Abstract
In 1947, Thomas Kuhn, a Harvard University Ph.D. candidate trained as a practitioner of normal science in physics, taught a history of science course in general education for non-science major students. After that, he went on to reform his idea of scientific development, and in 1962 he published the Structure, which covers the history and philosophy of science as well as science education in an endeavor to demonstrate that scientific development is not through the accumulation of individual discoveries, but the structural change as revolutions. However, Kuhn. was criticized by Siegel for his distortion of history of science in science education, resulting in a disputation between Siegel and Brush. The purpose of this paper is to ascertain "science education" as stated in the Structure, and to find a solution for the disputation between Siegel and Brush.There are two kinds of science education mentioned in the Structure: teaching the history of science in general education as a science course for nonscience major students and science education for the practitioner of normal science. The former inspired Kuhn to explore the history and philosophy of science, and led him to regard scientific development as revolutionary or structural change; the latter, experienced by Kuhn himself, made him reflect how the history of science is distorts in science textbooks. The author finds that Kuhn's intent of mentioning science education in the Structure is to explain the invisibility of scientific revolutions. It is a counterexample to scientific revolutions. Siegel does not understand Kuhn's intent, therefore, his argument is insubstantial.
| Keywords: | Kuhn; Science Education |
|---|
[ Chinese version | Index | Chinese Journal of Science Education | Other Journals | Faculty Home Page | Enquiry ]
Mail any comments and suggestions to
en@fed.cuhk.edu.hk.