The Myth of Theory and the Theory-Laden Nature of Scientific Knowledge: Views of Senior High School Students

Abstract

The study aimed to understand Senior High School Students’ perspectives on the myth of theory, law, and the theory-laden nature of scientific knowledge. A qualitative approach was adopted using a case-study design based on the constructivists paradigm. The participants were ten (10) students purposively selected from a Minor Seminary Senior High School in the Upper East Region of Ghana. The school was selected as a case using the extreme-case selection criteria. Instrument used for data collection was the Theory, Law, and Theory-laden Questionnaire (TLT-LQ). The TLT-LQ consisted of four questions on myth of theory and law and the theory-laden or subjective nature of science. The questions were adapted from Items 5 and 8 of the VNOS-C questionnaire. It was found that six students (60%) held naïve views on the differences between a theory and law. They think that a theory is a guess that has not been proven scientifically, whiles a law is a theory that has been proven to be true. Three students (30%) held transitional views on the differences between a theory and law. They correctly stated that theories explain events, but also think that a theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and proven. Thus, they believe in the myth of a hierarchical relationship between a hypothesis and a theory. Nine students (90%) held the naïve view that there is a hierarchical relationship between a theory and a law where a theory becomes law after it has been proven. On the subjective nature of science, five students (50%) held informed views. They understand that scientific knowledge is subjective or theory-laden. They believe that two scientists may see things differently. Also, four students (40%) held a transitional view. The students think that two scientists may get different results and conclusions from the same data set. They believe that two scientists may analyse the same data set differently. They also think that different experimental error can lead to different conclusions, implying indirectly that a scientists’ backgrounds, values, beliefs and training affects the way they interpret data.