Natural+Sciences

= Reflection on Carl Sagan = From Carl Sagan’s words, one can understand that he is much of a materialist. He doesn’t accept the fact that women visit their dead husbands’ graves. He says it is hard to understand such principles. Although I honestly don’t see them as principles, for someone can choose to neglect or take them to consideration as they please. For example, I don’t celebrate my birthday, although everyone else does. Nonetheless, I know people that have family dinners every Thursday, it’s a small tradition but not necessarily important. Carl Sagan also mentions belief. He says that there is usually less information than we are told. The books spoken of in the past were never found and so he cannot believe in the information given to him by the followers or readers of these books. He is right because as information is passed on from person to person that info is less trustworthy. Because of that, we cannot trust blogs or wikis with no quotations and citations. Even if cited, there is no way to know that it’s absolutely factual. It is as if the truth will never be relieved and so we as human beings must live on with what we all know. Thus it is common sense that we are is true, because there is barely a way in proving it wrong whilst so many people believe in it. Or maybe Carl Sagan meant that there could be more than one truth and that it is frustrating that one must choose to take into account one of them, for you cannot believe in 2 contradicting truths.

= Natural Science Question =

To what extent do scientists rely on either confirming or falsifying a hypothesis? Is either matter ever straightforward? What does this tell us about the nature of the scientific endeavor?
A hypothesis is a theory still unproven. Scientists come up with hypotheses in order to find truth, or information. Bringing a hypothesis is easy though, what is hard is proving it right or wrong. Firstly it is almost impossible, after an experiment, to say that a hypothesis is completely true or untrue. But it is because of this uncertainty the hypothesis and experiment should be greatly analyzed to get as accurate a conclusion as possible. Nonetheless, scientists usually redo experiments more than once, to assure themselves that their results are measured correctly (in other words, that the instruments and glass work do not affect the data in any way), and to change factors to make sure that theoretically and practically what factors the hypothesis depends on. This is extremely difficult because of the fact that there are so many factors to consider, like weather, materials, amount, time, and etcetera. In the experiment, scientists try to keep all factors constant, except the tested factor.

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? What kinds of explanations do scientists offer, and how do these explanations compare with those offered in other areas of knowledge? What are the differences between theories and myths as forms of explanation?
 * The knowledge claims in both primarily historical disciplines and primarily experimental disciplines very greatly depend on past discoveries.
 * The knowledge claims brought up in experimental disciplines might be in the form of theories or explanations relating to constants and variables (equations) while in historical disciplines the knowledge claims are basically pieces of information.
 * In historical disciplines, the most used WOK is memory, and the most used **WOK** in experimental disciplines is most probably logic and empirical.
 * The language used in historical disciplines
 * In experimental sciences like physics and chemistry practical experiments are used to prove theories
 * In theoretical studies such as Math, theories are used to explain an axiom
 * In history, old teachings are re-taught to show previous understandings
 * Scientist could use examples to teach certain aspects
 * Scientist can fly sometime in the pastness
 * Theories can logically be proven in our realities, myths are ancient and most of the time, cannot be seen today but are said to have been there by antsisters.
 * Theories usually have more than a way to express it, and to rewrite it, while myths come as information not more.
 * myths can most probably be false, and so can theories, but theories can be proven false while myths cannot
 * myths cannot be reused today and so their time passes, whilst theories can always be reused
 * myths are made up by any believable (not necessarily true story) theories go over a more complicated process to be produced.

Knowing in Natural Sciences
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?
 * The BIG assumption that the article makes is that there could exist in our galaxy a life similar to the life here on earth, also, this creates another assumption that there could be a place with the same living creatures as earth, or another place where humans can exist almost as normal as earth (the uncertainty here is very high because of how little we know about life outside our planet). Because of the fact that an assumption in a field of the natural sciences creates another assumption, i think that the science itself is based on assumptions. Thus further discoveries in these sciences rely on new assumptions. We can also conclude that the assumptions to start with at the beginning, are assumptions that have the greatest significance in terms of importance in the field itself. they are also the most broad assumptions in terms of knowing.

The Methods of Gaining Knowledge in the Natural Sciences The Natural Sciences and Knowledge Claims
 * 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?
 * Empirical (increases with technological advances) [The use of Kepler the telescope]
 * Hypothetical (assumptions) [Taking into consideration what factors change the knowledge]
 * Reasoning (Algebra) [Predicting what changes occur due to a change made]
 * List which other areas of knowing also use these methods.
 * Human Sciences (we can use the same 3 procedures in forecasting future human activity, proven very accurate but uncertainty increases in the longer run)
 * Math (Almost exactly the same way that it is used in natural sciences, but reasoning is the vital key)
 * TOK/Philosophy (Actually uses the same ways of knowing and much much more, in these fields one can use ANY WAY OF KNOWING INCLUDING MAKING ONE UP)
 * 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?
 * Because the information gathered in Natural Sciences has hard and easy to prove efficient evidence, as the proofs to such knowledge can be gained empirically and rationally.
 * 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?

Natural Sciences and Values
 * 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?

Natural Sciences and Technology
 * 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?

Natural sciences: Metaphor and reality
 * 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".