mrpronan.weebly.commrpronan.weebly.com/uploads/3/7/8/3/37835975/the_nat…  · Web viewThe Natural Sciences is ... Measurement involves interaction with the world, ... the excerpt

The Natural Sciences

Knowledge Framework

Scope The Natural Sciences is a system of knowledge largely based on observation and constructed with reason and imagination

The sciences are shared knowledge largely independent of culture

Prediction and understanding are prime purposes

Interested in producing generalizing statements, principles or scientific laws about the natural world

Most laws are causalConcepts/Language Many of the laws of the natural sciences

are stated using the language of mathematics

Language of the sciences is precise in order to eliminate ambiguity

Historical Development There have been a number of pivotal shifts (paradigm shifts) in the thinking of the natural sciences

Methodology Measurement involves interaction with the world, but this interaction can sometimes change the aspect of the world we are trying to measure

Models are important in most areas of the Natural Sciences

Classification is a central idea of the Natural Sciences

Among the methods used by the Natural Sciences are the hypothetico-deduction method and induction – use of reason and sense perception

Links to Personal Knowledge The Natural Sciences give us a view of ourselves as material entities behaving according to universal laws

There is little room here to see ourselves as rational, free agents with desires and the ability to choose

Individuals have contributed to the scientific process, often in revolutionary ways

Part 1: The Powers of Science

1

Watch the following two video excerpts about the powers of science.

Vice News – Killing Cancer: http://killingcancer.vice.com

Naomi Orestkes – Why we should trust scientists: https://www.ted.com/talks/naomi_oreskes_why_we_should_believe_in_science?language=en

Task 1: What is it about theories in the Natural Sciences that make them convincing?

Form groups of 3 and make a 2-3 minute video Public Service Announcement highlighting the answer to the aforementioned question

The focus of the video should be on the methodology and achievements of the Natural Sciences

Part 2: The Scientific Method Familiarise yourself with the scientific method

Task 2: One Person’s Hypothesis is another person’s dogma

2

Discussion Questions What are the requirements of any hypothesis in science? How is each hypothesis formed? How do they differ? Why do they differ if

all three are Martians? What are the roles of intuition, prejudice, inductive and deductive thinking

in forming the hypotheses? What assumptions or beliefs are behind each hypothesis? How do these

beliefs affect the questions the Martians will ask? What are the virtues of each hypothesis? How would you test each hypothesis? How would the Martians test the

hypotheses? What is the demarcation, if any, between scientific and pseudo-scientific

knowledge claims?

Part 3: Bad Science

The great tragedy of Science — the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly factTH Huxley

Man is a credulous animal and must believe in something; in the absence of good grounds forBelief; he will be satisfied with bad ones. Bertrand Russell

The Three Martians

Three Martians, A, B and C, were crossing the Great Victoria Desert when they came upon an object (a thermometer) which had possibly been lost by an explorer. Having observed it for a few days, they realize that there is something inside it (the column of mercury), which at different times can be seen to be in different positions.

They discuss the possible reasons for such strange behaviour. A proposes the hypothesis that the behaviour is related to the time of day. This would

explain why at night the column drops, and why it rises during the day. B suggests that the reason must be heat and cold, which also would explain why it

drops at night and rises during the day. C says that both A and B are wrong. The real reason for the movement lies in the

nature of the enclosed substance that is animated by invisible spirits who adopt a capricious behaviour when imprisoned. These spirits make the substance rise or fall whenever they feel like it. This would explain what both the other hypotheses have explained; moreover, it would explain any variation, at any time and under any circumstances.

3

A Rough Guide to Spotting Bad Science (www.compoundchem.com)

Task 3: Bad Science (Ben Goldacre)

4

Presentation

Read relevant chapter in Bad Science Break into groups of 3

Construct a presentation based on the following 4 elements I. Describe Detox, Brain Gym or The Progenium XY Complex

II. Explain why Ben Goldacre thinks they are BAD SCIENCE. Where appropriate point to specific aspects from the document ‘A Rough Guide to Spotting Bad Science’

III. Briefly explore the topic in relation to a way of knowing IV. Briefly explore the implications/significance of the real life situation. Why

does it matter that some things are presented as science but do not meet the criteria of science?

Part 4: Scientific Claims

Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house and a collection of facts is not necessarily science.

Henri Poincaré 5

Task 4: Which of the following can be regarded as scientific claims?

Statement Yes or No? Explain your reasoning1. During the first seven days after

birth, it is dangerous to expose a child to the outdoors or to strangers.

2. When a man and a woman both have sickle-cell anaemia it is dangerous for them to have children.

3. Singing while bathing is dangerous.4. Bringing bundles of firewood from

the farm into the village is dangerous.

5. Smoking cigarettes is dangerous.6. Cutting a tree in the forest without

performing certain rites is dangerous.

7. Fishing on Tuesdays is dangerous.8. A live, non-insulated electric wire

is dangerous to touch.9. Pounding fufu (food preparation

consisting of ground cassava, yam, cocoyam or plantain which is pounded into a starchy paste) after dark is dangerous.

10. Driving after drinking alcohol is dangerous.

How can we tell if a scientific claim is valid and reliable?

Validity: Does the experiment measure what the scientist says it measures? Is the experiment constructed properly?

Reliability: Can the experiment be repeated many times to get the same result?

Double Blind Trials with Control Groups

Science is nothing but trained and organized common sense. TH Huxley

6

This is done to eliminate confirmation bias, conscious deception, the placebo effect and the nocebo effect

Task 6: Read the chapter on the Placebo Effect from the book Bad Science and watch the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gaQb7GzZFQ

In your TOK Journal, identify the 5 key points made in these media sources

Part 5: Pseudo-Science

Claims to be scientific, yet in fact is not Often makes vague claims "[insert product name] will restore the balance &

energy to your life" Prone to ad hoc exceptions

Examples, according to some scientists, include Acupuncture, Feng Shui, Homeopathy, Astrology, Phrenology and Chrystology.

Task 7: Investigate one of the fields above and decide to what extent it is a pseudoscience.

Form groups of three and invent your own pseudoscience (like detox, brain gym, etc).

You should include a detailed description of what your "science" claims to do. Be sure to include claims that are vague, based on flawed studies, made up, and/or scientifically untestable.

Create an A4 poster (by hand or on the computer) or one minute video advertising your pseudoscience.

Part 6: Climate Change

Task 8: Watch the clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWT-EWKIR3M

Use your TOK journal to reflect on the viewpoints of the ‘Climate realist’ Marc Morano:

To what extent did you find his information convincing? Should we listen to all opinions on the topic?

7

Are all opinions equal on the topic? Why or why not?

Task 9: Watch the clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg

Consider the following questions:

What is John Oliver’s view on the ‘Climate debate’? How does he convey this? Is it effective? Why or why not? How do you think the media shapes people’s views on topics such as

climate change? Do you think there is objective truth on this or is it just someone’s beliefs?

Langauge and Climate Change

Words have meaning. Certain words are more emotive than others. Certain words imply certain things about a topic, a group of people or an event. Think "terrorist" and "freedom fighter", two words that could be applied to the same person depending on the context.

Read the article on language in the issue of Climate Change - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/science/earth/in-climate-change-whats-in-a-name.html?_r=1

Task 10: Having read the article on language and climate change answer the following questions in your TOK journal:

What words do the different sides use to describe themselves? What words do they use to describe the opposition? Why are these words important? Why have they chosen these words? What is their impact on the knowledge we have? What implications does this issue have?

Part 7: Trust in the Sciences

How much trust do you have in the sciences?

A. None at allB. A littleC. A good amountD. A great deal

Why?

8

Task 11: Read the following articles and reflect on whether your trust in the sciences has changed

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/29/nation/la-na-conservatives-science-20120329

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong

http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/S-F-scientist-resigns-after-faking-data-4158921.php

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/07/epic-fraud-how-to-succeed-in-science-without-doing-any/

Part 8: Ethics and the Sciences

What is acceptable conduct in the sciences? Do ethical judgments limit the discovery of scientific knowledge? If so,

should they?

The articles below will help you explore these issues:

9

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/history/2013/11/nazi_anatomy_history_the_origins_of_conservatives_anti_abortion_claims_that.html

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/aug/30/guatemala-experiments

The Case of Dr. Jay Freireich Malcolm Gladwell’s book David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits and the Art of Battling Giants is mostly about challenging our assumptions. However, the excerpt on Dr. Jay Freireich deals with his mission to find a treatment and cure for childhood leukamia.

Task 12: Read the passage on Dr. Friereich and think about the ethics involved. Were his actions ethical? Consider your underlying justifications for your opinion: how do you know whether it was ethical or not?

Part 9: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge

Task 13: Each of you has been given a set of graphic interpretations put forward by six different scientists concerning the growth of scientific knowledge.

1. Carefully study each of the interpretations given by the scientists. Form a group of 3 people. 2. Discuss these different interpretations within your group and select the one that you find appropriate. If you find that none of the six ideas is appropriate, and you would like to present another idea, then clearly illustrate or define your interpretation.3. Make a brief note of the argument in support of your selection. List at least one reason for each of the other interpretations as to why it has been rejected. Do not hesitate to use support examples from your own experience of science or from your study of science in the Diploma Program.4 Select a group leader who can communicate your selection and rationale to the rest of the class.

In approximately 20 minutes we will reassemble to discuss results from each of the different groups.The Growth of Scientific Knowledge: An Analysis by Six Scientists

Six distinguished scientists have met to discuss to what extent scientific knowledge can be said to grow. When asked to produce graphs representing the accumulation of knowledge (K) versus time (T), the scientists replied as follows.

10

Scientist A demonstrated that the growth of scientific knowledge has occurred simply in a linear way as shown below.

Scientist B showed that knowledge claims have not grown in straight linear fashion but curvilinearly. Note that the curve represents a rapid growth of knowledge claims in the earlier days, while more modern claims appear to occur less and less frequently.

Scientist C stated that she agreed with Scientist B’s curvilinear interpretation but that she disagreed with the way the curve had been drawn. Scientist C stated that the most rapid growth has occurred not at the beginning of recorded knowledge but rather at the end, as shown below.

11

Scientist D stated that the growth of scientific knowledge claims has come neither in a strictly linear fashion nor in a curvilinear way but rather in a piece-wise linear manner. He argued that the steps or break points in the curve represent major discoveries (e.g. electricity, laws of motion, atomic energy).

Scientist E agreed with the spurt growth of knowledge described by Scientist D, but added yet another point to consider. She stated that once a major claim of knowledge has come to light, other prior claims might be falsified. Therefore we see that after a major stair-step jump, we have a slight drop off in total claims still considered to be true.

12

Scientist F had to disagree with all others. He stated that the growth of scientific knowledge is all relative to what we know at a particular time. He asserted that science has actually raised more questions than it has answered. Indeed his curved graph shows a decrease in knowledge (that is, relative to the amount of knowledge that humans actually thought they knew at a particular time).

Thomas Kuhn – Paradigm Shifts

Wrote The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) and argued that science did not evolve as a steady accumulation of knowledge.

He believed periods of "normal science" lay between periods of "revolutionary science".

13

This revolutionary science challenged the prevailing paradigm successfully in order to create a new paradigm, or way of viewing the world.

Stated that these shifts were often illogical and irrational, angering some in the scientific community.

During periods of normal science, anomalies that could not be explained by the existing theories accumulate, until a new theory emerges to explain them. This is the revolutionary science.

Example of Paradigm Shifts in relation to innovation

What is the next paradigm shift?

Dr. Quantum – Double Slip Experiment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

14

Part 10: The Vaccine War

Task 14: Watch the video at pbs.org - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-vaccine-war/

Take notes while watching about issues related to TOK: Which WOKs are most relevant? How is each side constructing knowledge? Think about evidence, validity of

arguments, justifications, assumptions, culture and technology. Which AOKs are involved? Which side do you agree with in the Vaccine War? Why do you feel the way you do? How do you know?

In groups, come up with four solid Knowledge Questions related to this real life situation.Examine the differing perspectives and how they are formed.

15