SCIENCE EDUCATION AND SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDES

Pravin Singh

Introduction

Science has several dimensions. Traditionally, the overwhelming emphasis in

the science curriculum has been on the content dimension. Consequently
students obtained a narrow understanding of the scientific culture. The
situation has improved somewhat in the recent years as a result of the
development of modern science programmes. Greater attention is given to the
nature of scientific enquiry through the promotion of active student
participation in activity-oriented learning experiences.

In addition to the knowledge and process dimensions of science some

recognition has been given to scientific attitudes and to developing these
attitudes in students. It is generally maintained and accepted unquestionably
that scientists uphold a set of common scientific attitudes. It is also pointed
out that students by practising science in the manner of scientists will
consequently adopt and internalize these attitudes.

The trend in current science programme is to develop attitudes considered to

be "scientific" and therefore valuable. Gauld (1973:25) lists such things as the
tendency to be objective, open-minded, unbiassed, sceptical and curious and
the possession of a critical, questioning and rational mind. Many modern
science curricula such as the local Basic Science, the New Zealand Science :
Infants to Standard Four and the Physical Science, to name a few, have
recognized the need to develop scientific attitudes.

What are scientific attitudes?

Scientific attitudes can be regarded as a complex of "values and norms which
is held to be binding on the man of science. The norms are expressed in the
forms of prescriptions, proscriptions, preferences and permissions. They are
legitimatized in terms of institutional values" (Barnes and Dolby, 1970:3). The
norms and values are supposed to be internalised by the scientist and
thereafter they fashion his/her scientific practice.

The current set of scientific attitudes of objectivity, open-mindedness,

unbiassedness, curiosity, suspended judgement, critical mindedness, and
rationality has evolved from a systematic identification of scientific norms and
values. The earliest papers of any importance in the field of scientific attitudes

41
are those of R.K. Merton (1957). He conceptualized the norms or institutional
imperatives on the basis of evidence taken mainly from statements by scien-
tists about science and their scientific activity. He then identified four norms.
These are universalism, communality, disinterestedness and organized skep-
ticism.

Universalism requires that information presented to the scientific community

be assessed independently of the character of the scientist who presents the
information. The norm of communality requires that scientific knowledge be
held in common, in other words, the researcher is expected to share his
findings with other scientists freely and without favour. The norm of
disinterestedness requires scientists to pursue scientific knowledge without
considering their career or their reputation. Scientists are exhorted by the
norm of organized skepticism never to take results on trust. They are
expected to be consistently critical of knowledge.

To this list of institutional imperatives Barber (1962: 122-142) later added two
more rationality and emotional neutrality. Rationality relates essentially to
having faith in reason and depending on empirical tests rather than on
tradition when substantiating hypotheses. Scientists are encouraged also to
conform to the norm of emotional neutrality i.e. to avoid emotional
involvement which may colour their judgement.

These idealistic institutional imperatives or their resulting variants have been

adopted by school science. It is argued (Ben-David, 1975:21) that abiding by
the Mertonian norms helps in checking emotions and prejudices from marring
one's research work. Science is also seen to be socially neutral (King, 1971)
and consequently much of the endeavour of the scientific community is
protected from social criticism. Price (1963) remarks that the scientific
community believes that the success of science and technology can to a large
extent be attributed to the adherence to the Mertonian norms. Moreover, the
general public attributes much of the success of science to the belief that the
scientific community must be open, neutral, self-critical, rational, etc.

But is it an unquestionable fact that scientific attitudes have been important in

the success of the scientific community? Can one accept without exception
that open-mindedness, disinterestedness, objectivity etc. are actually inherent
or acquired qualities prevalent amongst the members of any scientific
community? Is it not possible that these scientific attitudes have been
popularised and then reified as a set of ideal attitudes but in reality is not often
found in actual scientific practices? The following studies raise serious doubts
about the scientists' adherence to institutional imperatives.

42
Price (1963) reveals that science is now controlled, financed and directed by
the state and by industry. Ellis (1969) points out that governmental and
industrial support has grown so much that traditional norms are no longer
applicable. Science is now "Big Science" and scientists must conform to a
new set of rules dictated to a large degree by state policies and industrial
priorities. Under such a situation, secrecy and competition take on a more
dominant role. External pressures of industrial demands in terms of costs and
benefits and other political and economic implications contribute towards a
shift in the scientific comunity's attitudes towards their work (see Rose and
Rose, 1971). So bureaucratization and industrialisation of science are external
factors that have somewhat diluted the scientist's adherence to Mertonian
norms.

The study of the personal characteristics of scientists has also raised questions
about whether the flourishing of science can be entirely attributed to the
scientists' unequivocal acceptance of the traditional norms. Holton and Roller
(1958) have found that the actual human characteristics exhibited by scientists
are quite distant from the attitudes ascribed to scientists.

Anne Roe (1961) reports that personal factors inevitably enter into scientific
activity. They influence a scientist's choice of what observations to make;
they influence a scientist's selective perception when making the
observations. They also influence their judgements about when there is
sufficient evidence to be conclusive and considerations as to whether
discrepancies between experimental and theoretical data are important or
unimportant to their pet theories.

Mitroff 's study (1974) of the behaviours of Apollo moon scientists shows that
scientists are passionate, irrational and strongly committed to their own
favoured theories. What this means is that subjective characteristics of the
scientists act as norms rather than the widely accepted Mertonian norms.

Mitroff (1974) also noted that scientists are seldom objective; there is no such
thing as the disinterested observer. As Mitroff sees it, the real process of doing
science is much more complicated. It is filled with subjective and even irra-
tional elements that have been generally unacknowledged. Mitroff concludes
by suggesting that "to remove commitment and even bias may be to remove
one of the strongest sustaining force for both the discovery of scientific ideas
and for their subsequent testing." (Mitroff, 1973: 765).

Quite often school science implies or depicts scientists as being rational and
critical in their scientific activities. This, however, may not always be the case.
Gauld (1973) admits that rationality does play a part in scientific activity but is
not always evident and not always practised by all the members of a

43
scientific community. Kirkut (1960) suggested that rational thinking is certainly
exercised in judging the products of these with whom one disagrees although
the same case may not be lavished on the arguments of scientists whose
views are closer to one's own. Writings by Kuhn (1962) also provide an insight
into factors and personal characteristics that influence a scientist's activity.

The degree of resistance, stubbornnessjealousy and rigid commitment

witnessed among the members of the scientific community further
undermines the total acceptance of scientific attitudes. Bernard Barber's
(1961) study provides ample evidence of this. For example, he cites Max
Planck who had recorded the following complaints concerning the practice of
the members of his scientific community.
" I found no interest, let alone approval, even among the very
physicists who were very closely connected with the topic.
Helmholtz probably did not read my paper at all. Kirchhoff
expressly disapproved ... I did not succeed in reaching Clausius ... I
carried on a correspondence with Carl Neumann, of Liepzig, but it
remained totally fruitless" (as cited by Barber, 1961, Page 596).

Barber (1961) presents several examples that reveal the extent of scientists'
stubbornness and resistance to refutation of established scientific ideas and to
the presentation of counter-arguments and new concepts. Such
investigations weaken the argument that scientists are generally openminded,
objective, skeptical, disinterested, rational and neutral.

Effect on Students
Science textbooks, in their rush to present organised descriptions of structure,
function and process, sacrifice human drama and personal characteristics of
the members of the scientific community. Much of the textbooks'
interpretation of the images of scientists and their attitudes is a consequence
of the analysis and acceptance of the end-products of science. This approach
has resulted in the acceptance of a stereotyped image of the scientist.

Ahlgren and Walberg (1973) and Randall (1979) in separate studies, have
pointed out that students perceive scientists as cold, impersonal data-dealers,
and their work as dull, monotonous and tedious. Bereft of common human
feelings and compassion, the robot-type images a consequence of the
projection into the common scientific attitudes has resulted in the promo-
tion of a negative attitude forwards science and a gradual loss of interest in
science (see Shallis and Hills, 1975).

The quality of objectivity in science seems firmly upheld by scientists and non-
scientists alike. Consequently, according to Shallis and Hills (1975), those that

44
are attracted to science subscribe to the notion of objectivity, thereby
perpetuating the myth. It is of concern to the general public to realise that
many of those attracted to science will be adhering to this norm of objectivity.
In doing so, there is always the possiblity that future scientists would become
more cold, objective and almost robot-like. However, at a time when the
impact of science and technology on the society is so critical, there is a need
for the scientific community to be more human and compassionate.

Science, because it appears so cold, loses its appeal for the general public.
This is unfortunate especially when the general public needs to be more alert
towards scientific activities. As for South Pacific students, the study of
science in most cases is seen as a convenient means of acquiring a pass in
public examinations. It is doubtful whether the majority of the school leavers
continue to maintain interest in science. Indeed, it is increasingly unlikely that
they are keen enough to develop their scientific knowledge after completing
their formal education.

Conclusion
While it is desirable that students of science should be encouraged to develop
these attitudes we need also make them aware of the role that personal
characteristics play in the acquisition of scientific knowledge. By revealing the
role of personal characteristcs that scientists are normal human beings,
fallible, stubborn, emotional and irrational, we can humanise science and
thereby develop in the student proper appreciation of science.

To do this the student should be given the opportunity to perceive scientists as

normal, actively and occasionally fallible human beings, who are different only
in the area of their special training. Students should have access to literature
that reveals the extent to which the subjective side of the scientist influences
his or her work.

Needless to say, classroom teachers must play the major role in this
enterprise, and thus help students acquire a better understanding of science
and scientists. To be effective, teachers may need to familiarise themselves
with current writings dealing with the nature of scientific knowledge and the
practice of scientists at work.

REFERENCES

Ahlgren. A & Changing a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d s science a m o n g

Walberg, H.J. adolescents. Nature, Sept. 28 1973, 245, 187-190.
Barber, B. Resistance by scientists to scientific discovery.

48
 Science 1961, 134, 596-602.
Barber, B. Science and social order. New York: Collier Books,
1962
Barnes, S.B. & The scientific ethos: a deviant viewpoint.
Dolby, R.G.A. European Journal of Sociology, 1970, II, 3-25.
Ben-David, J. On the traditional morality of science.
Newsletter 13 The Harvard Program on Public Con-
ceptions of Science, 1975, pp.24-36.
Ellis, N.D. The occupation of science. Technology & Society,
July 1969, 5(1), 33-41.
Gauld, C.F. Science, Scientists and "scientific attitudes"
The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 1973, 19,
25-32.
Holton, G. & Foundations of Modern Physical Science
Roller, D. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1958, Chapters 13, 14
& 15
Kerkut, G.A. Implications of Evolution New York : Pergamon, 1960
King, M.D. Reason, tradition and the progressiveness of science.
History and Theory, 1971, 10, 3-32.
Kuhn, T.S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962.
Merton, R.K. Social Theory and Social Structure
Glencoe, l11: Free Press, 1957, Chapter 16.
Mitroff, I.I. "The disinterested scientist", Fact or fiction?
Science Education, 1973, 37, 761-765.
Mitroff, I.I. The Subjective Side of Science: A Philosophical In-
quiry into the Psychology of the Apollo Moon Scien-
tists Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1974.
Price, D.J. Little Science, Big Science New York: Columbia
University Press, 1963.
Randall, A.F. Scientific writing beyond the textbook. The Science
Teacher, May 1979, 46(5), 18-21.
Roe, A. The psychology of the Scientist. Science, August
1961, 134, 456-459.
Roe, S & The myth of the neutrality of science
Rose, H Impact of Science on Society 1971, XXI (2), 137-149.
Shallis, M & Young people's image of the scientist
Hills, P. Impact of Science on Society October-December
1975, 25(4), 275-278.

46