science 110 introduction to scientific thought spring
Post on 30-May-2018
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
1/64
Science
110Introduction to Scientific
ThoughtSpring
2010
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
2/64
My heart leaps up when I behold
A Rainbow in the sky:So was it when my life began;
So is it now I am a man;So be it when I shall grow old,
Or let me die!The Child is father of the man;
And I could wish my days to beBound each to each by natural piety
by William Wordsworth
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
3/64
Flower in the crannied wall,
I pluck you out the crannies,
I hold you here, root and all, in my hand,
Little flower but if I could understand
What you are, root and all, and all in all,
I should know what God and man is.
Alfred, Lord Tennyson
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
4/64
Introduction to Scientific
Thought
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
5/64
Introduction to Scientific
Thought The Scientific Method
Discuss Syllabus
Course Project-Original Scientific Experiment Teams
Email Addresses
Test Your Scientific Literacy The Shroud of Turin
Nature of Evidence and Good Science
Suicide of Reason
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
6/64
COURSE OBJECTIVES:
1. Acquiring critical thinking skills.
Critical thinking is deciding rationally what to or what not to believe
2. Comprehending how scientists discover basic laws of nature.
3. Obtaining knowledge of the history and philosophy of science. The Philosophy of Science is concerned with science - specifically, how science operates, what the goals ofscience should be, what relationship science should have with the rest of society, the differences between science
and other activities, etc. Everything that happens in science has some relationship with the Philosophy of Science.
4. Gaining ability to distinguish real science from pseudo-sciences.
Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis then looks only for items which appear to support it.Generally speaking, the aim of pseudoscience is to rationalize strongly held beliefs, rather than to investigate or to
test alternative possibilities. Pseudoscience specializes in jumping to "congenial conclusions," grinding ideological
axes, appealing to preconceived ideas and to widespread misunderstandings.
5. Adding skepticism to your intellectual kit.
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
7/64
The Scientific Method
Science employs the scientific method. No, there's no such
method: Doing science is not like baking a cake. Science
can be proved on the basis of observable data. No, general
theories about the natural world can't be proved at all. Our
theories make claims that go beyond the finite amount of
data that we've collected. There's no way such extrapolationsfrom the evidence can be proved to be correct. Science can
be disproved, or falsified, on the basis of observable data.
No, for it's always possible to protect a theory from an
apparently confuting observation. Theories are never tested
in isolation but only in conjunction with many other extra-theoretical assumptions (about the equipment being used,
about ambient conditions, about experimenter error, etc.).
It's always possible to lay the blame for the confutation at
the door of one of these assumptions, thereby leaving one's
theory in the clear.
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
8/64
JABBERWOCKY
Lewis Carroll
Through the Looking-Glass
`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"
He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
9/64
COURSE TOPICS
The nature of Evidence. What is the relationship between observation and hypothesis?
History of Science
What is science? Is there such a thing as science?
The Art of Observation Optical Illusions, Modern Art and Gestalt Formation
Philosophical foundations of scienceGood Science, Bad Science and Pseudo-Science
Great Ideas in Science
Alternative medicine, medical quackery, and hoaxes
Scientific literacy
The Precautionary Principle
Religion and Science
Ethics and science- Tolerance and intoleranceObservation art and illusions
Science and art
Technology - applied science
Limitation of Science
Serendipity in Science
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
10/64
Required Texts:The Scientists, John Gribbin, Random House, New York, 2003
The Borderline of Science, Michael Shermer, Oxford University Press,
New York, 2002
You are responsible to read the text on your own. Once a week there is a
quiz based on the text and lectures. Lectures will not only supplement
textural material covered, but also discuss topic not found in the text.
CLASS SCHEDULE
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
11/64
CLASS SCHEDULE
Lecture Reading Assignment Homework Assignment Date: week of
Discuss Syllabus and Science Project.Introductory LectureShroud of TurinBowen Massage
Copernicuspp 1 to 32Brahe / Keplerpp. 33 to 67
My heart Leaps UpBathroom mirror experimentShroud of TurinIs Bowen good medicine?
1/23
First day of class
The universe and the Standard Model Galileo/Descartespp 68 to 148
Garbage bag experimentRainbows, clouds, sunsets
1/30
Quiz 1
History of scienceIndependent, dependent, and controlvariables. Pendulum.
Newton pp 149 to 241 Newton s methodo logyHow does a Greenhouse work andhow explains global warmingHot & Cold Experiment
2/06
Quiz 2
History of Science Chemistry/ Periodic tablepp 241 to 318
Describe how a calendar works,Solar time, GMT, sidereal time, lunartime
2/13
Exam 1
Philosophical foundations of science Sky in a bottleLogical fallacies
2/20
Quiz 4
What is science? Induction/deductionconnection between observation andTheoryThe origin life -What is man?
Geology/Darwin pp 319 to 358 Debate: Creative Design vs. EvolutionNumber seriesOrigin of bipedalism
2/27
Quiz 5
Philosophers of Science-Scientific Method
M b ius StripRed and GreenDiffraction
3/06
Quiz 6
Observation art and illusions
Gestalt Formation
Atoms/ molecules
Pp 359 to 399
Chromatography of leaf or black
marking penShape of cumulus cloudsColor of sunrise or sunset
3/13
Exam 2
Science and art Is the horizon curved? 3/20Quiz 7
Bad science:1.Polywater2.Cold Fusion
Electromagnetism pp 400 to 441 1. Invent a code2. Who is Leonard Horowitz?Thermite explosion in class
3/27Exam 2
Scientific LiteracyApplied scienceLimitation of Science
Prove the Earth is not flat.Steel is denser than water, yet steelships float: explain
4/06
Pseudoscience& alternative medicine,& medical quackery, hoaxes, ESP
Plate tectonics pp 442 to 486 Pro/con:Is Wegener a pseudo-scientist? 4/17
Quiz 8
Pseudoscience&Logical deceptionsUrban Legends
Match JetSlime
4/24Exam 3
SkepticismEthics and science
Planck, Bohr, Einsteinpp 487 to 528
Pro/Con discussion ethical questions:abortion; cloning; euthanasia; animalrightsNI3 explosive
5/01
Quiz 9
The Precautionary PrincipleLimitation of ScienceSerendipity
What are yo u taking ? Find whats inthat stuff.
5/08
Science Project
Religion and ScienceAnthropic PrincipleTolerance and intolerance
Life pp 529 to 572 5/15Last day of Class
Science Project Due 5/22
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
12/64
Test YourScientific Literacy1. Scientists usually expect an experiment to turn out a certain way.
2. Science only produces tentative conclusions that can change.
3. Science has one uniform way of conducting research called the scientific method.
4. Scientific theories are explanations and not facts.
5. When being scientific one must have faith only in what is justified by empirical evidence.
6. Science is just about the facts, not human interpretations of them.
7. To be scientific one must conduct experiments.
8. Scientific theories only change when new information becomes available.
9. Scientists manipulate their experiments to produce particular results.
10. Science proves facts true in a way that is definitive and final.
11. An experiment can prove a theory true.
12. Science is partly based on beliefs, assumptions, and the non-observable.13. Imagination and creativity are used in all stages of scientific investigations.
14. Scientific theories are just ideas about how something works.
15. A scientific law is a theory that has been extensively and thoroughly confirmed.
16. Scientists education, background, opinions, disciplinary focus, and basic guiding assumptions
and philosophies influence their perception and interpretation of the available data.
17. A scientific law will not change because it has been proven true.
18. An accepted scientific theory is an hypothesis that has been confirmed by considerable evidence
and has endured all attempts to disprove it.
19. A scientific law describes relationships among observable phenomena but does not explain
them.
20. Science relies on deduction (x entails y) more than induction (x implies y).
21. Scientists invent explanations, models or theoretical entities.
22. Scientists construct theories to guide further research.
23. Scientists accept the existence of theoretical entities that have never been directly observed.
24. Scientific laws are absolute or certain.
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
13/64
Psychic for Pets
Part medium, part mediator,she began doing readingsthat gave voice to the needs
of the Weber family dogs.Kindly dont throw us in thecar without telling us wherewere going, an irritatedgolden retriever namedPalomino requested through
Ms. Agro. Skye is such a bigbaby, vented a pup namedTrue about a rival.
QuickTime and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Ch D ti ti i K k ' W ld
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
14/64
In Brooklyn, a Psychic for the
Famous, or Rather, for Their PetsAnimals dont reallyhave the ability to telltheir people whatsgoing on, said Ms. Agro,
a young-looking 42(which she attributes todiligent managing ofher energy, just asothers attribute that
good fortune to smartmanaging of theirdiets). This is a way forthem to have someoneadvocate for them.
QuickTime and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Choose a Destination in Koko's World
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
15/64
Can You Identify This
Individual? Was worshipped as a Good Shepherd, the Way, the Truth and the Light,
the Redeemer, the Savior, and the Messiah.
Was believed to have been born of a virgin.
Birthday celebrated yearly on Dec. 25.
Was visited by shepherds and by Magi.
Traveled through the countryside, taught, and performed miracles with his12 disciples.
He cast out devils, returned sight to the blind, healed the lame, etc.
Symbols associated with him were a Lion and a Lamb.
Held a last supper, was killed, buried in a rock tomb.
He rose again after three days later he later ascended into heaven.
Rituals include a Eucharist and six other sacraments.
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
16/64
Shroud of Turin an Illustrates of the Conflict Between Belief and Skepticism
The Shroud of Turin is a centuries old linen cloth that bears the image of acrucified man. A man that millions believe to be Jesus of Nazareth. Is itreally the cloth that wrapped his crucified body, or is it simply a medieval
forgery, a hoax perpetrated by some clever artist? Modern science hascompleted hundreds of thousands of hours of detailed study and intenseresearch on the Shroud. It is, in fact, the single most studied artifact inhuman history, and we know more about it today than we ever have before.And yet, the controversy still rages.
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
17/64
Face Negative and Positive
Images
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
18/64
Front View Shroud of Turin
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
19/64
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
20/64
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
21/64
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
22/64
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
23/64
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
24/64
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
25/64
Carbon-14 in Living Things
The carbon-14 atoms that cosmic rays create combine with
oxygen to form carbon dioxide, which plants absorb naturally
and incorporate into plant fibers by photosynthesis. Animals and
people eat plants and take in carbon-14 as well. The ratio of
normal carbon (carbon-12) to carbon-14 in the air and in all
living things at any given time is nearly constant. Maybe one in
a trillion carbon atoms are carbon-14. The carbon-14 atoms are
always decaying, but they are being replaced by new carbon-14
atoms at a constant rate. At this moment, your body has a
certain percentage of carbon-14 atoms in it, and all living plantsand animals have the same percentage.
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
26/64
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
27/64
Turin Shroud confirmed as
a fake"A medieval technique helped us to make a Shroud," Science & Vie (Science and Life) said
in its July issue. The Shroud is claimed by its defenders to be the cloth in which the body of
Jesus Christ was wrapped after his crucifixion.
It bears the faint image of a blood-covered man with holes in his hand and wounds in his
body and head, the apparent result of being crucified, stabbed by a Roman spear and
forced to wear a crown of thorns.
In 1988, scientists carried out carbon-14 dating of the delicate linen cloth and concluded
that the material was made some time between 1260 and 1390. Their study prompted the
then archbishop of Turin, where the Shroud is stored, to admit that the garment was a
hoax. But the debate sharply revived in January this year.
Drawing on a method previously used by skeptics to attack authenticity claims about the
Shroud, Science & Vie got an artist to do a bas-relief -- a sculpture that stands out from the
surrounding background -- of a Christ-like face.
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
28/64
Turin Shroud confirmed as
a fake A scientist then laid out a damp linen sheet over the bas-relief and let it dry, so that the thin cloth was moulded onto the face.
Using cotton wool, he then carefully dabbed ferric oxide, mixed with gelatine, onto the cloth to make blood-like marks. Whenthe cloth was turned inside-out, the reversed marks resulted in the famous image of the crucified Christ.
Gelatine, an animal by-product rich in collagen, was frequently used by Middle Age painters as a fixative to bind pigments tocanvas or wood.
The imprinted image turned out to be wash-resistant, impervious to temperatures of 250 C (482 F) and was undamaged byexposure to a range of harsh chemicals, including bisulphite which, without the help of the gelatine, would normally havedegraded ferric oxide to the compound ferrous oxide.
The experiments, said Science & Vie, answer several claims made by the pro-Shroud camp, which says the marks could nothave been painted onto the cloth.
For one thing, the Shroud's defenders argue, photographic negatives and scanners show that the image could only havederived from a three-dimensional object, given the width of the face, the prominent cheekbones and nose.
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
29/64
Turin Shroud confirmed as
a fake In addition, they say, there are no signs of any brush marks. And, they argue, no pigments could
have endured centuries of exposure to heat, light and smoke.
For Jacques di Costanzo, of Marseille University Hospital, southern France, who carried out theexperiments, the mediaeval forger must have also used a bas-relief, a sculpture or cadaver toget the 3-D imprint.
The faker used a cloth rather than a brush to make the marks, and used gelatin to keep the rustyblood-like images permanently fixed and bright for selling in the booming market for religiousrelics.
To test his hypothesis, di Costanzo used ferric oxide, but no gelatin, to make other imprints, butthe marks all disappeared when the cloth was washed or exposed to the test chemicals.
He also daubed the bas-relief with an ammoniac compound designed to represent human sweatand also with cream of aloe, a plant that was used as an embalming aid by Jews at the time ofChrist.
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
30/64
Turin Shroud confirmed as
a fake He then placed the cloth over it for 36 hours -- the approximate time that Christ
was buried before rising again -- but this time, there was not a single mark on it.
"It's obviously easier to make a fake shroud than a real one," Science & Vie
report dryly.
The first documented evidence of the Shroud dates back to 1357, when it
surfaced at a church at Lirey, near the eastern French town of Troyes. In 1390,
Pope Clement VII declared that it was not the true shroud but could be used as
a representation of it, provided the faithful be told that it was not genuine.
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
31/64
Turin shroud 'older thanthought'
Tests in 1988 concluded the cloth was a medieval"hoax
The Shroud of Turin is much older than suggested by
radiocarbon dating carried out in the 1980s, according to
a new study in a peer-reviewed journal. A researchpaper published in Thermochimica Acta suggests theshroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old.The
author dismisses 1988 carbon-14 dating tests whichconcluded that the linen sheet was a medieval fake.
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
32/64
Homework Problem
Does data supports the age of the shroud at2000 years old?
Have you stopped believing in Santa Claus?What were your reasons?
Or do you still believe? What are your
reasons?
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
33/64
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
34/64
Issues
What is evidence?
What is the relationship between evidence
and hypothesis?
How does one verify a hypothesis?
Does inductive verification work?
How does one know anything?
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
35/64
Proper Science
Consistent
Parsimonious
Retrogressive
Progressive Testability
Avoidance of supernal explanations
Tentative
Changeable Falsifiable
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
36/64
MARKS OF PSEUDOSCIENCE
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
37/64
Has religion impeded or aided the progress
of science?
Does religion encourage the adoption ofideas without reason or evidence?
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
38/64
Sam Harris: Science Must Destroy Religion
80% of Americans believe that Jesus rose literally to heaven.
22% are sure that he will return within the next 50 years.
Another 22% think he probably will return in the next 50 years. 28% of Americans who believe in evolution.
Despite the ecumenical efforts of many well-intentioned people,
these irreconcilable religious commitments still inspire an appalling amount of human conflict.
Our fear of provoking religious hatred has rendered us incapableof criticizing ideas that are now patently absurd and increasingly maladaptive.
It has also obliged us to lie to ourselves repeatedly and at the highest levels about the
compatibility between religious faith and scientific rationality.
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
39/64
Sam Harris: Science Must Destroy Religion
The success of science often comes at the expense of religious dogma; the maintenance of religious
dogma always comes at the expense of science.
It is time we conceded a basic fact of human discourse: either a person has good reasons for what he
believes, or he does not. When a person has good reasons, his beliefs contribute to our growing
understanding of the world. We need not distinguish between "hard" and "soft" science here, or
between science and other evidence-based disciplines like history. There happen to be very good
reasons to believe that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. Consequently, theidea that the Egyptians actually did it lacks credibility.
Every sane human being recognizes that to rely merely upon "faith" to decide specific questions of
historical fact would be both idiotic and grotesque that is, until the conversation turns to the origin
of books like the bible and the Koran, to the resurrection of Jesus, to Muhammad's conversation with
the angel Gabriel, or to any of the other hallowed travesties that still crowd the altar of human
ignorance.
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
40/64
Sam Harris: Science Must Destroy Religion
read wordsSam Harris Mon Jan 2,11:25 AM ET
Science, in the broadest sense, includes all reasonable claims to knowledge about ourselves and the world. If
there were good reasons to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that Muhammad flew to heaven on a
winged horse, these beliefs would necessarily form part of our rational description of the universe. Faith is
nothing more than the license that religious people give one another to believe such propositions when
reasons fail. The difference between science and religion is the difference between a willingness to
dispassionately consider new evidence and new arguments, and a passionate unwillingness to do so.
The distinction could not be more obvious, or more consequential, and yet it is everywhere elided, even in the
ivory tower.
Religion is fast growing incompatible with the emergence of a global, civil society. Religious faith faith that
there is a God who cares what name he is called, that one of our books is infallible, that Jesus is coming back toearth to judge the living and the dead, that Muslim martyrs go straight to Paradise, etc. is on the wrong side of
an escalating war of ideas. The difference between science and religion is the difference between a
genuine openness to fruits of human inquiry in the 21st century, and a premature closure to such
inquiry as a matter of principle. I believe that the antagonism between reason and faith will only grow more
pervasive and intractable in the coming years. Iron Age beliefs about God, the soul, sin, free will, etc.
continue to impede medical research and distort public policy. The possibility that we could elect a U.S.
President who takes biblical prophesy seriously is real and terrifying; the likelihood that we will one day confront
Islamists armed with nuclear or biological weapons is also terrifying, and it is increasing by the day. We are
doing very little, at the level of our intellectual discourse, to prevent such possibilities.
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
41/64
Sam Harris: Science Must Destroy Religion
Sam Harris Mon Jan 2,11:25 AM ET
In the spirit of religious tolerance, most scientists are keeping silent when they should be blasting the hideous
fantasies of a prior age with all the facts at their disposal.
To win this war of ideas, scientists and other rational people will need to find new ways of talking about ethics
and spiritual experience. The distinction between science and religion is not a matter of excluding our ethical
intuitions and non-ordinary states of consciousness from our conversation about the world; it is a matter of our
being rigorous about what is reasonable to conclude on their basis. We must find ways of meeting our
emotional needs that do not require the abject embrace of the preposterous. We must learn to invoke
the power of ritual and to mark those transitions in every human life that demand profundity birth,
marriage, death, etc. without lying to ourselves about the nature of reality.
I am hopeful that the necessary transformation in our thinking will come about as our scientific understanding of
ourselves matures. When we find reliable ways to make human beings more loving, less fearful, and
genuinely enraptured by the fact of our appearance in the cosmos, we will have no need for divisive
religious myths. Only then will the practice of raising our children to believe that they are Christian, Jewish,
Muslim, or Hindu be broadly recognized as the ludicrous obscenity that it is. And only then will we stand a
chance of healing the deepest and most dangerous fractures in our world.
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
42/64
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
43/64
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
44/64
Science
Systematized
observations and tests of
proposed explanationsFull-time specialists
Explanations accepted
only with tests
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
45/64
Religion
A formalized system
with detailed beliefs,
full time specialists,
social arbiter,
explanationsaccepted without test
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
46/64
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
47/64
A Private Universe
Why are there
seasons?
Why is this important
for this class?
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
48/64
Students build on their understanding that they
developed over the years before they walked into a
classroom.
Students do not discard old beliefs due to new.
Students learn and adjust their worldviews on a daily
basis.
Students provided with information that is believable
and useful are likely to keep it in mind and to continue
to use it when learning other information.
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
49/64
Research indicates that preconceptions need to
be examined and worked into the educational
process
Several problems may occur when prior
knowledge and new knowledge clash:
Amnesia: the students forget the material
or even forget learning it
Fantasia: the students misremember what
they have learned in such a way as to make
it compatible with prior knowledge with
which it originally conflicted
Inertia: the students are unable to
synthesize or apply the facts they have
learned
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
50/64
The amazing thing about the clashing of new and old ideas
is that people can compartmentalize information, learn it
(usually memorize it) for the short term, and then snap back
to their previous beliefs.
To break this cycle requires examining original beliefs in
light of the newer learnt material.
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
51/64
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
52/64
Magic
A "black box"
Part-time specialists
difficult to controlAccepts explanations without
question
How do we respond?
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
53/64
Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
The argument that language defines the way a person
behaves and thinks has existed since the early 1900's
when Edward Sapir first identified the concept. He
believed that language and the thoughts that we have
are somehow interwoven, and that all people areequally being effected by the confines of their
language. In short, he made all people out to be
mental prisoners; unable to think freely because ofthe restrictions of their vocabularies.
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/pqrst/sapir_edward.htmlhttp://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/pqrst/sapir_edward.html -
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
54/64
"Received" wisdom
Ways of Knowing
Simple parental training
Oral tradition
Written word
Faith
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
55/64
We face the ultimate brute question:
How you answer questions depends on your needs
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
56/64
How you answer questions depends on your needs.
Something is explained when it is the result of a general law
Example? What goes up, must come down results from the law of gravity
Something is explained when it is an example of a commonly understoodprinciple
Example? Why is this water going downhill? Because water always flowsdownhill.
Something is explained when identifying the factors that connect two
or more events.Example? The tree and house came down at the same time because a storm
came along with very high wind and hit both of them.
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
57/64
But how do we know what we know?
Epistemology
the nature of knowledge, its
presuppositions andfoundations, and its extent
and validity
the way that knowledge
claims are justified
H d l d l i h h k ?
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
58/64
How do people deal with the unknown?
The big problems?
We are conscious of our mortality.
We are aware of the limitations of ourknowledgeor should be.
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
59/64
We propose relationships between the knownand the unknown
by using only terms and concepts of theknown.
An Unknown Man
cast glass with pate de verre inclusions
Linda Eitherinfo@lindaethier.com
mailto:info@lindaethier.commailto:info@lindaethier.comhttp://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.lucidnotion.com/photos/icons/senses.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.lucidnotion.com/senses.html&h=164&w=150&sz=8&tbnid=a9DrrBAs-tQJ:&tbnh=93&tbnw=85&hl=en&start=2&prev=/images?q=senses&svnum=10&hl=en&lr= -
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
60/64
Ways of Knowing
Perception
The senses
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.lucidnotion.com/photos/icons/senses.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.lucidnotion.com/senses.html&h=164&w=150&sz=8&tbnid=a9DrrBAs-tQJ:&tbnh=93&tbnw=85&hl=en&start=2&prev=/images?q=senses&svnum=10&hl=en&lr= -
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
61/64
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
62/64
Truth vs. Validity
Truthis a matter of
belief or faith.
Validityis a matter ofhow well an argument
meets the
requirements of thesystem of logic within
which it operates.
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
63/64
For scientists truth is an
unattainable goal, and infact, is dangerous.
However, scientistsconstantly question validity.
-
8/14/2019 Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Spring
64/64
In this class well be doing science!
top related