From: Karen Kalumuck (karenk@exploratorium.edu)
Date: Tue Nov 30 2004 - 17:30:36 PST
Message-Id: <p05010407bdd2ca6ce56f@[192.168.111.246]> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:30:36 -0800 From: Karen Kalumuck <karenk@exploratorium.edu> Subject: Re: pinhole Evolutionary Law?
Hi Raleigh!
I was just at NABT a few weeks ago in Chicago, and heard a wonderful
talk from a former hs teacher turned education researcher and expert
in Evolution. His name is Bill McComas and he's faculty at USC. His
talk at NABT, "Philosophy of Biology, Implications and Challenges for
Biology" is available as pdf at:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/science-edu/ At the same site you
can also download a peer reviewed and published paper of his, "A
Textbook Case of the Nature of Science: Laws and Theories in the
Science of Biology. Both of these address the questions you've
raised.
I'll keep this brief while trying to give a taste for the talk.
First, laws and theories are often confused with their every-day
meanings (as we all know). And the vast majority of textbooks
nowhere define a Law. Basically, a Law is a generalization,
principle or relationship that deals in instances, not explanations-
ex. principle of evolution. As you've noted,theories are
explanations of the "law" -- the mechanism if you will (e.g. theory
of natural selection). As such Evolution well qualifies for the
"law" category -- organisms (that is, species) change over time
(sticking with the biological here). It becomes a confusing matter
of the terminology ascribed by textbooks and by our non-scientific
language.
"Hypothesis" when accurately used, would not be used in classroom
science explorations. It implies a huge amount of prior knowledge
and initial observation/experimentation, far beyond the scope of the
classroom. A more accurate term to use in place of "hypothesis" is
"prediction".
In the scientific research context, an hypothesis can potentially
move in two different directions, depending on it's nature; it could
move toward an "explanatory hypothesis" which after much more work,
testing and retesting and debate by the scientific community, could
become a "theory" such as natural selection. Or the research could
move toward a "generalizing hypothesis" which might ultimately lead
to a "law" such as Evolution.
Some things are considered essential for laws: one is
generalize-ability, and a second is "universality" (but not all
scientists believe that this is critical, since it's impossible to
consider every case everywhere in the universe. Evolution qualifies
as a law (a principle that is generalizeable) and Natural Selection
is an explanatory mechanism (theory).
It's always important to note that one can never prove anything
"true" in science; we can only prove things to be "untrue". Of
course we always hope that we are getting closer to "the truth" in
science.
I hope this has given you more food for thought!
Hoping that my hand survives your firm handshake,
---Karen
-- Karen E. Kalumuck, Ph.D. Biologist/Educator Exploratorium Teacher Institute 3601 Lyon St. San Francisco, CA 94123 415-561-0388 FAX 415-561-0307
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Mon Aug 01 2005 - 16:06:45 PDT