science

Physics Biology Chemistry Experimentation Inquiring Figuring out how things work Economics History Geography Archeology Astrology Astronomy || Sports Art Music Language Love Faith Soul Human nature Instinct ||
 * **__Science__** || **__Not Science__** ||
 * Math

Paradigm(s) of the past:


 * The discovery and acceptance that the Earth is no longer the center of the universe.
 * The discovery of universal gravitation.
 * The discovery of electricity.
 * The discovery of oil.
 * The theory of relativity.
 * Newton's Laws of Motion.
 * Algebra
 * Calculus
 * Trigonometry

=__Natural Sciences and Technology__= Science in general is a field of knowledge. So why is science valued so much? The technology it brings forth is used to simplify life, however, there is much more to science than its ability to simplify life. Science can help contribute to a deeper understanding of things and their behavior. Science can contribute to a deeper self-understanding in one’s life. Is science always right? Science can be viewed upon differently by many people, it is a field of knowledge, and therefore has the capability of providing truth.

Technology is the application of scientific knowledge and therefore is almost needed in all fields of natural science from archeology to physics. Scientific knowledge is valued for many reasons and technology is a heavy weight in this value. Some scientific fields do indeed require technology in order for new scientific knowledge such as astronomy. For example, Einstein’s theory of relativity couldn’t have been proven if there wasn’t the technology of telescopes, photography, and even planes. Technology plays a vital role in science as well as the gain of scientific knowledge. In the past people did not know that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and that the Earth was not the center of the universe. All these beliefs changed thanks to technology or the application of science. If science was not applied then where would we be? The application of science, technology, is an essence in the development of life and is indeed what has advanced humans in ways of thinking. Therefore, there are some things that are still unknown due to the lack of technology, more application of scientific knowledge is needed in order to keep progressing.

**How different are the knowledge claims of those disciplines that are primarily historical, such as evolutionary biology, cosmology, geology and paleontology, from those that are primarily experimental, such as physics and chemistry?**
 * The knowledge claims are different in these two forms because the first has lots of theory behind it while the latter is more practical and can be perceived.
 * The experimental sciences are considered evidence because they are verified by other scientists and even students and anyone who tries an experiment properly relating to the problem.
 * The other form of science is less practical and shows more thought and reason.
 * The four ways of knowing can be used to determine the primarily experimental sciences while the latter uses more of the personal and impersonal ways of knowing.

What kinds of explanations do scientists offer, and how do these explanations compare with those offered in other areas of knowledge?
 * The explanations that scientists offer are things that are perceivable, eg. experimentation.
 * This type of explanation deals more with the four main ways of knowing and very little of the personal and impersonal ways of knowing.
 * Perception is a key element in knowing in science as well as reason. Experiments are highly related to experience which is completely related with the four main ways of knowing.
 * Explanations are sometimes considered evidence or even a reason made to explain a situation such as a theory which can be seen in many of the sciences.
 * Theories are always being put to the test until they are proved by experimentation and evidence. Thus theory is important in science.

What are the differences between theories and myths as forms of explanation?
 * Theories try to explain a natural phenomena through logic and reason dealing with previous evidence.
 * Myths also try to explain a natural phenomena however using a supernatural being or event.
 * Theories can sometimes be proven.
 * Myths are not always proven.
 * Theories and myths help understand a concept with a logical answer whether or not they are true.

Some comparisons between the sciences: Focus Activity 3: Setting Priorities
 * Some are more empirical while others are more revolved around a more rationale way of knowing.
 * All sciences require a method.
 * All search for evidence.
 * Some of the sciences give more clear answers while others are more on the theoretical side.


 * 1) //Clean air//
 * 2) //a good education//
 * 3) //healthy teeth//
 * 4) //a good road//
 * 5) //a meat burger//
 * 6) //Peace in Darfur//
 * 7) //a vacation in hawaii//
 * 8) //playstation//
 * 9) //a pet//

The reason why I ranked these items in this way is because they are in order of how they effect me the most. Clean air is the first because I need clean air to survive and be healthy, a good education to be wealthy in life, healthy teeth again relating to myself. The list may seem very selfish but it is the most important in value to me.


 * 1) //Clean air- $23//
 * 2) //a good education-$15//
 * 3) //healthy teeth-$5//
 * 4) //a good road-$5//
 * 5) //a meat burger-$30//
 * 6) //Peace in Darfur-$2//
 * 7) //a vacation in hawaii-$2//
 * 8) //playstation-$2//
 * 9) //a pet-$1//


 * 1) A meat burger
 * 2) clean air
 * 3) a good education
 * 4) healthy teeth
 * 5) a good road
 * 6) a vacation in hawaii
 * 7) peace in darfur
 * 8) playstation
 * 9) a pet

My list has changed surprisingly. The reason would be because when an economic value is placed on an item its purpose changes. For example, clean air dropped down to second place and that means that I can survive with not so clean air and if a meat burger has jumped to number one which surprised myself because then it becomes such a necessity and is very much needed. However, the same concept of selfishness applies here, the things that benefit myself more are ranked higher than the items that do not affect me the most.

3. Is there a conflict between what we think is important and the financial value that we attach to those things? What difficulties did you experience in trying to attach a monetary value to the things in your list? Can your two lists be reconciled?

Yes there definitely is a huge conflict between things that are important and their importance changes with a financial value. For example, education is very important and has been throughout the human age. However, a few hundred years ago education was expensive and therefore, was less important as it is today. As I have previously stated it is difficult to place a price tag on items that are important to me and their importance to me will change if their prices change, and this is a major problem that needs to be resolved because if there is a price for everything then one will not know what's important.

4. Consider a student living in a very different country from yours. Specify the country and construct the priorities that you think that person would set. Justify your responses. What issues arise when people prioritize for others?

I have a rich friend who lives in Geneva, Switzerland and I think needs the priorities he would set are that the people who are poor get a certain type of treatment like a free home and a warm meal at night, the global issues of energy and pollution. However there is a problem I cannot set ones priorities because every person no matter how rich or how poor will commit selfish acts first rather than be generous. It is a possibility that a person may not be selfish at all and be generous but the truth is sooner or later his priorities will change and his or her acts will be once again selfish.

5. On what sound basis and assumptions does the discipline of economics rest?

Economics is an important issue in the modern world. If you do not have money you have nothing! Such a bold statement, but that is the fact in the modern world. Unfortunately money and the economy determine your value in the society. People are influenced by money and its power, it is what drives people insane, it is the seduction of life. The community is effected by the economy when it should be the economy is effected by the community.

1. Which policy are we presently using as a response to climate change?

Policy B is what we are presently using as a response to climate change. Policy B is adaptation, as whole the world is adapting rather than mitigating. Parts of the world community are indeed trying to mitigate, however, it is a very small amount that it seems irrelevant. The amount of human activities that contribute to climate change is not changing at a decent rate. The change is happening so slow that it is virtually ineffective. This adaptation of human behavior is a problem in future generations. It will have a great effect on later generations; people argue that they will be long gone before such effects might happen. This is poor ethics, people tend to be selfish and care only about their own situation and the effects on them not on others or even future generations. For example, most of the students who created a list for the ten items found that the higher ranked items were selfish like healthy teeth, meat burger, clean air, and even playstation while the lower ranked items were unselfish such as Peace in Darfur, having a pet (which indicates great deal of responsibilities), or even a good road. Ethics is an issue that has caused humans to adapt to the climate change rather than fix it for a healthier future. For example, instead of walking for 10 minutes at most to the supermarket people still insist on driving their cars, which emit greenhouse gases that heavily effect the climate change in temperature, because driving a car is more convenient and comfortable and more enjoyable than walking. It’s self-satisfaction that keeps humans from being more like policy A, mitigating, rather than just be like policy B and adapt.

1. Which policy should we use to respond to climate change.

The policy that we should use to respond to climate change would simply be policy A. Policy A is the act of reducing now to benefit the future. Policy A is under construction now however it lacks the whole idea of teamwork. Policy A is needed and is being done however not at a global scale. Teamwork refers to the idea of everyone in the world works together and mitigates for the future. However as in the previous question the same problem occurs and that is the problem of self-satisfaction. Self-satisfaction is a huge issue and it is what causes humans to adapt rather than change and reduce, or change from policy B to policy A.

The Nature of Natural Sciences
 * 1) Is it economically viable to maintain NASA programs of this nature?
 * 2) It is not economically viable to maintain NASA programs of this nature because the amount of money that is being put into such missions is a ridiculous amount. Some may argue that over the past decades NASA has not made much progress in the search for extraterrestrial life. There are other private business owners who will make missions for cheaper prices. The only reason why NASA is still running is because it is a government funded company and it is the only company allowed to operate in such a field. For this reason NASA is the only space program in the U.S. The reason is that if space was given to the free market then spies could easily access them and that would cause a threat to the U.S.
 * 3) What is the intent and purpose of these programs?
 * 4) The intent and purpose of these programs is to understand life. To develop an understanding of life and how it all became to be.
 * 5) What knowledge is gained from this search for "life out there?"
 * 6) The knowledge that is gained from the search of "life out there" is that
 * 7) To what other areas of knowledge do these understandings or findings apply? For example, do they aid our understanding in physics, chemistry, or in evolutionary biology or the life sciences in general? What of cosmology, geology, or paleontology? What of history, human sciences, or ethics?
 * 8) These understandings apply to all other areas of knowing from physics to chemistry, biology, and all the life sciences in general. This is because this article talks about life and the capability of having life on distant planets. With regards to cosmology, paleontology, and geology is that programs such as the Kepler look to these sciences to know about the possibility of life out there. With this search there comes a great deal of history in the progression of human knowledge of the universe. The relationship between this article and ethics is that the only problem would be personal and some things are looked at as ethically wrong, when actually nothing is wrong about it if it is there and there is evidence and proof to support it. For this article anything ethical is relating to something personal such as fear of the unknown.
 * 9) What ways of knowing are applied in the presentation of such knowledge?
 * 10) All the ways of knowing are implied.
 * 11) perception- to see and be aware of what is out there whether or not there is life.
 * 12) emotion- to feel a strange feeling possibly excitement upon staring deep into the heavens.
 * 13) reason- coming to a conclusion based on the research done about life forms and their existence.
 * 14) language- to communicate and share the knowledge with whomever wants to listen.


 * 1) The Nature of Natural Sciences
 * Are there any assumptions made about what can be understood and explained in the article about Life in the Universe? If so, what does this imply about natural sciences as an area of knowledge?
 * With the article about Life in the Universe there are some assumptions that can be identified and understood are that there could be life out there and that there could not be life out there. Another assumption made in the article was the possibility of having life from another solvent, eg. instead of water methane? There are many assumptions that can be made, however, to understand other assumptions from this article is probably limited or there aren't any assumptions clarified, this is because the article is still skeptical about life in the universe. There could be life out there, where? We don't know. Satellites like the Kepler look for stars that could obtain planets similar to our Earth, with this, life in the universe assumptions can possibly be understood because they bring forth more possibilities, however, not all of these assumptions can be turned to facts.

> *** Are there similarities and differences in methods used in the natural sciences in comparison with those used in other areas of knowing? List some of the ways we gain knowledge in the natural sciences. What types are referred to in the article on Life in the Universe?  HUMAN SCIENCE
 * 1) The Methods of Gaining Knowledge in the Natural Sciences
 * There are many similarities between methods used in natural sciences and those of other areas of knowing. For example, the concept of the scientific method can be applied to art. Methods are just basic systems to lead to a final result. A real similarity in all methods is the statement of the problem or question as well as knowing the steps required to answer the question.
 * Some of the ways we get knowledge in the natural sciences would be:
 * through experimentation
 * proof
 * evidence
 * similarities eg. scientific experiment result match another scientist who conducted the same experiment.
 * Within the article evidence is used to justify the possibility of life. The frozen water beds on Europa, the ice caps on Mars as well as the methane levels. These are all evidence to try and support such assumptions.
 * List which other areas of knowing also use these methods.
 * Other areas of knowing that also use these methods are almost all. Proof and evidence are needed everywhere, in most fields this is because it is the most believable way to claim a knowledge. Experimentation is not necessarily required in all fields, however, it is the most sufficient way to get evidence and proof and for that reason it is almost required in all fields as a claim for knowledge.
 * Can you then explain why knowledge in the natural sciences is considered more valid than in other areas of knowing. For example, how is biology different from the studies in evolutionary biology?
 * In natural science concrete evidence is what is being looked for. If it can be perceived then it is believable and is considered a knowledge claim. For example, the reason why biology is more believable than evolutionary biology is because the evidence in biology is more clear and can be perceived compared to evolutionary biology which cannot be entirely perceived nor does it have as much supporting evidence as biology does.
 * 1) The Natural Sciences and Knowledge Claims
 * Do the entities in scientists’ explanatory models and theories (for example, Higgs bosons, selfish genes) actually exist, or are they primarily useful inventions for predicting and controlling the natural world? How do these explanations influence public perception and understanding of science in explanations of reality? And yet, if they are only fictions, how can they create such accurate predictions in many cases?
 * <span style="font-family: MyriadPro-Regular,helvetica,sans-serif;">The entities in scientists' explanatory models and theories may exist and have the potential to be useful inventions for predicting and controlling the natural world. They influence the public because the scientists are authority figures and are because of that reason influence the society and it becomes a knowledge claim. Of course this "inventions can be right or wrong, if it s wrong then it is discarded however, if it is right then it will create more inquiry about the specific topic. These predictions are only accurate because they are based entirely on previous facts. And they are entirely accurate if the previous information is accepted by society.
 * 1) Natural Sciences and Values
 * <span style="font-family: MyriadPro-Regular,helvetica,sans-serif;">It has been argued that certain discoveries (such as quantum mechanics, chaos theory, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, Einstein's theory of relativity, Darwin's theory of evolution) have had major implications for knowledge outside their immediate field. Why is it that science has the power to inform thinking in other areas of knowledge such as philosophy and religion? To what extent should philosophy and religion take careful note of scientific developments?
 * <span style="font-family: MyriadPro-Regular,helvetica,sans-serif;">Science is a field that is searching for answers that can be perceived, while philosophy and religion are based on belief. Science is a field that searches and strives or answers that have concrete evidence, however, this field is constantly readjusting to satisfy the results and be more accurate to the answer.
 * 1) Natural Sciences and Technology
 * <span style="font-family: MyriadPro-Regular,helvetica,sans-serif;">Is scientific knowledge valued more for its own sake or for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology? What is the role of technology in developing understanding in the natural sciences and in the study of Life in the Universe?
 * <span style="font-family: MyriadPro-Regular,helvetica,sans-serif;">Technology is the application of science. Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experimentation (Oxford American dictionary). With this in mind it can be difficult to advance without applying what we know to the real world. there is not any form of science now that does not use technology. Technology is what allows us to develop, especially if we wanted to understand and study life in the universe.
 * 1) Natural sciences: Metaphor and reality
 * <span style="font-family: MyriadPro-Regular,helvetica,sans-serif;">Does scientific language and vocabulary have primarily a descriptive or an interpretative function? Consider here expressions such as “artificial intelligence”, “electric current”, “natural selection” and “concentration gradient” or "evolution of intelligence".
 * <span style="font-family: MyriadPro-Regular,helvetica,sans-serif;">Science has its own language like that of mathematics. Scientific terms are used to explain things in simpler terms.

curiosity || Teachers flexible with mess and chaos
 * Thought || Feeling || Assumptions || Influences ||
 * Let’s mess up and create a mess because we are allowed to and can create chaos || Excited

Safety and condoms

I will create the best mess || Curiosity Understanding Desire to be the best Determination ||


 * Thought || Feeling || Assumptions || Influences ||
 * Be in control

Take responsibility and be a leader || Anxious curious excited || Individual will listen to me

I will make the best mess || Characteristics of leadership

Leading the way Determination ||


 * 1) Based on your observations of group and individual behaviour, is it reasonable to think human behaviour can be studied? Why or why not? What problems are associated with such work?
 * It is reasonable to think that human behavior can be studied. One can carry out an experiment and observe the behavior of many individuals and make a generalization based on similar acts. However, each individual is unique and cannot be generalized. It is a percentage that leans towards the random act of individuality. A generalization about a group of people's reaction to something does not infer that each individual will react the same way, it is possible but more unlikely than likely. Yet lots of similarities will occur but no two individuals will do the exact same reaction. The problems are clear and that is evident in all human behavior that as humans each one of us has a mind and makes singular choices and for that reason to think that human behavior can be studied to a accurate AND precise result is incorrect.
 * 1) What methods could be used, or did we use in class, that could be considered valid for observing behaviour? What problems exist with these methods? How can they be improved?
 * The methods that we used were the influences of others on a person. We conducted an experiment to see what people will do when they are alone in a group or even being observed by a group. We saw how results can vary from person to person but again maintain an overall similarity and also we saw that doing something with someone else or being observed is different than doing something alone. The problems with these methods are that the action done by each person may or may not be changed because of the unique thought of each individual. For example, some students may have done the same thing being observed or not and other students changed their action when being among a group or observed by others. It is very tough to improve experiments where there will be random behavior, the only way is to constrict the actions.
 * 1) Can specific observations about behaviour lead to statements about human behaviour in general? Explain in what situations this might be true, and when it might not be true? Further to this, can we classify or categorize human behaviour?
 * Some specific observations can lead to generalizations about human behavior however, when culture, beliefs, and other aspects come into play then generalizing for humans as a whole can be difficult.

>>