Contrasting two examples from 2005, a creationism-trial and a recent textbook, the article shows two different ways of employing social considerations to demarcate science from non-science. Drawing conclusions from the comparison, and citing some of the leading proponents of science studies, the paper argues for a novel perspective in teaching nature of science (NOS) issues, one that grows out of sociological and anthropological considerations of (scientific) expertise. In contrast to currently dominant epistemic approaches to teach NOS, this view makes it possible to incorporate epistemic and social norms in a unified framework that can alleviate presently problematic aspects of NOS modules, and can help students appreciate science as a privileged form of knowledgeproduction without becoming scientistic. A pilot module to carry out the above is presented and assessed, showing that a broad sociological starting point is closer to the lifeworld of students, and that traditional epistemic considerations need not be compromised.The paper argues for the embedding of epistemic goals in Nature of Science (NOS) education in a sociological framework (Sect. 5), and describes as well as evaluates one such module (Sects. 6, 7). Before outlining the objectives and the rationales for this approach, however, I will show that sociological considerations play an increased role in court decisions concerning the status of creationism (Sect. 1), and that recent textbooks fail to utilise this asset when teaching NOS (Sect. 2). Although in the science education literature sociological approaches elicited little positive response (Sect. 3), recent trends in science studies and in the sociology of science provide frameworks which display an attitude towards science that should be welcome even by researchers and educators who stress traditional considerations in NOS (Sect. 4).

Argumentation constitutes an important element in nature of science education. However, its virtues and scope can be overstated. Here, we survey in detail the place of argumentation in science education. Our benchmark is the range of epistemic processes relevant to citizens and consumers as they assess the reliability of scientific claims in personal and public decision making. We consider multiple epistemic stages in the development (or ontogeny) of such claims: (a) observation and material investigation; (b) the crafting of concepts through individual cognition; (c) the checks and balances of the scientific community; (d) the challenges of credibility and expertise in a cultural context; and (e) the interpretation of “science in the wild,” where authentic scientific claims mingle with imitators and misinformation on the Internet and social media and in public discourse. We conclude that many conventional rationalist assumptions haunt current approaches to argumentation and limit its effectiveness, especially in the implicit goal of achieving intellectual independence for students as autonomous scientific agents. A more fruitful approach, from the perspective of functional scientific literacy, is a Whole Science perspective, which gives full expression to the spectrum of epistemic processes in science and science communication.

The article investigates the Theory of Knowledge course of the International Baccalaureate Organization. After a short overview of the aims and objectives of the course, the assessment criteria and a popular textbook are investigated. Shortcomings concerning the treatment of the natural sciences are highlighted and the problem is generalised to courses or curricula that aim to reconcile agendas focusing on critical thinking and philosophical analysis on the one hand and traditional science subject-agendas on the other. The article argues that these problems also surface in the actual teaching practice and their implications for the curricula need to be taken more seriously. Three possible alternatives to overcome these problems are outlined. The first is based on novel work in history and philosophy of science, the second on general theories of argumentation, and the third on systematic exploration of student interests and stakes.