planck, M.: 1932, Where is Science Going?, W.W. Norton, New York. Randall, J.H.: 1962, The Career of Philosophy, Columbia University Press, New York. Ruse , M.: 1973, The Philosophy of Biology, Hutchinson & Co., London. Ruse, M.: 1989, The Darwinian Paradigm. Essays on its History, Philosophy, and Religious Implications, Routledge, London. Ruse, M.: 2004, Can a Darwinian be a Christian? The Relationship between Science and Religion, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

[Michael R. Matthews, School of Education, UNSW, Australia]

All newsletter readers are invited to submit Book Notes. They should follow the format and style as used in this newsletter, and be sent as attachments to the editor. This basically means providing full bibliographic details, some brief account of the content of the book in 3-5 paragraphs, and ideally a scanned file of its cover. Longer reviews are also welcome The Book Notes are a way of bringing good and relevant books on history and philosophy of science, sociology of science, philosophy of education to the attention of the large group of scholars interested in the utilisation of these fields of study in addressing theoretical, curricular and pedagogical issues in science and mathematics education.

15.

Current Research

Apart from contributions to Science & Education the following are some papers published in recent years that bear upon the research concerns of the IHPST Group. Suggestions for up-dating this list should be sent to the Editor at [email protected] Niaz, M.: 2007, Can Findings of Qualitative Research in Education be Generalized? , Quality and Quantity: International Journal of Methodology 41, 429-445. Niaz, M.: 2008, Whither constructivism? --- A chemistry teachers perspective , Teaching and Teacher Education 24, 400-416. Niaz, M. : 2008, What ideas-about-science should be taught in school science? A chemistry teachers perspective , Instructional Science 36, 233-249. Niaz, M., & Fernández, R.: 2008, Understanding quantum numbers in general chemistry textbooks , International Journal of Science Education 30, 869-901. Costu, B., Ayas, A., Niaz, M., Ünal, S., & Calik, M.: 2007, Facilitating conceptual change in students understanding of boiling concept , Journal of Science Education and Technology 16, 524-536. Carson, R. & Rowlands, S.:2007, Strategies for Affecting the Necessary Course of Cognitive Growth as an Integral Part of Curricular and Instructional Planning , Interchange 38(2). Schulz, R. M.: 2007, 'Lyotard, Postmodernism and Science Education. A Rejoinder to Zembylas', Educational Philosophy and Theory, 39(6), 633-656. El-Hani, C. N. & Mortimer, E. F.:2007, Multicultural Education, Pragmatism, and the Goals of Science Teaching , Cultural Studies of Science Education 2(3): 657-687. El-Hani, C. N.:2007, Between the Cross and the Sword: The Crisis of the Gene Concept. Genetics and Molecular Biology30(2), 297-307. Ford, M.:2008, Disciplinary Authority and Accountability in Scientific Practice and Learning , Science Education 92, 404-423. Rowlands, S.: 2008, The crisis in science education and the need to enculturate all learners in science . In C.L. Petroselli (ed) Science Education: Issues and Developments. New York; Nova. El-Hani, C.N. & Bandeira, F.P.S.F.: 2008,. Valuing Indigenous Knowledge: To call it "Science" will not help. Cultural Studies of Science Education 3(3): 751-779. DOI: 10.1007/s11422008-9129-6 Slezak, P.: 2007, Is Cognitive Science Relevant to Teaching? Journal of Cognitive Science 8, 171208. The following books have recently been published by group members: Maria Rentetzi: 2007, Trafficking Materials and Gendered Experimental Practices: Radium Research in Early 20th Century Vienna, Columbia University Press, New York. Andre Koch Torres Assis & Julio Akashi Hernandes: 2007, The Electric Force of a Current. Weber and the Surface Charges of Resistive Conductors Carrying Steady Currents, Apeiron Books, Montreal. [This book is also available as a pdf file from: http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis ] Kalman, C.S.: 2007, Successful Science and Engineering Teaching in Colleges and Universities, Anker Publishing Company, Boston Andre Koch Torres Assis: 2008, Archimedes, the Center of Gravity, and the First Law of Mechanics, Apeiron Books, Montreal. [This book is also available as a pdf file from: http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis ] Niaz, M.: 2008, Teaching general chemistry: A history and philosophy of science approach, Nova Science Publishers, New York.

Forge, J.: 2008, The Responsible Scientist: A Philosophical Inquiry, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh. The September issue of School Science Review contains five articles on How Science Works which is the name of one component of the UK National Science Curriculum that deals with the history, philosophy and sociology of science.

16.

Publications for Sale

The following publications can be ordered from the IHPST Group at www.ihpst.org : #1 CD Proceedings of the 6th IHPST Conference, Denver, 2001, 100 papers, W. McComas (ed.), USD10. #2 CD Proceedings of the 7th IHPST Conference, Winnipeg, 2003, 100+ papers, D. Metz (ed.), USD10. #3 Science Education and Culture, F. Bevilacqua, E. Giannetto & M.R. Matthews (eds.), Kluwer, 2001, 362pp, USD20. #4 Science & Education journal Volume 2, 1993, 382pp, USD10. #6 Science & Education journal Volume 12, 2003, 808 pps, USD20. #7 Science & Education journal Volume 13, 2004, 840 pps, USD10. #8 The Pendulum: Scientific, Historical, Philosophical & Educational Perspectives (Michael R. Matthews, Colin Gauld & Arthur Stinner (eds.), Springer, 2005, USD20

17.

Coming Conferences

November 28-29, 2008, Athens, Educational Aspects of the History of Scientific Instruments . A conference of the Teaching Commission of the Division of the History of Science and Technology. Details from Professor Costas Skordoulis, [email protected]; March 5-7, 2009, Models and Simulations, Third Conference, Charlottesville, Virginia Details at: http://people.virginia.edu/~pwh2a/MS3.htm March 19-22, 2009, Philosophy of Education Society (USA), annual conference, Montreal Details at: http://philosophyofeducation.org/ April 3-5, 2009, Philosophy of Education Society (Great Britain), annual conference, Oxford Details at: www.philosophy-of-education.org April 17-21, 2009, National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) annual conference, Anaheim, California. The conference includes a strand on History, Philosophy and Science Teaching . Details at: http://www.narst.org/ June 11-14, 2009, Fifth Greek Conference for History, Philosophy & Teaching of the Natural Sciences, University of Cyprus Details at: www.ucy.ac.cy/htp2009 June 24-28, 2009. Tenth IHPST Conference, Notre Dame University, Notre Dame, IN Details at: [email protected], and www.nd.edu/~ihpst09 July 12-16, 2009, Biennial Meeting of the International Society for the History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Biology, Brisbane, Australia Details at: www.ishpssb.org July 28- August 2, 2009, XXIII International Congress of History of Science and Technology, Budapest. Details at: http://www.conferences.hu/ichs09/

August 31-September 4, 2009. ESERA Conference, Istanbul Turkey. Details at: http://www.earli2009.org/ October 21-24, 2009, Second European Philosophy of Science Association Conf., Amsterdam Details at: www.epsa09.org June 24-27, 2010, History of Philosophy of Science Society (HOPOS) Conference, Budapest Details at: http://www.hopos2010.ceu.hu http://www.hopos2010.ceu.hu/

18.

IHPST Executive

After twenty years of very productive, but informal existence, the IHPST Group has held its first elections. The following members were elected to the indicated positions on the Council: President: Past-president: President Elect: Secretary: Treasurer: Council Members: Michael Matthews ([email protected]) William McComas ([email protected]) David Rudge ([email protected]) Pierre Boulos ([email protected]) Robert Carson ([email protected]) Peter Heering ([email protected]) Fanny Seroglou ([email protected]) Student Member: Roland Schulz ([email protected]) Programme Officer: Don Howard ([email protected]) Members of the Nominating Committee: Elisabeth Cavicchi Ismo Koponen Igal Galili Mark Lattery ([email protected]) ([email protected]) ([email protected]) ([email protected])

19.

IHPST Graduate Students

The IHPST Group is keen to facilitate the research and scholarship of graduate students in the fields of Nature of Science studies, and Historical, Philosophical and Sociological studies and their utilisation in pedagogical and theoretical issues facing science teachers and curriculum writers. One idea that has emerged out of Council discussion is to create a register of such students that would list their names, contact details, and thesis area or topic. This might be placed on the IHPST web site and progressively up-dated for each student as they progress through their studies. Where completed theses are required to be placed in public domain on the web, such retail would finally be given. Such a register would enable students to make contact with each other; see who is doing comparable research; perhaps share results of literature searches; perhaps share drafts of work in progress; and perhaps be put in direct contact with more senior IHPST members who could add to local supervisor s comments on the project. The IHPST Council Student Member, Roland Schulz ([email protected]), has agreed to oversee this project. Thus beginning graduate students through to nearly-finishing students, are invited in the first instance to email Roland so as to commence this new initiative.

20.

IHPST Email List

The email list is used sparingly, perhaps once a month, to send group information such as contained in this Newsletter. It is a closed list, not an open discussion list. If you receive this email message and wish to remove yourself from the IHPST list, send a message to: [email protected] . In the body of the message, not the subject line, simply write: unsubscribe ihpst-group . Alternatively, if you have friends, colleagues or students who would like to subscribe to the list, tell them to send a message to: [email protected] . In the body of the message, not the subject line, simply write: subscribe ihpst-group .

21.

Newsletter Items

This IHPST Electronic Newsletter goes to 1,500 email addresses on the IHPST list, and it is also posted to various science education, philosophy of education and HPS lists. Items for inclusion in the Newsletter are appreciated. These can be items for the Opinion , Recent Research , Recent Books , Books or Conferences sections. Please email newsletter material as an attachment (or journal subscriptions or publication orders) to the editor: [email protected]

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close