Criteria of excellence for geological inquiry: The necessity of ambiguity

Abstract

According to Gowin, a curriculum properly derives its authority by representing the "criteria of excellence" for evaluating the claims produced within a field of inquiry. Gowin's epistemology applied to examples from geological inquiry yields criteria of excellence responsive to the demands characteristic of geological problems. Student efforts to learn these criteria hold the promise of making progress toward independence in accessing, using, and evaluating knowledge. This understanding contributes to the reformation of the concept of inquiry as a "step beyond science as process" called for in the National Science Education Standards and reinforces the need to consider the diversity as well as unity of styles of scientific reasoning. Geological inquiries differ from those of other sciences because they refer to objects with histories. These histories create a demand for concepts that necessarily contain an irreducible element of ambiguity, thus permitting comparison and contrast of geological objects. A case study of how geologists apply analogies, impose boundaries on categories of thought, and constrain the ambiguity of key concepts in reasoning about the accumulation of sediments at a continental margin is used to support this argument. Such examples of geological reasoning support a skeptical attitude toward interdisciplinary curricula that omit or oversimplify criteria of excellence.

A Comparative Analysis of Earth Science Curriculum Using Inquiry Methodology between Korean and the U.S. Textbooks

“…The hermeneutic method consists of circular reasoning; forestructures of understanding; and historical nature of human understanding. The historical method includes the strategy and procedure used by earth scientists when exploring the history of earth: adhering to the modern principle of uniformitarianism; place substituting for time in stage theorizing; relic interpretation; constructing proper taxonomies; and evaluating independent lines of inquiry for convergence (Ault, 1998;Kim, et al, 2005). In this study, researchers particularly utilized the framework of hermeneutic and historical methods to analyze all domains of earth science because geology is similar to the other domains of earth science such as astronomy, oceanology, meteorology in terms of the quality of inquiry subject and method (Kim, 1995).…”

Promoting Public Understanding in the Science of Geology

“…According to Ault (1998) [3], the histories in geological-based objects create a demand for concepts that contain at least some ambiguity, allowing them to be compared and contrasted with similar objects. The ambiguity in question here involves differences in the overall interpretation of geologic phenomena, which can vary greatly.…”

“…This same ambiguity can also be present in how geological concepts are defined (these are likewise, highly variable). In any case, ambiguity is a necessary component to all sciences, as it plays a role in generating debate about any scientific phenomena [3].…”

Characteristics of abductive inquiry in earth science: An undergraduate case study

“…(p. 45) The reasoning process from a result toward a cause is of retrodiction or postdiction. While in the literature, retrodiction and postdiction are used interchangeably to indicate the backward direction of the argumentation, there is agreement that retrodiction/postdiction constitutes a foundation of earth scientific knowledge and processes (Ault, 1998;Baker, 1996Baker, , 2000Dodick & Orion, 2003;Engelhardt & Zimmermann, 1988;Frodeman, 1995;Kitts, 1978;Kleinhans, Buskes, & de Regt, 2005;Schumm, 1991). Generally, there are two sorts of retrodictive/postdictive problems in earth science (Engelhardt & Zimmermann, 1988;Rhoads & Thorn, 1993): those in which an inference is made from historical traces to past causes, and those in which presently occurring phenomena are explained with concurrent, but unknown causes.…”

“…Earth science as a historical and interpretive science is distinguished from experimental sciences, such as physics and chemistry, in terms of its norm for what counts as an explanation (Ault, 1998;Frodeman, 1995;Kleinhans et al, 2005). In earth science, a phenomenon is explained by being integrated into a sequence of relevant events, rather than being subsumed under a general law.…”