Facts and reasons cannot in most circumstances settle scientific controversies. The main issue is a matter of interpretation. One person can interpret data and observations differently from another person. This is where the problem lies. Pride and scientific interpretation can keep a controversy going even when facts and reasons may seem to prove one side false. Also, if there is more than model and those models each have some kind of positive evidence, then they each have a point to argue from. So what in the end will prove one more true over the others? In some cases it is social belief's that will bring an end to a controversy. Other times it will end because other scientists will drop their model and give up on trying to convince that theirs is the correct model. Pasteur's real world question was; how to create sterile air so that spontaneous generation may be tested. His model was to break a flask in high altitude and then reseal it under a flame while holding it with pincers. His nutrient was a yeast infusion. His hypothesis was, this would create sterile air to test spontaneous generation. His data showed that only one out of 20 became prurient. The data seemed to fit the hypothesis closely. Therefore the model seemed to fit the real world. There were no other models at the time to compare and discuss. Pouchet's real world question was; could he perform the same experiment as Pasteur to validate his results. His model was the same as Pasteur's except he uses a file instead of pincers, and hay instead of yeast. His hypothesis was that this would duplicate Pasteur's results. The data showed that eight out of eight of his become prurient. This made his hypothesis incorrect and his model therefore was also wrong. Were there any other models to fit the data? Yes, Pasteur's model was the one which seemed to be correct. There really were not any compelling reasons for choosing one model over another. The only thing Pasteur had the support of the Paris commission. But since Pouchet dropped out, the commission had no other model to support. The main reason why Pasteur's model was adopted by the scientific community was because Pouchet didn't argue his side.
... got very different results, however they had carried out the experiment in slightly different ways, making it difficult to compare results.
There are many companies and individuals that make pseudoscientific claims. A pseudoscientific claim is when a company or individual makes a claim, belief, or practice and presents it as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method. A good example of a pseudoscientific claim is when a company states that taking their product results in rapid weight loss or rapid muscle gain.
Identify the hypothesis (testable question) that the study was trying to answer and describe the methods of research used in each study.
Other groups had the same results that we ended up with which meant we were doing something right. This experiment was focused on fruit flies, however the same rules apply to humans and most living things, so we can learn where our traits were passed down to us and how. One of Mendel's laws is the law of inheritance and it is the law that is focused on in this lab and is important to our everyday life as
Messenger, E., Gooch, J., & Seyler, D. U. (2011). Arguing About Science. Argument! (pp. 396-398). New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill Co..
In conclusion, the title and context of the article are clear, and appropriately match the hypothesis of the authors. There is consistency between the objective of the experiment and its relationship to science. This writer found some issues in the overall presentation of information, in that the text lacks smooth transition, and was difficult to read and follow.
The Scientific Method is the standardized procedure that scientists are supposed to follow when conducting experiments, in order to try to construct a reliable, consistent, and non-arbitrary representation of our surroundings. To follow the Scientific Method is to stick very tightly to a order of experimentation. First, the scientist must observe the phenomenon of interest. Next, the scientist must propose a hypothesis, or idea in which the experiments will be based around. Then, through repeated experimentation, the hypothesis can either be proven false or become a theory. If the hypothesis is proven to be false, the scientist must reformulate his or her ideas and come up with another hypothesis, and the experimentation begins again. This process is to be repeated until a theory is produced. The production of a theory is usually called the conclusion. After considerable testing of the theory, it may become what is known as a law, but laws are only formed in very rare occasions where the theory can be proven without a doubt, which is usually done through induction.
Science is supposed, to tell the truth, but because humans are the ones performing the experiments sometimes there are flaws. For instance, Andre Wakefield in
There are some theories that science cannot prove. Science explains all of the logical and natural things in life through observation and experimentation. Religion explains all of the spiritual and mystical things in life. Religion is the belief and worshipping of a supernatural force like God. Jane Goodall is an outlier in the science industry. She believes in God and is also a scientist. Most scientists are only agnostic or atheists. Scientists only have one viewpoint. They only think logically and try to prove the existence of things. Religious people believe in a higher power that created everything and control everything. Jane Goodall has the perfect philosophy. When science is the only “window” someone bases their life on, there are drawbacks because there are a lot of things science cannot explain, logically. When religion is the only “window” someone bases their life on, there are drawbacks because there are a lot of things religion cannot explain, spiritually. When a person bases their life on both science and religion, more mysteries are answered. When both science and religion is part of a person’s philosophy, there are no drawbacks because they either support each other’s claims, do not explain each other, or supports one but not the
The experiment was mostly successful because the results were as they were referred on the table. The directions were followed completely as was listed on the board. The instructions were easy enough to follow and perform. There was a list of five tests that were to be done. The indole test was easy to perform and there was no color change on the card. The second test was the Citrate test and the results turned a beautiful blue color in the tube, which showed the results were positive. The Methyl red test was a yellow orange color, which was a negative result. If it was positive it would have turned red color. The Voges Proskauer test resulted in a beige color, which was also showed negative. When looking up the organism E. aerogenes it listed
I agree with the conclusions of these experiments. They show a great deal of planning and research. The methods that were used were backed by previous research. I think that the only alternative explanation there could be it that the sample size was just too small.
The history of scientific misconduct already started long time ago, where Ptolemy used data from Hipparchos without acknowledging him; Galileo Galilei, the founder of the scientific method but appears to have relied more on thought experiments rather than performing empirical experiments (Werner-Felmayer, 2010). In the modern world, the integrity of scientist and scientific research is jeopardized when the discovery of scientific misconduct made headline news. Headline such as “Korean scientist said to admit fabrication in a cloning study” (Wade, 2005), “Dutch university sacks social psychologist over faked data” (Enserink, 2011), “Harvard psychology researcher committed fraud, U.S investigation concludes” (Carpenter, 2012) and “Top Canadian scientist and award-winning student caught in ‘blatant plagiarism’ of text” (Munro, 2012) really makes we think, why they committed such fraud? Before we go into factors that may contribute to scientific misconduct, we have to understand what is the definition of it and also types of misconduct.
1. Describe the Heidi and Howard experiment. What does it show about gender? Why is it significant?
...s strength in the experiment rather than a limitation which future studies should also monitor.
Prior to the 1990’s, the problem of scientific objectivity was a question many philosophers tried to grapple with. Initially, the Logical Positivist’s view of scientific objectivity was most popular. They held to the belief that science was overall objective because of the distinction between the “context of discovery” and “context of justification,” which still allowed for science to contain some subjective elements (Longino 172). Basically, Positivist’s allowed for subjective qualities, such as mental makeup of scientists and values scientist brought in to their scientific work, by stating that the initial formulation or “discovery” of hypothesis/theories included subjective qualities. However, these subjective characteristics were negated by the fact that when investigating theories scientists focused on comparing their hypothesis to observable consequences in an empirical and objective manor (“context of justification). Thus, this allowed the Positivist’s to “acknowledge the play of subjective factors in initial development of hypotheses and theories while guaranteeing that their acceptance [is] determined not by subjective preferences but by observed reality” (Longino 172). However, although this theory was popular for some period of time, a philosopher by the name of Helen Longino approached the problem of scientific objectivity in a different way. She believed that science was a social practice that involved the inevitable input of various subjective factors such as scientist’s values, beliefs, etc… when performing their work. However, she goes on to say that what made science objective was the process in which scientist performed their work. She essentially thought that if the process in which scientist gained knowledge wa...