In this paper, we provide a macro level analysis of the visibility of philosophy of science in the sciences over the last four decades. Our quantitative analysis of publications and citations of philosophy of science papers, published in 17 main journals representing the discipline, contributes to the longstanding debate on the influence of philosophy of science on the sciences. It reveals the global structure of relationships that philosophy of science maintains with science, technology, engineering and mathematics and social sciences and (...) humanities fields. Explored at the level of disciplines, journals and authors, this analysis of the relations between philosophy of science and a large and diversified array of disciplines allows us to answer several questions: what is the degree of openness of various disciplines to the specialized knowledge produced in philosophy of science? Which STEM and SSH fields and journals have privileged ties with philosophy of science? What are the characteristics, in terms of citation and publication patterns, of authors who get their philosophy of science papers cited outside their field? Complementing existing qualitative inquiries on the influence of specific authors, concepts or topics of philosophy of science, the bibliometric approach proposed in this paper offers a comprehensive portrait of the multiple relationships that links philosophy of science to the sciences. (shrink)

The Big Bang is the most accepted theory of how the Universe was born. However, this theory explains only the development of the Universe, not its origination. This paper develops two main ideas: a) that a strong philosophical approach encourages innovative thinking through the sharing of new scientific enlightenment, and b) the origination of “something” from “nothing” without violating the conservation laws. The second idea underlies our Universal Theory of Origination. The Universe has evolved on cosmological, physical, biological, psychological, and (...) intellectual levels. Our UTO explains how upper-level substances originate from lower-level substances. The origination of the physical level based on the origination of the biological level is described stepwise using a unitary law. We also provide a scope for understanding the origination of the biological, psychological, and intellectual levels. Our hypothesis is supported by a) well-known formal research and experiments, and b) an inference proof that nature behaves in a unitary way from one level to another. In the UTO, a fact can be displaced to another level by changing only the adjectives. A known aspect at one level can be interpreted on another level, giving rise to unknown truths. This work provides the basis of UTO, in turn resolving many open questions such as the origination of the physical world, space expansion, expansion acceleration, looking back in time, and the differences between galaxies. (shrink)

In this article, the argument is put forth that controversies about the scope and limits of science should be considered in Nature of Science teaching. Reference disciplines for teaching NOS are disciplines, which reflect upon science, like philosophy of science, history of science, and sociology of science. The culture of these disciplines is characterized by controversy rather than unified textbook knowledge. There is common agreement among educators of the arts and humanities that controversies in the reference disciplines should be represented (...) in education. To teach NOS means to adopt a reflexive perspective on science. Therefore, we suggest that controversies within and between the reference disciplines are relevant for NOS teaching and not only the NOS but about NOS should be taught, too. We address the objections that teaching about NOS is irrelevant for real life and too demanding for students. First, we argue that science-reflexive meta-discourses are relevant for students as future citizens because the discourses occur publicly in the context of sociopolitical disputes. Second, we argue that it is in fact necessary to reduce the complexity of the above-mentioned discourses and that this is indeed possible, as it has been done with other reflexive elements in science education. In analogy to the German construct Bewertungskompetenz, we suggest epistemic competency as a goal for NOS teaching. In order to do so, science-reflexive controversies must be simplified and attitudes toward science must be considered. Discourse on the scientific status of potential pseudoscience may serve as an authentic and relevant context for teaching the controversial nature of reflexion on science. (shrink)