DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Possible Scientific Inquiry Model based on Hypothetico-Deduction Method Involving Abduction

  • Oh, Jun-Young (Hanyang University)
  • Received : 2012.02.28
  • Accepted : 2012.04.05
  • Published : 2012.06.30

Abstract

The aims of this study are to investigate two main problems for the hypothetico-deduction method and to develop a scientific inquiry model to resolve these problems. The structure of this scientific inquiry model consists of accounts of the context of discovery and justification that the hypothetico-deduction holds as two main problems : 1) the heuristic flaw in the hypothetico-deduction method is that there is no limit to creating hypotheses to explain natural phenomena; 2) Logically, this brings into question affirming the consequent and modus tollens. The features of the model are as follows: first, the generation of hypotheses using an analogical abduction and the selection of hypotheses using consilience and simplicity; second, the expansion phase as resolution for the fallacy of affirming the consequent and the recycle phase as resolution for modus tollens involving auxiliary hypotheses. Finally, we examine the establishment process of Copernicus's Heliocentric Hypothesis and the main role of the history of science for the historical invalidity of this scientific inquiry model based on three examples of If/and/then type of explanation testing suggested by Lawson (International journal of science and Mathematics Education, 2005a, 3(1): 1-5) We claim that this hypotheticho-deduction process involving abduction approach produced favorable in scientific literacy rising for science teacher as well as students.

Keywords

scientific inquiry model;hypothetico-deduction method;analogical abduction;simplicity;affirming the consequent;modus tollens;Copernicus's Heliocentric Hypothesis;If/and/then type of explanation testing

Acknowledgement

Supported by : National Research Foundation of Korea

References

  1. Ad-El-khalick, F. (1999). The Influence of History of Science Courses on Students' Conceptions of the Nature of Science. Unpublished doctorial dissertation, Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University.
  2. Bentley, M., Ebert, C., & Ebert, E. (2000). The natural investigator: A constructivist approach to teaching elementary and middle school. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
  3. Chalmers, A. F. (1982). What is this thing called science? (2nd ed.). Miton Keynes: Open University Press.
  4. Chalmers, A. F. (1999). What is this thing called science? (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
  5. Bybee, R. W., Powell, J. C., & Trowbridge, L. W. (2008). Teaching secondary school science: Strategies for developing scientific literacy (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Meririll.
  6. Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research and applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  7. Hestenes, D. (1992). Modeling games in a Newtonian world, American Journal of Physics, 55, 440-454.
  8. Hanson, N. R. (1961a). Patterns of discovery, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Hanson, N. R. (1961b). Is there a logic of scientific discovery? In Feigl, H. & Maxwell, G. (Eds.), Current Issues in the Philosophy of Science. New York: Holt Reinhart and Winston.
  10. Hempel, C. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  11. Holyoak, K. J. (2005). Analogy. In Holyoak, K.J. & Morrison, R. G. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 117 142). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  12. Kapitan, T. A. (1997). Peirce and the structure of Abductive Inference, In N. Hauser, D.D.Robwetts and J. van Evra (eds.), Studies in the logic of Charles Sanders Peirce (pp. 477-496), Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolipolis.
  13. Kleiner, S. A. (1993). The logic of discovery: A theory of the rationality of scientific research. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  14. Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated version nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 395-418. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20137
  15. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  16. Lawson, A. E. (1993). Deductive reasoning, brain maturation, and science concept acquisition: Are they linked? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(9), 1029-1051. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300904
  17. Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
  18. Lawson, A. E. (1999). What should students learn about the nature of science and how should we teach it? Journal of College Science Teaching, 28, 401-411.
  19. Lawson, A. E. (2000). How do humans acquire knowledge? And what does that imply about the nature of knowledge? Science & Education, 9, 577-598. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008756715517
  20. Lawson, A. E. (2005a). CONDUCTING HIGH QUALITY EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH. International journal of science and mathematics education, 3(1), 1-5 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-004-8367-7
  21. Lawson, A. E. (2005b). What is the role of induction and deduction in reasoning and scientific inquiry?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 716-740. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20067
  22. Lawson, A. E. (2010). Basic inferences of scientific reasoning, argumentation, and discovery. Science Education, 94, 336-364.
  23. Lawson, D. I., & Lawson, A. E. (1993). Neural principles of memory and a neural theory of analogical insight. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1327-1348. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660301012
  24. Lawson, A. E., & Worsnop, W. (1992). Learning about evolution and rejecting a belief in special creation: effects of reflective reasoning skill, prior knowledge, prior beliefs and religious commitment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 143-166. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290205
  25. Metzler, M. (2005). Instructional models for physical education. In Smith P.A. (Ed.), Massachusetts: A Person Education Company.
  26. Lee B. J. (1995). The problems of scientific methodology and rationality. Vol. 1, 89-116.
  27. Magnani, L. (2001). Abduction, reason, and science: Processes of discovery and explanation. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
  28. Newth, E. (2006). Jaktwen pa sannheten, Gyldendal Agency (Trans. Min-Yong Lee, (2006), Easy and Interesting History of Science, Eclio (Seoul)).
  29. Noh, T. & Scharmann, L. C. (1997). Instructional influence of a molecular-level pictorial presentation of matter on students, conceptions and problem-solving ability. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 199-217. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199702)34:2<199::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-O
  30. Oh, J.-Y. (2012). Understanding Scientific Inference In The Natural Sciences Based On Abductive Inference Strategies. In L. Magnani and P. Li (Eds.), Philosophy and Cognitive Science: Western & Eastern Studies (Sapere 2), (pp. 221-237). New York: Springer-Verlag.
  31. Oh, J.-Y. (2011). USING AN ENHANCED CONFLICT MAP IN THE CLASSROOM (PHOTOELECTRIC EFFECT) BASED ON LAKATOSIAN HEURISTIC PRINCIPLE STRATEGIES. International journal of science and mathematics education, 9(5), 1135-1166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9252-1
  32. Oh, J.-Y. (2011). Debate for the Nature of Science and Education (pp.135-140), Proceeding of the 2011 Regular Meeting of the Korean Philosophy of Science Society.
  33. Oh, J.-Y. (2010). Defending problems with Peirce's concept of abduction. Journal of Korean Philosophical Society, 113, 215-255.
  34. Oh, J.-Y. (2007). Proposing enhanced Hypothetico-deductive Program of a scientific inquiry process. Sungkyunkwan University Humanities Research Institute, Humanities Science, 39, 215-242.
  35. Parkinson, J. (1994). The effective teaching of secondary science. London: Longman.
  36. Park, J., Kim, I., Kim, M., & Lee, M. (2001). Analysis of students'processes of confirmation and falsification of their prior ideas about electrostatics. International Journal of Science Education, 23(12), 1219-1236 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110049097
  37. Salmon, M. H. (1995). Introduction to logic and critical thinking (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
  38. Salmon, M. H. (2002). Introduction to logic and critical thinking (4th ed.). USA: Thomson Learning, Inc.
  39. Stavy, R. (1991). Using analogy to overcome misconceptions about conservation of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(4), 305-313. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280404
  40. Thagard, P. (1988). Computational philosophy of science, MIT Press.
  41. Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual Revolutions, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  42. Vigoureux, J. M. (2003). Les pommes de Newton. Paris: Albin Michel S.A., (Trans. Hee-Jung Lee, (2005), Newton's Apple, NuRim book(Seoul)).
  43. Westfall, R. S. (1971). The construction of modern science, New York: John Willey & Sons, Inc.
  44. Wong, E. D. (1993). Self-generated analogies as a tool for constructing and evaluating explanations of scientific phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(4), 367-380. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300405