Eduardo Gonzalez, Period 3
AOK Natural Science Journal 4/5/17 - 4/17/17
4/5/17 -Introduction Video
Today in class we watched a video discussing the scientific method. It was very informative, and emphasized that science is all about observation and questioning what we observe. This aligns with the belief that science is more a way of thinking than an actual body of knowledge. Furthermore, I learned that in science, and knowledge claims must be testable so that other people can confirm findings. If I claim that listening to music results in higher test scores, I can’t really call it science unless I perform an organized experiment and find a clear correlation between listening to music and improved grades. The video states that the scientific method must be respected, and only through many trials can a hypothesis be confirmed.
Finally, I learned that science does not equal truth, because the information we gain is truly based on observations, but in a century, another scientist might come with better math and a stronger methodology to disprove my hypotheses. Thus, will science is very objective, there is no absolute truth.
Metaphysical question- questions about ultimate reality
Golden standard that appeals to science.
Theory- a way to explain a phenomenon
Today in class I learned a very interesting concept through by reading a portion of Ignorance: How it Drives Science. Just by reading the intro to this text, I learned that science is more a way of knowing than a body of knowledge, when used in practice. Science revolves around the scientific method and experimentation to make new theories that move us closer to the truth. In school, we tend to believe that science is a litany of facts, because we learn principles and facts that have been discovered through science. In practice, science involves questioning on what we don’t know, so ignorance really does drive progress in science as an AOK. It’s very interesting to see science in this way, and I thought it was a great idea to integrate “ignorance” sessions in university; scientists come in to speak about wha they don’t know to carve a brighter path for the college students.
In the AOK quiz, I got one question wrong. It was asking what is a general statement confirmed by experimental evidence that describes some feature of reality, and I marked it as an empirical observation, but in actually this is what scientists call a paradigm. Both terms seem to fit the definition, but paradigm is the exact term that applies to science.
I’ve written my paragraph for AOK2, selecting the claim that natural science is a way of thinking more than a body of knowledge. This is a very important assertion about knowledge in the natural sciences, and I backed my point by using the book on how ignorance and hypothesizing drives science.
Today in class, we explored the paragraphs we wrote for AOK2 regarding the nature of knowledge. I essentially wrote about how Firestein explores science as a way of thinking, as he views science as ignorance, which fuels thought and creates a yearning to discover, thus qualifying it as a way of thinking. Mr. Morisson used my paragraph for the class, and seemed to think that I had the right ideas, but thought there should be more analysis on how exactly Firestein shows that science is really a way of thinking, and how this can apply to other RLS. After reorganizing the paragraph and adding a clause to my topic sentence, I believe I can create a much stronger and coherent product which in fact explores the nature of knowledge. Final draft due soon.
Natural Sciences Paragraph
Science as an area of knowledge is a way of thinking more than it is a set body of facts and knowledge, as it creates a yearning to discover and experiment on the unknown. This perspective is explored by Firestein in his book Ignorance: How it Drives Science. He believes that when students learn advanced science in university, attaining knowledge and facts will only reinforce what is already known and discovered. Therefore, Firestein advocates that having sessions on ignorance are more beneficial to growth and progress in the AOK of natural science. While learning existing principles and facts is imperative, it’s even more important to stimulate the mind and more actively apply the scientific method. The ignorance sessions mentioned by Firestein provides the means to speculate on the unknown and really think about questions that science has not yet answered. In the end, finding theories closer to the truth in natural science is all about formulating questions and analyzing observations; it’s not about studying existing fact time and time again. Hence, knowers use science as a way of thinking much more than an existing pool of knowledge. Seeing science in this light makes it dynamic, and ultimately reveals that natural science is a developing body rather than a stagnant entity.
First Draft of Paragraph
Science as an area of knowledge is a way of thinking more than it is a set body of facts and knowledge. This perspective is explored by Firestein in his book Ignorance: How it Drives Science. He believes that when students learn advanced science in university, attaining knowledge and facts will only reinforce what is already known and discovered. Thus, Firestein advocates that having sessions on ignorance are more beneficial to growth and progress in the AOK of natural science. While learning existing principles and facts is imperative, it’s even more important to question and experiment on the unknown. In this way, ignorance (not knowing something) creates a yearning to explore and discover more knowledge. Finding theories closer to the truth in natural science is all about formulating questions and analyzing observations. In order to do this, professionals use science as a way of thinking much more than an existing pool of knowledge. Seeing science in this light makes it more dynamic, and is ultimately the foundation for future innovation in this AOK.
Essential Question explored:
-How can it be that scientific knowledge changes over time?
-“Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge.” To what extent do you agree with this claim?
Which is more important: the evidence that an observer can collect, or the method he or she uses to collect the evidence?
I wanted to include the following essential question: To what extent is the scientific method limited to a knower's sense perception?
Since science is rooted in observation, I believe it's important to assess how the scientific method is limited, and how effective inductive reasoning is in this area of knowledge. In other words, can we learn something through scientific method that is outside the realm of observation? Since science relies on scrutiny and analysis, it would be interesting to evaluate how sense perception actually limits what we can discover through the sciences.