Response to Léna Soler and Sibel Erduran
Léna Soler and Sibel Erduran push me to make my ‘realism for realistic people’ even more realistic, with a focus on science education. Soler is correct that the kind of pragmatist pluralism that I advocate would not be able to take root without the reform of the highly monistic training of scientist...
שמור ב:
| מחבר ראשי: | |
|---|---|
| פורמט: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| שפה: | Français |
| יצא לאור: |
2026
|
| נושאים: | |
| גישה מקוונת: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| סיכום: | Léna Soler and Sibel Erduran push me to make my ‘realism for realistic people’ even more realistic, with a focus on science education. Soler is correct that the kind of pragmatist pluralism that I advocate would not be able to take root without the reform of the highly monistic training of scientists. However, some aspects of science education, even in physics, are actually much more pluralistic than it would seem. This plurality contributes to the success of physics education, and it should be enhanced further. Erduran sounds a note of caution about seeking to apply the (history and) philosophy of science to science education, which often meets resistance among science education researchers. I am, however, encouraged by her remarks on the potential for connecting my notion of truth-by-operational-coherence to education research, especially to aid the teaching of ‘science in the making’. It is important to distinguish descriptive research aiming to reveal prevailing attitudes and common practices, and normative work to challenge the status quo. I also agree with Erduran that the interaction between the philosophy of science and science education research should be a two-way street, each side learning important lessons from the other. |
|---|