Science 110 Introduction to Scientific Thought Summer 2009

My heart leaps up when I behold A Rainbow in the sky: So was it when my life began; So is it now I am a man; So be it when I shall grow old, Or let me die! The Child is father of the man; And I could wish my days to be Bound each to each by natural piety by William Wordsworth

Flower in the crannied wall, I pluck you out the crannies, I hold you here, root and all, in my hand, Little flower – but ‘if’ I could understand What you are, root and all, and all in all, I should know what God and man is. Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Introduction to Scientific Thought

Introduction to Scientific Thought
• • • • • • • • The Scientific Method Discuss Syllabus Course Project-Original Scientific Experiment Teams Email Addresses Test Your Scientific Literacy The Shroud of Turin Nature of Evidence and Good Science

Structure of Class
No late assignment accepted Quizzes and Exams are take Home Return Quizzes in One Day Return Exams in Two Days Research Project:Report and Presentation Science Scrapbook Experiments Contests

COURSE OBJECTIVES:
1. Acquiring critical thinking skills.
Critical thinking is deciding rationally what to or what not to believe

2. Comprehending how scientists discover basic laws of nature. 3. Obtaining knowledge of the history and philosophy of science.
The Philosophy of Science is concerned with science - specifically, how science operates, what the goals of science should be, what relationship science should have with the rest of society, the differences between science and other activities, etc. Everything that happens in science has some relationship with the Philosophy of Science.

4. Gaining ability to distinguish real science from pseudo-sciences.
Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis then looks only for items which appear to support it. Generally speaking, the aim of pseudoscience is to rationalize strongly held beliefs, rather than to investigate or to test alternative possibilities. Pseudoscience specializes in jumping to "congenial conclusions," grinding ideological axes, appealing to preconceived ideas and to widespread misunderstandings.

5. Adding skepticism to your intellectual kit.

The Scientific Method

Science employs the scientific method. No, there's no such method: Doing science is not like baking a cake

The Scientific Method
Science can be proved on the basis of observable data. No, general theories about the natural world can't be proved at all. Our theories make claims that go beyond the finite amount of data that we've collected. There's no way such extrapolations from the evidence can be proved to be correct.

The Scientific Method
Science can be disproved, or falsified, on the basis of observable data. No, for it's always possible to protect a theory from an apparently confuting observation. Theories are never tested in isolation but only in conjunction with many other extratheoretical assumptions (about the equipment being used, about ambient conditions, about experimenter error, etc.). It's always possible to lay the blame for the confutation at the door of one of these assumptions, thereby leaving one's theory in the clear.

JABBERWOCKY Lewis Carroll Through the Looking-Glass
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Marriages brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe. "Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!" He took his vorpal sword in hand: Long time the manxome foe he sought -So rested he by the Tumtum tree, And stood awhile in thought. And, as in uffish thought he stood, The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame, Came whiffling through the tulgey wood, And burbled as it came!

• • • • • • • • • • • •

One, two! One, two! And through and through The vorpal blade went snicker-snack! He left it dead, and with its head He went galumphing back. "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. `Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe; All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.

COURSE TOPICS
The nature of Evidence. What is the relationship between observation and hypothesis? History of Science What is science? Is there such a thing as science? The Art of Observation – Optical Illusions, Modern Art and Gestalt Formation Philosophical foundations of science Good Science, Bad Science and Pseudo-Science Great Ideas in Science Alternative medicine, medical quackery, and hoaxes Scientific literacy The Precautionary Principle Religion and Science Ethics and science- Tolerance and intolerance Observation – art and illusions Science and art Technology - applied science Limitation of Science Serendipity in Science

Required Texts:
The Scientists, John Gribbin, Random House, New York, 2003 The Borderline Of Science, Michael Shermer, Oxford University Press 2001 You are responsible to read the text on your own. Once or twice a week there is a quiz based on the text and lectures. Lectures will not only supplement textural material covered, but also discuss topic not found in the text. Every other week is an exam. Although quizzes and exams are take home, they are individual efforts.

CLASS SCHEDULE

Lecture
Discuss Syllabus and Science Project. Introductory Lecture Shroud of Turin Bowen Massage The universe and the Standard Model History of science Independent, dependent, and control variables. Pendulum. History of Science Philosophical foundations of science What is science? Induction/deduction connection between observation and Theory The origin life -What is man? Philosophers of ScienceScientific Method Observation Š art and illusions Gestalt Formation Science and art Bad science: 1.Polywater 2.Cold Fusion Scientific Literacy Applied science Limitation of Science Pseudoscience & alternative medicine, & medical quackery, hoaxes, ESP Pseudoscience &Logical deceptions Urban Legends Skepticism Ethics and science The Precautionary Principle Limitation of Science Serendipity Religion and Science Anthropic Principle Tolerance and intolerance

Reading Assignment
Copernicus pp 1 to 32 Brahe / Kepler pp. 33 to 67 Galileo/Descartes pp 68 to 148 Newton pp 149 to 241

Homework Assignment
ŅM heart Leaps UpÉÓ y Bathroom mirror experiment Shroud of Turin Is Bowen good medicine? Garbage bag experiment Rainbows, clouds, sunsets NewtonÕ methodology s How does a Greenhouse work and how explains global warming Hot & Cold Experiment Describe how a calendar works, Solar time, GMT, sidereal time, lunar time Sky in a bottle Logical fallacies Debate: Creative Design vs. Evolution Number series Origin of bipedalism Mb ius Strip Red and Green Diffraction

Date: week of
1/23 First day of class 1/30 Quiz 1 2/06 Quiz 2 2/13 Exam 1 2/20 Quiz 4 2/27 Quiz 5

Chemistry/ Periodic table pp 241 to 318

Geology/Darwin pp 319 to 358

3/06 Quiz 6 3/13 Exam 2 3/20 Quiz 7 3/27 Exam 2 4/06

Atoms/ molecules Pp 359 to 399

Chromatography of leaf or black marking pen Shape of cumulus clouds Color of sunrise or sunset Is the horizon curved? 1. Invent a code 2. Who is Leonard Horowitz? Thermite explosion in class Prove the Earth is not flat. Steel is denser than water, yet steel ships float: explain Pro/con: Is Wegener a pseudo-scientist? Match Jet Slime

Electromagnetism pp 400 to 441

Plate tectonics pp 442 to 486

4/17 Quiz 8 4/24 Exam 3 5/01 Quiz 9 5/08 Science Project 5/15 Last day of Class

Planck, Bohr, Einstein pp 487 to 528

Pro/Con discussion ethical questions: abortion; cloning; euthanasia; animal rights NI3 explosive What are you taking? Find whatÕ in s that stuff.

Life pp 529 to 572

Science Project Due

5/22

Test Your Scientific Literacy

1. Scientists usually expect an experiment to turn out a certain way. 2. Science only produces tentative conclusions that can change. 3. Science has one uniform way of conducting research called “the scientific method.” 4. Scientific theories are explanations and not facts. 5. When being scientific one must have faith only in what is justified by empirical evidence. 6. Science is just about the facts, not human interpretations of them. 7. To be scientific one must conduct experiments. 8. Scientific theories only change when new information becomes available.

Test Your Scientific Literacy

9. Scientists manipulate their experiments to produce particular results. 10. Science proves facts true in a way that is definitive and final. 11. An experiment can prove a theory true. 12. Science is partly based on beliefs, assumptions, and the nonobservable. 13. Imagination and creativity are used in all stages of scientific investigations. 14. Scientific theories are just ideas about how something works. 15. A scientific law is a theory that has been extensively and thoroughly confirmed. 16. Scientists’ education, background, opinions, disciplinary focus, and basic guiding assumptions and philosophies influence their perception and interpretation of the available data.

Psychic for Pets
• Part medium, part mediator, she began doing readings that gave voice to the needs of the Weber family dogs. Kindly don’t throw us in the car without telling us where we’re going, an irritated golden retriever named Palomino requested through Ms. Agro. Skye is such a big baby, vented a pup named True about a rival.

QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture.

Choose a Destination in Koko's World

In Brooklyn, a Psychic for the Famous, or Rather, for Their Pets
“Animals don’t really have the ability to tell their people what’s going on, said Ms. Agro, a young-looking 42 (which she attributes to diligent managing of her energy, just as others attribute that good fortune to smart managing of their diets). This is a way for them to have someone advocate for them.

QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture.

Can You Identify This Individual?
• • • • • • • • • • Was worshipped as a Good Shepherd, the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, and the Messiah. Was believed to have been born of a virgin. Birthday celebrated yearly on Dec. 25. Was visited by shepherds and by Magi. Traveled through the countryside, taught, and performed miracles with his 12 disciples. He cast out devils, returned sight to the blind, healed the lame, etc. Symbols associated with him were a Lion and a Lamb. Held a last supper, was killed, buried in a rock tomb. He rose again after three days later he later ascended into heaven. Rituals include a Eucharist and six other sacraments.

Do Not Jump to a Conclusion
• Mithra
• The Mithraic Mysteries or Mysteries of Mithras (also Mithraism) was a mystery religion which became popular among the military in the Roman Empire, from the 1st to 4th centuries AD. It is best attested in the cities of Rome and Ostia and in the Roman provinces of Mauretania, Britain, and in the provinces along the Rhine and Danube frontier.

• Osiris
• Through the hope of new life after death Osiris began to be associated with the cycles observed in nature, in particular vegetation and the annual flooding of the Nile, through his links with Orion and Sirius at the start of the new year.[6] Osiris was viewed as the one who died to save the many, who rose from the dead, the first of a long line that has significantly affected man's view of the world and expectations of an afterlife.

Shroud of Turin Illustrates the Conflict Between Belief and Skepticism
The Shroud of Turin is a centuries old linen cloth that bears the image of a crucified man. A man that millions believe to be Jesus of Nazareth. Is it really the cloth that wrapped his crucified body, or is it simply a medieval forgery, a hoax perpetrated by some clever artist? Modern science has completed hundreds of thousands of hours of detailed study and intense research on the Shroud. It is, in fact, the single most studied artifact in human history, and we know more about it today than we ever have before. And yet, the controversy still rages.

Face Negative and Positive Images

Front View Shroud of Turin

Carbon-14 in Living Things
• The carbon-14 atoms that cosmic rays create combine with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, which plants absorb naturally and incorporate into plant fibers by photosynthesis. Animals and people eat plants and take in carbon-14 as well. The ratio of normal carbon (carbon-12) to carbon-14 in the air and in all living things at any given time is nearly constant. Maybe one in a trillion carbon atoms are carbon-14. The carbon-14 atoms are always decaying, but they are being replaced by new carbon-14 atoms at a constant rate. At this moment, your body has a certain percentage of carbon-14 atoms in it, and all living plants and animals have the same percentage.

Turin Shroud confirmed as a fake
• • "A medieval technique helped us to make a Shroud," Science & Vie (Science and Life) said in its July issue. The Shroud is claimed by its defenders to be the cloth in which the body of Jesus Christ was wrapped after his crucifixion. It bears the faint image of a blood-covered man with holes in his hand and wounds in his body and head, the apparent result of being crucified, stabbed by a Roman spear and forced to wear a crown of thorns. In 1988, scientists carried out carbon-14 dating of the delicate linen cloth and concluded that the material was made some time between 1260 and 1390. Their study prompted the then archbishop of Turin, where the Shroud is stored, to admit that the garment was a hoax. But the debate sharply revived in January this year. Drawing on a method previously used by skeptics to attack authenticity claims about the Shroud, Science & Vie got an artist to do a bas-relief -- a sculpture that stands out from the surrounding background -- of a Christ-like face.

Turin Shroud confirmed as a fake
• A scientist then laid out a damp linen sheet over the bas-relief and let it dry, so that the thin cloth was moulded onto the face. Using cotton wool, he then carefully dabbed ferric oxide, mixed with gelatine, onto the cloth to make blood-like marks. When the cloth was turned inside-out, the reversed marks resulted in the famous image of the crucified Christ. Gelatine, an animal by-product rich in collagen, was frequently used by Middle Age painters as a fixative to bind pigments to canvas or wood. The imprinted image turned out to be wash-resistant, impervious to temperatures of 250 C (482 F) and was undamaged by exposure to a range of harsh chemicals, including bisulphite which, without the help of the gelatine, would normally have degraded ferric oxide to the compound ferrous oxide. The experiments, said Science & Vie, answer several claims made by the pro-Shroud camp, which says the marks could not have been painted onto the cloth. For one thing, the Shroud's defenders argue, photographic negatives and scanners show that the image could only have derived from a three-dimensional object, given the width of the face, the prominent cheekbones and nose. •

Turin Shroud confirmed as a fake
• In addition, they say, there are no signs of any brush marks. And, they argue, no pigments could have endured centuries of exposure to heat, light and smoke. For Jacques di Costanzo, of Marseille University Hospital, southern France, who carried out the experiments, the mediaeval forger must have also used a bas-relief, a sculpture or cadaver to get the 3-D imprint. The faker used a cloth rather than a brush to make the marks, and used gelatin to keep the rusty blood-like images permanently fixed and bright for selling in the booming market for religious relics. To test his hypothesis, di Costanzo used ferric oxide, but no gelatin, to make other imprints, but the marks all disappeared when the cloth was washed or exposed to the test chemicals. He also daubed the bas-relief with an ammoniac compound designed to represent human sweat and also with cream of aloe, a plant that was used as an embalming aid by Jews at the time of Christ. •

Turin Shroud confirmed as a fake
• He then placed the cloth over it for 36 hours -- the approximate time that Christ was buried before rising again -- but this time, there was not a single mark on it. "It's obviously easier to make a fake shroud than a real one," Science & Vie report dryly. The first documented evidence of the Shroud dates back to 1357, when it surfaced at a church at Lirey, near the eastern French town of Troyes. In 1390, Pope Clement VII declared that it was not the true shroud but could be used as a representation of it, provided the faithful be told that it was not genuine. •

Turin shroud 'older than thought'
Tests in 1988 concluded the cloth was a medieval "hoax” The Shroud of Turin is much older than suggested by radiocarbon dating carried out in the 1980s, according to a new study in a peer-reviewed journal. A research paper published in Thermochimica Acta suggests the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old.The author dismisses 1988 carbon-14 dating tests which concluded that the linen sheet was a medieval fake.

Homework Problem
• Does data supports the age of the shroud at 2000 years old? • Have you stopped believing in Santa Claus? What were your reasons? Or do you still believe? What are your reasons?

The controversy over the Shroud of Turin Illustrates several issues in the nature of Science and Pseudoscience

Issues
• What is evidence? • What is the relationship between evidence and hypothesis? • How does one verify a hypothesis? • Does inductive verification work? • How does one know anything?

What is Circular Reasoning Give example?
• • • • • • Mr. A. "Do you believe in god?” Mr. B. "YES” Mr. A. "Why do you believe in god?” Mr. B. Because it is written in the Bible. Mr. A. "Why do you believe the Bible?” Mr. B. "Because the Bible is the word of god"

Discussion Topics Abortions: Allow or Not God: Delusion or Reality Euthanasia: Horses and Dogs do It Gay Marriages: Permit or Forbid Legalize Marijuana: What is the grass?

Proper Science
• • • • • • • • • Consistent Parsimonious Retrogressive Progressive Testability Avoidance of supernal explanations Tentative Changeable Falsifiable

MARKS OF PSEUDOSCIENCE

Science―
•Systematized observations and tests of proposed explanations •Full-time specialists •Explanations accepted only with tests

Sam Harris: Science Must Destroy Religion

• • •

80% of Americans believe that Jesus rose literally to heaven. 22% are sure that he will return within the next 50 years. Another 22% think he probably will return in the next 50 years. 28% of Americans who believe in evolution.

Despite the ecumenical efforts of many well-intentioned people, these irreconcilable religious commitments still inspire an appalling amount of human conflict.

Our fear of provoking religious hatred has rendered us incapable of criticizing ideas that are now patently absurd and increasingly maladaptive. It has also obliged us to lie to ourselves — repeatedly and at the highest levels — about the compatibility between religious faith and scientific rationality.

Sam Harris: Science Must Destroy Religion

The success of science often comes at the expense of religious dogma; the maintenance of religious dogma always comes at the expense of science.

It is time we conceded a basic fact of human discourse: either a person has good reasons for what he believes, or he does not. When a person has good reasons, his beliefs contribute to our growing understanding of the world. We need not distinguish between "hard" and "soft" science here, or between science and other evidence-based disciplines like history. There happen to be very good reasons to believe that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. Consequently, the idea that the Egyptians actually did it lacks credibility.

Every sane human being recognizes that to rely merely upon "faith" to decide specific questions of historical fact would be both idiotic and grotesque — that is, until the conversation turns to the origin of books like the bible and the Koran, to the resurrection of Jesus, to Muhammad's conversation with the angel Gabriel, or to any of the other hallowed travesties that still crowd the altar of human ignorance.

Sam Harris: Science Must Destroy Religion
read words

Sam Harris Mon Jan 2,11:25 AM ET

Science, in the broadest sense, includes all reasonable claims to knowledge about ourselves and the world. If there were good reasons to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse, these beliefs would necessarily form part of our rational description of the universe. Faith is nothing more than the license that religious people give one another to believe such propositions when reasons fail. The difference between science and religion is the difference between a willingness to dispassionately consider new evidence and new arguments, and a passionate unwillingness to do so. The distinction could not be more obvious, or more consequential, and yet it is everywhere elided, even in the ivory tower. Religion is fast growing incompatible with the emergence of a global, civil society. Religious faith — faith that there is a God who cares what name he is called, that one of our books is infallible, that Jesus is coming back to earth to judge the living and the dead, that Muslim martyrs go straight to Paradise, etc. — is on the wrong side of an escalating war of ideas. The difference between science and religion is the difference between a genuine openness to fruits of human inquiry in the 21st century, and a premature closure to such inquiry as a matter of principle. I believe that the antagonism between reason and faith will only grow more pervasive and intractable in the coming years. Iron Age beliefs — about God, the soul, sin, free will, etc. — continue to impede medical research and distort public policy. The possibility that we could elect a U.S. President who takes biblical prophesy seriously is real and terrifying; the likelihood that we will one day confront Islamists armed with nuclear or biological weapons is also terrifying, and it is increasing by the day. We are doing very little, at the level of our intellectual discourse, to prevent such possibilities.

Sam Harris: Science Must Destroy Religion Sam Harris Mon Jan 2,11:25 AM ET
In the spirit of religious tolerance, most scientists are keeping silent when they should be blasting the hideous fantasies of a prior age with all the facts at their disposal. To win this war of ideas, scientists and other rational people will need to find new ways of talking about ethics and spiritual experience. The distinction between science and religion is not a matter of excluding our ethical intuitions and non-ordinary states of consciousness from our conversation about the world; it is a matter of our being rigorous about what is reasonable to conclude on their basis. We must find ways of meeting our emotional needs that do not require the abject embrace of the preposterous. We must learn to invoke the power of ritual and to mark those transitions in every human life that demand profundity — birth, marriage, death, etc. — without lying to ourselves about the nature of reality. I am hopeful that the necessary transformation in our thinking will come about as our scientific understanding of ourselves matures. When we find reliable ways to make human beings more loving, less fearful, and genuinely enraptured by the fact of our appearance in the cosmos, we will have no need for divisive religious myths. Only then will the practice of raising our children to believe that they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu be broadly recognized as the ludicrous obscenity that it is. And only then will we stand a chance of healing the deepest and most dangerous fractures in our world.

Homework
• Has religion impeded or aided the progress of science? • Give examples to support your position. • Does religion encourage the adoption of ideas without reason or evidence?

Homework
• Has religion impeded or aided the progress of science? • Give examples to support your position. • Does religion encourage the adoption of ideas without reason or evidence?

Ways of Knowing: The Nature of Science

A Private Universe

Why is this important for this class?
Why are there seasons?

Students build on their understanding that they developed over the years before they walked into a classroom. Students do not discard old beliefs due to new. Students learn and adjust their worldviews on a daily basis. Students provided with information that is believable and useful are likely to keep it in mind and to continue to use it when learning other information.

Research indicates that preconceptions need to be examined and worked into the educational process Several problems may occur when prior knowledge and new knowledge clash: •Amnesia: the students forget the material or even forget learning it •Fantasia: the students misremember what they have learned in such a way as to make it compatible with prior knowledge with which it originally conflicted •Inertia: the students are unable to synthesize or apply the facts they have learned

The amazing thing about the clashing of new and old ideas is that people can compartmentalize information, learn it (usually memorize it) for the short term, and then snap back to their previous beliefs. To break this cycle requires examining original beliefs in light of the newer learnt material.

Three steps for dealing with the unknown
Explanation―

developing relationships between the known and the unknown: stories, myths, tales, theories

Prediction― Control―

if/then statements: taboos, adages, hypotheses

gives confidence and power that if you do certain things, you will get a certain result: rituals, experiments

How do we respond?
Magic―
•A "black box" •Part-time specialists •difficult to control •Accepts explanations without question

Religion―
•A formalized system with detailed beliefs, •full time specialists, •social arbiter, •explanations accepted without test

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

The argument that language defines the way a person behaves and thinks has existed since the early 1900's when Edward Sapir first identified the concept. He believed that language and the thoughts that we have are somehow interwoven, and that all people are equally being effected by the confines of their language. In short, he made all people out to be mental prisoners; unable to think freely because of the restrictions of their vocabularies.

Ways of Knowing

"Received" wisdom
•Simple parental training •Oral tradition •Written word •Faith

We face the ultimate brute question:

How you answer questions depends on your needs.
•Something is explained when it is the result of a general law
 Example? “What goes up, must come down” results from the law of gravity

•Something is explained when it is an example of a commonly understood principle
 Example? Why is this water going downhill? Because water always flows downhill.

•Something is explained when identifying the factors that connect two or more events.
Example? The tree and house came down at the same time because a storm came along with very high wind and hit both of them.

But how do we know what we know?
Epistemology
the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity the way that knowledge claims are justified

How do people deal with the unknown?
The big problems? We are conscious of our mortality. We are aware of the limitations of our knowledge…or should be.

We propose relationships between the known and the unknown… by using only terms and concepts of the known.

An Unknown Man cast glass with pate de verre inclusions Linda Either info@lindaethier.com

Ways of Knowing

Perception
•The senses

Ways of Knowing

Science
Demands evidence, which makes it materialistic Hypotheses ― testable statements of relationships Tests are meant to falsify the hypothesis (prove them wrong) A theory is a body of interrelated hypotheses that have been difficult to falsify.

Truth vs. Validity
Truth is a matter of belief or faith. Validity is a matter of how well an argument meets the requirements of the system of logic within which it operates.

For scientists truth is an unattainable goal, and in fact, is dangerous. However, scientists constantly question validity.

In this class we’ll be doing science!

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful