Analysing the Errors of Renowned Physicists and Chemists Throughout History and Those of Students Before and After Learning About Science

In the present qualitative study, we first synthesize research to clarify the concept of error in science as developed by epistemologists, philosophers, and historians. We also examine the concept of error in educational science, drawing from studies on science learning and teaching. To do this, we analyzed references found through a systematic review of books and journals. We also selected published articles on the history of physics and chemistry and consulted documents authored by scientists in English or in official translations. We guided our selection by choosing sources relevant to conceptualizing error in scientific and educational contexts. Our key findings show two categories of scientific error: those that have contributed to scientific progress and those that have hindered it. Some renowned scientists, such as Aristotle and Buridan, put forward theories of force and movement that were later shown to be false. However, these errors did not always impede scientific advancement. This research highlights how scientific errors have shaped the evolution of science and reveals insights into the scientific process and the resilience of the scientific community. In science education, researchers use various terms such as “student naïve reasoning,” “students’ alternative conceptions,” “students’ alternative theory,” and “misconceptions.” Students’ errors, like scientific errors, can be classified into two categories. The first type involves errors from distractions, misunderstandings, or unintentional mistakes. The second type results from students’ interactions with many natural and man-made phenomena, the common language used in society (which differs from scientific language), and errors passed down by teachers or found in textbooks. Finally, we note that identifying errors among scientists and students supports the development of strategy-based teaching for meaningful science learning. From this perspective, students will be pleased to know that some of their conceptions of force and motion are “similar” to those developed by Aristotle and Buridan, even if these conceptions are false relative to those developed by Galileo and Newton. Recognizing both scientists’ and students’ errors is essential for creating teaching strategies that promote deeper science learning.