Is there such a thing as the nature of science? From my experience the answer is yes, but exactly what that looks like depends on the phenomenon you are investigating. I believe that the purpose of science is to explain and predict phenomenon, and I guess this singular purpose results in a nature of science. If science was for some other reason, then it is possible that the nature of science does not exist. Or maybe the nature of science is inextricably linked with the purpose of science. If the purpose of science changes, so does the nature of science.

I know there are different lens to view phenomenon, which imply different methodologies. A scientist could reduce the world down to “a machine of inert, passive bodies that [move] only through physical causation by direct contact” or action at a distance (Russ et al., 2008). A reductive view, believing in objective reality, which lends itself to quantitative analysis and deterministic discourse. Or a scientist could take the stance that there is no objective reality, believing our interpretation of reality is subjective. Such a view lends itself to qualitative analysis and holistic discourse. A systems perspective, investigating the emergent behavior of a system. Which one should you choose? Well, that depends on the phenomenon and how useful that perspective is to predict and explain that phenomenon. If you are attempting to design a new drug to act on a specific receptor in the body, then reducing the world to atomic and molecular interactions is useful. If you are attempting to design an inclusive learning environment which supports students in learning science, then viewing human behavior as emerging from many uncontrollable factors is useful.

Some scholars focus on the nature of science, centering it within education. Others say it does not exist, and the concept seeks to subjugate the masses. I do not know if I agree with either side. However, I do believe that focusing too much on the methodologies or paradigms science operates under can cause us to lose sight of the story of science. Let us not forget that science is a social enterprise. Any scientific discovery or revelation has a story that goes along with it. This story reflects the human side of science, which is too often separated in our science classrooms. Why not focus on the story of science over the nature of science? How do we know what we claim we do? Who is making the claim, and why them?

References

Russ, R. S., Scherr, R. E., Hammer, D., & Mikeska, J. (2008). Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry: A framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science. Science Education, 92(3), 499–525. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20264