Naïve Empiricism and the Nature of Science in Narratives of Conflict Between Science and Religion

Scientific inquiry is both theoretical and empirical. It succeeds by bringing thought into productive harmony with the observable universe, and thus, students can attain a robust understanding of the nature of science (NOS) only by developing a balanced appreciation of both these dimensions. In this article, I examine naïve empiricism, a teaching pattern that deters understanding of NOS by attributing to observation scientific achievements that have been wrought by a partnership of thought and empirical experience. My more specific concern is the naïve empiricism promoted when teachers illustrate NOS through historical anecdotes about conflict between science and religion. Since the religious actors depicted in such accounts appear to reject evidence, these narratives lead readers to suppose that scientists draw their conclusions in exactly the opposite way, from empiricism alone. I illustrate this pattern by examining two representative treatments of the Copernican revolution. My methods are historical and critical.