GERALD HOLTON
207
announced that internationally competitive national standards of excel–
lence for the schools of America were important national goals. As is
usual in such projects, a complex set of advisory committees and other
outreaches was arranged to assure that the standards would not only im–
prove the study of science in schools, but also would represent the
consensus of teachers and other science educators, scientists, and the gen–
eral public. The list of members of advisory committees, national
committees, working groups, and professional organizations involved
during the first two years takes eight pages, as given in the first draft, re–
leased in November 1992. It includes the names of some of our best
scientists.
But as these things are done, they did not write the report, and the
result surprised some of them. For example, the version of the report re–
leased in November 1992 to selected commentators announced at the
outset that the intellectual foundations of school science education and
the national science education standards would not be merely the science
disciplines, but also the philosophy, history, and sociology of science. In
my own role as science educator, I have always tried to infuse science
teaching with just such elements, so I was delighted to read this. But at
that point in the document there was a footnote directing the reader to an
appendix which would set forth the "contemporary views of the philoso–
phy of science." That appendix - written, according to one staff member,
by two philosophers who had been hired for the purpose - is a confused
farrago that includes the following flat statements: "Two competing para–
digms of science have been the focus of disagreement among historians,
philosophers, and sociologists. The older, referred to as logical positivism,
is characterized by arguments for the objectivity of scientific observation
and the truth of scientific knowledge." Parenthetically, I should insert
that at that point I seemed to hear howls of laughter from the graves of
the logical positivists at this confused summary of their intentions.
To continue to the next sentence in the draft: "A more contempo–
rary approach, often called postmodernism, questions the objectivity of
observation and the truth of scientific knowledge." And after the admo–
nition that science is "the mental representation constructed by the
individual," this section on philosophy closed with the flat statement:
"The National Science Education Standards are based on the postmod–
emist view of the nature of science." The constructivist point of view had
found its way into the educational standards being prepared under such
high auspices. Of course, when they read it, this 1992 draft caused some
consternation among members of the national committee, at least two of
whom, I am told, resigned. So the groups involved in the writing were
sent back to the drawing board, and eighteen months later, in May 1994,
