Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.5.0459

Law, Theory, and Principle: Confusion in the Normative Meaning and Actual Usage  

Cheong, Yong Wook (Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.34, no.5, 2014 , pp. 459-468 More about this Journal
Abstract
Educational Discourses on the nature of science(NOS) identify understanding of the role of scientific knowledge, especially the distinction between law and theory, as a crucial goal of instruction. However, the scientist community uses the terms such as law, theory, and principle without explicit definition so that the terms have no coherent meanings in their conventional language expression. The inconsistency between the norm and the reality could impose confusion on the teaching and learning. From the awareness of the problem, this study critically reviews the science education research papers and literatures on the philosophy of science which focus on the meaning of law, theory, or principle and the structure of scientific knowledge. From the examination of the science education researches, it is revealed that the disparity between the normative meanings of the law and theory by NOS researchers and actual usage of the terms is quite serious. From the review of the literatures of the philosophy of science, the necessity of the distintion of three categories: law, theory, and principle beyond the dichotomy between law and theory is brought up. By synthesizing the related literatures, we provide an outline of the characteristics of knowledges belonging to law, theory, and principle. Considering the conflict between the normative definition and the conventional language, it could be unnecessary to emphasize clear distinction on the terms as an instructional goal. Instead, the goal of instruction should focus on that there are three types of scientific knowledges of different functions and characteristics.
Keywords
law; theory; principle; structure of scientific knowledge; nature of science; philosophy of science;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 McComas, W. F. (2002a). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W. K. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education (pp. 53-70). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
2 McComas, W. F. (2002b). A thematic introduction to the nature of science: The rationale and content of a course for science educators. In W. K. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education (pp. 211-222). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
3 McComas, W. F., & Olson. J. K (2002). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In W. K. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education (pp. 40-52). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
4 Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
5 Nersessian, N. J. (1999). Model-based reasoning in conceptual change. In L. Magnani, N. Nersessian, & P. Thagard (Ed), Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery (pp. 5-22), New York, NY: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
6 Ogunniyi, M. B., & Pella, M. O. (1980). Conceptualizations of scientific concepts, laws, and theories held by Kwara state, Nigeria secondary school science teacher. Science Education, 64(5), 591-599.   DOI
7 Ryan, A. G.. & Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Students' preconceptions about epistemology of science. Science Education, 76(6), 559-580.   DOI
8 Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the cap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610-645.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2008). What scientists say: Scientists' views of nature of science and relation to science context. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 727-771.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Hodson, D. (1985). Philosophy of science, science and science education. Studies in Science Education, 12, 25-57.   DOI
11 Holloun, I. A. (2006). Modeling theory in science education. Dordrecht: Springer.
12 Kugler, C. (2002). Darwin's theory, Mendel's laws: Labels & the teaching of science. The American Biology Teacher, 64(5), 341-351.   DOI
13 Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
14 Lederman, N. G. (2004). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Ed), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 301-317). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
15 Lakatos, I. (1980). The methodology of scientific research programmes Volume 1: Philosophical papers. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
16 Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359.   DOI
17 Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwrtz, R. S. (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(6), 497-521.   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Losee, J. (2001). A historical introduction to the philosophy of science (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
19 Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. London: Routledge.
20 McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (2002). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In W. K. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education (pp. 3-39). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
21 Bell, R. L. (2004). Perusing pandora's box. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman, Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 427-446). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
22 Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23 Campbell, N. R. (1952). What is science? New York, NY: Dover Publication.
24 Giere, R. N. (2004). How models are used to represent reality. Philosophy of Science, 71, 742-752.   DOI   ScienceOn
25 Carnap, R. (1966). An introduction to the philosophy of science. New York, NY: Dover Publication.
26 Dilworth, C. (2006). The metaphysics of science: An account of modern science in terms of principles, laws and theories. Dordrecht: Springer.
27 Giere, R. N. (1994). The cognitive structure of scientific theory. Philosophy of Science, 61, 276-296.   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Gilbert, J. K., Boutler, C. J., & Elmer, R. (2000). Positioning models in science education and in design and technology education. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boutler (Ed.), Developing models in science education (pp. 3-19). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
29 Hanson, N. R. (1965). Patterns of discovery: an inquiry into the conceptual foundations of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30 Harre, R. (1970). The principles of scientific thinking. London: Macmillan.
31 Harre, R. (1972). The philosophies of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32 Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of Science. New York, NY: The Free Press.
33 Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
34 Giere, R. N. (2006). Scientific perspectivism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
35 Aikenhead, G. S., & Ryan, A. G. (1992). The development of a new instrument: "Views on Science-Technology-Society" (VOSTS), Science Education, 76(5), 477-491.   DOI
36 The Korean Association for Science Education (2005). Science Education Glossary. Seoul: Kyoyookbook.
37 Toulmin, S. (1953). The philosophy of science. London: Hutchinson.
38 Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2008). From the horse's mouth: What scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93, 109-130.
39 Poincare, H. (1905). Science and hypothesis. New York, NY: The Walter Scott Publishing.