Scholarlink

<p>This study examines how students integrate scientific claims into moral-practical judgments when reasoning about socioscientific issues (SSI). Grounded in the distinction between scientific theoretical claims and moral-practical deontological judgments, the study explores how different forms of scientific claims—causal explanations, evidence-based generalizations, statistical reasoning, and hypothesis testing—support ethical decision-making. By analyzing classroom discussions on cloning, hunting, and mobile phone use, findings reveal that scientific claims play distinct roles in three types of moral judgments: consequence-based (evaluating risks and benefits), means-end (assessing whether actions effectively fulfill needs), and rule-case deontological judgments (applying particular moral rules). Scientific claims in the form of hypotheses, generalizations, explanations, and predictions emerged as students sought to establish the truth of consequences, the necessity and sufficiency of actions (means), the truth of needs, and the factual basis for applying moral rules. While students naturally integrate multiple disciplines in moral decision-making, the natural sciences are foundational in grounding the needs and consequences that shape social and emotional concerns. The findings of the study suggest that students do not simply apply preexisting scientific knowledge in SSI discussions but actively construct and negotiate scientific claims to support moral reasoning. The nature of the scientific claims used and epistemic practices that those indicate are shaped by both their access to data and the nature of the moral judgment they are grounding. Consequence-based reasoning was grounded through evidential and causal supports, for both using established knowledge and generating new hypotheses, whereas statistical evidential support was largely absent from means-end and deontological reasoning, where students relied on deterministic causal explanations. This highlights the need for structured instructional support in incorporating statistical reasoning, particularly when evaluating necessity, sufficiency, and ethical obligations. Future research should explore instructional interventions that enhance students’ ability to navigate the relationship between scientific claims and moral-practical reasoning across diverse cultural and educational settings.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Science for ethics in SSI discussions

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月16日

查看全文
  • Chrystalla Lymbouridou

摘要

This study examines how students integrate scientific claims into moral-practical judgments when reasoning about socioscientific issues (SSI). Grounded in the distinction between scientific theoretical claims and moral-practical deontological judgments, the study explores how different forms of scientific claims—causal explanations, evidence-based generalizations, statistical reasoning, and hypothesis testing—support ethical decision-making. By analyzing classroom discussions on cloning, hunting, and mobile phone use, findings reveal that scientific claims play distinct roles in three types of moral judgments: consequence-based (evaluating risks and benefits), means-end (assessing whether actions effectively fulfill needs), and rule-case deontological judgments (applying particular moral rules). Scientific claims in the form of hypotheses, generalizations, explanations, and predictions emerged as students sought to establish the truth of consequences, the necessity and sufficiency of actions (means), the truth of needs, and the factual basis for applying moral rules. While students naturally integrate multiple disciplines in moral decision-making, the natural sciences are foundational in grounding the needs and consequences that shape social and emotional concerns. The findings of the study suggest that students do not simply apply preexisting scientific knowledge in SSI discussions but actively construct and negotiate scientific claims to support moral reasoning. The nature of the scientific claims used and epistemic practices that those indicate are shaped by both their access to data and the nature of the moral judgment they are grounding. Consequence-based reasoning was grounded through evidential and causal supports, for both using established knowledge and generating new hypotheses, whereas statistical evidential support was largely absent from means-end and deontological reasoning, where students relied on deterministic causal explanations. This highlights the need for structured instructional support in incorporating statistical reasoning, particularly when evaluating necessity, sufficiency, and ethical obligations. Future research should explore instructional interventions that enhance students’ ability to navigate the relationship between scientific claims and moral-practical reasoning across diverse cultural and educational settings.