NSTA Position Statement: The Nature of Science

National Science Teachers Association Position Statement: The Nature of Science (2000). 

This position statement provides great insight into the key components to understand the Nature of Science (NOS). I have read numerous articles on the topic of NOS, but feel that this one is a must to revisit if one already understands NOS and also helpful for those new to the ideas.

Reflections

Science "evolves" thus one needs to think critically about scientific knowledge. Yet, many components of scientific knowledge have been and remain widely accepted, that does not ensure "correctness".  (Science is reliable and tentative)

The process of science is NOT linear. The process of science has many shared elements or patterns but there is not a single universal scientific method.

Science is exciting and imaginative. Many scientists use creativity to spark or ignite the production of scientific knowledge. Creativity may arise while searching for another approach or explanation or may be sparked unintentionally by the need to explain something one stumbled upon.

Science cannot nor should attempt to explain the supernatural. Science is limited. Science is the study of the natural world.

The difference between theories and laws (formed to organize science). Laws are the "what" of how aspects of the natural world work. Theories are the "why" of aspects in the natural world. Not all laws have theories. Theories do NOT become laws!

Science is a collaborative endeavor. People across the world provide resources (contributions) for others.

The process of science is contextualized. Science is impacted by social and cultural contexts. (i.e. Stem-cell research) Scientists have personal biases and varied conceptual frameworks (prior experiences and understandings). Peer review is a component of science that helps compensate for personal scientists' biases.

Continue to question and think critically about "basic" science (knowing for knowledge sake). Science evolves and one should question the foundational scientific knowledge.

Science does NOT equal technology. Science impacts technology. Basic science (knowing for knowledge sake) vs. applied science (applying science for practical purposes (improve the process and/or outcome/product) is technology.)