My background in many fields informs my work. I have an M.S. in Evolutionary Biology and a Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science. I taught high school biology for several years. I have participated in research at field stations in the Rocky Mountains and Panama, and on the Chesapeake Bay. I seek to understand science as a source of reliable knowledge. I am fascinated with cases of error and disagreement, which contrast with the popular image of "The Scientific Method," but which are integral to normal science. All these varied interests intersect and find expression in my research, in lessons for the science classroom, and in perspectives on public understanding of science.

[ Follow links below to relevant publications. ]

Conventionally, science is the hallmark of reliable knowledge. How, then, are we to interpret scientific errors--electrical fluid, caloric, mesosomes, Pluto as a planet? My new book, Toward a Philosophy of Error in Science, summarizes many years of analyzing cases from history (see overview). Earlier, I characterized the notion of error types (2001) and described the flaws in the widespread self-correcting mythos (2015). One recent papers explores "When is science 'self-corrrecting'?" and another articulates the concept of error repertoires.

While errors may reflect blind spots, ironically they arise from the same sources that yield insights. Hence, I have found it profitable to examine the errors of famous scientists, such as Charles Darwin (2009) or Nobel Prize winners (2002, 2008).

One error of particular note is the naturalizing error (2008, 2017), wherein scientists try to inscribe cultural norms into a supposedly objective nature — especially problematic in claims about human nature (2020).

My interest in error has led me into more extended historical work. For example, in conventional historical interpretations, Lavoisier's theory of combustion replaced the concept of phlogiston (matter of fire and light). However, I was able to document substantial work on "phlogiston after oxygen" (1992). That included a defense by James Hutton, who is otherwise celebrated as the founder of modern geology (my essay on this won the Fishbein Prize at the University of Chicago, 1994). Hutton also used phlogiston to explain the origin and chemistry of coal (1997).

I have also delved extensively into the history of the ox phos controversy in bioenergtics in the 1950s-70s, including the search for a set of high-energy intermediate molecules, which may now be viewed as a "20th-century phlogiston" (1997) Other papers have looked at the nature of the debate (1994), the nature of a "capstone experiment" in helping to resolve it (1996), and the ironies of Paul Boyer in both making a grand error and yet later earning a Nobel Prize (2002).

My interests also drift into science in non-Western traditions. I co-edited with Bob DeKosky a volume introducing their history to a wider audience (1999).

My dissertation focused on resolving disagreement in science, and included some insights on the structure of Kuhnian paradigms (1992), the role of differentiating domains (1997), and some sharp criticism of culturally laden models of "theory competition" (1994). (The book is long overdue.)

As noted above, I have helped to clarify the naturalizing error (2008, 2017), wherein scientists frame nature in terms of cultural norms. This has relevance to conceptualizing sex (2006), genes (2005, 2014), biological "normality" (2007), the "balance of nature" (2014), biodiversity (2018), the ecology of lawns (2023), "Social Darwinism" (2009), human nature (2012, 2020), the concept of "laws" of nature (2008), and Whiggish history (forthcoming). A book forthcoming on that, I hope.

In a tribute to Donald Campbell, I described credibility as a vicarious selector and linked it to Hacking's analysis of seeing (vicariously) through a microscope (1999) -- an analysis which (in my view) has yet to be fully appreciated, especially for understanding the misinformation crisis.

Finally, I have advocated for a comparative philosophy of science (1996), opening the way to understanding "science" in indigenous or cross-cultural perspectives (e.g., 2019).

A major dimension of scholarship is stewarding knowledge for the culture. For me, that has meant a commitment to science education. I have taught biology, history of science, history of science with labs, philosophy and sociology of science, ethics and health care, ethics and the environment. As described below, I have developed numerous curriculum materials, especially for conveying the history and nature of science. More recently, I have oriented to addressing the important challenges of countering misinformation that is eroding the role of science in guiding social and personal decision-making.

Almost all science educators agree that science teaching should go beyond the conceptual content to include something about how science works. However, what the "nature of science" (NOS) means is often highly contested. As someone informed by genuine research experience, history of science, and the professional discourse in philosophy of science (and aware of the realities of a high school classroom), I have advocated a broad, inclusive approach, under the banner of "Whole Science" (2011, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2017, 2020; 2020). Notably, that includes: (1) the social practices of science (peer review, debate, sequel investigations, consensus); (2) the cultural contexts of science (as a source of funding and possible bias); and (3) the media/ communication processes by which scientific knowledge reaches consumers and citizens: namely, "from test tubes to YouTube." For example, we must reject a view of science that is reduced to black and white (2001) or that reconstructs (and distorts) science to fit idealized "rational" models (2000, 2003).

The most complete exposition of my views — and how they are integrated with history of science and inquiry — is my 2013 book, Teaching the Nature of Science: Perspectives and Resources.

Substantial contention exists about how students can best learn NOS: through student-directed investigation, contemporary cases or historical cases? In a project with teachers in Denmark, Hanne Anderson, Keld Nielsen and I (2014) showed how each can be both effective and incomplete in different ways, and so constitute complementary teaching strategies.

My work in supporting history in science education has been recognized by the Hazen Prize from the History of Science Society in 2021. Perhaps most importantly, working in the community of historians helped me to appreciate the principles of good history — not always respected by educators. So, I have written extensively on how the professional standards of history are essential to rendering the nature of science faithfully (2003, 2004, 2006, 2013, forthcoming). Cherry-picked facts from history are no different from cherry-picked facts in science. I have also elucidated how many of the "myth-conceptions" arise from intuitive story-telling tropes (2013).

I began developing historical cases for the classroom while teaching in the 1980s, portraying Gregor Mendel, Thomas Hunt Morgan and Ivan Pavlov for my students. Later, I joined with Joel Hagen and Fred Singer in assembling a book of case studies that could be used in any standard introductory biology course: Doing Biology (1996). I have written more cases, coached teacher-authors, and collected others, managing a website for teachers: the SHiPS Resource Center (summarized in 2012).

An important dimension of education is student-centered active inquiry (engaging students in their own learning), such as case-based and problem-based learning (2013). However, open-ended scenarios are a challenge for history, as the history is closed: already done. Hence, I have developed a model for engaging students in the original historical perspectives (2017, 2020, 2024, each with a separate case as an example). Using a historical narrative as a scaffold, one presents students with an unfolding series of questions and reflections about solving scientific problems.

I have also developed more complex simulations (with multiple interacting roles) for two historical episodes: the Galileo trial and a review of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring

The benefits of using history in science teaching have been reported by various educational philosophers (1995, 2013, Ch. 2). Recently, I adopted an alternative, more concrete, "grass-roots" perspective and surveyed and summarized all the articles in American Biology Teacher that appealed to the pragmatic virtues of history (2024). This opened a special issue on history of science that I organized, including contributions from numerous colleagues and introducing several new cases.

In 2012, I began focusing on the troubling divergence between what scientists say is science, and "what counts as science" in the social realm (2012). To understand science as non-expert consumers, we must exercise epistemic trust (an ironic contrast to the widely touted critical-thinking norm of skepticism). Accordingly, science students need to learn about expertise, credibility and "the social architecture of trust" (2012), as well as the nefarious tactics of science con artists" (2012, 2015, 2018).

That shift in the locus of relevant epistemic questions prompted an important collaboration with Dietmar Höttecke on nature-of-science eduation in an age of social media. We sketched the essential components of science media literacy (SML) (2020). That led me, in turn, to a more fully developed exploration of "Who speaks for science?" (2022) and a proposal for "Ten Competencies for the Science Misinformation Crisis" (2023).

Jonathan Osborne invited me to participate in a study group, resulting in an important report (2022) and summaries of it for teachers (2023, 2024). We explored further the implications for transforming the aims of science education in the 21st century (2024).

Most important, perhaps, I have developed an ensemble of SML lessons in inquiry mode (in contrast to the top-down approach of most media literacy programs)(2020). Some lessons were based on historical cases (on covid--2020, on smallpox--2022). They all address basic philosophical questions of epistemics, but from the perspective of a consumer of science rather than a research scientist. The lessons are now all assembled on a new website: "Targeting Misinformation" (2024).

This is my column for American Biology Teacher, which began in 2005, and has led to one collected volume (2013) (and another soon, I expect). In these sometimes playful essays, I present a perspective on unchallenged commonplaces about biology -- which I have dubbed "Sacred Bovines." Misplaced assumptions abound. And they may shape how science informs our personal decisions or public policy. Here, I expose the ironies, toward inspiring reflection and deeper knowledge about biology and the nature of science.

The Editors of NSTA's The Science Teacher graciously accepted a proposal for a column on teaching about scientific misinformation. It was inaugurrated in January, 2024 with my "Science L.I.A.R.S. Game" (2024). A debunking of "the Galileo Gambit" soon followed (2024), and the first year ended with an "Inquiry into Expertise" (with Gábor Zemplén, 2024). Many more are in the wings, waiting for publication: on Silent Spring, on cold fusion journalism, and on the great New Madrid earthquake of 1990 (that never was).

Contact: allchindouglas [AT] gmail [DOT] com