The History and Philosophy of Science as a Guide for Teaching Empirical Sciences with Emphasis on the Later Wittgenstein's Perspective

Document Type : -

Author

Department of Theology Education, Farhangian University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

One of the main aims of this article is to examine and clarify the role of the historical approach in teaching the nature of science, emphasizing that this approach is not only a complement to the naturalistic view but also essential for a deeper understanding of science-in-the-making. The article seeks to demonstrate how the use of history and philosophy of science can enhance students’ comprehension of the nature of experimental sciences.
The research method is based on conceptual analysis, namely the evaluation of the structure of concepts related to the nature of science, combined with progressive inference. The theoretical framework draws upon the later philosophy of Wittgenstein, and three major approaches in science education literature are discussed. The consensus view focuses on general and less controversial aspects of the nature of science. The family resemblance view, inspired by Wittgenstein’s thought, presents science as a cognitive system characterized by structural similarities. The integrated view, grounded in Wittgenstein’s later philosophy, regards science not as a static structure but as a linguistic practice in formation, where meaning emerges through the use of words within specific language games.
Integrating general and particular aspects of the nature of science within this framework leads to an understanding of science as a human, historical, and interpretive activity, one whose comprehension depends on linguistic, cultural, and educational contexts. In this perspective, science-in-the-making is not merely theoretical progress but also transformation in ways of speaking, seeing, and judging.
The educational implications of the article highlight that teaching experimental sciences should adopt the integrated approach so that students perceive science not simply as a set of facts but as a historical, interpretive, and human process. Examples from the history of science underscore the role of alternative and contested interpretations of empirical data and stress the importance of scientific literacy grounded in an appreciation of the dynamic nature of science.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

باقری، خسرو (1398). در آمدی بر فلسفه تعلیم و تربیت، تهران: انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی کتیبه، جلد ،1چاپ چهارم.
برجیسیان، رسول (1385). «تأثیر ویتگنشتاین متأخر بر الهیات با تکیه بر مفهوم فضای منطقی». دانشکده ادیبات و علوم انسانی دانشگاه اصفهان، 19-43.
برجیسیان، رسول، علیرضا شواخی (1399). ویتگنشتاین و زبان دینی. اصفهان: نشر نوشته.
توسلی. (1399). «روش تحلیل مفهومی در تعیین هدفهای تربیتی از دیدگاه ریچارد پیترز: بیان و نقد»، پژوهش نامه مبانی تعلیم و تربیت.10 (1)، 59-75.
چالمرز،آلن.اف (1374). چیستی علم. ترجمه سعید زیباکلام؛ تهران: انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی.
دامپی یر (1371) تاریخ علم، ترجمه عبدالحسین آذرنگ؛ تهران: انتشارات چاپ ونشر علامه طباطبائی.
سجادی، سید هدایت (1400). «علم شناسی و آموزش علوم: چارچوبی نظری در به کارگیری تاریخ و فلسفه علم در آموزش علوم تجربی»، فصلنامه تعلیم و تربیت، 37 (2), 7-26.‎
لیاقت، سمیه و نیک نام، زهرا و باقری، سعیده (1392). «ماهیت علم و آموزش علوم تجربی: تحلیل محتوای کتاب-درسی علوم تجربی پایه سوم راهنمایی»، فصلنامه مطالعات برنامه درسی، 8 (29)، 89-116. magiran.com/p1260970.
عبداللهیان بلوچی، رضا و امانی، وحید و اولی، اسماعیل (1401). راهبردهای تدریس مؤثر و درست درآموزش علوم تجربی و تأثیر آن بریادگیری دانش آموزان، https://civilica.com/doc/1794176.
فاینمن، ریچاردفیلیپس (1396). شش قطعه آسان: مبانی فیزیک به روایت ریچارد فاینمن، مترجم: محمدرضا بهاری، تهران: شرکت نشر کتاب هرمس، مرکز تحقیقات سیاست علمی کشور.
کافی. مجید . (1402). «ماهیت پیوستاری علوم». تاریخ علم. 21 (1). 51-75.
کریمی، محمدحسن، مزیدی، محمد، و مهرمحمدی، محمود. (1386). «نقد و بررسی کتاب علوم پایه اول راهنمایی تحصیلی از منظر فلسفه علم». علوم اجتماعی و انسانی دانشگاه شیراز، 26 (3 (پیاپی 52) (ویژه نامه علوم تربیتی))، 111-136.
کلگ، برایان (1398). ماده تاریک و انرژی تاریک: 95 درصد پنهان از گیتی، ترجمه واروژان هارطون، تهران: انتشارات مازیار.
گادفری-اسمیت، پ. (1392). درآمدی بر فلسفه‌ی علم: پژوهشی در باب یک‌صد سال مناقشه بر سر چیستی علم، ترجمه نواب مقربی، تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
محمدی. حمداله و اکرادی. (1402). «تأملی معرفت‏ شناختی بر آموزش درس «علوم تجربی» با تکیه بر دیدگاه ویتگنشتاین دوم». توسعه حرفه‌ای معلم. 8 (3). 15-37.‎
ویتگنشتاین، لودویگ (1371). رساله منطقی ـ فلسفی. ترجمه میر شمس الدین ادیب سلطانی؛ تهران: انتشارات امیرکبیر.
ویتگنشتاین، لودویگ (1380). پژوهش های فلسفی. ترجمه فریدون فاطمی؛ تهران:  انتشارات نشر مرکز.
 
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). "Examining the sources for our understanding about science: Enduring conflations and critical issues in research on nature of science in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 353-374.
Ayik, Z., & Coştu, B. (2020). "A study on demonstration of the nature of science in science textbooks: History and philosophy of science perspectives". Journal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 9 (3), 451-464.
Bevilacqua, F. & Bordoni, S. (1998). "New contents for new media: Pavia project physics". Science & education, 7, 451-469.
Cantor, C. R., & Smith, C. L. (2004). Genomics: the science and technology behind the human genome project. John Wiley & Sons.‏
Chang, Y.-H., Chang, C.-Y. & Tseng, Y.-H. (2010). "Trends of science education research: An automatic content analysis". Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19, 315-331.
Daston, L. & Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.
Deng, F., Chai, C.S., Tsai, C.-C. & Lin, T.-J. (2014). "Assessing South China (Guangzhou) high school students’ views on nature of science: A validation study". Science & Education, 23, 843-863.
Duschl, R. & Grandy, R. (2013). "Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science". Science & Education, 22, 2109-2139.
Dyson, F.W., Eddington, A.S. & Davidson, C. (1920). "A determination of the deflection of light by the sun’s gravitational field, from observations made at the total eclipse of May 29, 1919". Royal Society Philosophical Transactions, 220, 291-333.
Erduran, S. (2007). "Breaking the law: Promoting domain-specificity in chemical education in the context of arguing about the periodic law". Foundations of Chemistry, 9, 247-263.
Henke, A., & Höttecke, D. (2015). Physics teachers’ challenges in using history and philosophy of science in teaching. Science & Education, 24, 349-385.
Hodson, D. (1985). "Philosophy of Science, Science and Science Education". Studies in Science Education, 12, 25-57.
Hodson, D. (1988). "Experiments in science and science teaching". Educational philosophy and theory, 20 (2), 53-66.
Hodson, D. & Wong, S.L. (2014). "From the horse’s mouth: Why scientists’ views are crucial to nature of science understanding". International Journal of Science Education, 36 (16), 2639-2665.
Holton, G. (1978). "Subelectrons, presuppositions, and the Millikan-Ehrenhaft dispute". Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 9, 161-224.
Höttecke, D., Henke, A., & Riess, F. (2012). "Implementing history and philosophy in science teaching: Strategies, methods, results and experiences from the European HIPST project". Science & Education, 21, 1233-1261.
Irzik, G. & Nola, R. (2011). "A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education". Science & Education, 20 (7-8), 591-607.
Klassen, S. (2009). "Leon Cooper’s perspective on teaching science: An interview study". Science & Education, 18 (3–4), 377–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-008-9175-1
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In: I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91-195). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lederman, N.G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present and future. In: S.K. Abell & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831-879). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lederman, N.G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L. & Schwartz, R. (2002). "Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science". Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497-521.
Machamer, P. & Wolters, G. (2004). Introduction. In P. Machamer & G. Wolters (Eds.), Science, values and objectivity (pp. 1-13). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Michelson, A.A. & Morley, E.W. (1887). "On the relative motion of the earth and the luminiferous ether". American Journal of Science, 34 (3rd series), 333-345.
Matthews, M. R. (1989). "A role for history and philosophy in science teaching". Interchange, 20 (2), 3-15.
Matthews, M.R. (2015). Science teaching: The contribution of history and philosophy of science (20th anniversary revised and expanded edition). New York: Routledge.
Millikan, R.A. (1917). The electron. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McComas, W.F., Almazroa, H., & Clough, M.P. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. Science & Education, 7, 511-532.
Niaz, M. (2001). "Understanding nature of science as progressive transitions in heuristic principles". Science Education, 85, 684-690.
Niaz, M. (2005). "An appraisal of the controversial nature of the oil drop experiment: Is closure possible?". British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 56, 681-702.
Niaz, M. (2009). Critical appraisal of physical science as a human enterprise: Dynamics of scientific progress. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Niaz, M. (2012). From ‘science in the making’ to understanding the nature of science: An overview for science educators. New York: Routledge.
Niaz, M. (2016). Chemistry education and contributions from history and philosophy of science. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Niaz, M., Klassen, S., McMillan, B. & Metz, D. (2010). "Leon Cooper’s perspective on teaching science: An interview study". Science & Education, 19, 39-54.
Niaz, M. & Rodríguez, M.A. (2001). "Do we have to introduce history and philosophy of science or is it already ‘inside’ chemistry?" Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 2, 159-164.
Niaz, M. (2018). "Evolving Nature of Objectivity in the History of Science and its Implications for Science Education". Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67726-2
Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R. & Duschl, R. (2003). "What ‘ideas-about-science’ should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community". Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 692-720.
Pray, L. (2008). "Discovery of DNA structure and function: Watson and Crick". Nature Education, 1 (1), 100.
Rutherford, E. (1911). "The scattering of alpha and beta particles by matter and the structure of the atom". Philosophical Magazine, 21, 669-688.
Schwab, J.J. (1974). The concept of the structure of a discipline. In: E.W. Eisner & E. Vallance (Eds.), Conflicting conceptions of curriculum (pp. 162-175). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corp.
Smith, M.U. & Scharmann, L.C. (1999). "Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators". Science Education, 83, 493-509.
Smith, M.U. & Scharmann, L.C. (2008). "A multi-year program developing an explicit reflective pedagogy for teaching pre-service teachers the nature of science by ostention". Science & Education, 17, 219-248.
Vesterinen, V.-M. & Aksela, M. (2013). "Design of chemistry teacher education course on nature of science". Science & Education, 22 (9), 2193-2225.
Wolpert, L. (1993). The unnatural nature of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wong, S.L. & Hodson, D. (2009). "From the horse’s mouth: What scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge". Science Education, 93, 109-130.
Journal for the History of Science
Volume 23, Issue 1 - Serial Number 38
September 2025
Pages 247-289

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics