The Science framework clearly indicates the importance of science and technology education and the need to “understand the way of thinking and asking questions that is the essence of science.” Although “What is Philosophy of Science?” also makes a point of illustrating the importance of asking questions, it also emphasizes answering questions in a logical and methodological analysis. Similarly, in the article “On the Nature of Scientific Laws and Theories,” it discusses the use of explanations provided by people through the use of theories and law. However, these are only valuable as explanations if they are understood and accepted which enables us to grasp concepts. Therefore, through asking questions, answering questions, and then providing explanations, we are able to develop an understanding and appreciation of science.
Both the framework and the “Nature” article articulate that the supreme motivator in understanding science is the appreciation of nature. What follows is an enjoyment of science as one’s knowledge is expanded through the presentation of science processes and methods. Using this knowledge, as described in the framework, one develops hypotheses, which are then tested to form theories. N.R. Campbell, the author of “Physics: The Elements” believes that these theories are valueless though, without an analogical aspect. He places a greater emphasis on analogies than hypothetical ideas. In the “philosophy” article, it indicates that philosophers of science focus more on the role of deduction and the inferences that are made in the process of testing theories.
... for example, Guilford’s theory. But there are reasonable explanations of intelligence put forth by ... ability to respond to the testers’ questions (Eysenck, 1982). Common definitions of intelligence are ... correlated with psychometric g? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 53-56. Jensen, A. R. ... further needed for better understanding of the nature of intelligence is to give more ...
In determining these theories, both the framework and “philosophy” paper indicate that the “theoretical constructs” must be observable. Without this, there becomes a clear distinction between science and pseudoscience and parapsychology. The framework then suggests the accountability of the teacher to differentiate between the two by explaining the criteria for science. According to the framework, science is testable, objective, and consistent. However, scientific description, explanation, causality and law, science and religion, etc determines the philosophy of science. Although there are some similarities between science and the philosophy of it, the philosophy of science actually analyzes scientific concepts, methods, etc., it doesn’t develop them.