Now you know what a hypothesis is, and you also know that daddy-long-legs are not poisonous.
|
|
- Moses Lyons
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Objectives: Be able to explain the basic process of scientific inquiry. Be able to explain the power and limitations of scientific inquiry. Be able to distinguish a robust hypothesis from a weak or untestable hypothesis. Learning outcomes 1. Understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. 2. Develop scientific hypotheses. 3. Distinguish between good and bad hypotheses. 4. Understand the importance of testability and falsifiability in scientific hypotheses. Developing a hypothesis Science advances by testing hypotheses. A hypothesis is a tentative answer to a well framed question. For example, imagine that an arachnologist is tired of hearing people say that daddy-long-legs are the most poisonous animals in the world, but their fangs are too small to pierce human skin, and thus they are harmless to humans. To see if this is true, the arachnologist would start with the question Are Opiliones poisonous? (Opiliones is the taxonomic name for daddy-long-legs; and the word Opiliones denotes both the singular and the plural). From this, he could make the hypothesis: Opiliones are poisonous. As you can see, the hypothesis is not framed as a question, but rather as a tentative answer to the question. Note that in this particular example, the hypothesis is very similar to the original question., but this not always the case, since questions tend to be general, and good hypotheses tend to be very specific. But for this explanation, we'll take these questions and hypothesis. So, from the current hypothesis Opiliones are poisonous, the arachnologist could then make a prediction: If Opiliones are poisonous, then I will see poison glands when I look at one under the microscope. This hypothesis is both easy to test, and easy to prove wrong if in fact it is wrong (but see below about the verb to prove ). To test it, the arachnologist would just have to put a species of Opiliones under the microscope and look for poison glands. And if he does not find poison glands, that will falsify the hypothesis. So he puts an Opiliones under his microscope, and does not see any poison glands, and with this, he can say that the hypothesis is false, or rather, that it has been falsified. Note that scientists prefer to say that a hypothesis was either falsified or that they failed to falsify the hypothesis. This is similar to what the people mean when they say that they proved or disproved something. However, because of philosophical issues that are beyond the scope of this lab, there are no absolute proofs in science, and thus, the term to prove something is not generally used in scientific writing. Now you know what a hypothesis is, and you also know that daddy-long-legs are not poisonous. A hypothesis is the product of deductive reasoning, going from general premises to the specific results one would expect if those general premises are indeed true. The process of testing hypotheses is used throughout science: from field ecologists to computer scientists to astronomers. Please also note that the word theory is used by the public to mean that something is just a thought experiment, as in theoretical. However, in science the word theory is reserved for whole bodies of knowledge, backed by hard facts (that is, data), and which have predictive properties. For example,
2 gravitational theory can be used to predict that if you drop something from a table, it will hit the ground, or to predict the speed of rotation of a planet around the sun. Evolutionary theory, on which the whole field of biology is based, is also a theory in the same sense that gravity and thermodynamics are. When nonscientists say things like I have a theory that eating too many carbs is what makes people gain weight, not eating fat, what they mean is that they have a hypothesis that carbs are the cause of weight gain. This hypothesis is both testable and falsifiable. But it's not theory. How to develop hypotheses. The process of developing and testing hypotheses is very similar to what a car mechanic does when attempting to fix a car. For example, imagine that your car does not start in the morning, so you take it to the mechanic. To fix the car, the mechanic would start with the initial observation: the car does not start. After this observation, the obvious question would be "Why is the car not starting?" Then comes the interesting part, when the mechanic comes up with tentative answers or hypotheses. For example: 1. The car does not start because the battery is dead. 2. The car won't start because the starter motor is damaged. 3. The car won t start because it is out of gas. 4. Etc. Please note again that the hypotheses are framed as statements or tentative answers to the questions. The mechanic could come up with many more hypotheses, as scientists often do, but for now let's leave it at the ones listed above. These tentative answers are perfectly good scientific hypotheses because they are: Testable All of these hypotheses can be tested: the battery can be changed, the starter motor replaced, and gas can be put in the car. Falsifiable If the mechanic were to change the battery but the car still not start, then the first hypothesis would be falsified. If the mechanic then changes the starter motor, and the car still does not start, the the second hypothesis would also be falsified. And so on. Not all hypotheses are scientific Please note that just because anybody can make a hypothesis, this does not mean that all hypotheses are scientific. For example, if the mechanic were to say the car does not start because it is possessed by an invisible, undetectable, unmeasurable ghost, that would not be a good scientific hypothesis. It would not be scientific because there is no way for a mechanic to test for the presence or absence, never mind the effects of, something that has no physical or natural properties. This can get complicated. For example, if the mechanic were to hypothesize that praying to the car would make it start, that would be a falsifiable hypothesis: he would just have to pray to the car, and test if it starts. The key to identifying bad hypotheses is thus not in crossing out the possibility of unknown forces, but in crossing out hypotheses that cannot be tested or falsified.
3 In today's laboratory exercise, you will be given two boxes, one sealed and with several objects inside, and one empty box with several objects beside it. You have to try asses what are the objects inside the sealed box by developing testable, falsifiable hypotheses and testing them. At the end of the lab, you will be able to open the sealed box and see if your conclusions about the contents were accurate. As you go through the lab, please note that the professor will not evaluate if your hypotheses were falsified or not, in other words, there will be no points off if you are wrong about what was inside of the box. All of the points will be awarded for (1) developing a set of hypotheses that are both testable and falsifiable, and (2) writing a lab report that follows the instructions in this lab. WORK IN GROUPS of 3-4 students. 1. WRITE DOWN all measurements and other observations. 2. Also write down all hypotheses that you test, all tests that you conduct, and all outcomes. 3. When your group reaches agreement as to the contents of the sealed box, WRITE DOWN your prediction in the form of a hypothesis. 4. Test your hypothesis by opening the box. (This type of test is possible only for hypotheses about very specific occurrences, such as "my lab on this day"; tests of this kind are not usually possible for the widely applicable hypotheses that scientists usually consider.) 5. IN YOUR WRITE-UP, discuss your outcome. If you guessed correctly, explain how you arrived at your hypothesis and how you tested it. If you guessed incorrectly, explain what led you astray and how you might have avoided being led astray in this way. INSTRUCTIONS FOR WRITE-UPS are on the LAST PAGE. Here is an example of how a group of students might go about developing good hypotheses for the content of the box: 1. Question: What is inside the box? 2. Hypothesis 1: There is something made out of metal inside the box. 3. Prediction: If I drag a magnet through the outside of the box, I should feel a pull of something metal inside. 4. Test of Hypothesis 1: Drag the magnet around the box.
4 5. Observations (data collecting): The magnet was attracted (or was not attracted) to something metal inside the box. 6. Conclusions for the test: If you felt a magnetic pull: you conclude that there is probably something metal inside of the box. If you did not feel anything: there's probably nothing made out of metal inside of the box. In your lab, go through the steps above for testing the hypothesis that there is something metal inside of the box. After recording your data, develop a few more hypotheses and go through a few more rounds of hypothesis prediction test observations conclusions. Sometimes students start by weighting the closed box, and then putting different combinations of objects inside of the open box until the weight matches. This procedure is still a way of testing hypotheses, which could be framed, as for example: The closed box has a cuvette and a sponge inside. Whatever hypotheses you develop and decide to test, just make sure that they are both testable and falsifiable. Also, make sure to keep records of all your hypotheses and tests, as you will need these to write your report. After reaching your conclusions about what is inside of the box, you will have the opportunity to do what no scientist gets to do: lift the lid on the universe and know the truth. It is important to note that opening the black box is not part of testing any of the hypotheses. If your tests led you to the wrong conclusion, i.e. you were wrong about the contents of the box, there are several possibilities, all which are very interesting from the perspective of philosophy of science: 1. You did not test enough hypotheses. Scientists working to understand our natural universe do not get to open the universe up and check their answers, so they never really know when they have tested enough hypotheses and reached the correct answer. 2. Your measurements were wrong. This is why scientist put so much attention into using precise instruments when collecting their data. 3. Differences between the closed box and its contents, and the empty box and objects you were provided (your sample, in the jargon of a scientist). Differences in production of the boxes, variations in the cardboard material, etc. can cause different boxes to be of slightly different weights. Same thing for the cuvettes, microcentrifuge tubes, and other objects. This is why scientist insist in doing multiple measurements of the same phenomena, to try assess what is the natural existing variation. For example, if you had had the opportunity to weight 30 different boxes, that would have given you an idea of how much variance, or differences, you could expect among the boxes, and adjust your expectations accordingly. A useful measure of this variance, or differences, is called the standard deviation. This statistical term is outside of the scope of this lab, but you will see it again when you take more advanced classes. Vocabulary These are terms whose meaning you should know. 1. science 2. hypothesis 3. theory 4. prediction 5. test 6. experiment 7. falsifiability 8. testability Thought questions: 1. What is the difference between a hypothesis and a theory? 2. What is the difference between a hypothesis and a test? 3. What does it mean that a good hypothesis must be falsifiable? 4. What does it mean that a good hypothesis must be testable? 5. Can science address questions of supernatural phenomena? Why or why not?
5 Black Box Write-up Instructions For this lab homework, you need to write a brief (no more than 2 pages) report that answers the following questions, either in paragraph form or in a numbered list: 1) What was the process your group used to determine what was inside the box? What kinds of observations did you make? What hypotheses did you develop? How did you test these hypotheses? Did you consider the possibility that the box contained more (or fewer) objects than you had been told, and how might this uncertainty have affected your hypothesis? 2) When you opened the box and discovered the truth, did it match your hypothesis about the contents of the box? Was your hypotheses verified or falsified? Can a hypothesis about one box be verified? Can most scientific hypotheses? Why or why not? 3) What could have led you astray, or made it difficult to test your hypotheses? What sources of error may have been present? Were there elements of luck involved? 4) Is it possible that your box contained a weightless, invisible ghost or spirit in addition to the physical objects? Discuss whether this is a hypothesis worth considering, and why. (NOTE: "I don't believe in spirits" or "Ghosts don't exist" are not suitable answers because they do not address these questions for skeptical readers. Ask yourself whether you can tell the difference between a marble+glove+ pipette and a marble+glove+pipette+ghost, assuming that the ghost is weightless and invisible.) 5) If your guess was wrong, is it possible that you were really correct, but an evil spirit changed or switched the objects in the split-second before you opened the box, just to make you look bad? If your guess was correct, is it possible that you were really wrong, but a kindly spirit changed or switched the objects in the split-second before you opened the box, just to make you look good? Discuss whether these possibilities are hypotheses worth considering, and why. Your grade for this laboratory will be based on how well you answer these questions, not on how close you were to figuring out what was inside the closed box. The key to a good grade is to demonstrate that you developed hypotheses that were testable and falsifiable, and tested them, and understood the scientific nature of the process you were following. YOU DO NOT NEED A COMPLETE EXPERIMENTAL WRITE-UP; JUST ANSWER THE FIVE QUESTIONS LISTED ABOVE. The due date for this assignment is one week (seven days) after you complete the lab. You may submit your write-up either on paper (handed in during class or lab) or electronically. Electronic submissions should be in either.doc or.pdf format, attached to an and sent no later than 11:30 p.m. on the due date. Please do not submit your report using Google Docs or any similar software! These same rules also apply to all other written assignments in this course.
6
From the Greek Oikos = House Ology = study of
Chapter 1 - Introduction to Ecology What is Ecology??? From the Greek Oikos = House Ology = study of Ecology = the study of the relationship between organisms and their environment quite a large area of
More informationEstablishing premises
Establishing premises This is hard, subtle, and crucial to good arguments. Various kinds of considerations are used to establish the truth (high justification) of premises Deduction Done Analogy Induction
More informationUnit. Science and Hypothesis. Downloaded from Downloaded from Why Hypothesis? What is a Hypothesis?
Why Hypothesis? Unit 3 Science and Hypothesis All men, unlike animals, are born with a capacity "to reflect". This intellectual curiosity amongst others, takes a standard form such as "Why so-and-so is
More informationPHILOSOPHIES OF SCIENTIFIC TESTING
PHILOSOPHIES OF SCIENTIFIC TESTING By John Bloore Internet Encyclopdia of Philosophy, written by John Wttersten, http://www.iep.utm.edu/cr-ratio/#h7 Carl Gustav Hempel (1905 1997) Known for Deductive-Nomological
More informationLearning from Mistakes Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn
chapter 36 Learning from Mistakes Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn In 1666 a young scientist was sitting in a garden when an apple fell to the ground. This made him wonder why apples fall straight down, rather
More informationExperimental Design. Introduction
Ecologists generally, and marine biologists in particular, do not spend sufficient time, at least according to the available literature, in introspection about the nature of the science that they do Underwood
More informationSCIENCE AND CHRISTIANITY IN HARMONY? L. J. Gibson Geoscience Research Institute
265 SCIENCE AND CHRISTIANITY IN HARMONY? L. J. Gibson Geoscience Research Institute Science has achieved great success as a method of learning about and controlling nature. Probably every person on earth
More informationWhat Is Science? Mel Conway, Ph.D.
What Is Science? Mel Conway, Ph.D. Table of Contents The Top-down (Social) View 1 The Bottom-up (Individual) View 1 How the Game is Played 2 Theory and Experiment 3 The Human Element 5 Notes 5 Science
More informationCh01. Knowledge. What does it mean to know something? and how can science help us know things? version 1.5
Ch01 Knowledge What does it mean to know something? and how can science help us know things? version 1.5 Nick DeMello, PhD. 2007-2016 Ch01 Knowledge Knowledge Imagination Truth & Belief Justification Science
More informationPhilosophy of Science. Ross Arnold, Summer 2014 Lakeside institute of Theology
Philosophy of Science Ross Arnold, Summer 2014 Lakeside institute of Theology Philosophical Theology 1 (TH5) Aug. 15 Intro to Philosophical Theology; Logic Aug. 22 Truth & Epistemology Aug. 29 Metaphysics
More informationBusiness Research: Principles and Processes MGMT6791 Workshop 1A: The Nature of Research & Scientific Method
Business Research: Principles and Processes MGMT6791 Workshop 1A: The Nature of Research & Scientific Method Professor Tim Mazzarol UWA Business School MGMT6791 UWA Business School DBA Program tim.mazzarol@uwa.edu.au
More informationLecture 9. A summary of scientific methods Realism and Anti-realism
Lecture 9 A summary of scientific methods Realism and Anti-realism A summary of scientific methods and attitudes What is a scientific approach? This question can be answered in a lot of different ways.
More informationA Quick Review of the Scientific Method Transcript
Screen 1: Marketing Research is based on the Scientific Method. A quick review of the Scientific Method, therefore, is in order. Text based slide. Time Code: 0:00 A Quick Review of the Scientific Method
More informationBIO 221 Invertebrate Zoology I Spring Course Information. Course Website. Lecture 1. Stephen M. Shuster Professor of Invertebrate Zoology
BIO 221 Invertebrate Zoology I Spring 2010 Stephen M. Shuster Northern Arizona University http://www4.nau.edu/isopod Lecture 1 Course Information Stephen M. Shuster Professor of Invertebrate Zoology Office:
More informationIf I were to give an award for the single best idea anyone has ever had, I d give it to... Darwin
If I were to give an award for the single best idea anyone has ever had, I d give it to... Darwin ahead of Newton and Einstein and everyone else. In a single stroke, the idea of evolution by natural selection
More informationThe activity It is important to set ground rules to provide a safe environment where students are respected as they explore their own viewpoints.
Introduction In this activity, students distinguish between religious, scientific, metaphysical and moral ideas. It helps to frame the way students think about the world, and also helps them to understand,
More informationThe Problem of Induction and Popper s Deductivism
The Problem of Induction and Popper s Deductivism Issues: I. Problem of Induction II. Popper s rejection of induction III. Salmon s critique of deductivism 2 I. The problem of induction 1. Inductive vs.
More informationChapter 2 Science as a Way of Knowing: Critical Thinking about the Environment
Chapter 2 Science as a Way of Knowing: Critical Thinking about the Environment Understanding What Science Is Scientific understanding of life and its environment is based on scientific method. Science
More informationLabs start this week Inquiry 1 proposal due in lab next week Class communication via Blackboard and/or webpage
Labs start this week Inquiry 1 proposal due in lab next week Class communication via Blackboard and/or webpage Studying Biology: Start with a question. For example: How? Why? When? Where? Etc? How do we
More informationDiscussion Notes for Bayesian Reasoning
Discussion Notes for Bayesian Reasoning Ivan Phillips - http://www.meetup.com/the-chicago-philosophy-meetup/events/163873962/ Bayes Theorem tells us how we ought to update our beliefs in a set of predefined
More informationThere are two common forms of deductively valid conditional argument: modus ponens and modus tollens.
INTRODUCTION TO LOGICAL THINKING Lecture 6: Two types of argument and their role in science: Deduction and induction 1. Deductive arguments Arguments that claim to provide logically conclusive grounds
More informationScience and the Christian Faith. Brent Royuk June 11, 2006
Science and the Christian Faith Brent Royuk June 11, 2006 The Plan Week 1: The Nature of Science Week 2: Ways to Relate S&R Week 3: Creation/Evolution Week 4: We ll see Why science in a Bible class? God
More informationModule - 02 Lecturer - 09 Inferential Statistics - Motivation
Introduction to Data Analytics Prof. Nandan Sudarsanam and Prof. B. Ravindran Department of Management Studies and Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Madras
More informationSession 10 INDUCTIVE REASONONING IN THE SCIENCES & EVERYDAY LIFE( PART 1)
UGRC 150 CRITICAL THINKING & PRACTICAL REASONING Session 10 INDUCTIVE REASONONING IN THE SCIENCES & EVERYDAY LIFE( PART 1) Lecturer: Dr. Mohammed Majeed, Dept. of Philosophy & Classics, UG Contact Information:
More informationDarwinist Arguments Against Intelligent Design Illogical and Misleading
Darwinist Arguments Against Intelligent Design Illogical and Misleading I recently attended a debate on Intelligent Design (ID) and the Existence of God. One of the four debaters was Dr. Lawrence Krauss{1}
More informationPhilosophy 12 Study Guide #4 Ch. 2, Sections IV.iii VI
Philosophy 12 Study Guide #4 Ch. 2, Sections IV.iii VI Precising definition Theoretical definition Persuasive definition Syntactic definition Operational definition 1. Are questions about defining a phrase
More informationTHE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS C H A P T E R 3
THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS C H A P T E R 3 OBJECTIVES You will be able to understand: What does learning by inquiry mean? What qualifies as Scientific Evidence? What is a Scientific Theory? What is a Scientific
More informationCharacteristics of Science: Understanding Scientists and their Work (adapted from the work of Prof. Michael Clough)
Characteristics of Science: Understanding Scientists and their Work (adapted from the work of Prof. Michael Clough) What is science? How does science work? What are scientists like? Most people have given
More informationTHE GOD OF QUARKS & CROSS. bridging the cultural divide between people of faith and people of science
THE GOD OF QUARKS & CROSS bridging the cultural divide between people of faith and people of science WHY A WORKSHOP ON FAITH AND SCIENCE? The cultural divide between people of faith and people of science*
More informationModule 1: Science as Culture Demarcation, Autonomy and Cognitive Authority of Science
Module 1: Science as Culture Demarcation, Autonomy and Cognitive Authority of Science Lecture 6 Demarcation, Autonomy and Cognitive Authority of Science In this lecture, we are going to discuss how historically
More informationThe Known, Unknown, and the Unknowable. Trinity School Chapel. Robert Pollack Columbia University January 17, 2002
page 1 The Known, Unknown, and the Unknowable Trinity School Chapel Robert Pollack Columbia University January 17, 2002 I want to talk to you as a scientist, about the unknown and about two boundaries
More informationEvolution: The Darwinian Revolutions BIOEE 2070 / HIST 2870 / STS 2871
Evolution: The Darwinian Revolutions BIOEE 2070 / HIST 2870 / STS 2871 DAY & DATE: Wednesday 27 June 2012 READINGS: Darwin/Origin of Species, chapters 1-4 MacNeill/Evolution: The Darwinian Revolutions
More informationBeing a Scientist. A year 1 scientist. Working scientifically (Y1 and Y2) Physics. Biology. Chemistry
A year 1 scientist (Y1 and Y2) I can ask simple scientific questions. I can use simple equipment to make observations. I can carry out simple tests. I can identify and classify things. I can suggest what
More informationWritten by Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D. Sunday, 01 September :00 - Last Updated Wednesday, 18 March :31
The scientific worldview is supremely influential because science has been so successful. It touches all our lives through technology and through modern medicine. Our intellectual world has been transformed
More informationTHE HYPOTHETICAL-DEDUCTIVE METHOD OR THE INFERENCE TO THE BEST EXPLANATION: THE CASE OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION BY NATURAL SELECTION
THE HYPOTHETICAL-DEDUCTIVE METHOD OR THE INFERENCE TO THE BEST EXPLANATION: THE CASE OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION BY NATURAL SELECTION JUAN ERNESTO CALDERON ABSTRACT. Critical rationalism sustains that the
More informationDarwin Max Bagley Chapter Two - Scientific Method Internet Review
I chose the Association for Psychological Science as the website that I wanted to review. I was particularly interested in the article A Commitment to Replicability by D. Stephen Lindsay. The website that
More informationMITOCW watch?v=ppqrukmvnas
MITOCW watch?v=ppqrukmvnas The following content is provided under a Creative Commons license. Your support will help MIT OpenCourseWare continue to offer high quality educational resources for free. To
More informationPhysics 496 Introduction to Research. Lecture 2.0: Tools for the Scientific Skeptic (Based on a talk by Lance Cooper)
Physics 496 Introduction to Research Lecture 2.0: Tools for the Scientific Skeptic (Based on a talk by Lance Cooper) Critical Evaluation Scientific papers and research presentations, when well done, are
More informationScientific Method, Belief Systems and World View
2008 Scientific Method, Belief Systems and World View SGHA 9/23/2008 The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for separating the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something
More informationIntroduction to Evolution. DANILO V. ROGAYAN JR. Faculty, Department of Natural Sciences
Introduction to Evolution DANILO V. ROGAYAN JR. Faculty, Department of Natural Sciences Only a theory? Basic premises for this discussion Evolution is not a belief system. It is a scientific concept. It
More informationChapter Notes (Final Exam) On April, 26, 2012
Chapter Notes (Final Exam) On April, 26, 2012 Part 3: Arguments Chapter 8: Inductive Reasoning (270-324) -Deductive argument is intended to provide logically conclusive support for its conclusion; such
More informationCan I Believe in the book of Genesis and Science? Texts: Genesis 2:1-9,15; Genesis 1:1-27 Occasion: Ask, series Themes: Science, creationism,
Can I Believe in the book of Genesis and Science? Date: October 14, 2018 Place: Lakewood UMC Texts: Genesis 2:1-9,15; Genesis 1:1-27 Occasion: Ask, series Themes: Science, creationism, Do I have to choose
More informationFINAL EXAM REVIEW SHEET. objectivity intersubjectivity ways the peer review system is supposed to improve objectivity
Philosophy of Science Professor Stemwedel Spring 2014 Important concepts and terminology metaphysics epistemology descriptive vs. normative norms of science Strong Program sociology of science naturalism
More information6.041SC Probabilistic Systems Analysis and Applied Probability, Fall 2013 Transcript Lecture 21
6.041SC Probabilistic Systems Analysis and Applied Probability, Fall 2013 Transcript Lecture 21 The following content is provided under a Creative Commons license. Your support will help MIT OpenCourseWare
More informationSmall Group Assignment 8: Science Replaces Scholasticism
Unit 7: The Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment 1 Small Group Assignment 8: Science Replaces Scholasticism Scholastics were medieval theologians and philosophers who focused their efforts on protecting
More informationGraham Thomas Independent Software Testing Consultant
Graham Thomas Independent Software Testing Consultant Abstract This workshop will take you on a magical journey through some very useful but mostly unknown tools for perception and comprehension which
More informationClassroom notes for: Radiation and Life Professor: Thomas M. Regan Pinanski 206 ext 3283
Classroom notes for: Radiation and Life 98.101.201 Professor: Thomas M. Regan Pinanski 206 ext 3283 Critical Thinking Science is more than just a collection of facts- it s a way of thinking about the world
More informationRudolf Carnap. Introduction, H. Gene Blocker
THE VALUE OF SCIENTIFIC LAWS Rudolf Carnap Introduction, H. Gene Blocker IN GERMANY IN THE 1930S Rudolf Carnap was among a group of philosophers associated with the Vienna Circle (also known as Logical
More informationAn Interview with Susan Gelman
Annual Reviews Conversations Presents An Interview with Susan Gelman Annual Reviews Audio. 2012 First published online on May 11, 2012 Annual Reviews Audio interviews are online at www.annualreviews.org/page/audio
More informationThe Nature of Science: Methods for Seeking Natural Patterns in the Universe Using Rationalism and Empiricism Mike Viney
The Nature of Science: Methods for Seeking Natural Patterns in the Universe Using Rationalism and Empiricism Mike Viney Fascination with science often starts at an early age, as it did with me. Many students
More informationFalsification or Confirmation: From Logic to Psychology
Falsification or Confirmation: From Logic to Psychology Roman Lukyanenko Information Systems Department Florida international University rlukyane@fiu.edu Abstract Corroboration or Confirmation is a prominent
More informationThe Answer from Science
Similarities among Diverse Forms Diversity among Similar Forms Biology s Greatest Puzzle: The Paradox and Diversity and Similarity Why is life on Earth so incredibly diverse yet so strangely similar? The
More informationFinal Paper. May 13, 2015
24.221 Final Paper May 13, 2015 Determinism states the following: given the state of the universe at time t 0, denoted S 0, and the conjunction of the laws of nature, L, the state of the universe S at
More informationSeeking God. Seeking God
Seeking God Seeking God Colossians 2:1-9 For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you, for those in Laodicea, and for all who have not seen me in person. I want their hearts to be encouraged
More informationWhy is life on Earth so incredibly diverse yet so strangely similar? Similarities among Diverse Forms. Diversity among Similar Forms
Similarities among Diverse Forms Diversity among Similar Forms Biology s Greatest Puzzle: The Paradox and Diversity and Similarity Why is life on Earth so incredibly diverse yet so strangely similar? 1
More information2014 Examination Report 2014 Extended Investigation GA 2: Critical Thinking Test GENERAL COMMENTS
2014 Extended Investigation GA 2: Critical Thinking Test GENERAL COMMENTS The Extended Investigation Critical Thinking Test assesses the ability of students to produce arguments, and to analyse and assess
More informationLecture 6. Realism and Anti-realism Kuhn s Philosophy of Science
Lecture 6 Realism and Anti-realism Kuhn s Philosophy of Science Realism and Anti-realism Science and Reality Science ought to describe reality. But what is Reality? Is what we think we see of reality really
More informationLars Johan Erkell. Intelligent Design
1346 Lars Johan Erkell Department of Zoology University of Gothenburg Box 463, SE-405 30 Göteborg, Sweden Intelligent Design The theory that doesn t exist For a long time, biologists have had the theory
More informationNaturalism vs. Conceptual Analysis. Marcin Miłkowski
Naturalism vs. Conceptual Analysis Marcin Miłkowski WARNING This lecture might be deliberately biased against conceptual analysis. Presentation Plan Conceptual Analysis (CA) and dogmatism How to wake up
More informationScience and Creation Science
Science and Creation Science The first and second lectures have been posted to the Church s website under Adult classes and a link can be found on the Church s Facebook page. The rest will be posted there
More informationChristian Apologetics The Classical Arguments
I. Introduction to the Classical Arguments A. Classical Apologetics Christian Apologetics The Classical Arguments Lecture II September 24, 2015 1. An approach to apologetics based upon attempted deductive
More informationChapter 2: Two Types of Reasoning
Chapter 2: Two Types of Reasoning In chapter 1, I mentioned deductive and inductive arguments. This chapter goes into more depth on deductive reasoning in particular, but also provides a contrast with
More informationIntroduction to Statistical Hypothesis Testing Prof. Arun K Tangirala Department of Chemical Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Madras
Introduction to Statistical Hypothesis Testing Prof. Arun K Tangirala Department of Chemical Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Madras Lecture 09 Basics of Hypothesis Testing Hello friends, welcome
More informationIntroduction The Definition of Science
An Introduction to Science Scientific Thinking and the Scientific Method by Steven D. Schafersman Department of Geology Miami University January, 1997 http://www.muohio.edu/~schafesd/documents/intro-to-sci.htmlx
More informationChristianity and Science. Understanding the conflict (WAR)? Must we choose? A Slick New Packaging of Creationism
and Science Understanding the conflict (WAR)? Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, is a documentary which looks at how scientists who have discussed or written about Intelligent Design (and along the way
More informationAyer on the criterion of verifiability
Ayer on the criterion of verifiability November 19, 2004 1 The critique of metaphysics............................. 1 2 Observation statements............................... 2 3 In principle verifiability...............................
More informationECONOMETRIC METHODOLOGY AND THE STATUS OF ECONOMICS. Cormac O Dea. Junior Sophister
Student Economic Review, Vol. 19, 2005 ECONOMETRIC METHODOLOGY AND THE STATUS OF ECONOMICS Cormac O Dea Junior Sophister The question of whether econometrics justifies conferring the epithet of science
More informationWorld without Design: The Ontological Consequences of Natural- ism , by Michael C. Rea.
Book reviews World without Design: The Ontological Consequences of Naturalism, by Michael C. Rea. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004, viii + 245 pp., $24.95. This is a splendid book. Its ideas are bold and
More informationThe evolution of the meaning of SCIENCE. SCIENCE came from the latin word SCIENTIA which means knowledge.
Chapter 2 The evolution of the meaning of SCIENCE SCIENCE came from the latin word SCIENTIA which means knowledge. ANCIENT SCIENCE (before the 8 th century) In ancient Greece, Science began with the discovery
More informationABOUT HISTORY. M. Anthony Kapolka III - FYF 101
ABOUT HISTORY M. Anthony Kapolka III - FYF 101 Metaphysics / Epistemology Metaphysical question: Is the past real? Seems obvious: Yes. But consider forgotten or false memories... What about the deeper
More informationThe unity of the normative
The unity of the normative The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Scanlon, T. M. 2011. The Unity of the Normative.
More informationPhilosophy is dead. Thus speaks Stephen Hawking, the bestknown
26 Dominicana Summer 2012 THE SCIENCE BEYOND SCIENCE Humbert Kilanowski, O.P. Philosophy is dead. Thus speaks Stephen Hawking, the bestknown physicist of the contemporary age and author of A Brief History
More informationLesson 2 The Existence of God Cause & Effect Apologetics Press Introductory Christian Evidences Correspondence Course
Lesson 2 The Existence of God Cause & Effect Apologetics Press Introductory Christian Evidences Correspondence Course THE EXISTENCE OF GOD CAUSE & EFFECT One of the most basic issues that the human mind
More informationHow Christianity Revolutionizes Science
How Christianity Revolutionizes Science by, Ph.D. Qualifications University Professor From 1990-1995 Helped Develop Indiana s Only Residential High School for Gifted and Talented Students NSF-Sponsored
More information1 Scientific Reasoning
1 Scientific Reasoning Scientific reasoning is the foundation supporting the entire structure of logic underpinning scientific research. It is impossible to explore the entire process, in any detail, because
More informationSCIENCE ASSESSMENT P4-G5 Colour key: Working Scientifically Animals, Including Humans Plants Materials Weather/Seasons/Earth and Space Living Things
SCIENCE ASSESSMENT P4-G5 Colour key: Working Scientifically Animals, Including Humans Plants Materials Weather/Seasons/Earth and Space Living Things And Their Habitats Rocks Light Magnets and Forces Sound
More informationPhenomenological analysis
Phenomenological analysis The hermeneutical analysis of the astronauts journals and reports focused on their experiences. Phenomenology is a philosophical method that studies human experience from a first-person
More informationThe Truth of Science: How Scientists View the Scientific
MODERN SCIENCE AND THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH Brian Tonks Department of Physics I have come full circle, believing today that science is an important source of truth. have pondered the question, What is truth?
More informationSample Questions with Explanations for LSAT India
Five Sample Logical Reasoning Questions and Explanations Directions: The questions in this section are based on the reasoning contained in brief statements or passages. For some questions, more than one
More informationArgumentation Module: Philosophy Lesson 7 What do we mean by argument? (Two meanings for the word.) A quarrel or a dispute, expressing a difference
1 2 3 4 5 6 Argumentation Module: Philosophy Lesson 7 What do we mean by argument? (Two meanings for the word.) A quarrel or a dispute, expressing a difference of opinion. Often heated. A statement of
More informationDefining Science: The Scientific Method
Defining Science: The Scientific Method The scientific study of life is based on one major assumption about our world Life Processes are guided by Natural Laws science is a process of uncovering knowledge
More informationVerificationism. PHIL September 27, 2011
Verificationism PHIL 83104 September 27, 2011 1. The critique of metaphysics... 1 2. Observation statements... 2 3. In principle verifiability... 3 4. Strong verifiability... 3 4.1. Conclusive verifiability
More informationIt is One Tailed F-test since the variance of treatment is expected to be large if the null hypothesis is rejected.
EXST 7014 Experimental Statistics II, Fall 2018 Lab 10: ANOVA and Post ANOVA Test Due: 31 st October 2018 OBJECTIVES Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is the most commonly used technique for comparing the means
More informationCritical Thinking - Section 1
Critical Thinking - Section 1 BMAT Course Book Critical Reasoning Tips Mock Questions Step-by-Step Guides Detailed Explanations Page 57 Table of Contents Lesson Page Lesson 1: Introduction to BMAT Section
More informationLAYMAN S GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING CREATION AND EVOLUTION SERIES #1 INTRODUCING CREATION AND EVOLUTION. by Richard L. Overman, M.S.
CREATION EDUCATION RESOURCES INC. LAYMAN S GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING CREATION AND EVOLUTION SERIES #1 INTRODUCING CREATION AND EVOLUTION by Richard L. Overman, M.S. Reviewers: Dr. Danny Faulkner Astronomer
More informationDNA, Information, and the Signature in the Cell
DNA, Information, and the Signature in the Cell Where Did We Come From? Where did we come from? A simple question, but not an easy answer. Darwin addressed this question in his book, On the Origin of Species.
More informationScientific Arguments
Scientific Arguments Berkeley: Understanding Science project Brian DeMarco, Lance Cooper, Celia Elliott, Alan Nathan A scientific argument is not a history of what you did and statement of your conclusion.
More informationSKEPTICISM, ABDUCTIVISM, AND THE EXPLANATORY GAP. Ram Neta University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Philosophical Issues, 14, Epistemology, 2004 SKEPTICISM, ABDUCTIVISM, AND THE EXPLANATORY GAP Ram Neta University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill I. Introduction:The Skeptical Problem and its Proposed Abductivist
More informationUnit 1: Philosophy and Science. Other Models of Knowledge
Unit 1: Philosophy and Science. Other Models of Knowledge INTRODUCTORY TEXT: WHAT ARE WE TO THINK ABOUT? Here are some questions any of us might ask about ourselves: What am I? What is consciousness? Could
More informationSydenham College of Commerce & Economics. * Dr. Sunil S. Shete. * Associate Professor
Sydenham College of Commerce & Economics * Dr. Sunil S. Shete * Associate Professor Keywords: Philosophy of science, research methods, Logic, Business research Abstract This paper review Popper s epistemology
More informationOrigin Science versus Operation Science
Origin Science Origin Science versus Operation Science Recently Probe produced a DVD based small group curriculum entitled Redeeming Darwin: The Intelligent Design Controversy. It has been a great way
More informationDefining Science The Scientific Method
Defining Science The Scientific Method science is a process of uncovering knowledge of our universe but there are many ways to investigate things there are many different kinds of knowledge: scientific
More informationHigh School / College Sample Questions Reason for Belief Norman L Geisler. (Updated 14 JUL 2016)
High School / College Sample Questions Reason for Belief Norman L Geisler (Updated 14 JUL 2016) It should be noted that these are sample questions only. In the past often the questions on the day of the
More informationSYSTEMATIC RESEARCH IN PHILOSOPHY. Contents
UNIT 1 SYSTEMATIC RESEARCH IN PHILOSOPHY Contents 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Research in Philosophy 1.3 Philosophical Method 1.4 Tools of Research 1.5 Choosing a Topic 1.1 INTRODUCTION Everyone who seeks knowledge
More informationJohn Locke. British Empiricism
John Locke British Empiricism Locke Biographical Notes: Locke is credited as the founder of the British "Common Sense" movement, later known as empiricism - he was also the founder of the modern political
More informationIS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD A MYTH? PERSPECTIVES FROM THE HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
MÈTODE Science Studies Journal, 5 (2015): 195-199. University of Valencia. DOI: 10.7203/metode.84.3883 ISSN: 2174-3487. Article received: 10/07/2014, accepted: 18/09/2014. IS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD A MYTH?
More informationPhil 1103 Review. Also: Scientific realism vs. anti-realism Can philosophers criticise science?
Phil 1103 Review Also: Scientific realism vs. anti-realism Can philosophers criticise science? 1. Copernican Revolution Students should be familiar with the basic historical facts of the Copernican revolution.
More informationScience and Faith: Discussing Astronomy Research with Religious Audiences
Science and Faith: Discussing Astronomy Research with Religious Audiences Anton M. Koekemoer (Space Telescope Science Institute) *DISCLAIMER: THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS TALK PURELY REFLECT MY OWN PERSONAL
More informationGeorgia Quality Core Curriculum 9 12 English/Language Arts Course: Ninth Grade Literature and Composition
Grade 9 correlated to the Georgia Quality Core Curriculum 9 12 English/Language Arts Course: 23.06100 Ninth Grade Literature and Composition C2 5/2003 2002 McDougal Littell The Language of Literature Grade
More informationQCAA Study of Religion 2019 v1.1 General Senior Syllabus
QCAA Study of Religion 2019 v1.1 General Senior Syllabus Considerations supporting the development of Learning Intentions, Success Criteria, Feedback & Reporting Where are Syllabus objectives taught (in
More information