Abstract
Scientific inquiry is both theoretical and empirical. It succeeds by bringing thought into productive harmony with the observable universe, and thus, students can attain a robust understanding of the nature of science (NOS) only by developing a balanced appreciation of both these dimensions. In this article, I examine naïve empiricism, a teaching pattern that deters understanding of NOS by attributing to observation scientific achievements that have been wrought by a partnership of thought and empirical experience. My more specific concern is the naïve empiricism promoted when teachers illustrate NOS through historical anecdotes about conflict between science and religion. Since the religious actors depicted in such accounts appear to reject evidence, these narratives lead readers to suppose that scientists draw their conclusions in exactly the opposite way, from empiricism alone. I illustrate this pattern by examining two representative treatments of the Copernican revolution. My methods are historical and critical.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Myers, J. Y., Summers, R., Brunner, J., Waight, N., Nader, W., Zeineddin, A. A., Wahbeh, N., & Belarmino, J. (2017). A longitudinal analysis of the extent and manner of representations of nature of science in U.S. high school biology and physics textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(1), 82–120.
Blackwell, R. J. (1991). Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Brooke, J. H. (1991). Science and religion: some historical perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Burke, K. (1962). A grammar of motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Carroll, W. E. (1999). Galileo and the interpretation of the Bible. Science & Education, 8, 151–187.
Costabel, P. (1983). Galileo yesterday and today. In P. C. Poupart (Ed.), Galileo Galilei: toward a resolution of 350 years of debate—1633-1983 (pp. 139–148). Pittsburg, PA: Duquesne University Press.
Dahlstrom, M. F. (2014). Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. In D. A. Scheufele (Ed.), Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111, Supplement 4: The science of science communication II. (pp.13614-13620). Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43043099. Accessed: 27-03-2018 13:32 UTC.
Dawes, G. W. (2016). Galileo and the conflict between religion and science. New York, NY: Routledge.
De Santillana, G. (1955). The crime of Galileo. New York, NY: Time.
Desmond, A. (1997). Huxley: from devil’s disciple to evolution’s high priest. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Dohrn, D. (2009). Counterfactual narrative explanation. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 67, 37–47.
Drake, S. (1980). Galileo. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Duhem, P. (1954–1959). Le système du monde: Histoire des doctrines cosmologiques de Plato à Copernicus (Vol. 1-10). Paris, FR: Librairie Scientifique Hermann.
Duhem, P. (1962). The aim and structure of physical theory. New York, NY: Atheneum.
Finocchiaro, M. A. (1989). The Galileo affair: a documentary history. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Finocchiaro, M. A. (1997). Galileo on the world systems: a new abridged translation and guide. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Fisher, W. (1987). Human communication as narration: toward a philosophy of reason, value, and action. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Gieryn, T. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48, 781–795.
Grant, E. (1984). Science in the medieval university. In J. M. Kittelson & P. J. Transue (Eds.), Rebirth, reform, and resilience: universities in transition, 1300–1700 (pp. 68–102). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
Hannam, J. (2009). God’s philosophers: how the medieval world laid the foundations of modern science. London, UK: Icon Books.
Harrison, P. (2015). The territories of science and religion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Hawking, S. (1988). A brief history of time: from the big bang to black holes. New York, NY: Bantam.
Jameson, F. (1975). Magical narratives: romance as genre. New Literary History, 7(3), 135–163.
Kampourakis, K., & McComas, W. F. (2010). Charles Darwin and evolution: illustrating human aspects of science. Science & Education, 19, 637–654.
Katz, E. (1957). The two-step flow of communication: an up-to-date report on an hypothesis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 21, 61–78.
Knight, D. (2009). The making of modern science: science, technology, medicine and modernity: 1789–1914. Cambridge, GB: Polity.
Koyré, A. (1957). From the closed world to the infinite universe. New York, NY: Harper.
Larson, E. J. (1997). Summer for the gods: the Scopes trial and America’s continuing debate over science and religion. New York, NY: Basic Books.
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.
Lessl, T. M. (1999). The Galileo legend as scientific folklore. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 85, 146–168.
Lessl, T. M. (2012). Rhetorical Darwinism: religion, evolution, and the scientific identity. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.
Lightman, B. (2007). Victorian popularizers of science: designing nature for new audiences. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lindberg, D. (2003). Galileo, the church, and the cosmos. In D. C. Lindberg & R. L. Numbers (Eds.), When science and Christianity meet (pp. 22–60). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lindberg, D. (2007). The beginnings of western science: the European scientific tradition in philosophical, religious, and institutional context, prehistory to a.d. 1450. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lucas, J. R. (1979). Wilberforce and Huxley: a legendary encounter. The Historical Journal, 22(2), 313–330.
McComas, W. F. (2002). The principle elements of the nature of science: dispelling the myths. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: strategies and rationales (pp. 53–70). New York, NY: Springer.
McDonald, C. V., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2017). Representations of nature of science in school science textbooks: a global perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.
Moore, J. (1979). The post-Darwinian controversies: a study of the protestant struggle to come to terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America, 1870–1900. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
National Academy of Sciences Staff, & Vedral, J. L. (1998). Teaching about evolution and the nature of science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Numbers, R. L. (1998). Darwin comes to America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Numbers, R. L. (2009). Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Oatley, K. (1999). Why fiction may be twice as true as fact: fiction as cognitive and emotional simulation. Review of General Psychology, 3, 101–117.
Pera, M. (1994). The discourses of science. (C. Botsford trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Quine, W. (1953). From a logical point of view. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Russo, F. (1983). Galileo and the theology of his time. In P. C. Poupart (Ed.), Galileo Galilei: toward a resolution of 350 years of debate—1633–1983 (pp. 103–124). Pittsburg, PA: Duquesne University Press.
Shea, W. R. (1986). Galileo and the church. In D. C. Lindberg & R. L. Numbers (Eds.), God and nature: historical essays on the encounter between Christianity and science (pp. 114–135). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Shea, W. R., & Davie, M. (Eds.). (2013). Galileo Galilei, selected writings. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Stafleu, M. D. (1987). Theories at work: on the structure and functioning of theories in science, in particular during the Copernican revolution. New York, NY: Lanham.
Toulmin, S., & Goodfield, J. (1961). The fabric of the heavens: the development of astronomy and dynamics. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Turner, F. M. (2010). The late Victorian conflict of science and religion as an event in nineteenth-century intellectual and cultural history. In T. Dixon, G. Cantor, & S. Pumfrey (Eds.), Science and religion: new historical perspectives (pp. 87–110). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Uebel, T. E. (1992). Overcoming logical positivism from within: the emergence of Neurath’s naturalism in the Vienna Circle’s protocol sentence debate. Amsterdam, NL: Rodopi.
Vinaty, B. (1983). Galileo and Copernicus. In P. C. Poupart (Ed.), Galileo Galilei: toward a resolution of 350 years of debate—1633-1983 (pp. 3–43). Pittsburg, PA: Duquesne University Press.
Wallace, W. (1983). Galileo and the professors of the Collegio Romano at the end of the sixteenth century. In P. C. Poupart (Ed.), Galileo Galilei: toward a resolution of 350 years of debate—1633-1983 (pp. 44–60). Pittsburg, PA: Duquesne University Press.
Westman, R. S. (1986). The Copernicans and the churches. In D. C. Lindberg & R. L. Numbers (Eds.), God and nature: historical essays on the encounter between Christianity and science (pp. 76–113). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
White, H. (1990). The content of the form: narrative, discourse and historical representation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lessl, T. Naïve Empiricism and the Nature of Science in Narratives of Conflict Between Science and Religion. Sci & Educ 27, 625–636 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-0002-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-0002-z