Pseudo-science: A meaningful context for assessing nature of science

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 329-348

  Afonso, Ana Sofia ^a   Gilbert, John K ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINHO   (Portugal)

^b UNIVERSITY OF READING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Nature of science; Pseudo science; Scientific literacy; University

Indexed keywords

EID: 77649141463     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690903055758     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers' conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665-701.
2. Aikenhead, G. (2005). Science-based occupations and the science curriculum: Concepts of evidence. Science Education, 89, 242-275.
3. Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 295-317.
4. Allchin, D. (1996). Points east and west: Acupuncture and comparative philosophy of science. Philosophy of Science, 63, S107-S115.
5. Astin, J. A. (1998). Why patients use alternative medicine: Results of a national study. Journal of American Medical Association, 279(19), 1548-1553.
6. Bell, R. L. (2004). Perusing pandora's box: Exploring the what, when, and how of nature of science instruction. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 427-446). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
7. Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students' understanding of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 497-509.
8. Blackmore, S. J. (1997). Probability misjudgement and belief in the paranormal. A newspaper survey. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 683-689.
9. Brown, B. A., Reveles, J. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2005). Scientific literacy and discursive identity: A theoretical framework for understanding science learning. Science Education, 89, 779-802.
10. Bybee, R. W. (2004). Scientific inquiry and science teaching. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 1-14). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
11. Carvalho, J. M. (2006). Prospecção e pesquisa de recursos hídricos subterrâneos no maciço antigo português: linhas metodológicas [Identification and exploration of groundwater resources in northern and central Portugal: methodological guidelines]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Aveiro, Portugal.
12. DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meaning and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 582-601.
13. Deming, D. (2002). Water witching and dowsing. Ground Water, 40, 450-452.
14. Derksen, A. A. (1993). The seven sins of pseudo-science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 24, 17-42.
15. Dragnall, N., Parker, A., & Munley, G. (2007). Paranormal belief and reasoning. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1406-1415.
16. Enright, J. T. (1995). Water dowsing: The Scheunen experiments. Naturwissenschaften, 82, 360-369.
17. Erickson, F. (1998). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1115-1173). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
18. Foulkes, R. A. (1971). Dowsing experiments. Nature, 229, 163-168.
19. Gieryn, T. F. (1995). Boundaries of science. In S. S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 393-443). London: Sage.
20. Glicksohn, J. (1990). Belief in the paranormal and subjective paranormal experience. Personality and Individual Difference, 11, 675-683.
21. Gott, R., Duggan, S., & Johnson, P. (1999). What do practising applied scientists do and what are the implications for science education? Research in Science & Technology Education, 17, 97-107.
22. Hacking, I. (1981). Lakatos's philosophy of science. In I. Hacking (Ed.), Scientific revolutions (pp. 128-143). Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
23. Howari, F. M., Sherif, M. M., Singh, V. P., & Al Asam, M. S. (2007). Applications of GIS and remote sensing techniques in identification, assessment and development of groundwater resources. In M. Thangarajan (Ed.), Groundwater: Resource evaluation, augmentation, contamination, restoration, modelling and management (pp. 1-25). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
24. Ibrahm, B., Buffler, A., & Lubben, F. (2009). Profiles of freshman physics students' views on the NOS. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 248-264.
25. Jones, J. P. (2002). Ultrasonic acupuncture and the correlation between acupuncture stimulation and the activation of associated brain cortices using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 22, 362-370.
26. Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.
27. Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 551-578.
28. Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 395-418.
29. Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. G. (2007). Relationship between instructional context and views of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 939-961.
30. Kirsch, R. (2006). Groundwater geophysics: A tool for hydrogeology. Berlin: Springer.
31. Laudan, L. (1981). A problem-solving approach to scientific progress. In I. Hacking (Ed.), Scientific revolutions (pp. 144-155). Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
32. 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, 331-359.
33. 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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
34. Lugg, A. (1995). Pseudo-science as structurally flawed practice: A reply to A. A. Derksen. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 26, 323-326.
35. Matthews, M. R. (1998). In defense of modest goals when teaching about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 161-174.
36. Marks, D. F. (1986). Investigating the paranormal. Nature, 320, 119-124.
37. Martin, M. (1971). The use of pseudo-science in science education. Science Education, 55, 53-56.
38. Menon, U. (2000). Analysing emotions as cultural constructed scripts. Culture & Psychology, 6, 40-50.
39. National Science Foundation (NSF). (2006). Science and engineering indicators 2006. Retrieved on September 6, 2007, from: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/pdf/C07.pdf.
40. Newstead, S. E., Pollard, P., Evans, J., & Allen, J. L. (1992). The source of belief bias effects in syllogistic reasoning. Cognition, 45, 257-284.
41. 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(7), 692-720.
42. Palmer, B., & Marra, R. M. (2004). College student epistemological perspectives across knowledge domains: A proposed grounded theory. Higher Education, 47, 311-335.
43. Patra, K. C. (2001). Hydrology and water resources engineering. Pangbourne: Alpha Science International.
44. Pettersen, S., & Olsen, R. V. (2007). Exploring predictors of health sciences students' attitudes towards complementary-alternative medicine. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 12, 35-53.
45. Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167-199.
46. Popper, K. (1998). Science: Conjectures and refutations. In E. D. Klemke, R. Hollinger, D. W. Rudge, & A. D. Kline (Eds.), Introductory readings in the philosophy of science (pp. 38-47). New York: Prometheus Books. (Original work published 1953.)
47. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gerzog, W. A. (1982). Accomodation of a scientific conception: Towards a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.
48. Reisch, G. A. (1998). Pluralism, logical empiricism, and the problem of pseudo-science. Philosophy of Science, 65, 333-348.
49. Rohatgi, V. K. (2001). An introduction to probability theory and mathematical statistics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
50. Ryder, J., Leach, J., & Driver, R. (1999). Undergraduate science students' images of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 201-219.
51. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bringing the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610-645.
52. Shermer, M. (1997). Why people believe weird things: Pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
53. Sjölund, B. H. (2005). Acupuncture or acupuncture? International Association for the Study of Pain, 114, 311-312.
54. Solomon, J., Duveen, J., Scot, L., & McCarthy, S. (1992). Teaching about the nature of science through history: Action research in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 409-421.
55. Steinle, F. (1997). Entering new fields: Exploratory uses of experimentation. Philosophy of Science, 64, S65-S74.
56. Thagard, P. (1993). Computational philosophy of science. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
57. The Times. (2007, October 31). Schott's almanac of belief. The Times, p. 9.
58. Thoermer, C., & Sodian, B. (2002). Science undergraduates' and graduates' epistemologies of science: The notion of interpretive frameworks. New Ideas in Psychology, 20, 263-283.
59. Thompson, V. A. (1996). Reasoning from false premises: The role of soundness in making logical deductions. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50, 315-319.
60. Torrens, D., & Thompson, V. A. (1999). Individual differences and the belief bias effect: Mental models, logical necessity, and abstract reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 5(1), 1-28.
61. van Rillaer, J. (1991). Strategies of dissimulation in the pseudosciences. New Ideas in Psychology, 9, 235-244.
62. Walker, W. R., Hoekstra, S. J., & Vogl, R. (2002). Science education is no guarantee of skepticim. Skeptical Inquirer, 9(3), 24-27.
63. Yaramanci, U., & Hertrich, M. (2006). Magnetic resonance sounding. In R. Kirsch (Ed.), Groundwater geophysics: A tool for hydrogeology (pp. 253-271). Berlin: Springer.