Natural+Sciences

How advanced is quantum mechanics becoming and what new discoveries are being made as a result of progression in the field? What is the point of having Quantum Mechanical intuition?
 * Questions on "The Fabric of the Cosmos":**

How different are the knowledge claims of those disciplines that are primarily historical, such as evolutionary biology, cosmology, geology and paleontology, from those that are primarily experimental, such as physics and chemistry?
 * Questions for Class Discussion:**
 * Knowledge claims in experimental disciplines are generally regarded as more accurate since they are based on experiments that occur in the present.
 * Knowledge claims in historical disciplines rely mostly on deductions based on information that is discovered.
 * Knowledge claims in historical disciplines cannot be proven wrong as easily as a knowledge claim in experimental disciplines can.
 * Knowledge claims in experimental disciplines are generally more convincing.
 * Knowledge claims in both require a vast amount of justification, but for different reasons.

What kinds of explanations do scientists offer, and how do these explanations compare with those offered in other areas of knowledge?
 * Scientists in experimental disciplines offer explanations based on evidence gained through experiments.
 * Scientists in historical disciplines offer explanations based on evidence gained through deductions made as a result of discovered information.
 * In other areas of knowing, such as art, evidence is not always necessary to offer explanations because there are different perspectives to be taken into account.
 * Evidence is heavily relied upon in the natural sciences because without evidence, explanations would merely be speculations that cannot easily be proved correct or incorrect.
 * Evidence gained through experiments is gained as a result of observation by the scientists.

What are the differences between theories and myths as forms of explanation?
 * Theories tend to have some sort of evidential backing to them.
 * Myths are regarded as weaker than theories in regards to their ability to form an explanation.
 * Theories are made to be proved or disproved, whereas myths are not always created for a specific purpose (and not always intentionally).
 * Theories are taken more seriously than myths.
 * Theories can sometimes fail to provide a correct explanation, and myths can sometimes succeed in providing a correct explanation.

// Play station, a good education, clean air, a meat burger, a pet, a vacation in Hawaii, healthy teeth, peace in Darfur, a good road. //
 * Setting Priorities:**

1. Rank the items in the basket from what you think you need most to need least. Discuss your lists with others. What items were at the top and which items were at the bottom? Why? Do the lists differ in any way? If so, why? 2. Now imagine you have $100 to spend. Attach an economic value to each of the items. How much of the $100 are you willing to spend on each item? Have your rankings changed? If so, why?

1. Clean air, a good education, peace in Darfur, healthy teeth, a meat burger, a vacation in Hawaii, a pet, a good road, a play station. 2. Clean air, good education, peace in Darfur, and healthy teeth – willing to spend $20 each on them. Meat burger – willing to pay $5. Vacation in Hawaii – willing to pay $5 (although I will accept an offer to have a vacation to Hawaii for free). A pet – willing to pay $5. Good road – willing to pay $5. Play station – not willing to pay anything (waste of time and money). Rankings stayed pretty much the same. Economic value just verifies the importance of each item to me in the list.

My circle of moral concern extends to a smaller community. However, that does not mean that I am not morally concerned for the whole world. It extends the a smaller community simply because I have a bigger role in a smaller community than in the whole world (so far).Obligations we have for future generations should not have a limit (farther than great great grandchildren.These moral concerns and obligations include creating a safer, better world.Our moral concerns and obligations may contradict knowledge that is provided by scientists and economists. For example, they might suggest a "do nothing" policy towards climate change in the future. I, on the other hand, might disregard this silly suggestion because I am morally obligated to make the world a better place, however small my contribution.
 * Moral Obligations:**

Three Policies: MITIGATION: Should be the policy approached because it is the most humane policy and it strives to create a better world, one free of pollution and dirty air. We shouldn't attempt to adapt to a dirtier future when we can prevent that very same future from appearing. ADAPTATION: Should be the policy approached because it is the most logical policy and it is like the midway between the mitigation policy and the do nothing policy. We can't reverse the effects of climate change, so we must adapt to it. DO NOTHING: Should be the policy approached because there's nothing we can do to stop the advance of climate change.

Currently, we are using the do nothing policy. This is obviously the worst policy because it shows no regard for the moral concerns or obligations we have. The best policy we could use wouldn't necessarily be either one of these, but rather a policy that falls in between mitigation and adaptation. We need to adapt to the world that's changed by climate change because there's nothing we can do to reverse the effect. However, at the same time, we must also try to prevent future changes in climate change, unless they are positive changes.

1. //Is it economically viable to maintain NASA programs of this nature?// No, because enormous amounts of money are being given to NASA in order to discover something they are not sure exists in the first place, whereas that same amount of money could be used to find an end to world hunger and problems in this world.
 * Questions on "Searching for Life" Reading**

2. //What is the intent and purpose of these programs? The intent and purpose of these programs is to find planets similar to Earth that can provide sustenance for our civilization and possibly discover living organisms beyond our own planet. // 3. //What knowledge is gained from this search for "life out there?" Knowledge about astronomy and the universe and how they work. // 4. //To what other areas of knowledge do these understandings or findings apply? For example, do they aid our understanding in physics, chemistry, or in evolutionary biology or the life sciences in general? What of cosmology, geology, or paleontology? What of history, human sciences, or ethics? They apply to the life sciences and natural sciences in general. They also apply to cosmology, geology, history (of a planet), and possibly ethics. //

5. //What ways of knowing are applied in the presentation of such knowledge?// Out of the four main ways of knowing, the ones used are perception and reason.

//The Nature of Natural Sciences// Yes, such as the assumption that there IS something out there to be discovered. This implies that the natural sciences could be a very unreliable area of knowing because many assumptions are made and these assumption may not have evidential backing. Examples of assumptions: there is life to be discovered; extraterrestrial life, if discovered, would rely on water for survival; gravity works the same everywhere in the universe.
 * //Are there any assumptions made about what can be understood and explained in the article about Life in the Universe? If so, what does this imply about natural sciences as an area of knowledge?//

//The Methods of Gaining Knowledge// //in the Natural Sciences// > List which other areas of knowing also use these methods. > Can you then explain why knowledge in the natural sciences is considered more valid than in other areas of knowing. For example, how is biology different from the studies in evolutionary biology// // There are many similarities between the methods used in the natural sciences and other areas of knowing. For example, most, if not all, areas of knowing rely on evidence and investigation to reach a conclusion. A difference between the methods used in the natural sciences and other areas of knowing include the fact that the natural sciences rely more on a certain method (such as the Scientific Method) as standard procedure, whereas in other areas of knowing, such as art and ethics, there is no standard method to be followed in order to gain knowledge in the respective fields. Ways of knowing that are commonly used in the natural sciences and also used in the article are perception and reason. All other areas of knowing use these as well. Knowledge in natural sciences is considered more valid than other areas of knowing because it relies heavily on evidence, and this evidence is generally renewed and updated frequently. Example of different methods: Scientific method in the natural sciences vs. a logical method in the arts (this color is more appealing to this certain group, therefore it would be wise to have it as the prevailing color) - although the natural sciences also use logic. // //The Natural Sciences and Knowledge Claims// Insofar, most of these entities in the scientists' explanatory models and theories are purely hypothetical. This means that they may not necessarily exist, but are created because they are very probable and also, assuming they exist, they help in creating explanations. They influence public perception and understanding of science positively because they seem to generally have sufficient evidential backing (even though they are based on hypothetical entities) and so people tend to believe them. These entities create accurate predictions sometimes because they may not be the exact reality, but they could be pretty close to something that is quite similar to their hypothetical entity. Also, just because they haven't proved something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Example: V.S.E.P.R. theory - explains the shape of molecules even though it is still a theory.
 * //Are there similarities and differences in methods used in the natural sciences in comparison with those used in other areas of knowing? List some of the ways we gain knowledge in the natural sciences. What types are referred to in the article on Life in the Universe?
 * //Do the entities in scientists’ explanatory models and theories (for example, Higgs bosons, selfish genes) actually exist, or are they primarily useful inventions for predicting and controlling the natural world? How do these explanations influence public perception and understanding of science in explanations of reality? And yet, if they are only fictions, how can they create such accurate predictions in many cases?//

//Natural Sciences and Values// Science has the power to influence thinking in other areas of knowledge because it generally has recent evidential backing behind it, although so other areas of knowing. It may influence thinking in other areas of knowledge because it is generally the most recent, up-to-date area of knowing when compared to some AOKs such as philosophy or the arts. Example: An artist may draw a picture of an atom in the early 1900s - his drawing of the atom would be drastically different than the drawing of someone in the present because someone in the present has access to more accurate information that has been recently discovered, such as the hypothetical existence of the electron cloud, which they can incorporate into their art. Natural Sciences and Technology See answer two first two questions in "Science and Paradigmatic Shifts" page. As for technology's role in developing understanding in the natural sciences, it plays an important role because an advance in technology is accompanied with a progression in knowledge. More advanced technology is capable of allowing the discovery of even more things. Example: NASA allows for the development of space technology, helps us to begin understanding the universe; Large Hadron Collider.
 * //It has been argued that certain discoveries (such as quantum mechanics, chaos theory, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, Einstein's theory of relativity, Darwin's theory of evolution) have had major implications for knowledge outside their immediate field. Why is it that science has the power to inform thinking in other areas of knowledge such as philosophy and religion? To what extent should philosophy and religion take careful note of scientific developments?//
 * //Is scientific knowledge valued more for its own sake or for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology? What is the role of technology in developing understanding in the natural sciences and in the study of Life in the Universe?//

Natural sciences: Metaphor and reality It's probably both. Scientific language is descriptive when it goes into depth describing something like artificial intelligence and electric current. However, when it is just the phrase "artificial intelligence" or "natural selection", then that's where scientific language becomes interpretive. You have to interpret the phrase to gain a better understanding. For example, if we were to interpret artificial intelligence, assuming we knew nothing about it, we could say that it is intelligence that is not authentic, but rather it is artificial.
 * //Does scientific language and vocabulary have primarily a descriptive or an interpretative function? Consider here expressions such as “artificial intelligence”, “electric current”, “natural selection” and “concentration gradient” or "evolution of intelligence".//