Pre-Service Secondary Science Teachers and the Contemporary Epistemological and Philosophical Conceptions of the Nature of Science: Scientific Knowledge Construction Through History

Abstract

In this research, we aim to synthesize the complex issue of students’ and science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science (NOS). We identified the conceptions of ninety-five pre-service science teachers (PSTcs) enrolled in the Qualifying Master’s Program in Teaching Science at the secondary level in Quebec (Canada) about the NOS, particularly relative to the development of science through history and approaches to constructing scientific knowledge, especially regarding the relationship between observation, hypothesis, experiment, measure and theory. To this end, we constructed a multiple-choice questionnaire (MCQ) comprising 11 statements to characterize their conceptions. The qualitative data analysis underscores the intricate nature of scientific knowledge construction. The PSTcs identified are as follows: 1. Scientific theories today correspond to improving ancient theories; 2. Science progresses by accumulation; 3. Science advancement results from improving current theories thanks to experimentation; 4. The observation is a pure observation that is preconceived; 5. We must experiment with scientific equipment in a laboratory to disprove a theory; and 6. Experiments precede scientific theory. These conceptions are crucial not only for developing training programs that help pre-service science teachers (PSTs) to study the concepts of science prescribed in the curriculum within the history and epistemology of science, but also to underscore the urgency and importance of addressing these conceptions.

1. Introduction

Teaching the Nature of Science (NOS) is a preeminent goal of science education in many countries. However, intense studies worldwide have revealed a concerning trend in secondary, high school, and university students’ conceptions of the NOS, with their concepts being naive [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. These misconceptions can significantly hinder students’ understanding of scientific principles and their ability to evaluate scientific information critically. For example, Öberg et al. [2] showed that many students do not think that science involves discussion and that there is a place for their interpretations; instead, they find refuge in the belief that science is a set of facts. In the same line, according to Lederman et al. [11] (p. 514), for many high school and college students, in science, “we use observed facts to prove that theories are true”. This conception highlights the pervasiveness of the issue and underscores the crucial need for improved education practices.

Cofré et al. [10] (p. 208) synthesized four erroneous conceptions most frequently reported by students and published in numerous articles: “1. Hypotheses become theories and theories become laws; 2. Science is an objective enterprise; scientists do not use their experience and background to analyze results or propose explanations 3. Scientific knowledge is an immutable truth; 4. Only one scientific method exists”.

Also, concerning the confusion among students between scientific theories and laws, Lederman et al. [11] (p. 500) note that “Students often (a) hold a simplistic, hierarchical view of the relationship between theories and laws whereby theories become laws depending on the availability of supporting evidence; and (b) believe that laws have a higher status than theories. Both notions are inappropriate. Theories and laws are different knowledge; one does not become the other. Theories are as legitimate a product of science as laws”.

The international literature review identified three factors that explain many students’ naive conceptions of the NOS: 1. Pre-service science teachers’ (PSTs) didactic preparation about NOS concepts; 2. School science textbooks; and 3. The science curriculum. These factors contribute to students’ misconceptions about the NOS and significantly affect science education. They influence the design of teacher training programs, the development of science textbooks, and the formulation of science curricula, thereby shaping the quality of science education and the future of scientific literacy.

Regarding the first factor, it is important to recognize that many elementary and secondary science teachers share the same naïve conceptions as those identified among students, as highlighted by several researchers worldwide [13,14,15,16,17,18]. On this problem, Narbona et al. [17] (p. 125) emphasizes the following:

“Despite worldwide agreement on the importance of NOS for scientific literacy, numerous research indicates that most science teachers and students do not understand it adequately”.

Such an observation was related to their scientific education, particularly concerning the contribution of the study of the NOS to acquiring an adequate understanding of scientific knowledge. Despite the limited research on how PSTs conceptualize NOS for lesson preparation, there is a clear need for improved didactic strategies. This is a challenge that the audience, including educators, researchers, and policymakers, are uniquely positioned and empowered to address. Cofré et al. [10] noticed that there were limited publications on this topic in the international review.

However, some teachers implicitly present elements related to the NOS to their students. Regarding this subject, Narbona et al. [17] (p. 125) indicated that many researchers point out that such teaching does not give the expected results compared to explicit teaching: “[…] many studies about the understanding of NOS have demonstrated that implicit teaching, seems to be the most effective focus to improve their understanding”.

One key area for improvement in school science textbooks is the inclusion of meaningful historical discussions about the construction of scientific knowledge [19,20,21,22,23]. This is crucial, as it can help students understand the evolution of scientific thought and the NOS. Recognizing this, it is important to note that there is a significant global consensus among teachers about the influential role of school science textbooks. This shared understanding can make educators feel part of a larger community, united in their efforts to improve science education.

Most of the suggested experiments do not achieve the general objectives of the experimental approach because they mainly concern the collection of data and the execution of procedures [24,25,26,27,28,29]. For example, Abd-El-Khalick et al. [25] notice that the myth vehiculated in many chemistry school textbooks exists as a single method that all scientists follow. This perspective is false because a single scientific method would not guarantee the development of infallible knowledge.

Likewise, Khine [26] (pp. 599–601) sums up, in the passage quoted below, some authors’ findings published in a book entitled Nature of Science in School Science Textbooks:

“1. Textbooks devote very little attention to the epistemological dimension of scientific knowledge and the workings of the scientific enterprise [after Abd-El-Khalick and his colleagues-Chapter 2]; 2. Science textbooks published in different countries and cultures tend to ignore the underlying rationale for how science progresses [after Niaz (Chapter 3)]; and 3. The NOS needs to be better represented in most textbooks [after McDonald and Abd-El-Khalick-Final Chapter]”.

Many researchers underscore the crucial role of historical perspectives in presenting scientific concepts and theories. This approach allows students to compare their theories with those developed throughout history [24,25,26,27,28,29] and provides a deeper understanding of the scientific process. In the following excerpt, Kindi [27] (p. 721) highlights a significant issue, namely that the historical elements in science textbooks often overlook the intricate paths scientists follow to make their discoveries. This neglect should spark our curiosity and prompt us to reconsider the current approach:

“[…] textbooks… usually include introductory chapters devoted to the history of the corresponding discipline. These chapters mark out great achievements, date great discoveries, and honor the heroes of the field. They are not connected to the following material, and what is said in them is hardly ever taught in class. The most conscientious of the teachers […] do not like to spend time on things they consider peripheral and concentrate instead on the teaching of science proper with emphasis laid not so much on theoretical issues but on the solution of problems and exercises”.

Regarding the third factor concerning the science curriculum, researchers note the absence of precise instructions regarding what to teach and the relevance of the study of the NOS to learn scientific concepts and theories as prescribed in the science curriculum [30,31,32,33,34,35,36]. This gap motivates a few teachers to consider the NOS in their teaching and hinders students’ understanding of scientific concepts. Without a clear understanding of the NOS, students may struggle to grasp the nature of scientific knowledge, the process of scientific inquiry, and the role of evidence in science. This is the same for the design of school science textbooks, as noted by McComas et al. [31] in the following passage:

“[…] members of the science education community embrace the recommendation that NOS should be the foundation for high-quality science teaching, a continuing issue is that those who propose specific science learning objectives are often complicit in poorly defining or giving prominence to NOS learning goals. If science standards and other reform documents fail to include or emphasize NOS, schools, teachers, textbook writers, and assessment design professionals will likely ignore this vital content”.

The literature review summarized above shows that the study of pre-service and in-service science teachers’ conceptions of the NOS focused more on their attitude toward the relevance of this subject in their teaching. However, there is a significant gap in the research, as few have analyzed their conceptions of the development of science throughout history.

So, with a unique perspective that focuses on the historical development of science, the present qualitative research stands out. It aims to identify the conceptions of pre-service secondary science teachers with the following questions: 1. What are the roles of observation, theory, and experiment in scientific development? 2. What are the roles of experiment and scientific theory in scientific development? 3. What are the roles of measures and scientific theory? 4. Are the scientific theories developed throughout history in ruptures or continuity? 5. Does accumulation throughout history develop scientific knowledge?

In the following theoretical framework, we will present our answers in light of contemporary work on the history and epistemology of science, particularly those relating to the notions of paradigmatic changes and epistemological ruptures in the development of science. Then, we will present the multiple-choice questionnaire that we constructed to answer our research questions, which is summarized below (

Table 1. Themes and their corresponding statements.

Theme 1—The development of science throughout history: continuity, ruptures, and stagnation
Statement 1:	The directions of science taken by previous generations of scientists determined those taken nowadays.
Statement 2:	The past’s scientific problems are linked intimately to today.
Statement 3:	Science advances by improving scientific theories developed throughout history.
Statement 4:	The scientific theories of tomorrow will extend today’s theories.
Statement 5:	Many centuries were necessary to allow the development of the science of our time.
Theme 2—The development of science through history: observation, hypothesis, experiment, measure, theory, logical reasoning
Statement 6:	Scientists utilize their sense organs (touch, smell, taste, hearing, and sight) to formulate scientific theories.
Statement 7:	Scientists must have experiences that involve hands-on manipulation of physical materials to develop a scientific theory.
Statement 8:	A new scientific theory replaces another if it can predict more experimental results.
Statement 9:	To study the properties of a given phenomenon, scientists first do some measures and then define the underlying scientific concepts.
Statement 10:	By observing the fall of an apple, the well-known physicist Isaac Newton developed gravitational theory.
Statement 11:	The scientists present their theories using logical reasoning.

).

2. Theoretical Foundations of the Research Questions

The present research framework concerns the theses of the philosopher Bachelard about Obstacles and Epistemological rupture and that of Kuhn about Normal science and Paradigm change in studying the development of scientific knowledge through history.

2.1. Bachelard’s Theses: ‘OBSTACLES’ and ‘Epistemological Rupture’ Notions

According to Bachelard [37], scientific knowledge’s problem must be considered an obstacle; we know from previous knowledge when we destroy badly made knowledge. For example, common language constitutes an obstacle to acquiring scientific language. Indeed, contrary to common knowledge, scientific knowledge is not a given but a construction. It is built by scientists who navigate through several stages of epistemological obstacles. These obstacles, such as the moment of rupture, a critical point in the development of scientific knowledge, mark a clear break from its pre-scientific past. This emphasis on the pivotal role of scientists in constructing scientific knowledge underscores the profound importance of their work. Note that many philosophers have shared this constructivist view since the advent of modern physics.

Also, for Bachelard [38], the scientific theories developed simultaneously are in discontinuity and represent epistemological rupture; the transition from one theory to another is not just a change but a radical shift in the theoretical edifice’s epistemological premises. This transition carries the weight of scientific change, often leading to the birth of new theories or paradigms, a thrilling aspect of scientific progress. Here, ‘epistemological rupture’ refers to a significant shift or break in how we understand and interpret scientific knowledge, often leading to new theories or paradigms.

2.2. Kuhn’s Theses: ‘Normal Science’ and ‘Paradigm Change’ Notions

Also, we consider the notion of ‘scientific revolution’ introduced by the historian of science Kuhn [39]. In his famous book ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’, he presents a theory that is crucial to understanding the functioning of scientific communities and the mechanisms inherent in the conceptual changes that mark the evolution of scientific knowledge. In this study, he introduced three terms:

• The term paradigm, in the context of scientific work, refers to a set of accepted theories, principles, and practices that provide a framework for understanding and solving problems within a specific field of research. It describes scientific work based on central concepts that provide standard problems and solutions for a group of researchers. Any explanation outside this accepted theoretical framework is typically rejected.
• The term normal science, far from being mundane, is the backbone of research activity. It is the ongoing work that maintains the continuity within the framework of a paradigm, ensuring that the scientific journey is not a series of disjointed leaps but a steady progression.
• The term scientific revolution, often referred to as a paradigm shift, describes a fundamental change in the basic concepts and experimental practices of a scientific discipline. It occurs when scientists encounter anomalies or problems that cannot be explained or solved within the existing paradigm, leading to the emergence of a new set of theories and methods. Kuhn emphasizes the discontinuities in the evolution of scientific knowledge and the conceptual distance between different theories, as highlighted by Bachelard [38].

It is important to note that Kuhn’s interpretation of the notion of scientific revolution sparked fascinating debates within the scientific community. For example, Firestein [40] did not describe the work of the physicist Einstein as a scientific revolution compared to the work of the physicist Newton because “Einstein has not proven Newton on the wrong, only that there was an explanation that could be more expansive and would be a closer approximation to the way the universe to be. It is not as though 250 years of physics and engineering based on Newtonian principles are all wrong, and we had to start all over again” (p.126). In contrast, Firestein considers that the explanations put forward by Einstein constitute a paradigmatic shift in Kuhn’s sense, a term that refers to a fundamental change in the basic concepts (as mass, force, time and space) and experimental practices of a scientific discipline regarding measure and observation: “But there was certainly a paradigmatic change in the explanation” (p.127).

3. Population and Methodology

3.1. Population

The ninety-five PSTs (n = 95) who participated in this research were dedicated individuals with an average age of 26. They all held advanced degrees, with some having a bachelor’s (n = 40), others a master’s (n = 37), and a few a doctorate (n = 18) in various fields such as biology, geology, physics, chemistry, environmental science, or technology (e.g., electrical, mechanical engineering). Their dedication to their field of study is truly inspiring.

The students involved in this study were enrolled in a qualifying master’s program for teaching science and technology in secondary schools to students aged between 12 and 16, offered in the Faculty of Science Education. Their unwavering commitment to a four-year part-time study is truly commendable. All PSTs were in the first semester and had not taken any courses related to the didactics of science. None had taken courses in philosophy, history, or the epistemology of science during their previous studies.

3.2. Methodology

The PSTs were instrumental in our research. They completed a multiple-choice questionnaire (MCQ) with an explanation comprising 11 statements (see Appendix A). Each statement required them to indicate whether they agreed, disagreed, or did not know, and to provide a detailed explanation for their answer choice.

This procedure was a methodological requirement and a vital contribution to our understanding of their conceptions. We cannot overstate the significant role of the PSTs in our findings, as their contributions were key to our research and greatly appreciated.

For our data analysis, we meticulously and thoughtfully regrouped the statements into two themes, as illustrated in Table 1.

The first theme, which combines five statements, focuses on the concepts of ‘continuity’, ‘ruptures’, and ‘stagnation’ in science and technology development.

The second theme, comprising six statements, delves into the concepts of ‘observation’, ‘hypothesis’, ‘measure’, ‘experiment’, ‘theory’, and ‘logical reasoning’ in science and technology development.

Let us note that we validated the formulation of the statements as well as their grouping into two themes with the help of two experts in the history and epistemology of science; this was in order to find out if, according to them, the formulation of the statements was precise for people who have not followed any training on the nature of science. Their evaluations were positive; however, both pointed out that students who complete these questions will probably be surprised by them, as they are generally not studied in science classes.

This careful regrouping process allowed us to analyze the data more effectively. First, we compiled the percentages of responses in Agree, Disagree, or Do not Know categories for each theme. Then, we analyzed the PSTs’ explanations based on our theoretical considerations in Section 2 and Section 4.

Below, we present the data analyses of each statement related to each theme. These analyses are structured in a way that aligns with Bachelardienne and Kuhnian’s views on history and the epistemology of science. Their views, particularly those about the shifting paradigm and the epistemological rupture, form the basis of our data analysis.

For each statement, we will conduct a comprehensive conceptual analysis. This analysis will be based on our scientific explanations relative to each statement, drawing on the concepts of paradigmatic change and epistemological rupture advanced above and other works on history and epistemology developed in the section below. The analyses of the explanations put forward by the respondents will be grouped into categories, based on the explanations that the respondents share. Therefore, the frequency (i.e., the percentage of responses) of respondents in each category does not require any statistical analysis, and its validity is justified by our scientific explanations, as highlighted above.

The explanation advanced for each of the three response categories (Agree, Disagree, and Do not know) in each academic level, namely the first, second, and third cycles (Doctorate, Master, and Baccalaureate), were a key part of our analysis, recognizing the importance of student perspectives in our research.

4. Conceptual and Data Analysis: Theme 1

4.1. Statement 1: Conceptual Framework and Data Analyses

“The directions of science taken by previous generations of scientists determined those taken nowadays”: According to Kuhn [39], scientific work is carried out based on a set of central concepts that provide, for a group of researchers, typical problems and solutions. For example, the issues associated with the fall of bodies, as defined in the physics of motion by Aristotle, are defined differently in the framework of the motion concept developed by Galileo. Galileo’s approach, which excluded mythical interpretations from his explanations to the detriment of a rational explanation, starkly contrasts Aristotle’s theory of movement. Drake [41] (p. 35) notes that ‘the new basis for Galileo’s science of motion was careful measurement, through which he began to replace the ancient search for causes with the modern search for physical laws, marking a significant departure from the past’.

From this perspective, the scientific problems of the past, though radically different from today’s, have played a crucial role in shaping modern science. A scientist often relies on the work of other scientists to discover a law or a theory. Newton’s development of the law of universal gravitation, for instance, was built upon the work of Galileo, Copernicus, and others. Newton himself acknowledged this, stating that he could not have made such progress if he had not been ‘sitting on the shoulders of giants’.

In addition, the state of progress in science and technology is much more advanced, which provides opportunities we could not think of, such as the exploration of space and the dizzying development of nanotechnology, GPS devices, and artificial intelligence. This progress is a testament to the role of historical foundations in shaping modern science, and it invites us to appreciate the rich scientific heritage that we have inherited.

As specified in

Table 2. Percentage of response categories: Statement 1.

The directions of science taken by previous generations of scientists determined those taken nowadays.
1. Agree: 40/95—42%
Doctorate: 7/18—39%	Master’s: 17/37—46%	Bachelor’s: 16/40—40%
“The famous phrase probably said by Isaac Newton: ‘If I reached higher was because I stood on the shoulders of giants,’ demonstrates the importance of accumulating scientific knowledge between generations. We cannot (always) reinvent the wheel! (Even though the wheel has been reinvented at least twice: in the Middle East and Mexico by the Aztecs.)” D7/Ph.D. (Biochemistry)
“Today’s science results from the accumulation of knowledge and a succession of discoveries; each discovery leads to another. So yes, the decisions made by a generation of researchers will influence the orientations of future generations”. M3/M.Sc. (Genetics)
“We can observe continuity in scientific progress; the subjects tackled in the past continue and evolve linearly while other discoveries are added to this linear progression, thus creating other branches of science”. B3/B.Sc. (Earth Science)
2. Disagree: 44/95—46%
Doctorate (8/18—44%)	Master’s (16/37—43%)	Bachelor’s (20/40—50%)
“In part, today’s chemistry is highly dependent on the work of Lavoisier or Boyle, but often a theory emerges uninfluenced by previous generations”. D13/Ph.D. (Chemistry)
“Before, research for energy production was focused on fossil fuels, whereas with global warming, we are turning to renewable energies”. M20/M.Sc. (Mechanical Engineering)
“The orientation of contemporary science uses old orientations and draws on previous experiences without following the same path. The needs of research change from one generation to another, and consequently, the direction followed”. B22/B.Sc. (Physics)
3. I don’t know: 11/95—12%
Doctorate (3/18—17%)	Master’s (4/37—11%)	Bachelor’s (4/40—10%)
“The directions taken by previous generations are based on the scientific knowledge of the time and the needs and emergencies of the time. For example, the decisions taken in our time on the limitation of global warming could not have taken place previously since the question of the environment on this point was not raised. However, in some areas, it may be appropriate to follow the previous guidance”. D18/Ph.D. (physics)
“Sometimes new theories seem to arise spontaneously from a creative and brilliant mind, like the theory of relativity”. M37/M.Sc. (Biology)
“Today’s science is evolving faster than in the past. It evolves according to generations and according to the technological environment. Is it following the directions taken by previous generations? I am still determining. It took shortcuts”. B40/B.Sc. (Pure and Applied Sciences)

, a significant percentage of participants (42%) think that the direction taken by science today is determined by the approaches taken by previous generations of scientists. Also, the compiled data show no significant differences between the Doctorate, Master, and Baccalaureate levels (39%, 46%, and 40%). The analysis of the explanations put forward by these students shows that for them, the scientific problems studied by previous generations of scientists are in continuity with those of today because they understand that the development of science results from an “accumulation of knowledge” developed throughout history, where “each discovery leads to another”. This understanding brings a sense of enlightenment to their perception of science.

Interestingly, the percentage of students who disagree with statement 1.1 slightly outweighs those who agree (46%). The explanations provided by these students reveal a different perspective: while the scientific orientations remain consistent across eras, the “path followed is not the same” (B₄₀). This divergence in opinion is further highlighted by D₇, who, while disagreeing with the statement, asserts that “today’s chemistry is highly dependent on the work of Lavoisier or Boyle”.

It is important to note that among the PSTs, there is a significant diversity of perspectives. For instance, 17% neither agree nor disagree with the statement, and several of them, based on their explanations, actually lean towards disagreement. Take M₃₇’s view, for example: “Sometimes new theories seem to arise spontaneously from a creative and brilliant mind”. Similarly, D₁₈’s perspective is that “in some areas, it may be appropriate to follow the previous guidance”. This diversity of thought among PSTs highlights the need to explore theory development further and presents an exciting opportunity to delve deeper into this study area.

4.2. Statement 2: Conceptual Framework and Data Analyses

“The past’s scientific problems are linked intimately to today”. This dynamic understanding, as described by Kuhn [39], Bachelard [37], Popper [42], and other researchers, is at the heart of scientific activity. It is not a passive observation but an active involvement in the progression of science. Orange [43] further elaborates on this, highlighting three crucial points about the “problems/knowledge” relationships: 1. Strong interactions exist between problems and knowledge, to the point that one cannot exist without the other in scientific activity; 2. Problems are intellectual constructs that are not given but result from a process of problematization, which involves identifying and formulating a problem within a particular scientific context; and 3. Not all problems have the same epistemological status; some are linked to theoretical ruptures, while others are linked to the simple development of paradigms.

According to these views, the past’s scientific problems are not linked intimately to those of today because the scientific problems studied in the past are linked closely to the scientific theories of the time, which represent an epistemological rupture with those studied today. On this subject, Chabot [44] (p. 77) underlines the critical link between the nature of the problems studied and the paradigmatic framework in the following passage. This framework governs what must count as scientific proof. When we change the paradigm, new problems emerge, and these scientific revolutions not only influence the problems available for research but also inspire new discoveries: “A scientific revolution involves a shift in the problems available to scientific research and the criteria by which specialists decide what should count as an admissible problem”.

Also, it is essential to note that the cultural, political, economic, and social contexts drastically differ from those of our time. For example, Newton’s theoretical framework regarding the notions of space and time is at odds with that of Einstein’s theory of relativity. There has been progress in this case. Likewise, the problems raised by the atomists Empedocles, Democritus, and Epicurus of Antiquity regarding the composition of matter, according to which it exclusively consists of “atoms and void”, are not the same as those raised in the context of classical mechanics, a branch of physics that deals with the motion of bodies and the forces acting on them, or even quantum mechanics. The changing contexts have significantly influenced scientific theories, such as our understanding of the atom and the concept of matter, and these examples help illustrate the subject’s complexity.

Table 3. Percentage of response categories: Statement 2.

The past’s scientific problems are linked intimately to today.
1. Agree: 39/95—41%
Doctorate (5/18—28%)	Master’s (13/37—35%)	Bachelor’s (21/40—52%)
“In a way, yes. The problems of the past are linked to those of today. For example, Tesla tried to transmit wireless energy during the 19th century. Nevertheless, only today have we managed to master this technology”. D5/Ph.D. (Biochemistry)
“By wanting to study how the world works, we always learn more and seek to answer new questions linked to past ones. For example, the discovery of DNA has allowed us to understand the support of heredity. However, we continue to seek how this DNA’s expression is regulated and how specific genes can be activated or disabled”. M12/M.Sc. (Biology)
“The main challenges of science, namely to find “the truth”, are the same today as yesterday. We can illustrate this with physics. The ultimate goal of this discipline is to find a “theory of everything” through which we could explain all the phenomena of the universe. However, in our current model, the gravitation concept is incompatible at the macroscopic (general relativity theory) and microscopic (quantum physics) levels. This problem is familiar and has been around for almost a century, and experiments and theories are still being made to solve it”. B13/B.SC. (Physics)
2. Disagree: 38/95—40%
Doctorate (10/18—55%)	Master’s (17/37—46%)	Bachelor’s (11/40—28%)
“According to Kuhn, a new science that follows a scientific revolution studies problems different from what was done previously”. D13/Ph.D. (Chemistry)
“The scientific problems of the past are not necessarily related to today’s, which is why I disagree. Of course, some issues from the past can continue to be studied today. However, many of today’s issues are specific to our era and are not necessarily linked to past issues”. M23/M.Sc. (Pharmacology)
“I think today’s scientific problems are completely different from those of the past. There is a significant difference in the quality of the environment and the evolution of technology”. B28/B.SC. (Biology)
3. I don’t know: 18/95—19%
Doctorate (3/18—17%)	Master’s (7/37—19%)	Bachelor’s (8/40—20%)
“It depends on the type of problem. This assertion is too general for me to express a definitive opinion”. D16/Ph.D. (Biochemistry)
“I firmly believe that science has the power to answer any question our species can imagine. Still, I do not think there is any theory that demonstrates that scientific progress is limitless. Therefore, I am confronted with my fascination for science. I cannot imagine a world without progress and, therefore, without science or the terrifying idea that science is an end in itself”. M36/M.Sc. (Biology)
“I do not know because some scientific problems have been solved in the last 100 years and others have not yet been solved (example: the world of cancerous diseases or so-called rare diseases)”. B37/B.SC. (Biology)

illustrates a significant perspective of PSTs, with 52% of bachelor’s students viewing the past’s scientific problems as intimately linked to our era. Notably, this percentage decreases from doctorate (28%) to master’s (35%) and from master’s (35%) to bachelor’s (52%). Equally noteworthy is the approximate frequency of students who disagree with this perspective, which is 40%.

Most students perceive the scientific problems studied before our time as differing due to “significant differences in the quality of the environment and the evolution of technology” (B₂₈). However, a significant number of students argue that “some issues from the past can continue to be studied today” (M₂₃), showcasing the rich diversity of perspectives among students.

Finally, the students who neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement (19%) demonstrated their thoughtful approach. They indicated that their stance depended, for example, on the specific problem under consideration (D₁₆) or on the fact that some problems raised in the past are being resolved today, while others remain unresolved.

4.3. Statement 3: Conceptual Framework and Data Analyses

“Science advances by improving scientific theories developed throughout history”: Science progresses by questioning current theories; when new theories emerge, science advances by leaps and bounds to replace these. The role of questioning in scientific progress cannot be overstated. It is the power of questioning that has led to some of the most significant advancements in science. For example, Galileo’s contributions to the study of science movement depended closely on the difficulty that Aristotle’s theory had in describing the fall of bodies. Remember that according to Aristotle, the heavier a body is, the faster it falls in a given medium, and the speed of fall depends on the density of the medium. Thanks to a thought experiment, Galileo showed that the speed of fall of a body does not rely on the density of the medium or the mass of the body. This questioning of the established theory led to a paradigm shift in our understanding of motion and gravity. Similarly, the theory of relativity developed by Einstein resulted from questioning Newton’s theory of space and time, and the theory of gravitation developed by Einstein on the curvature of space is at odds with Newton’s theory of universal gravitation. Einstein’s work is a testament to the power of questioning in scientific progress, showing that critical thinking is the driving force behind the evolution of science.

In the following passage, Kuhn ([39] (pp. 67–68) emphasizes that the development of new theories results from the questioning of theories accepted by the scientific community. He also claims that the emergence of new theories is generally a period of great insecurity for scientists. This insecurity, far from being a negative aspect, is a crucial part of the scientific process, driving scientists to question and innovate.

“Newton’s new theory of light and color originated in the discovery that none of the existing pre-paradigm theories would account for the length of the spectrum, and the wave theory that replaced Newton’s was announced amid growing concern about anomalies in the relation of diffraction and polarization effect to Newton’s theory. Thermodynamics was born from the collision of two existing nineteenth-century physical theories and quantum mechanics from various difficulties surrounding black-body radiation, specific heats, and the photoelectric effect. [In all these cases], the emergence of new theories is generally preceded by a period of pronounced professional insecurity. One might expect that insecurity is generated by the persistent failure of the puzzles of normal science to come out as they should. Failure of existing rules is the prelude to a search for new ones”.

It is important to note that the period of uncertainty we are discussing here is not just a scientific issue, but a profound philosophical one. For instance, the weight of Einstein’s critique of the probabilistic interpretation of physical phenomena at the particle scale, as formulated within the framework of quantum mechanics, cannot be overstated. His convictions, including those of a metaphysical order, led him to challenge this interpretation without questioning the mathematical formalism that underpins it. Similarly, the physicist Poincaré, despite his criticisms of absolute time and space in Newton’s classic physics, did not present his theory of relativity.

According to 67% of PSTs, science advances by improving scientific theories developed throughout history, as illustrated in

Table 4. Percentage of response categories: Statement 3.

Science advances through improving scientific theories developed throughout history.
1. Agree: 63/95—67%
Doctorate (14/18—78%)	Master’s (22/37—59%)	Bachelor’s (27/40—68%)
“It is indeed the case. Progress makes it possible to develop modern and sophisticated equipment that will help improve experimental techniques. Expanding the range of accessible experiments and the precision of measurements will ultimately improve and enrich scientific theories”. D10/Ph.D. (Physics)
“New researchers constantly improve scientific theories over time. We can then define scientific progress as an accumulation of all discoveries”. M8/M.Sc. (Physics)
“Progress results in an improvement of scientific theories and the discovery of new theories. There is probably still a lot to discover. It can also result in a reorientation of scientific theories (the realization that a theory is wrong and its replacement with a new one)”. B13/B.Sc. (Biology)
2. Disagree: 22/95—23%
Doctorate (4/18—22%)	Master’s (10/37—27%)	Bachelor’s (8/40—20%)
“Scientific progress can consist in improving an existing theory by supplementing it with a more complex mathematical formulation (in this sense, we can say that Newton improved Kepler’s laws). We also speak of scientific progress if we prove that an existing theory is false, or if we make a discovery that completes the weaknesses of a previous theory (Einstein’s law of relativity will complete the foundations of classical mechanics of Newton), or which brings a new technological application of the theory. Indeed, applied research was only as successful with advances in fundamental research”. D16/Ph.D. (physics)
“I disagree because I believe science advances because we discover theories related to real facts. Scientific progress is not limited to the improvement of theories”. M29/M.Sc. (Pharmacology)
“Each theory explains a given phenomenon at a given time. So, I believe scientific progress results in new theories that explain new elements hitherto unknown. The numerous theories complement each other and thus make it possible to pass to a higher level of knowledge”. B34/B.Sc. (Biology)
3. I don’t know: 10/95—10%
Doctorate (0/18—0%)	Master’s (5/37—14%)	Bachelor’s (5/40—12%)
“What is an improvement in scientific theories? I agree with having more precise theories and better-describing reality. Nevertheless, more knowledge progresses within the framework of the same paradigm. The more difficult it is to get out of this paradigm. Moreover, sometimes, improving theories requires a paradigm shift”. M36/M.Sc. (Biology)
“I do not know. We can speak of progress by modifying a theory to account for new results that have been reproduced and obtained several times or in any other relevant way differently. On the other hand, this does not mean that the previous elements of the theory we discarded are irrelevant”. B40/B.Sc. (Biomedical)

. However, compared to statements 1.1 and 1.2, the percentage of students who agree with the statement above is much higher in the case of students holding a doctorate (78%) compared to those holding a master’s degree (59%) and a bachelor’s degree (68%). The ideas of ruptures and change paradigms are absent, and most reduce scientific theory development to improvement and refinement. However, it is important to note that the potential for paradigm shifts is always present, as we pointed out in our conceptual framework. On the other hand, when scientists are unable to solve a certain number of problems within the framework of a given theory, the central concepts that underlie this theory must be radically modified, like when the concepts of space and time were redefined as the simultaneity phenomenon to solve certain puzzles that could not be explained within the framework of Newtonian theory.

The percentage of students who disagree with this statement is 23%. Note that the percentage of students with a Master’s degree (27%) is higher than that of students with a Doctorate (22%) and a Bachelor’s degree (20%). For these students, science advances thanks to the introduction of new theories, which brings fresh perspectives and solutions, rather than the accumulation of theories developed throughout history.

4.4. Statement 4: Conceptual Framework and Data Analyses

“The scientific theories of tomorrow will extend today’s theories”: The scientific theories of tomorrow will not be an extension of today’s theories. For example, current work in physics already calls into question the concepts of space and time formulated by Einstein, as underlined by Larousserie [45] (pp. 52–59): “Exceeding Einstein’s theories. It is this necessity that physicists are faced. Because everything is not going well in modern physics, founded by the brilliant Albert, its two theoretical pillars, general relativity and quantum physics, are irreconcilable; revolutionary theory is needed to unify these two concepts”.

In addition, experiments carried out by European researchers are currently on the way to demonstrating that light does not travel in a vacuum at constant speed. If such a hypothesis were correct, the edifice on which today’s science rests would be wholly shaken.

Concerning statement 1.4, we found that the percentage of PSTs according to whom the scientific theories of tomorrow will be an extension of today’s theories is almost the same for those with a doctorate, master’s, and bachelor’s degree, as illustrated in

Table 5. Percentage of response categories: Statement 4.

The scientific theories of tomorrow will extened today’s theories.
1. Agree: 49/95—52%
Doctorate (9/18—50%)	Master’s (18/37—49%)	Bachelor’s (22/40—55%)
“Today’s theories and scientific progress will allow evolution and improvement of these theories and consequently the creation of new theories. So the theories of today and tomorrow are linked”. D9/Ph.D. (Pharmacology)
“Yes, the theories are intimately linked. Those of tomorrow will be an extension of today’s theories. That said, scientists are building on past research to develop later theories”. M5/M.Sc. (Genetic)
“I think science will continue to evolve based on scientific discoveries from the past. The scientific theories of tomorrow will allow us to go deeper into the scientific theories of today”. B12/B.Sc. (Civil Engineering)
2. Disagree: 38/95—40%
Doctorate (7/18—39%)	Master’s (15/37—40%)	Bachelor’s (16/40—40%)
“I do not think all the current scientific theories will hold up over time. We may discover new theories that will invalidate existing ones. We can discover news that does not have links with today’s”. D13/Ph.D. (Pharmacy)
“Sometimes it is true, but sometimes the theories of tomorrow will abolish or complete today’s theories. Some theories of today have done the same as the theories of yesterday. Examples include atoms and quarks and questioning Neptune as a planet”. M25/M.Sc. (Environnement)
“For some, maybe, but tomorrow’s scientific and technological discoveries could refute some scientific theories of today”. B24/B.Sc. (Chemical Engineering)
3. I don’t know: 8/95—8%
Doctorate (2/18—11%)	Master’s (4/37—11%)	Bachelor’s (2/40—5%)
“Not necessarily. We can have new theories that completely overturn the old theories. As was the case with heliocentrism, which replaced geocentrism, or Darwinism, which replaced Lamarckism”. D18/Ph.D. (Biochemistry)
“That is probably true, but not necessarily. A revolutionary discovery could make scientists write off their theory and replace it with another one”. M34/M.Sc. (Biology)
“Maybe, maybe not. Tomorrow’s theory combines the extensions of today’s theories, the limits of today’s theories, and completely new theories that I could not even guess”. B28/B.Sc. (Biology)

(50%, 49%, and 55%). The reasons put forward to justify their answer choices have yet to be developed; most PSTs established their justification on the fact that actual theories are in continuity with those of the past, and consequently, those of the future will be in continuity with those of today. For example, B₁ affirms that “the scientific theories of tomorrow will allow us to go deeper into the scientific theories of today”. Most PSTs thought that these theories will be improved, particularly thanks to technological development: “The scientific theories of tomorrow will allow us to go deeper into the scientific theories of today”. (B₁₂)

As our conceptual framework indicates, tomorrow’s theories will not be mere extensions of today’s theories. In fact, the transition from one theory to another often signifies a radical shift in the epistemological foundations that underpin the theoretical edifice, as per Kuhn and Bachelard’s theses. For instance, the ongoing research on dark matter, quantum gravity, or nanotechnology is likely to give birth to theories that break away from the current ones, including those related to the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum.

Likewise, on this subject, Ananthaswamy [46] emphasizes that the measurement problem in quantum mechanics has tormented researchers since the birth of this almost century-old theory. Solving it would require abandoning some of the most fundamental principles of physics.

Only 39% (Doctorate), 40% (Master), and 40% (Baccalaureate) of PSTs believe that some of tomorrow’s theories will challenge the present ones. For instance, D₁₃ suggests that “we may discover new theories that will invalidate existing ones in the future. We can discover new knowledge that is not necessarily linked to today’s”. This perspective underscores the potential for exciting new discoveries in the future.

Finally, a minority (8%) of PSTs are uncertain about the continuity of future theories. However, some of them argue that the theories of tomorrow will diverge from those of today, but not necessarily all, as highlighted by D₁₈: “Not necessarily. We can have new theories that completely overturn the old theories. As was the case with heliocentrism, which replaced geocentrism, or Darwinism, which replaced Lamarckism”. These historical examples serve as a reminder of the transformative power of scientific discovery.

4.5. Statement 5: Conceptual Framework and Data Analyses

“Many centuries were necessary to allow the development of the science of our time”: It took the unwavering dedication of countless generations of scientists over centuries to pave the way for the development of science as we know it today. This journey, marked by resilience and perseverance, was not without its challenges, as we often found ourselves bound by erroneous theories, hesitant to question the fundamental postulates they built.

Aristotle’s physics of movement, a monumental work that has shaped the thought of many generations of researchers over several centuries, postulates that continuous force is necessary to sustain movement and that this force is directly proportional to velocity.

It was Galileo who boldly refuted the Aristotelian conception of motion, demonstrating that rectilinear motion at constant speed does not require the continued application of any force in the absence of friction (Inertia principle). His contributions were pivotal in shaping our modern understanding of motion.

Aristotelian theory about scientific movement left future generations with problems that were obstacles to the growth of modern science. Several criticisms of the Aristotelian conception have been made, such as its reliance on qualitative rather than quantitative analysis, but these have largely failed to dislodge its influence.

In this regard, Jean Buridan (around 1300–1358) proposed the impetus theory to correct certain shortcomings regarding the relation between force and movement, without questioning the conceptual foundations theory formulated by his predecessor Aristotle. This theory, which formed the basis of Aristotelian physics, posited that continuous force is necessary to sustain movement and that this force is directly proportional to velocity. The impetus theory suggests that a moving object carries a certain ‘impetus’ or force that keeps it in motion, a concept that is a precursor to the modern understanding of momentum. It was not until several centuries later that Galileo questioned the Aristotelian foundations of movement by combining experimentation and mathematical reasoning.

In this case, Drake [42] (p. 35) points out the following regarding the scientific revolution introduced thanks to Galileo: “The new basis for Galiléo’s science of motion was careful measurement, through which he began to replace the ancient search for causes with the modern search for physical laws”.

Following the work of Galileo, another revolution was initiated by the physicist Newton, who stated the laws of motion, where the concept of force links to the concept of acceleration instead of velocity, as developed by Aristotle. This shift in understanding, known as Newton’s laws of motion, revolutionized the field of physics and laid the foundation for modern physics. The physics of motion advanced through these new paradigms has enabled the development of cinematics and mechanics.

Shifting our focus to matter composition, Aristotle’s postulation that all matter comprises four elements (earth, air, fire, and water) held sway for several centuries. However, this false conception was eventually supplanted by the ideas of the Greeks Leucippus and Democritus, who proposed a particle-based theory of matter, marking a significant shift in our understanding of the world.

According to their doctrine, matter comprises an aggregation of inseparable, imperishable, and invisible solid particles: atoms. This atomistic conception of matter, though initially met with skepticism, gained acceptance and would only grow in influence at the beginning of the 20th century with the advent of quantum mechanics and the discovery of subatomic particles.

Along the same line, we have erroneous theories on the concepts of heat and temperature (e.g., the phlogiston theory, the caloric theory). The phlogiston theory, which posits that a substance called phlogiston is released during combustion, and the caloric theory, which suggests that heat is a fluid-like substance, were influential but ultimately proved to be obstacles to studying thermal phenomena. According to these theories, temperature and heat were confused for many years, and the latter was attributed to a substance’s properties.

The chemist Lavoisier, a figure of great courage, is credited, among others things, with having called into question the theory of phlogiston following the discovery of oxygen.

It is crucial to note the resistance that a scientist may encounter when proposing a groundbreaking idea, as was the case with the physicist Boltzmann. His proposal, which described matter based on the existence of atoms and molecules, faced strong objection from many of his contemporaries, underscoring the impact of his work on the scientific community.

Undoubtedly, the unfounded objections formulated by members of a scientific community play a significant role in delaying the development of science, underscoring the negative impact of such resistance on scientific progress.

For all students, as indicated in

Table 6. Percentage of response categories: Statement 5.

Many centuries were necessary to allow the development of the science of our time.

1. Agree: 95/95—100%

Doctorate (18/18—100%)

“Like all fields, scientific development has been affected by social, economic, and political exchanges for several centuries: poverty, colonialism, and wars (limiting scientific research to certain fields)”. D10/Ph.D. (Electrical Engineering) “If we look at the scientific progress of our time, we see that most of it is based on work done long ago”. D8/Ph.D. (Chemistry) “Modern physics, which originated at the beginning of the twentieth century, came following classical physics, which lasted almost four centuries, which benefited from the sciences among the Arabs”. D12/Ph.D. (Physics) “In Antiquity (Socrates, Plato), knowledge was philosophical but was born from observation. Centuries ago, researchers carried out scientific work and established mathematical, physical, and chemical laws that are today’s basis of modern science. The 19th and 20th centuries were rich in scientific production, constituting the basis of contemporary science”. D14/Ph.D. (Physics)

Master’s (37/37—100%)

“Human beings need time to assimilate changes in their environment and to be able to move forward in it. On a generational scale, it is even truer and more logical that developments must be progressive and step-by-step to respect humans’ evolution”. M20/M.Sc. (Environment) “Faced with a phenomenon to be explained, the scientist is not unprepared: besides his instruments, he can base his approach on existing scientific theories developed by other scientists several years before him. It is based on these already existing theories that he can design new ones or, if it seems necessary, reject old theories to propose better ones. It is, therefore, logical to state that many centuries were necessary to allow the development of the science of our time”. M22/M.Sc. (Geochemistry) “Science has evolved cumulatively based on previous research; for example, the Pythagorean theorem to calculate or check the squareness of walls is still used”. M25/M.Sc. (Information System)

Bachelor’s (40/40—100%)

“In my opinion, current knowledge is developed from yesterday’s knowledge. Modern discoveries could not have occurred if the basis had not been established over the last few centuries. Discoveries that today seem obvious and even banal, like gravity, represent an essential piece of the puzzle of several elements of modern science. For example, knowing the characteristics of gravity is important if we want to send objects into space”. B14-Geology “The development of science requires a lot of time and effort. Sciences must make mistakes, correct themselves, and so on for science to evolve”. B23-Civil engineering “Indeed, it is the accumulation of different knowledge, through the ages, which has allowed the development of the Science of our time”. B24/B.Sc. (Mechanical engineering)

, many centuries were necessary to avow the development of the science of our time. Many statements were provided to explain why this development was too long without, however, sufficiently explaining the reasons for this slowness:

“Science has evolved cumulatively based on previous research”.

(M₂₅)

“The accumulation of different knowledge, through the ages, which has allowed the development of the Science of our time”.

(B₂₄)

“Human beings need time to assimilate changes in their environment and to be able to move forward in it”.

(D₂₀)

However, some PSTs advanced interesting reasons to explain this slowness without elaborating their response. For example, to explain the slowness regarding the advancement of science, D₁₄ referred to the goal of scientific research during antiquity, and D₁₀ to the social and political influences:

“In Antiquity (Socrates, Plato), knowledge was philosophical but was born from observation”.

(D₁₄)

“Scientific development has been affected by social, economic, and political exchanges for several centuries: poverty, colonialism, and wars (limiting scientific research to certain fields”.

(D₁₀)

It is notable that none of the PSTs referred to false theories, as highlighted in our conceptual framework, to explain how these theories stagnate the development of science and how it was difficult for a scientist to question them, as highlighted by Kuhn [39] in his thesis on paradigmatic change and as illustrated above in our conceptual framework.

5. Conceptual Analysis: Theme 2

5.1. Statement 6: Conceptual Framework and Data Analyses

“Scientists utilize their sense organs (touch, smell, taste, hearing, and sight) to formulate scientific theories”: This perspective, championed by proponents of this idea, underscores the active role of our sense organs in the development of scientific theories. This viewpoint, which places the sense organs at the core of scientific theory development, is a key aspect of naive inductivism, as outlined by the physicist and epistemologist Bunge [47]:

“[…] science begins with observation. The scientific observer must have normal sense organs in good condition. He must faithfully report what he sees and hears, …, following the situation he observes, and must be free of any prejudice. Statements about the state of the world, or any part of it, must be justified or established as true directly through the use of the senses of an unprejudiced observer. The statements also produced (which I will call observation statements) will form the basis on which the laws and theories that constitute scientific knowledge will arise”.

The identification of these characteristics of naive conductivism by physicist Bunge is a significant and weighty contribution that presents a barrier to the progression of science from Bachelard’s perspective. Our senses, while invaluable, are not infallible and can lead us astray, as demonstrated by the relative concepts of hot and cold. Furthermore, numerous properties of matter lie beyond the reach of our senses, such as carbon monoxide gas (CO), a deadly gas that cannot be detected by smell.

As 63% of the PSTs stated, scientists use their sensory apparatus to develop their theories. The percentage of respondents holding a doctorate (72%) is higher than those holding a master’s degree (62%) and a bachelor’s degree (60%), as illustrated in

Table 7. Percentage of response categories: Statement 6.

Scientists use their sensory apparatus (touch, smell, taste, hearing, and sight) to develop scientific theories.
1. Agree: 60/95—63%
Doctorate (13/18—72%)	Master’s (23/37—62%)	Bachelor’s (24/40—60%)
Indeed, our senses act as our first contact with our reality, and it is thanks to these that we succeed in observing anomalies”. D1/Ph.D. (Biology)
“Most theories have been made based on the five senses, for example, Newton when he saw the fallen apple (the sense: sight)”. M2/M.Sc. (Hydraulics) “When we experiment, it may require the researcher to use their senses to observe the result. Two examples can be cited. For example, in chemistry, he will use his eyesight to observe a color change. In acoustics, we can use hearing to hear a signal”. M13/M.Sc. (Physics)
“Theories are, by definition, supported by experiments. These experiments are conducted by humans who use their senses to validate or refute their hypotheses. We might observe a color change or hear a sound, for example, which would give clues about the experiment’s outcome. The observation necessary for the development of theories could not be done without using the senses”. B14/B.Sc. (Geology)
2. Disagree: 28/95—30%
Doctorate (3/18—16%)	Master’s (12/37—32%)	Bachelor’s (13/40—32%)
“The use of the senses is not the only factor that allows the development of scientific theories; in addition, it is necessary to use scientific machines and equipment and to have logical reasoning and critical thinking to explain the experimental results obtained”. D17/Ph.D. (Pharmacologiy)
“I disagree because, in my opinion, scientists use their senses to theorize, but not to develop them. The development of a theory is done through experiments, which sometimes cannot be seen, heard, or felt but can be measured”. M24/M.Sc. (Pharmacology)
“Some theories were developed only by thought. For example, it is impossible to touch, smell, taste, or hear an electron”. B19/B.Sc. (Biology)
3. I don’t know: 7/95—7%
Doctorate (2/18—11%)	Master’s (2/37—6%)	Bachelor’s (3/40—8%)
“Yes, a scientist will need his senses to work effectively, but he can also have an assistant who helps him if one or more of his senses fail. However, sight would be an essential sense for a scientist”. D5/Ph.D. (Physics)
“I am not sure about this. Sometimes intuition works miracles!” M16/M.Sc. (Biology)
“For certain theories, I tend to say yes. Nevertheless, it is not only their meaning that develops theories. Because, again, the senses are specific to each person and subjective from one individual to another. How can we prove that by smell X, consequence Y happens if two individuals smell X differently?” B22/B.Sc. (Biology)

. The majority gave such answers because the senses are essential for observing the phenomena on which scientists rely to develop their scientific theory. As highlighted above, this conception is strongly shared by empiricists, according to whom the ‘scientific observer must have normal sense organs in good condition’: “Sciences always rely on physical and chemical aspects to develop their theories. To identify these aspects, we must use our senses, such as touch and hearing”. (B₃₂)

However, some students who agree with this statement specified that researchers, while referring to their senses, also referred to other means to develop their theories:

“Scientists use their senses, other tools and instruments, and mathematics to develop their theories”.

(B₂₈)

“The senses listed are related to the observation part. The experimental part uses tools beyond the senses (Not all reality is tangible)”.

(B₃₃)

Others also specified that recourse to sense is not possible, for example, in the study of matter at the atomic scale:

“To detect more complex phenomena, to which our senses are “blind” (such as interactions of subatomic particles or phenomena occurring outside the visible electromagnetic spectrum), we resort to instrumentation”.

(B₂₆)

The percentage of respondents who disagree with the statement is much lower for those with a Doctorate (16%) than those with Master’s and bachelor’s degrees, which is double (32%). For some respondents in this category, using the senses is insufficient to explain the results of the experiments because “it is necessary to use scientific machines and equipment and to have logical reasoning and critical thinking to explain the experimental results obtained”.

(D₁₇)

Respondents who do not know whether the statement is appropriate (11%, 6%, and 8%) affirm the relevance of the senses while emphasizing that a person could assist a scientist without developed senses. Others refer to intuition rather than the senses, without developing their answers.

5.2. Statement 7: Conceptual Framework and Data Analyses

“Scientists must have experiences that involve hands-on manipulation of physical materials to develop a scientific theory”: According to Bachelard [37], Bernard [48], Duhem [49], and others, theory and experiment are interdependent. For Bernard, theory is not just an anticipated interpretation, but a rational one that helps us understand natural phenomena. Le Strat [50] (pp. 48–49) summarizes in the following passage the arguments put forward by Duhem, which suggest that the experiment is closely linked to the theory:

“[Experiment] is not reduced to simply observing a fact. Experimenting requires that we already know how to use the instruments, that we know the nature of the physical quantities that they make it possible to measure, that all possible causes of errors have been eliminated, or that the effects have been corrected; that we can transpose the results of the measurements into the formalized language of the theory submitted to the test. […] From then on, it is evident that every experiment combines observation and theoretical interpretation”.

It is important to note that for many centuries, it was thought that experience precedes theory. This model suggests that the scientist should reason from observable facts without resorting to the latter. In other words, the scientist should first gather empirical data through observation and experimentation, and then formulate a theory to explain these observations. This conception was shared by many philosophers and scientists of the 16th and 17th centuries, such as Francis Bacon, John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume.

In short, a scientific theory is not developed just by performing experiments. We have the example of the famous physicist Newton, who carried out numerous experiments, including illuminating a prism with white light. His observations, such as the composition of light into several colors and their ability to be separated by passing through a prism, were significant. According to science historian Maitte [51], Newton’s discovery was somewhat surprising, as he recorded in his notes:

“In the year 1666 […] I obtained a triangular glass prism to experiment with the famous color phenomena. After making the room dark and drilling a hole in the shutter to let in a decent amount of sunlight, I placed my prism in front of the opening to refract the light onto the opposite wall. It was delightful entertainment to contemplate the bright and intense colors thus produced”.

Without a theoretical framework to explain his observations, many researchers challenged his experiments on colors, such as his compatriot, the famous physicist Hooke, whose conception contradicted Newton’s observations. According to Hooke [52], there are two fundamental colors (red and blue), and all the other colors are a mixture of red and blue. It is essential to mention that the scientists who refuted Newton’s interpretation adhered to the theory initiated by Aristotle by explaining colors using combinations of light and dark.

Thus, by carrying out experiments in the absence of a theoretical framework, we cannot refute a theory like that of Aristotle on colors, even if Newton’s experiments make it possible to observe the phenomenon of the composition of white light into colored lights and that of the recomposition of the colors of lights into white light.

For 43% of PSTs (

Table 8. Percentage of response categories: Statement 7.

Scientists must have experiences that involve hands-on manipulation of physical materials to develop a scientific theory.
1. Agree: 41/95—43%
Doctorate 6/18—33%	Master’s (14/37—38%)	Bachelor’s (21/40—53%)
“It is necessary to have the conditions of the phenomenon studied experimentally tested to verify it, adjust the corresponding standards and discuss the results, then write explanations which form a conclusion or a theory”. D10/Ph.D. (Electrical engeneering) “Indeed, scientific reasoning is essentially based on experimentation, which will allow us to collect results that will consolidate and give value to the scientific reasoning of our theories and concepts”. D17/Ph.D. (Pharmacology)
“You have to rely on facts and evidence to establish a theory. We get them from experiments”. M15/M.Sc. (Biology) “The basis of science is the experimental method. This empirical basis means that experiments will lead to hypotheses and increasingly precise theories”. M34/M.Sc. (Biology) “I think you need to do several experiments to be able to draw conclusions and finally develop a theory”. M37/M.Sc. (Physics)
“A theory is established following the analysis of measurements which result from experiments carried out according to rigorous scientific methods and protocols”. B10/B.Sc. (Earth Science) “A scientific theory goes through a series of stages: 1. observation, experimentation and verification and 2. Theorization”. B13/B.Sc. (Technology) “Agreed, the experiment’s goal is to prove with all possible conditions that our hypothesis or future theory is good”. B30/B.Sc. (Biology)
2. Disagree: 54/95—57%
Doctorate 12/18—67%	Master’s (23/37—62%)	Bachelor’s (19/40—47%)
“The development of a scientific theory can be carried out without experimentation but with demonstrations through mathematical calculation. It is also the field of theoretical physics, which nowadays is supplemented by numerical simulations, for example, the theory surrounding the existence of the Higgs boson. This theory will finally be consolidated by an experiment that requires large financial resources and great international collaboration”. D5/Ph.D. (Physics) “We have many examples of geniuses who developed scientific theories using only their thoughts—their brains. Like the theory of general relativity by Einstein, the theory of evolution by Charles Darwin and Wallace, and the discovery of the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick. Finally, in almost any new mathematical theory, one does not need to do a practical experiment to propose it”. D15/Ph.D. (Biochemistry)
“You have to follow a scientific method and carry out experiments to test the hypotheses; this is the second step, which is preceded by the step of developing hypotheses based on real facts”. M17/M.Sc. (Agronomy) “A theory is based on observations. These observations may arise from previous experiences and knowledge. However, experimentation is necessary to confirm a theory. Take, for example, string theory or the Higgs bosons”. M27/M.Sc. (Biology) “A scientific theory can be developed before experiments have proved it. This theory is, therefore, at the hypothesis stage”. M35/M.Sc. (Mechanical Engineering)
“We first make hypotheses from the scientific theory, then conduct experiments to confirm or refute the theory”. B15/B.Sc. (Biochemistry) “Not necessarily; we can develop a scientific theory and then conduct experiments to confirm it, refute it, or clarify it. We see the relationship between theory and experience as a circle, a back-and-forth between the two”. B24/B.Sc. (Mechanical engineering) “Several scientists have established theories through simple observation or pure chance. If we experiment, it means we expect a result. The theory predefines this result. So, we must first theorize about a phenomenon and experiment with it to verify its accuracy”. B37/B.Sc. (Biology)

), scientists must have experiences that involve the hands-on manipulation of physical materials to develop a scientific theory. Note, however, that the percentage of students with a doctorate (33%) and a master’s degree (38%) compared to that with a bachelor’s degree (53%) is lower. These students are in the process of becoming science educators and are at different stages of their academic journey. For example, according to D₁₇, “It is necessary to have the conditions of the phenomenon studied experimentally tested to verify it”.

Likewise, for M₁₅, “You must rely on facts and evidence to establish a theory. We get them from experiments”.

However, a significant 57% of students disagree with this statement, sparking a lively debate. They argue that a scientific theory can be developed without the need for physical experiments. For instance, D₅ suggests that mathematical formalism can be used to develop a scientific theory: “The development of a scientific theory can be carried out without experimentation but with demonstrations through mathematical calculation”. B₂₆ further emphasizes that experimentation should follow theory, stating that “one must first have a theory to demonstrate because this influences the experiment”.

On the other hand, some affirm the need to conduct experiments to verify the theory; for example, M₂₇ highlighted that “experimentation is necessary to confirm a theory”.

According to some PSTs, we must experimentally verify a hypothesis to develop a theory. For example, for B₂₈, “to develop a scientific theory, normally, one must conduct experiments to test a given hypothesis, draw conclusions, formulate new hypotheses, and carry out other experiments. It is a cycle that takes much time, experimenting, and work”.

For others, observation and theory precede experimentation by following the following steps according to M₃: “Observation → Theory → Prediction → Experiment”.

5.3. Statement 2.3: Conceptual Framework and Data Analyses

“A new scientific theory replaces another if it can predict more experimental results”: Predicting more experimental results is a crucial aspect, but it is not the only one. A new theory must also challenge the conceptual foundations of the old one. The development of the theory of relativity is a prime example of this. It could not have emerged without challenging the absolute nature of space and time, a fundamental concept in Newtonian theory.

Such a change is complex because it may encounter significant resistance from the scientific community or even rejection despite its superiority. We have several examples of scientists who could not adhere to a new theory for reasons beyond the formal framework. For example, Newton’s color theory was very controversial among his peers despite his multiple experiments, which led him to unlock the secrets of the colors of the rainbow. Thus, without an appropriate theoretical framework, many scientists continued to believe that combinations of light and dark explained colors.

As illustrated in

Table 9. Percentage of response categories: Statement 8.

A new scientific theory replaces another if it can predict more experimental results
1. Agree: 51/95—54%
Doctorate (9/18—50%)	Master’s (22/37—59%)	Bachelor’s (20/40—43%)
“In scientific research, we always carry out an experiment or a theoretical calculation that will support or invalidate an existing theory in favor of another theory. We cannot support a theory without solid argumentation. Experiment is one way to argue a theory’s validity”. D5/Ph.D. (Physics) “One theory replaces another when the new theory presents new experimental results that contradict or improve the results of the old theory”. D17/Ph.D. (Pharmacology)
“The most elaborate theory is always the one that best responds to experimental results”. M16/M.Sc. (Physics) “A scientific theory must explain observable phenomena to the best of our abilities. When a new theory arrives, it is based on increased perceptions due to improved technologies and scientific progress. It is, therefore, normal that the newer theory predicts more results than the precedent”. M23/M.Sc. (Biology) “If one theory predicts more experimental results than another, it remains more efficient than the previous theory. Note that this is valid for the same conditions of application of the two theories”. M30/M.Sc. (Civil engineering)
“Science is the search for reality and truth, and if the experimental results of the new theory are more convincing, reasonable, and stronger than the old theory, then it should be replaced”. B5/B.Sc. (Biology) “Democritus’ atom model underwent many experimental results to arrive at the model we know today”. B32/B.Sc. (Chemistry) “If one theory makes it possible to predict more experimental results than another, it goes without saying that the latter is favored and replaces the other”. B38/B.Sc. (Biology)
2. Disagree: 44/95—46%
Doctorate (6/18—33%)	Master’s (15/37—41%)	Bachelor’s (23/40—57%)
“For one theory to replace another, it must be applicable in more situations, including more different phenomena”. D7/Ph.D. (Biochemistry) “It can also predict experimental results more accurately or precisely, but not necessarily more results”. D16/Ph.D. (Chemistry)
“To confirm it, we must carry out experiments”. M12/M.Sc. (Mechanical Engineering) “I think the new theory needs to provide the right experimental results that prove what is needed and contradict the old theory”. M15/M.Sc. (Biology)
“For one theory to replace another, we must prove that the first is no longer valid with experimental results and issue a new one. There is no link with the number of experimental results”. B15/B.Sc. (Biochemistry) “I do not think it should predict more experimental results but rather demonstrate that the old theories were wrong experimentally. For a new theory to replace an old one, it must prove the truth by experimental results (no more and no less)”. B22/B.Sc. (Biology) “Experimental results cannot predict some because we do not yet have the means or the technology to make related measurements. For one theory to replace another, it must allow as many links or connections as possible to be made with other theories and phenomena”. B26/B.Sc. (Physics)

, for 54% PSTs, a new scientific theory replaces another if it can predict more experimental results: “One theory replaces another when the new theory presents new experimental results that contradict or improve the results of the old theory” D₁₇; “The most elaborate theory is always the one that best responds to experimental results” M₁₆; “If the new theory’s experimental results are more convincing, reasonable, and stronger than the old theory, then it should be replaced” B₅; “Democritus’ atom model underwent many experimental results to arrive at the model we know today” B₃₂.

Some students who agree with the statement above point out that the new theory explains more results because of scientific progress. They argue that the new theory’s ability to explain more results is a testament to the continuous evolution of scientific understanding. For example, M₂₃ affirms, “When a new theory arrives, it is based on increased perceptions due to scientific progress. Therefore, it is normal that the newer theory predicts more results than the precedent”. This perspective highlights the inspiring journey of scientific progress, leaving the audience feeling inspired by the evolution of scientific understanding.

Some explanations reveal that some PSTs who disagree with the statement (46%) actually agree with it, but with a different emphasis. They stress that it is not the number of experiments that invalidates a given theory, but rather the quality of the experimental results. For example, M₁₅ states the following: “We must demonstrate that the first theory is no longer valid with experimental results and propose a new one. The key is not the number of experimental results, but the quality and strength of the evidence”. This perspective reassures the audience about the rigorous and evidence-based nature of the scientific process.

5.4. Statement 2.4: Conceptual Framework and Data Analyses

“To study the properties of a given phenomenon, scientists first do some measures and then define the underlying scientific concepts”: In scientific language, we use terms such as “mass”, “force”, “acceleration”, “magnetic field”, “heat”, “energy”, and “atom”, and so on; we designate them using the term “scientific concepts”. These concepts are theoretical constructs.

For Bachelard and Kuhn, scientific concepts are inseparable in their formation from the notions of epistemological ruptures [38] and the scientific revolution [39], as highlighted above. For them, each rupture is an advance in knowledge, or the birth of a new concept. It is important to emphasize that sometimes the scientific community keeps the same terms, such as “atom”, “molecule”, and “mass”, even if their meaning depends on the scientific theory in question. For instance, the concept of ‘atom’ in the theory of Dalton is different from that in the theory of Rutherford.

Note that the statement is valid within the framework of empiricist science, according to which scientific “reality” is the measurement itself rather than the object measured. In this paradigmatic framework, scientists tend to measure first and define later (the instrument precedes the theory).

This naive conception of measurement, which assumes that the measurement of a physical quantity is independent of any theoretical framework, has been severely criticized since the advent of modern science. In this system, the measurement of a physical quantity is carried out within a given theoretical framework, and outside of this framework, it still needs to be explored. The criticism lies in the fact that this naive conception can lead to misconceptions and misinterpretations of scientific data.

As illustrated in

Table 10. Percentage of response categories: Statement 9.

To study the properties of a given phenomenon, scientists first do some measures and then define the underlying scientific concept.
1. Agree: 43/95—45%
Doctorate (9/18—50%)	Master’s (16/37—43%)	Bachelor’s (18/40—45%)
“Yes, scientists start with measurements (observation, experimentation, and verification), then theorizing”. D4/Ph.D. (Chemistry) “Indeed, scientists first seek to understand and explain the phenomenon. Then, they begin to formulate the problem and put forward hypotheses. Hypotheses can be confirmed or disconfirmed by experiments (measurements). We then define the concepts which will remain in the model as long as the hypotheses remain valid. It is the scientific approach that follows this sequence of actions”. D14/Ph.D. (Physical)
“To study the properties of phenomena, scientists first make measurements, then define the concepts relating to them, however it is also true that some properties were discovered by observation first, and then come the measurements”. M21/M.Sc. (Mechanical Engineering) “Scientists carry out experiments to measure the results obtained and then define the theories and concepts that relate to them”. M28/M.Sc. (Environment)
“Measurements are the numerical translation of scientific phenomena; the numerical language is easier to interpret and define in the form of concepts. In addition to the fact that this language follows a logic that leaves no room for large deviations that could distort a scientific conclusion”. B10/B.Sc. (Earth Science) “Scientists first carry out experiments and measurements, and depending on the results, especially their reliability and reproducibility, they define the concepts”. B16/B.Sc. (Biochemistry)
2. Disagree: 52/95—55%
Doctorate (9/18—50%)	Master’s (21/37—57%)	Bachelor’s (22/40—55%)
“In many cases, concepts were first developed, and scientists sought to support their concepts with measurements. Both approaches are good as long as the scientist accepts the measurements he obtains (even if it goes against his initial concept)”. D7/Ph.D. (Biochemistry) “I believe that firstly, they carry out observations, then make measurements considering the parameters (space, time), conclude from the results obtained, and finally define the concepts relating to them”. D13/Ph.D. (Sc-applied-Energy)
“The scientific method includes other stages, which begin with observation and the formulation of theories, the carrying out of experimentation, to define the concepts relating to it”. M5/M.Sc. (Biology) “It seems that we start with observations, a review of the literature, and a methodology before taking measures. Then, we analyze these measurements to define concepts finally”. M11/M.Sc. (Civil Engineering)
“Scientists base themselves a priori on theoretical concepts to study the properties of phenomena. Once the measurements are made, this will confirm or refute these concepts, or at most, can help modify the initial concepts”. B8/B.Sc. (Physics) “We should first define the concepts and then carry out the measurements. Manipulations and measurements make it possible to obtain results that affirm or refute the hypotheses made at the outset. These assumptions must be made with concepts in mind. If this is not the case, the experience is not constructed rigorously”. B14/B.Sc. (Geology)

, 45% of PSTs agree with the statement, and the difference in percentages for the three degrees is insignificant (50%, 43%, and 45%). For the majority, measurement precedes the definition of scientific concepts: “Scientists first make measurements, then define the concepts relating to them” M₂₁.

For a certain number of respondents in this category, there is confusion between “scientific concepts” and the “measurements” carried out following an experiment: “Scientists have carried out measurements such as sending a robot to Mars and observing all its characteristics. The concepts relating to it are the presence of water and soil having igneous rocks, among others” B₃₂.

In total, 50% (doctorate), 57% (master’s), and 55% (bachelor’s) of students disagree with the statement because, according to many, the theoretical framework takes precedence over experimentation. This underscores the crucial role of theoretical frameworks in scientific research.

For illustration, M₂₃ and B₈ established the following explanations: “Scientists defined experiments to obtain measurements that confirm or refute their model” M₂₃. “Scientists base themselves a priori on theoretical concepts to study the properties of phenomena” B₈.

5.5. Statement 10: Conceptual Framework and Data Analyses

“By observing the fall of an apple, the well-known physicist Isaac Newton developed gravitational theory”: This anecdote, rather than promoting a belief in a stroke of genius, should inspire one with the dedication and hard work that led Newton to state the law of gravitation. His explanation of why an apple falls freely from a tree and why the Moon remains in orbit around the Earth was not a sudden revelation, but a result of his persistent efforts and the state of progress of knowledge on the question of the movement of objects. It also underscores the need for critical thinking in understanding scientific concepts, empowering us to delve deeper into the principles of science.

Other similar anecdotes should be considered with some skepticism. For instance, the famous example of the Greek mathematician, physicist, and inventor Archimedes, found the principle of flotation while he was taking a bath, which he came out of entirely naked while shouting, EURÊKA (I found it). Similarly, it is reported that the American geneticist and biochemist James Watson, who discovered the “double helix” structure of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) with his British colleague Francis Crick, imagined this structure like the path of a snake in his dream.

These anecdotes, often highlighted in school textbooks and popular science magazines, can lead young people to construct an erroneous, even magical, idea about the conditions that lead a scientist to make a discovery. By questioning this perception, we can engage in the process of understanding science, appreciating the hard work and critical thinking that underlie each discovery.

In total, 51% of students agree that the apple fall inspired Newton to enunciate the law of universal gravitation. The percentage of students from the three cycles is approximately the same (50%, 59%, and 45%). Thus, despite research training spread over several years for master’s and doctoral students, they are unaware of the conceptual difficulties underlying our understanding of a phenomenon as complex as gravitation. These difficulties are highlighted in our analysis above. In the case of students who disagree with this statement, our analysis of the explanations that they put forward allowed us to identify three response subcategories: 1. Students according to whom Newton was not only inspired by the falling apple but also by other observations, such as that of the Moon, which does not fall to Earth contrary to the apple, which was used to represent the parabolic movement of an object launched into the air; 2. Students who disagree with this statement because, according to them, Newton was inspired by the work of other researchers such as Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Tycho Brahe, and others who carried out astronomy research. Note that Kepler’s 3rd law of motion was crucial in developing Newton’s theory of gravitation.

Finally, for the students who neither disagree nor agree with the statement, that is, who do not know (11%, 14%, and 15%), the explanations they put forward show that they disagree with the statement since they claim that Newton referred to the work of other researchers in his work on gravitation without providing specific examples. Their responses, such as B₃₉’s assertion, “Probably, he already had a very advanced idea about his theory before explaining his law with the phenomenon of a falling apple”, highlight their critical thinking and analytical skills (

Table 11. Percentage of response categories: Statement 10.

By observing the fall of an apple, the well-known physicist Isaac Newton discovered the law of gravitation.
1. Agree: 49/95—51%
Doctorate (9/18—50%)	Master’s (22/37—59%)	Bachelor’s (18/40—45%)
“It was the fall of the apple that allowed Newton to discover the law of universal gravitation, which depends on the mass of the two objects, the distance which separates them with the constant of universal gravitation G”. D2/Ph.D. (Biology) “I agree that the English physicist Isaac Newton discovered the law of universal gravitation, but this was not done by receiving an apple on the head. According to my knowledge, it was while walking in a field in the moonlight that he observed apples falling to the ground. He said to himself that the apples were attracted to the earth; undoubtedly, the moon would be too, and if it remains attached, then a force must hold it back”. D13/Ph.D. (ScApplied)
“I agree, and to this day, it has become an almost indisputable theory that the law of gravity was discovered by Newton by observing an apple that fell from a tree. So, after observing, he wondered why the apple falls and does not fly up. Thus, he managed to discover the law of universal gravity”. M6/M.Sc. (Biology) “Newton was able to discover the law of universal attraction or the law of gravitation, which describes gravitation as a force responsible for the fall of bodies and the movement of celestial bodies by observing the fall of an apple”. M14/M.Sc. (Mechanical Engineering)
“Indeed, observing the fall of an apple influenced Newton to question himself and to make reflections and pose hypotheses, which led him to develop this theory”. B7/B.Sc. (Chemical engineering) “This is indeed the way we were taught!” The phenomenon of the falling apple is well known to represent the law of gravity! This phenomenon was the beginning of Newton’s questioning of gravity and the law of universal attraction”. B40/B.Sc. (Neuro-sciences)
2. Disagree: 33/95—35%
Doctorate (7/18—39%)	Master’s (10/37—27%)	Bachelor’s (16/40—40%)
“It was not only by observing the apple’s fall that Newton discovered the law of universal attraction. However, this incident challenges him on the subject, just like the Moon, which does not fall on the earth but does not move away from it. There is also the fall of a stone with horizontal speed and then describing a parabolic trajectory. All these observations led Newton to formulate hypotheses, which he endeavored to demonstrate through calculation. The publication of the Law of Universal Attraction would have taken place 20 years after the apple incident”. D5/Ph.D. (Physics) “I learned, like many others, that Newton discovered the law of universal gravitation because the apple fell on his head. Nevertheless, it is more complicated. Indeed, Newton studied and assimilated the models of Copernicus, Galileo, and others, which showed an attraction between celestial bodies (e.g., the sun, earth, and Moon). Furthermore, more than a simple observation is required to make a universal law. This is the genius of Newton”. D12/Ph.D. (Physics-Materials)
“Newton’s discoveries in mechanics are a logical continuation of the work of other physicists such as Galileo and Kepler”. M13/M.Sc. (Physics) “It is now recognized that this story is apocryphal. Additionally, Robert Hooke, a contemporary of Newton, also claimed the discovery of the inversely squared relationship between gravitational force and distance”. M22/M.Sc. (Geochemistry)
“I believe this is a myth linked to this genius. In my opinion, it is not the simple fall of an apple that leads a scientist to discover an entire law. However, it is an accumulation of observations and experiments over several years”. B8/B.Sc. (Physics) “Legend says that it was when this apple fell on him that he had this genius intuition, but I do not believe it. A theory as complex and revolutionary as the one he developed can only result from methodical and relentless work over a long time and requires much rigor”. B24/B.Sc. (Mechanical engineering)
3. I don’t know: 13/95—14%
Doctorate (2/18—11%)	Master’s (5/37—14%)	Bachelor’s (6/40—15%)
“Indeed, Newton described the law of gravitation based on other work by other researchers. On the other hand, the apple story was taught to us in high school. Nevertheless, I wonder if it is true”. D9/Ph.D. (Chemical engineering)
“I cannot say whether Isaac Newton alone has the merit of discovering the law of universal gravitation, or whether there was subsequently, or before, other work which led to gravitation, I will document myself after the test”. M21/M.Sc. (Mechanical engineering)
“Probably, he already had a very advanced idea about his theory before explaining his law with the phenomenon of a falling apple”. B39/B.Sc. (Chemistry)

).

5.6. Statement 11: Conceptual Framework and Data Analyses

“The scientists present their theories using logical reasoning”. Even if mathematics is fundamental, since the remarkable work of Galileo and Newton on differential calculus, in physics, for example, it remains a different field of knowledge because, according to the historian of science Le Strat [50], it is independent of observations of the “real” world. Let us note that in the case of theoretical physics, mathematical formalism is not just important; it is crucial to developing its foundations. Galileo is credited with introducing mathematical language to study the movement of bodies. Also, it is essential to note that scientists must construct their theories using mathematical reasoning.

For instance, the basic postulates underlying Newton’s classical theory of space–time and those developed within the theory of relativity are not established solely on a bivalent logic that recognizes only two truth values: ‘true’ and ‘false’. If these theories were presented only logically, one could deduce the relative mass from the mass defined by the significant mathematical equation m = F/a (F represents the resultant force that applies to a body and has its acceleration).

Most works in contemporary epistemology emphasize the transformative power of the transition from one concept to another. This radical epistemological leap, requiring the abandonment of certain premises, is more than just a change. It is a transformation that extends beyond the logical–mathematical stage, forming the bedrock of the theoretical edifice. This transformative power is what fuels the excitement of scientific progress.

Scientists are human beings and sometimes present their results with errors that can persist in the theories used for several years, even centuries. They thus delay the development of science, like in the case of geocentrism, where the Earth was considered immobile and located at the center of the universe. Let us emphasize in this regard that erroneous reasoning is only sometimes a source of stagnation. Indeed, specific errors have played a constructive role in the evolution of science. When errors are identified, they lead to the re-evaluation of existing theories and the formulation of new ones, thereby advancing our understanding. As the physicist Lévy-Leblond [53] (pp. 288–252) underlined, “The traditional story of science and its success is that of the only tip of an iceberg, which would not float if it were not supported by a much greater volume of failures and errors”. This should encourage us all to learn from our mistakes and use them as stepping stones to progress.

As illustrated in

Table 12. Percentage of response categories: Statement 11.

The scientists present their theories using logical reasoning.
1. Agree: 73/95—77%
Doctorate (12/18—67%)	Master’s (29/37—78%)	Bachelor’s (32/40—80%)
“Of course, because science is a science of reasoning while giving logical arguments”. D4/Ph.D. (Chemistry) “Scientists follow a well-defined approach and logic in explaining their ideas or hypotheses and in the protocol of experiments on a natural phenomenon studied. This is important to avoid misunderstandings of their work and seeing their theories refuted”. D13/Ph.D. (Sc.Applied-Energy)
“Scientific theory draws its substance from rationality, and scientists present their theory logically. What is not logical cannot be scientific”. M3/M.Sc. (Mechanical Engineering) “They must obey the laws of logic, in the sense that if A = B and B = C, then A = C. On the other hand, a scientific theory only sometimes seems logical at first glance, intuitively, especially if it is outside our field of knowledge”. M9/M.Sc. (Biology)
“To go beyond a theory to develop or apply it, it must be presented logically and coherently. This will allow subsequent scientists to build on it to improve and put it into practice”. B8/B.Sc. (Physics) “This is the essence of science; it expresses observations, conclusions, and analyses in detailed, reproducible, and logical forms. If not, we are not talking about science but about beliefs”. B16/B.Sc. (Biology)
2. Disagree: 22/95—23%
Doctorate (6/18—33%)	Master’s (8/37—22%)	Bachelor’s (8/40—20%)
“As theories used to explain the reality of natural phenomena, scientists will try to present them logically, but the term logic is subjective. They think it makes sense but may not necessarily make sense to others. Several people must validate this notion of logic”. D11/Ph.D. (Pharmacy) “A theory is the culmination of a scientific investigation, characterized by careful observation and interpretation of phenomena. It will allow us to establish a well-structured scientific approach subsequently. Nevertheless, presenting a supposedly logical theory may not be unanimous among scientists who might show skepticism if the interpretation of the results does not seem convincing”. D14/Ph.D. (Physics)
“We need to define a paradigm because the logic is questionable”. M8/M.Sc. (Biology) “Many scientists have presented theories that seemed logical to them, yet, over time, they were discovered to be false”. M13/M.Sc. (Physics)
“Each scientist presents the theory as he perceives it, so sometimes it will be logical to him but completely incomprehensible to others”. B1/B.Sc. (Sc. Physical activity) “I do not know enough about scientific theories to answer confidently, but they often respect one of the basic principles of logic, such as the principle of non-contradiction. That is, theories must present a conceptual framework that does not contradict a phenomenon in reality. On the other hand, the discovery of phenomena that are not explained by an established theory leads to the advancement of theoretical science. Which sometimes requires breaking the framework of what we understand as logic”. B12/B.Sc. (Sc-Environment)

, most students agree with the statement (77%). On the other hand, the percentages of responses illustrated in the table show that the percentage of students with a doctorate (67%) is lower than that of students with a master’s degree (78%) and a bachelor’s degree (80%). It is important to note that these students have not studied the theories that were accepted by the scientific community for many years and have now been abandoned, as mentioned above. Their perspectives are shaped by their current knowledge and understanding.

For the students who disagreed with this statement (23%), several responses explained their disagreement. Their feedback is invaluable in shaping our understanding of scientific logic, as it provides a diverse range of perspectives that challenge and enrich our current understanding. According to many, logic is relative; it depends on the paradigm or scientific theory. For example, M₁₃ emphasizes that “many scientists have presented theories that seemed logical to them, yet, over time, they were discovered to be false”.

For some students, scientists try to develop logical reasoning, which can be understood as the process of using a set of principles to explain natural phenomena by resorting to given theories. As D₁₁ emphasizes, “As theories used to explain the reality of natural phenomena, scientists will try to present them logically, but the term logic is subjective”. This insight into the role of scientific theories in shaping logical reasoning can be enlightening and can deepen our appreciation of the scientific process.

6. Synthesis and Discussion

By meticulously analyzing the MCQ data, we can gain valuable insights into PSTs’ conceptions of the NOS. These PSTs, who hold doctorate, master’s, or bachelor of science degrees, have been the focus of our research for several years. Surprisingly, the data analysis reveals no significant difference in NOS conceptions among these three diploma levels, underscoring the importance of our findings.

The most widespread conceptions related to the first theme “The development of science throughout history: continuity, ruptures, and stagnation” are as follows:

• The scientific theories developed throughout history, consistent with established actual scientific theories and those developed in the future, will be in continuity with those of today, are of significance in understanding the historical development of science.
• Science progresses by accumulation, with each contribution from researchers and academics playing a crucial role in this process.
• The development of theories, a process that requires many years and several centuries due to the complexity of the phenomenon in question, is a testament to the patience and dedication of the scientists involved, inspiring us with their unwavering commitment.

Concerning the second theme (“The development of science through history: observation, hypothesis, experiment, measure, theory, logical reasoning”), the most widespread conceptions are as follows:

4.

The scientific experimentation required physical equipment.

5.

We must experiment to validate a theory.

6.

The facts are independent of the scientist’s prior conceptions.

7.

Experimentation precedes theory.

8.

Experiments are necessary for the validity of scientific theory.

9.

Experiments constitute the starting point from which we construct scientific theories.

10.

Scientific knowledge is objective and requires logical reasoning.

The conceptions of PSTs regarding the NOS, which significantly depart from the theories of numerous historians, epistemologists, and philosophers of science in their emphasis, are the focus of our critique and analysis. These theories, developed within our conceptual framework, particularly the notions of paradigmatic change and epistemological rupture introduced by Kuhn [39] and Bachelard [38], have significantly influenced our understanding of the development of laws and scientific theories throughout history.

Our literature review also reveals that students with secondary and collegiate degrees and in-service and pre-service elementary teachers share many of these conceptions.

Also, several alternative conceptions of college students regarding the relationships between theories and experimentation [11] surprisingly resemble those of several participants in the present research, despite the latter holding a bachelor’s, master’s, or doctorate.

This unexpected similarity underscores the pressing need for further investigation and analysis, and highlights the potential for future research in this area.

7. Conclusions, Implication and Limitation

Our finding underscores the importance of PSTs’ understanding of NOS concepts. As emphasized in the international literature review, PSTs, who will be teaching science at the secondary level, need to study these concepts. They will be responsible for conveying their conceptions about science development, particularly the links between scientific theory, observation, hypotheses, measurements, and experiments. This teaching will significantly reinforce or challenge students’ naive conceptions about NOS, a point widely emphasized by many researchers.

In this context, the conceptions of the PSTs regarding the NOS reported in the present research are crucial. This involves creating a didactic strategy that confronts the PSTs’ conceptions and those shared by contemporary epistemology. This confrontation is crucial in connection with the NOS concepts synthesized in

Table 13. Parallelism between PSTs and the contemporary epistemological and philosophical conceptions of the nature of science.

Pre-Service Secondary Science Teachers of NOS	Contemporary Epistemological and Philosophical Conceptions of NOS
Science progresses by the accumulation of truths.	Science does not progress by accumulating truths but by eliminating false ideas.
Science advancement results from an improvement in current theories.	Science advancement results from questioning existing theories.
Discoveries made by ancient scientists allow us to make other discoveries today.	Science today does not live in the past. On the contrary, it is incredibly scalable and tends to recreate itself as a new science.
Our developments evolve thanks to technological advances, but they start with a notion discovered by an earlier generation of scientists.	Technological advances in recent years have significantly altered the direction of the previous generations of scientists.
Primary observation allows scientists to explain natural phenomena such as the fall of bodies.	Primary observation generally constitutes an obstacle to explaining natural phenomena, such as the fall of bodies.
The scientific approach, rooted in objectivity, liberates scientists from biases by observing facts without preconceived ideas: The facts stand independent of the scientist’s prior conceptions.	The scientific approach involves a scientist actively engaging in resolving a question: Scientific research requires the scientist to construct a theoretical framework based on prior knowledge and observations.
Scientists define concepts based on measurements.	Scientists define concepts based on a precise theoretical framework.
The experiment in a laboratory consists of carrying out manipulations with the required equipment.	Experiments in a laboratory consist of verifying, through practice (or thought), answers to a problem that falls within the framework of a given theory.
Observation describes things as they are; it is purely passive.	To observe, we must relate what we see to notions we previously held. From this perspective, observation is not purely passive.
It would be best to have very keen senses to interpret natural phenomena.	We must resort to a given theory to interpret phenomena observed in nature.
Without the help of theory, the scientist should reason from observable facts.	With the help of theory, the scientist must reason from observable facts.
A scientific theory is only valid if it withstands the experimental tests responsible for verifying it.	A scientific theory is valid if it resists the experimental tests responsible for refuting it; that is, it must be possible to establish experimental conditions that can call it into question.
Technology advances thanks to the development of science.	Technology advances thanks to the development of science and vice versa.
Science studies the natural phenomena that govern the universe.	Science studies the natural phenomena provoked by the scientist.
The fundamental concepts of science are empirical objects; we must carry out experiments in a laboratory to define them.	The fundamental concepts of science are conceptual constructions linked to a paradigm or a scientific theory.

, which serve as a comprehensive reference point for our discussion.

This strategy would make them more critical when using observation, theory, experiment, measurement, scientific revolution, paradigm, and epistemological rupture. These words acquire meanings that are strongly associated with the epistemological context or paraphrasing of text from science history books. The role of context in understanding these terms is crucial and often underappreciated. For example, paraphrasing from Kuhn and Bachelard without paying scrupulous attention to the context would demand a critical understanding of the meanings of those words, as we have seen in this research.

When considering the limitations of our data analysis, it is important to recognize that the small number of respondents with diplomas in physics, chemistry, biology, environmental science, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, geology, and other disciplines limits our ability to determine whether their conceptions are influenced by the conceptual foundations of each of these fields. Equally important is the need to examine the explanations provided by each respondent for all the statements in the questionnaire, as this will reveal each respondent’s unique epistemological profile. Such an analysis is crucial, as this will, among other things, uncover the potential for contradictory conceptions being held by the same person about the same phenomenon, a phenomenon famously illustrated by Bachelard in the case of the mass concept.