Perspectives pour la linguistique : de la linguistique descriptive à la linguistique explicative

The text deals with one of the challenges of linguistics, which is to effectively combine description and explanation in linguistics.It is necessary that linguistic theories are not only capable of adequately describing their object of study within their framework, but they must also have a suitable explanatory power.Linguistics centred around the explanation of the why of the system is called here ‘explanatory’ or ‘non-autonomous’, in contrast to ‘descriptive’ or ‘autonomous’ linguistics, which is focused on the description of the system, the distinction being based on the difference in the objects of study, the goals and the descriptive and explanatory possibilities of the theories.From the point of view presented here, a comprehensive study of language has three main components: a general theory of what language is, a resulting theory and description, which is a function of this theory, of how language is organised, functions and has evolved in the human brain, and an explanation of the properties of language found.The explanatory value of a general linguistic theory is a function of various elements, among others, the quantity of the primitive elements of the theory adopted and the effectiveness of Ockham’s razor principle of simplicity. It is also a function of the quality of those elements which can be drawn not only from within the system, but also from outside the system becoming in this situation logically prior to the object under study.In science, in linguistics, one naturally needs two types of approach, two types of linguistics, descriptive/autonomous and explanatory/non-autonomous, one must first describe reality in order to explain it. But it is also certain that since the aim of science is to explain in order to reach that higher level of scientificity above pure description, it is necessary that this aim be realized in different linguistic theories within different research programs, uniting descriptivist and explanatory approaches.

Beliefs of preschool teacher candidates about the nature of science

The aim of science education is to enable children to become “science-literate.” Science literacy is defined as taking responsibility for and making decisions about situations requiring scientific understanding and having sufficient knowledge, skills, attitudes and understanding of values to put their decisions into practice. Revealing teachers’ beliefs can help to understand the types of experiences presented by teachers in their classrooms. Inadequate understandings and misbeliefs of teachers shape the first perceptions of children about the NOS when they are formally introduced with science education in their early childhood. Most of the studies were also performed with science teachers and there have been few studies conducted with preschool teachers. Therefore, the present study was directed towards determining NOS beliefs of preschool teacher candidates. To achieve this aim, Nature of Science Beliefs Scale (NOSBS), developed by Özcan and Turgut (2014), was administered to the preschool teacher candidates studying in Preschool Education Department of Buca Education Faculty at Dokuz Eylül University in the spring semester of the 2018-2019 academic year. In the study, the NOS beliefs of the teacher candidates were found to be acceptable in general. While the findings of this study are consistent with those revealed in several relevant studies in the literature

Design of a Socioscientific Issue Unit with the Use of Modeling: The Case of Bees

A major aim of science education reform documents (Achieve, 2013) is for K-12 students to engage in scientific practices to facilitate a better understanding of the processes and the aspects of doing science (Bybee, 2014). In this design case we present the design of a teaching unit on a socioscientific issue (SSI) that can potentially engage learners in modeling and argumentation. The unit focuses on the controversy about the declining population of honeybees. The “Should we care about the bees?” unit engages the participants in the practice of modeling for explaining and arguing about the causes, consequences, and possible solutions related to the problem of the bees. Our unit aims to illustrate how to address the intersections between science and society and to promote scientific practices in science learning and teaching. Two university science educators from different countries worked together to design and re-design the teaching unit. Initially the unit was designed in order to promote the exploration of the socio-scientific issue through argumentation, but after an initial implementation we decided to focus on modeling the issue as well. The final design product is a seven-week unit. In this paper we discuss design challenges and decisions of using an SSI based unit that promotes learning and teaching SSIs in the context of scientific practices.

Understanding Versus Being Certain

Understanding, rather than certainty, is the true aim of science. This is something that scientists and philosophers agree upon for good reasons. There are two main reasons for this. The first reason is that understanding is particularly valuable. It is widely acknowledged that understanding is a cognitive achievement that is even more valuable than knowledge. So, when aiming at understanding, science aims at an intellectual good that is very valuable. The second reason is that, as the aim of science, focusing on understanding instead of certainty provides a solid account of the success of science. If certainty were the aim of science, then science has not been very successful since it never achieves certainty. However, science has continually achieved deeper understanding of natural phenomena, so if understanding is the aim, science has been tremendously successful.

Approaching mythology in the history curriculum of compulsory education in Greece

Myth can be a first step in historicizing the past and at the same time in appreciating ancient cultures and developing the essential skill of empathy. A main objective of the history curriculum for the third grade of primary school in Greece is for children at 8 and 9 years old to familiarize themselves with the basic cultural elements of the origins of Greek, European and global civilization. Ancient Greek myths are taught using references and links to the myths of other peoples and cultures, and by identifying similarities and differences in the interpretation of the world within the framework of a multi-perspective, intercultural approach. Myths also depict the relationship between man and nature. They constitute man's attempt to interpret the physical and social environment. In addition, myths present the relationship between man and the divine in the early stages of cultural evolution, and at the same time provide evidence of the culture of a historical period. Pupils become aware of the fact that myths used to have a symbolic and ritualistic function, which aimed to initiate younger members into the acceptable practices and values of their community. Myths provided meaningful models of action (exempla) through their allegorical nature. Moreover, myths facilitate the analysis of human behaviour by introducing the schema of cause and effect. Mythical thought seeks to understand causality, which is also the primary aim of science. In this sense, mythical discourse is connected to scientific discourse. Within the framework of a methodological approach based on these theoretical assumptions, this paper also includes a presentation of educational activities and pupils' perceptions as part of a survey conducted in a third-grade primary school class in Greece.

Edward A. Milne’s Philosophy of Science: Between Aristotelianism and Popperism

This article seeks to show that E.A. Milne’s philosophy of science has its roots in the philosophy of Aristotle and it could be an inspiration for Popper’s philosophy. The similarities with Aristotle’s concept are as follows: 1) the aim of science is to explain phenomena by discovering general principles; 2) the mind is responsible for discovering them, although experience guides the search; 3) deducing detailed statements from general assumptions is the most important element of research. On the other hand, Milne’s proposal is consistent with Popper’s main ideas: 1) criticism of the principle of induction; 2) preference for the hypothetical-deductive method (assumptions should be bold hypotheses that require empirical testing to be accepted); 3) appreciation of falsification and confidence in the effectiveness of deductive logic.

The aim of belief and the aim of science

I argue that the constitutive aim of belief and the constitutive aim of science are both knowledge. The ‘aim of belief’, understood as the correctness conditions of belief, is to be identified with the product of properly functioning cognitive systems. Science is an institution that is the social functional analogue of a cognitive system, and its aim is the same as that of belief. In both cases it is knowledge rather than true belief that is the product of proper functioning.

Constructive Methods in Economics

Constructive methods and constructivity have been under extensive discussion in the philosophy of science. In mathematics and experimental sciences, constructive methods have a long tradition. From experimental sciences, constructive methods broadened to empirical sciences, as constructive empiricism demonstrates. For the last few decades, scientists from social sciences have been discussing social constructionism, which is a new direction in this multidimensional tradition of constructive methods. In economics, mathematical methods such as game theory are generally used. The mathematisation of science can be done in the spirit of the pedagogic-scientific mode or technocratic-scientific mode, which both are present in economics. Mathematical and other constructive methods may allow us to find out scientific understanding for particular phenomena. However, there is a real danger that the whole of science becomes technocratic. The question is not about constructions, but the whole aim of science – whether it is pedagogical or not.

Non-Epistemic Simplicity

This chapter examines five claims about simplicity: (i) that theories are underdetermined by evidence, and so must be selected on the basis of simplicity; (ii) that to do science you must presuppose that nature is simple; (iii) that it is the aim of science to present simple theories; (iv) that simplicity, like beauty, is a virtue worth having for its own sake; and (v) that simplicity is primarily a pragmatic virtue. Objections are raised either refuting or seriously weakening the first four claims. The fifth claim, the pragmatic one, is defended and illustrated by showing how James Clerk Maxwell employs simplicity pragmatically in his molecular theory of gases. It is also shown that, despite what Newton claims when he invokes epistemic simplicity in his argument for universal gravity, simplicity does no epistemic work for him. Despite what he claimed, his law was a speculation.

Nuclear Lattice Model and the Electronic Configuration of the Chemical Elements

In the earliest days of science researchers were arguing philosophically what might be the reasonable explanation for an observed phenomenon. The majority of the contemporary scientific community claims that these arguments are useless because they do not add anything to our understanding of nature. The current consensus on the aim of science is that science collects facts (data) and discerns the order that exists between and among the various facts (e.g., Feynman 1985). According to this approach the mission of science is over when the phenomenon under investigation has been described. It is left to the philosophers to answer the question what is the governing physical process behind the observed physical phenomenon. Quantum mechanics is a good example of this approach, “It works, so we just have to accept it.” The consequence is that nearly 90 years after the development of quantum theory, there is still no consensus in the scientific community regarding the interpretation of the theory’s foundational building blocks (Schlosshauer et al. 2013). I believe that identifying the physical process governing a natural phenomenon is the responsibility of science. Dutailly (2013) expressed this quite well: A “black box” in the “cloud” which answers our questions correctly is not a scientific theory, if we have no knowledge of the basis upon which it has been designed. A scientific theory should provide a set of concepts and a formalism which can be easily and indisputably understood and used by the workers in the field. In this study the main unifying principle in chemistry, the periodic system of the chemical elements (PSCE) is investigated. The aim of the study is not only the description of the periodicity but also the understanding of the underlying physics resulting in the PSCE. By 1860 about 60 elements had been identified, and this initiated a quest to find their systematic arrangement. Based on similarities, Dobereiner (1829) in Germany suggested grouping the elements into triads.