Paradigms in collision : historical and philosophical perspectives on teaching the new global tectonics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The latter half of the 20th century has been witness to a dramatic shift in the guiding assumptions in our understanding of the dynamics of Earth's crust.Historically, the debate about global tectonics has subsisted in a rivalry between two competing conceptual systemsthe "paradigm collision" of fixism and mobilism.The new synthesis of plate tectonics, derived from the mobilist tradition, is the currently accepted model supporting theory, practice, and education in the geosciences.Historians and philosophers of science have taken an interest in the events that led to the emergence of the new global tectonics, and in large measure have viewed this episode in the history of science in terms of a "scientific revolution" in the manner of Thornas Kuhn's paradigm approach in his The Structure of Scientìfic Revolutions.Since the teaching of plate tectonics occurs in virtually all compulsory science education in Canada, the pedogogical potential exists for this great "science story'' to be told through the complimentary lenses of the history and philosophy of science (HPS) in the classroom.With increased ernphasis in science education on the roles of evidence, argument, appreciation of the nature of science, the development of scientific knowledge, and the importance of how major conceptual shifts revolutionize scientif,rc discourse, it is desirable to construct a teaching and learning model that inco¡porates these elements into the teaching of tectonics.By focusing on the fixism / rnobilism controversy that developed in geology over the years 1910 -1975, students can be offered a pathrvay along which HpS perspectives can be introduced in a meaningful, accessible way.The model developed here includes five elements that can be connected to the learning cycle, constructivist pedagogy, and the phases of a Kuhnian treatment of the geological revolution: recognition, elicilation, paradignt collision, conceptual reconstruction, and resolution and emergence.The motivation for this approach lies in ameliorating two endemic situations: 1) distorted or incomplete historical treatment in standard textbook-oriented learning that results in biased historiography, and; 2) "quasi-constructivist" methods that initially value student conceptions, but eventually work to instill a "scientific correctness" that declares one side of the argument superior and sophisticated, and the unsuccessful paradigm naiVe and proto-scientific.A detailed case study of how the five elements in the model could be made operational is outlined, including implications for teacher development, field validation, and avenues for further research.Ultimately, the question that is to be answered as a result of this pathway is "why do I accept plate lectonics?" ACKNOWLBDGEMENTS 'Tn times of change, the learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equtpped to live in a world that no /onger exists.',
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.070 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".