Inductive Logic (Generalising)
Definition: Reasoning from the particular to the general.
When the electrons were shot through the two slits and formed a wave pattern, instead of two individual lines on the back board, it was assumed that the electrons were interfering with one another and thus forming the pattern. Yet when a measuring device was used to observe this occurrence near the slits, the electrons in fact changed their paths and formed the two lines that they were originally meant to form.
The idea was proposed as matter is spread out in space, wavy, that is is very difficult to say where it is and what it may do next. This was quantum physics, that there is a huge uncertainty as the effects are so small and changeable that it is stated that nature is a game of chance. There is a real limit to what scientists can know with absolute certainty.
Every time Einstein tried to make sense and reason of certain ideas, people would find ways around it to prove him wrong. He tried extremely hard to show that quantum physics was wrong, yet he did not succeed. Much of physics is probable and unable to reason with.
Deductive Logic (Narrowing down)
Definition: Reasoning from a general premise that is either known or assumed to be true.
An idea that was presented in the first video was that when marbles are shot through a slit, they hit the board in the same line as the slit, then when shot through two slits it forms two lines. When this was applied to quantum physics, electrons were shot through one slit and sure enough it formed one line. So it was assumed that electrons, being tiny particles of matter, would also form two lines. Yet this was proved false. It formed a series of lines, as a wave would.
It was assumed, especially by Einstein that the outcomes of an experiment could not be completely predictable "I can not believe that God plays dice with the universe".
Inside a vacuum electrons perform like solid particles, but when placed in a solid, they perform like waves. Thus was the idea of quantum physics. There came the idea of the particle wave durability of electrons. The transmitter was created for this specific purpose...it was a process of applying quantum theory to practical problems.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Scientific Knowledge - Week 5
Notes
a. What different ways of building knowledge were described?
Ideas, achievements and results. Outside and inside the laboratory. Religious and political. Data gatherer. Plotting. "Great observing logs of raw data".
a. What different ways of building knowledge were described?
Ideas, achievements and results. Outside and inside the laboratory. Religious and political. Data gatherer. Plotting. "Great observing logs of raw data".
b. What role has rational thought played in the development of science?
"Science needs evidence". No longer is science just based on theories and information, it has become about data. "Information and analysis from fresh observations". "A commitment to cold, hard, obstinate facts".
c. What other ways of knowing have played roles in scientific discovery?
Astronomy, an understanding/exploration of the cosmos. Mathematics. Theories. Early civilisations had already begun to produce ideas about things that they could not understand, such as heaven. Greek cosmology.
"Science needs evidence". No longer is science just based on theories and information, it has become about data. "Information and analysis from fresh observations". "A commitment to cold, hard, obstinate facts".
c. What other ways of knowing have played roles in scientific discovery?
Astronomy, an understanding/exploration of the cosmos. Mathematics. Theories. Early civilisations had already begun to produce ideas about things that they could not understand, such as heaven. Greek cosmology.
"What surprises me about the way science has progressed"
Science has progressed immensely over the years. For the human race to have started out from nothing but thoughts and concepts and built on that to gradually form "cold, hard, obstinate facts" is quite an incredible feat. What I find very fascinating is how strong the sense of conviction that scientific facts give the majority of people (including myself). It seems to me that we seem very dependent on the idea that if something can be proven scientifically then the likelihood of it being true is very very high. Yet if we think about it...what is science and scientific fact? Are they not all still born from thoughts and concepts of the human mind, and is the human mind that is most prone to failures...and to successes. So how is it that we can be so adamantly convinced that a certain scientific statement is true?
I suppose that science is really all about experimentation, trial and error, and observations. It is about having a theory, putting the theory into practice and then having the results agree with your theory. Then being able to explain a reason for the results and to compare them with the results that others have gained. (As I take chemistry this is the main aspect of science that we focus on). This idea seems quite plausible. That if something can be proven, as in shown to succeed and if a great number of people agree on this, then it must be true. So this is science.
What still continues to astound me though is how science has built upon itself over the years. That it has progressed from a nothing to a whole full concept, subject, system, a belief. I am in awe of the people who gave birth to science or who were the ones that lay down the scaffolding and those who placed the first bricks of what is science today. For example now in chemistry we are learning about atoms, molecules, nucleuses and all this stuff, and with this we can experiment and increase our understanding, but it was the people before us that first discovered nucleuses and the people before them that discovered atoms. Science is really about generations and generations of people building and adding on to scientific facts, which could not be achieved without the previous scientific fact being proved and placed.
Thus as they say, science is truly "standing on the shoulders of giants"
Science has progressed immensely over the years. For the human race to have started out from nothing but thoughts and concepts and built on that to gradually form "cold, hard, obstinate facts" is quite an incredible feat. What I find very fascinating is how strong the sense of conviction that scientific facts give the majority of people (including myself). It seems to me that we seem very dependent on the idea that if something can be proven scientifically then the likelihood of it being true is very very high. Yet if we think about it...what is science and scientific fact? Are they not all still born from thoughts and concepts of the human mind, and is the human mind that is most prone to failures...and to successes. So how is it that we can be so adamantly convinced that a certain scientific statement is true?
I suppose that science is really all about experimentation, trial and error, and observations. It is about having a theory, putting the theory into practice and then having the results agree with your theory. Then being able to explain a reason for the results and to compare them with the results that others have gained. (As I take chemistry this is the main aspect of science that we focus on). This idea seems quite plausible. That if something can be proven, as in shown to succeed and if a great number of people agree on this, then it must be true. So this is science.
What still continues to astound me though is how science has built upon itself over the years. That it has progressed from a nothing to a whole full concept, subject, system, a belief. I am in awe of the people who gave birth to science or who were the ones that lay down the scaffolding and those who placed the first bricks of what is science today. For example now in chemistry we are learning about atoms, molecules, nucleuses and all this stuff, and with this we can experiment and increase our understanding, but it was the people before us that first discovered nucleuses and the people before them that discovered atoms. Science is really about generations and generations of people building and adding on to scientific facts, which could not be achieved without the previous scientific fact being proved and placed.
Thus as they say, science is truly "standing on the shoulders of giants"
Friday, February 11, 2011
MMR Vaccine = Autism? Week 3
1. What is one key argument or knowledge claim?
The key argument that has been formed is that the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine has directly caused autism in a number of children. These claims that the MMR vaccine is closely connected to autism were published in the well-known medical journal, The Lancet, by a Doctor Wakefield. The paper was retracted and Wakefield was stripped of his medical practice in 2010.
2. What evidence supports this claim?
There were twelve children that were studied for the report, eleven boys and one girl. All these children had seemingly grown up naturally with no significant problems in their development, until the vaccine. It was reported that after receiving the MMR vaccine, these children began to have problems with their hearing, speaking and other developmental disabilities. Two of the children were later diagnosed with regressive autism and the other children were diagnosed with other mental disabilities such as Asperger's syndrome. It was reported that symptoms of these disorders occurred in a very short time after receiving the vaccines.
3. What evidence challenges this claim?
Although those reports were made there have been medical records that show that the children had not been developing as normally as reported before the vaccine. It is written in the medical records that many of these children had, in fact, already began showing signs of developmental disabilities before the vaccine had even be given. Another child had been reported to have showed signs of autism a few weeks after the vaccine, yet medical records insisted that it was months after the vaccine and the child was at the stage in life when symptoms of the syndrome began to appear, so that the vaccine had no direct connection with autism.
4. How is your confidence in a knowledge claim affected by understanding the type/quality/reliability of the evidence?
Your confidence in a knowledge claim can be reinforced or strengthened when there is reliable and factual evidence that is given before you, such as a chronological description (not just personal opinion) of the children's development before, during and after the vaccine. Then you would be able to be more confident with determining whether the vaccine had directly caused the mental disorders to develop. Unfortunately, the government will not allow for any more studies that could possibly resolve this case. This seems to place them in the wrong as it seems to suggest that there is something that the government is attempting to hide. When all the information is gathered of both unaffected and affected children and of the chemicals used in the vaccine and how this could have caused the mental disabilities, then we can begin to determine whether the arguments are true or false.
The key argument that has been formed is that the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine has directly caused autism in a number of children. These claims that the MMR vaccine is closely connected to autism were published in the well-known medical journal, The Lancet, by a Doctor Wakefield. The paper was retracted and Wakefield was stripped of his medical practice in 2010.
2. What evidence supports this claim?
There were twelve children that were studied for the report, eleven boys and one girl. All these children had seemingly grown up naturally with no significant problems in their development, until the vaccine. It was reported that after receiving the MMR vaccine, these children began to have problems with their hearing, speaking and other developmental disabilities. Two of the children were later diagnosed with regressive autism and the other children were diagnosed with other mental disabilities such as Asperger's syndrome. It was reported that symptoms of these disorders occurred in a very short time after receiving the vaccines.
3. What evidence challenges this claim?
Although those reports were made there have been medical records that show that the children had not been developing as normally as reported before the vaccine. It is written in the medical records that many of these children had, in fact, already began showing signs of developmental disabilities before the vaccine had even be given. Another child had been reported to have showed signs of autism a few weeks after the vaccine, yet medical records insisted that it was months after the vaccine and the child was at the stage in life when symptoms of the syndrome began to appear, so that the vaccine had no direct connection with autism.
4. How is your confidence in a knowledge claim affected by understanding the type/quality/reliability of the evidence?
Your confidence in a knowledge claim can be reinforced or strengthened when there is reliable and factual evidence that is given before you, such as a chronological description (not just personal opinion) of the children's development before, during and after the vaccine. Then you would be able to be more confident with determining whether the vaccine had directly caused the mental disorders to develop. Unfortunately, the government will not allow for any more studies that could possibly resolve this case. This seems to place them in the wrong as it seems to suggest that there is something that the government is attempting to hide. When all the information is gathered of both unaffected and affected children and of the chemicals used in the vaccine and how this could have caused the mental disabilities, then we can begin to determine whether the arguments are true or false.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
2 Feb 2011
What are your impressions?
At first I was quite unsure of what to think of the TOK subject. I felt that it had a quite a strong similarity to psychology and that it was really interesting. The discussions that we had were rather fascinating and by the end of the lesson I felt that my brain had gone through quite a rough work out. Many of the topics that we touched on also left me thinking quite a bit, and left me questioning things that I originally would not have.
What are you most interested in or surprised by?
What I found most interesting in today's lesson was when we were discussing the meanings and definitions of certain words. At first we thought that the task was fairly straightforward but when entering deeper into discussion we realized that it was much more difficult to define them than we had guessed. I found it interesting how many things we had believed to have known were harder to prove than we had thought.
At first I was quite unsure of what to think of the TOK subject. I felt that it had a quite a strong similarity to psychology and that it was really interesting. The discussions that we had were rather fascinating and by the end of the lesson I felt that my brain had gone through quite a rough work out. Many of the topics that we touched on also left me thinking quite a bit, and left me questioning things that I originally would not have.
What are you most interested in or surprised by?
What I found most interesting in today's lesson was when we were discussing the meanings and definitions of certain words. At first we thought that the task was fairly straightforward but when entering deeper into discussion we realized that it was much more difficult to define them than we had guessed. I found it interesting how many things we had believed to have known were harder to prove than we had thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)