by Simonneaux, Laurence; Simonneaux, Jean

Based on the comments by Lopez-Facal and Jiménez-Aleixandre, we consider that the cultural identities within Europe interfere with the question of the re-introduction of the Slovenian bear, generating a kind of “discrimination.” When the SAQs under debate run against the students’ systems of value, it seems that the closer the connection between the SAQs (socially acute questions) and the territorial and cultural identity, the more deeply the associated systems of values are affected; and the more the evidence is denied, the weaker the socio-scientific reasoning becomes. This result shows the importance of attempting to get the students to clarify the values underlying their socio-scientific reasoning. As Sadler observed, there was no transfer of socio-scientific reasoning on the three questions considered; each SAQ, as they are deeply related to social representations and identity, generated a specific line of reasoning balancing more or less each operation. Among various methods of teaching SAQs—problematizing, genetic, doctrinal and praxeological methods––socio-scientific reasoning may be a complex activity of problematization fostering the development of critical thinking. Confronted with the refusal to analyse the evidence in the case of the bear, and because of the nature of SAQs, we explore the notion of tangible proof. We think it relevant to study, together with the students, the processes of investigation used by the actors to establish
or disestablish tangible proof on SAQs by analysing the intermediary states of the systems of proof, and possibly the “weak signals” which result in calling for the implementation of the precautionary principle.

DOI: 10.1007/s11422-008-9145-6
Online Date: 9/6/2008
Print publication date: 9/1/2009
View article on SpringerLink