Week 11/12: Ch. 12 Question 3

What I found the most interesting this week is the section on Evaluating Scientific Hypotheses. The criteria for evaluating hypotheses include the use of precise language and providing a testable explanation and relevance to the problem that is studied because we can’t just include everything we observe. In other words, there needs to be a focus in the study. The criteria also include consistency, meaning that the scientific explanations should be consistent with the “facts” in that field. An example given in the book is the release of methane in the ocean as a cause of global warming. This is considered a good hypothesis because it corresponds to the known and accepted idea that global warming is a result of both mankind and physical, natural changes on earth. Another part of the criteria is simplicity which in its name explains what it really is. Scientists basically choose the simpler hypothesis when there are rival hypotheses. Furthermore, the criteria also include testability and falsifiability. Studies should be testable in that they can be replicated by other scientists because science is a continuous, changing process where people find more discoveries. An explanation must also be falsified. An example that makes falsifying an explanation easier is the one given in the book where they’ve hypothesized that all swans are white, when really there are also black swans. Lastly, a good hypothesis should also have a predictive power, meaning that this explanation can be used to predict or explain similar events.

Week 11/12: Ch. 12 Question 2

An observation I can think of is when I hear other people speak a language different from mine. For instance, I was in a restaurant or a salon once and the people around were speaking some other language. I thought they were mad because they were speaking quite loudly that it almost seemed like they were yelling at each other. I was just listening and looking at some of their faces which appeared to be a bit serious. But then seconds after I had concluded that there was bad blood between them, they all started laughing about something! So, that was definitely a situation where a conclusion I made had been incorrect. Thinking scientifically did not really come to mind then because I was pretty much misjudging them. I guess how I could apply science to this is by asking myself questions and thinking of the situation first before making an assumption or a hypothesis. I should observe them well first or consider other possible hypotheses before concluding that they were angry at each other. I guess I can also apply the idea of empiricism which means that we can gain knowledge just through our senses (since I listened to them and watched their expressions).

Week 11/12: Ch. 12 Question 1

“You are feeling like a doormat -- but not everyone sees you that way! In fact, your great energy helps you to say no just as often as you should. You may need to adjust your expectations.” (Yahoo Horoscope for Pisces November 13, 2012)

Firstly, I am not feeling like a doormat! I have not interacted with enough people today to feel like I have been used or that I give in easily to what people tell me to do. However, a friend did text me yesterday, asking me to work with her on an essay that is due next Monday. I know that she is fully capable of writing it on her own and just wants to work with me to make it easier for her. For our first essay, we worked together because she didn’t get to read the book since she enrolled late to class. That was acceptable because obviously she needed help. But for this paper, we’ve been reading a Superman comic book that she should’ve been reading as well so why does she need my help? It’s only a 3-4 page paper on Superman, for goodness’ sake! Anyway, I’m getting all enraged here. I said “no, I can’t help you this time” not just because I knew that she could do in on her own, but I have so much stuff due for other classes. 

So, creepily enough, this horoscope somehow applies to my situation. But like mentioned in the book, horoscopes are usually so vague that they could apply to most people’s situations. The prediction is definitely falsifiable because this all happened yesterday. Plus, I’m not necessarily feeling like a doormat. I haven’t given in to anything today. I just went to school and went back home. Lol.

Week 11/5: Ch. 11 Question 3

The section I found most interesting this week is the part on Science Reporting. As a student studying pre-nursing, I always have science classes and have done papers where I had to interpret scientific information. Therefore, I appreciate it when scientific findings are reliable. The subsection, “Misinterpretation of Scientific Findings,” discusses how reporters do not have a background in studying science and how they can misinform us about scientific studies. Boss also mentions how scientific information can also be sensationalized and be biased in terms of gender and culture and also how not all the information about scientific studies is reported to the public. The subsection “Government Influence and Bias” discusses how the government can control the scientific reports and distort them. An example in the book is how US officials reported that the dangers of the chemical dioxin were exaggerated when it really is a dangerous chemical. Therefore, because of all this misinformation that can occur, we need to evaluate scientific research. We need to look at the credentials of the sources, proper citation, experts’ opinions, and if the report is biased or not.

Week 11/5: Ch. 11 Question 2

Hunt believes that the teaching methods only encourage plagiarism. He mentions how the concept of grading a student’s work puts pressure upon the student and also, how teachers just evaluate grammar and organization in a paper and not the actual message or content itself. 

Sadler argues that plagiarism is not acceptable and institutions should apply stricter rules and punishment when a student commits plagiarism. She states her ten reasons why she thinks plagiarism is detrimental (theft, breaking the trust between the student and the teacher, influence the cheater later in life, etc.). She is very clear and strong in her position. At the end of the reading, she states that students should be informed about the consequences of plagiarism and should be taught how to cite correctly. 

I think Sadler makes the best argument. Hunt sometimes addresses himself in the reading or uses a lot of analogies instead of focusing on the subject like students or teachers. The analogies he uses are kind of unnecessary. It’s like he needs analogies to explain something instead of just being direct. Hunt also generalizes that students are just “avoiding something negative” when we write essays unlike scholars who have deeper reasons. On the other hand, Sadler’s pretty clear on her stance and simply states her reasons.

Week 11/5: Ch. 11 Question 1

A form of media usually is biased or promotes only one view, and so if I believe something and a certain television show or newspaper article agrees with what I believe, then that only reinforces my existing worldviews. For instance, I think that gay marriage should be allowed.  I would sometimes watch the Ellen Degeneres show and I remember episodes where she would promote gay marriage or Obama. I would agree with her as well and my belief in gay marriage as an acceptable thing is only reinforced by her belief in it too. The media can also expand our views, however, and not just limit us to our own beliefs. For example, when I read an article online like Time or Yahoo, I always read the comments. These comments from various people with various beliefs can definitely influence my opinions as well. They open my mind to other views or information. The media can also so easily distort information that it can be challenging to choose who or what to believe. Just like the example given on the book, with NBC and FOX promoting a certain candidate. Of course, these networks would both say the good things about the candidates and so, it makes it hard to believe who deserves the position. In the text, it also mentioned people paying the media to advertise or promote them. This is another way the media can challenge our views because how do we really know who to believe then if people might be doing this behind our backs.