NATURAL SCIENCES

1. NATURAL SCIENCES All science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike. And yet it is the most precious thing we have. Albert Einstein

2. Natural Sciences • Study the material world and only the material world. • N. Science attempts to answer the question WHY? Or HOW? • Attempt to make generalizations about entire collections of things. From these generalizations, new hypotheses are formed. • Search for regularities or recurrent relationships to explain and describe.

3. What are some examples of scientific beliefs that have changed? • Is science, broadly and over time, gtting closer to truth? In the long run, is it truly self-correcting? • Which technological sense perception extensions further our scientific knowledge?

4. Science operates on the assumption that by isolating key variables we can discover the truth. • Scientism: the belief that science is the only way we can make sense of reality and discover truth.

5. Agree or disagree: Science is the only true road to knowledge. It is the dominant cognitive paradigm. • Which is more certain, science or math?

6. Classification • We use reasoning to make and apply generalizations, we use language to name the categories. We use emotion and sensory perception to observe and gather empirical data.

7. Questions • What is the difference between describing and explaining? • What is the difference between a science class in which you learn that and one in which you learn how? • Are there times when the sciences rely on each other? When? Examples? • How many results of science surround you, and how much do you trust them without even noticing? • What are some connotations associated with the word “science” or “scientist”? • What motivates science?

8. Pseudo-Science • Michael Shermer, “Why People Believe Strange Things”

9. Important to remember: • Might be culturally valid • Other perspectives must at least be acknowledged • Recognize their contribution to an understanding of the whole

10. How do we recognize pseudo-Science? • The discoverer bypasses peer review to go directly to the media. • The discoverer claims that the scientific establishment, possibly as part of a larger conspiracy, is trying to suppress his work. • The evidence is extremely hard to detect. • The evidence takes the form of individual observations or stories, not able to be generalized. • The discoverer claims that knowledge is ancient and hence more credible. • The discoverer has worked alone. • The discoverer needs to propose modification to the laws of nature in order that his findings be credible.

11. Genuine Science: • Hypotheses are testable • Hypotheses are general in nature and don’t make exceptions every time a counter example is provided. • Hyp. are precise. • A distinctive method is used when testing the hypothesis. • Pseudo Science: • Claims the status of science while lacking its substance (magic crystals). • Not testable; tests are not replicable. • Ad hoc exceptions • Vague • Expectations/confirmation bias.

12. Gaining Knowledge through Science • Even “failure” brings new knowledge to light. • Science is a living archive—always shifting, changing, reproving or disproving aspects of itself. • Small, particular results cumulatively add to each other in an international collaborative effort.

13. Questions… • What are the relative roles of previous knowledge and current conjecture or hypothesis? • What makes a hypothesis a good hypothesis? • How is reading about an experiment different from doing it yourself? • What is the responsibility of the scientist in the knowledge he or she gains?

14. Kinds of Scientists • Experimental • Theoretical (working mostly with mathematics/numbers learned in previous experimentation) • Field scientist: go out and observe natural phenomena.

15. Inductivism (classic scientific method) • Observation/find pattern • Hypothesis • Experiment • Law • Theory

16. A GOOD experiment will have: • Controllability • Measurability • Repeatability

17. Problems with the scientific method • OBSERVATION: • Expert seeing—scientific equipment takes practice • Expectation • The observer effect: the act of observing can effect what we see. • There is fallibility through sense perception, however, science allows for correction or errors through repeated experimentation. • TESTING HYPOTHESIS: • Confirmation bias—Charles Darwin example—he would write down observations that opposed his expected results because he was worried he wouldn’t remember them. • Background assumptions: The earth is flat. • Multitude of hypotheses with a given set of data

18. Problems/room for error • The problem of Induction (opposite of math, which is deductive) • Moves from the observed to the unobserved, leaving room for greater error. • Practical problems: • Why place our faith in science if it really can’t be proven? • How many observations should be made before you can safely make a generalization? • Theoretical Problems: • Should scientists never theorize? Should they only report out what they observe?

19. Announcements • EE: If you have not yet updated your essay question for approval, you are late! • HELP! Monday from 3pm-4pm, lower gym—setting up for IB breakfast (CAS!)

20. Theories and laws • From pages 226-227 of Cambridge text “If your experimental results confirm your hypothesis, then you may have discovered a scientific law…Finally, you may develop a theory which explains and unifies various laws in terms of some underlying principles. A good theory explains why the laws are the way they are and provides a focus for further research.”

21. Example (also from text) Claudius Ptolemy (85-165) created a model of the universe in which the earth was the center. • Observation: astronomers made more specific observations, which necessitated adjustment of Ptolemy’s model until it was irrelevant. • Hypothesis: Copernicus (1472-1543) hypothesized that the sun was at the center of the universe, the planets revolved around it. • Prediction: Copernicus predicted that planets therefore would “appear” to change size when viewed from the earth if it does indeed orbit the sun. Galileo (1564-1642) confirmed this was true. • Law: Johannes Keplar (1571-1630) Developed laws of planetary motion. • Theory: Isaac Newton (1642-1727) developed his theory of gravity. This was part of a more general theory that enabled Newton to explain why objects (apples) fall to earth, why people have weight, and the orbit of the planets. Newtonian physics also allowed astronomers to eventually make accurate predictions that led to the discovery of new planets such as Neptune.

22. Example • Observation: When I throw a pen at the wall, it makes a louder noise than when I throw a ball of paper at the wall. • Hypothesis: Every pen I throw at the wall will create a louder noise than every ball of paper. • Experiment: threw 100 pens and 100 balls of paper at the wall. All of the pens registered a higher decibel of noise than all of the balls of paper. • Law: When thrown at a wall, pens make a louder noise than balls of paper. • Theory: objects made of hard plastic, when projected towards a hard surface, will register a higher decibel of noise than objects made of softer, more pliable materials.

23. Theories • Defined: the overarching constructs that encompass and explain many laws. • Refer to unobservable entities or properties that stand behind the measurements we make (atoms, natural selection, curvature of space) • Are interrelated in such a way that they explain not only a particular law or phenomenon, but whole ranges of each.

24. Chaos theory: reveals a new kind of pattern within the turbulence of nature, with limits on the degree to which it can be predicted. • Butterfly effect: tiny, immeasurable events can cause major ones. Read: Ray Bradbury’s “The Sound of Thunder”

25. Karl Popper • Karl Popper: distrustful of sciences that attempted to explain everything (psychoanalysis). He believed that rather than spend time trying to prove something over and over again, our time would be better spent trying to disprove it. A genuine scientific theory puts itself at risk. A theory that explains everything explains nothing. • We cannot prove a law is true, but refutation is decisive: we need only one counter example to prove that a law is false. More certainty!

26. Rationalists vs. Empiricists • Rationalists: reason is the main source of knowledge • Empiricists: someone who sees experience as the main source of knowledge.

27. The rationalist is more likely to stick with a beautiful theory, the empiricist is more likely to stick to the observational evidence.

28. Testing for Truth • Correspondence: statements we make correspond to what we observe in the world. EVIDENCE • Coherence: Examine knowledge claims themselves for consistency, freedom from contradiction.

29. Pragmatic: Demands that the statements work in practical terms. • When we have two equivalent theories, we choose the theory that is conceptually the simplest with the “most economical conceptual formulation.” (Ockhams Razor/Law of Parsimony) • We assume that theories that are mathematically beautiful and symmetric are more likely to be true and search very hard for experimental evidence to confirm them. • We assume the laws of physics we develop are applicable all over the physical universe. • Heisenberg: the scientist affects the data by the very act of trying to measure it.

30. Scientific Progress • “Normal Science”: a period during which most scientists are working within a paradigm, although they make take the paradigm itself for granted. • “Scientific revolutions”: When scientists become dissatisfied with a prevailing paradigm and create a whole new way of looking at things.

31. Paradigms in science • Newtonian mechanics, • Atomic theory in chemistry • Evolutionary theory in biology • Others?

32. Thomas Kuhn’s Theory of Science • During periods of normal science, most scientists do not question the paradigm in which they are operating and focus instead on solving problems. • The history of science suggests that, rather than progressing smoothly, science goes through a series of revolutionary jumps. • During periods of scientific crisis, there is no purely rational way of deciding between rival paradigms *He likened a scientific paradigm shift to a religious conversion.

33. Criticisms of Science as the “only” way of knowing • Fallibility of sense perception, even when extended by technology. • Limits of inductive reasoning • Human fallibility in experimental methods • Bias that comes with theory and observation • Expectation • The very act of observation may in some circumstances affect the thing that we are observing. • Being close minded or unwilling to accept outliers as data.

34. 5/17/2013 Homework: • Blog • Find ONE example of the natural sciences in the news (controversial or persuasive, preferable) • Read ALL presentation materials; try to choose a topic. • Continue to research EE, create annotated bibliography AS YOU GO. Begin a rough outline.

35. Overlap • Imagination • Technology • Ethics • Human Sciences • History • Beauty: • “the patterns found in the world of sense perception (often using math or technology) and through the arts in the patterns created from all the raw material of experience. In all these areas, their practitioners are apt to have moments of pure admiration.”

36. Can science be bad, wrong…while attempting persuasion? • http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science.html

37. 5/20/13 • Reminder: Help in lower gym 3:00-4:00. CAS! • Tomorrow: Please arrive in the lower gym by 7:30. Dress nicely. • Field Trip forms: Due by Wednesday or you have to stay here! • BLOG—presentation examples found there.

38. Do science and religion ever work together? • Can Science be a moral compass? • http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html

39. Science as a persuasive tool? • Is science ever used as a tool to market an item? • Should all beliefs be subject to scientific tests? (Example: if I say that my racism is based in my belief that white people are biologically different from black people.)

40. What are the most controversial topics in science currently? • Why are they controversial? • What is at stake? • What are the implications of both sides? • How does one ‘decide’ what is right or wrong in this area?