George Reisch
Northwestern University
Stuart Glennan
Butler University
In a recent article in this journal, Brian Alters argued that, given the many ways in which the nature of science is described and poor student responses to NOS instruments such as Nature of Scientific Knowledge Scale, Nature of Science Scale, Test on Understanding Science, and others, it is time for science educators to reconsider the standard lists of tenets for the NOS. Alters suggested that philosophers of science are authorities on the NOS and that consequently, it would be wise to investigate their views of current NOS tenets. To that end, he conducted a survey of members of the Philosophy of Science Association, and, via various statistical techniques, made claims about the nature and extent of variation among philosophers of science regarding basic beliefs about the NOS. As three philosophers of science, we laud Alters’ attempt to understand philosophers of science’ view on the NOS. We believe, however, that his techniques for investigating this question are inappropriate and that consequently, several of his conclusions are unwarranted. In this comment, we will substantiate these criticisms. In addition, we will address some of the important questions that motivate Alters’ research and attempt to unravel the “byzantine complexity” of philosophical views about the NOS. We begin with our concerns regarding Alters’ research. We then provide a taxonomy of philosophic issues; and finally, we suggest some roles for philosophy of science in science teaching and the education of science teachers
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 58,981
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Thomas S. Kuhn - 1962 - Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Thomas S. Kuhn - 1962 - University of Chicago Press.
The Scientific Image.Michael Friedman - 1982 - Journal of Philosophy 79 (5):274-283.

View all 14 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

View all 25 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Philosophy of Mathematics.Christopher Pincock - 2011 - In J. Saatsi & S. French (eds.), Companion to the Philosophy of Science. Continuum. pp. 314-333.
Articulating the Aims of Science.Nicholas Maxwell - 1977 - Nature 265 (January 6):2.
Viewing Science.Ronald N. Giere - 1994 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:3 - 16.
The Philosophies of Science.Rom Harré - 1985 - Oxford University Press.
Cognitive Models in the Philosophy of Science.Ronald N. Giere - 1986 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:319 - 328.


Added to PP index

Total views
14 ( #690,857 of 2,427,412 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #339,671 of 2,427,412 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes