History of Science and Nature of Science: controversies and agreements

Abstract

Since at least the sixties of last century, there has been an on-going debate about the need to insert the History of Science in the curriculum of scientific subjects. The main point in the debate was related to the scientists’ technical formation, and an argumentative dilemma was raised in the following decade presenting a result in which both those for and those against the insertion had good argumentation to support their opinion. Nevertheless, since the appearance of Science Teaching, by Michael Matthews, in 1994, the argumentation in favor of the insertion of the History of Science in the teaching of scientific subjects has been conducted based on the importance given to the clarification of the Nature of Science. Such alteration on the level of the debate allowed the defenders of the insertion of the History of Science to show that the discussion does not relate only to the scientist’s technical formation, but also to the understanding of Science by scientists. The present article aims, firstly, at presenting a summary of the discussion mentioned. Then, our goal is to show that the closing of the discussion promoted in the literature on the teaching of Science in Brazil, between 1996 to 2010, a consensus about the importance of the insertion of the History of Science. So, we are presenting a bibliographical survey on some national journals; such survey allows us to conclude on the inexistence of argumentation against the importance of the discussion on the Nature of Science. Finally, we retake the initial discussion and show that, based on the bibliographical survey, contrary to the initial discussion about the insertion of the History of Science in teaching, which held both defenders and oppositionists, the discussion about the Nature of Science is marked by the consensus concerning its importance.