This inaugural handbook documents the distinctive research field that utilizes history and philosophy in investigation of theoretical, curricular and pedagogical issues in the teaching of science and mathematics. It is contributed to by 130 researchers from 30 countries; it provides a logically structured, fully referenced guide to the ways in which science and mathematics education is, informed by the history and philosophy of these disciplines, as well as by the philosophy of education more generally. The first handbook to cover the (...) field, it lays down a much-needed marker of progress to date and provides a platform for informed and coherent future analysis and research of the subject. -/- The publication comes at a time of heightened worldwide concern over the standard of science and mathematics education, attended by fierce debate over how best to reform curricula and enliven student engagement in the subjects There is a growing recognition among educators and policy makers that the learning of science must dovetail with learning about science; this handbook is uniquely positioned as a locus for the discussion. -/- The handbook features sections on pedagogical, theoretical, national, and biographical research, setting the literature of each tradition in its historical context. Each chapter engages in an assessment of the strengths and weakness of the research addressed, and suggests potentially fruitful avenues of future research. A key element of the handbook’s broader analytical framework is its identification and examination of unnoticed philosophical assumptions in science and mathematics research. It reminds readers at a crucial juncture that there has been a long and rich tradition of historical and philosophical engagements with science and mathematics teaching, and that lessons can be learnt from these engagements for the resolution of current theoretical, curricular and pedagogical questions that face teachers and administrators. (shrink)

Ernst Mach was the first to write on the question of the implications on human knowledge, scientific knowledge and science education resulting from the evolutionary theory (i.e. the ideas by Lamarck, Erasmus Darwin, Spencer or Wallace as synthesised by Charles Darwin 1859 in his Origin of the Species). The ideas made a consistent genetic world view possible, which develops all scientific ideas (from all sciences) and experiences from the senses. Mach described this as the “adaptation of the thoughts to the (...) facts and the facts to each other” (Mach 1905). For Mach, science education is the key to identify the necessary changes as well as implementing them. The question is how can we as humans adapt(Adapt and adaptation is meant here as a reciprocal process between the “world” and the “self”. The individual and the world are not separate, but the individual and human thoughts are part of “the world”, as well as “the world” is a necessary part of human perception and thinking. This is Mach’s monism. For Mach (and for Richard Avenarius) the separation of the “world” and the “self” is only the result of a pragmatic adaptation of the individual to the fact that some clusters of sensual impressions (one’s own body perception) are more consistent over time than others. Initially for the child there is no such separation. For instance, the concept of the “others” is constructed before a consistent concept of self.) our thoughts to a consistent world view, which is plastic, i.e. itself continuously adapting and transforming. (shrink)

Is it Possible to Experiment with Thought? Ernst Mach’s Notion of Thought Experiment and its Pedagogical Context around 1900. The article tries to establish the crucial importance of the pedagogical dimension of Ernst Mach’s ideas on experimenting with thought. The focus on contemporary pedagogics demonstrates, first, that Mach’s didactic approach to physics is part of a much broader stream of pedagogical writings that transcends national and disciplinary borders and comprises a diversity of authors, e.g. Wilhelm Jerusalem, William James or Alfred (...) N. Whitehead; second, that the much‐heralded controversy between Mach and the French philosopher of science Pierre Duhem about thought experiments does not only revolve around epistemological issues but rather stems from their antagonist vision of teaching physics; and finally, third, that G. Stanley Hall’s psychogenetic theory of pedagogics bears a strong resemblance with the evolutionary naturalism of Machian epistemology and helps explaining key tenets of Mach’s conception of thought experiment. By establishing a broad convergence between the work of all these authors despite their different academic upbringing, background and nationality the article argues for a complex and historically fine‐grained vision of the relations between natural, social and human sciences going beyond dichotomies like ‘Erklären’ and ‘Verstehen’ or the ‘Two Cultures’. (shrink)