AOK#3 Human sciences

Hard sciences refer to physical sciences that are objective based; hence distinguish to be accurate and precise. These sciences rely on an empirical, systematic method to obtain data. Reflecting on AOK2 and 3, we could conclude that mathematics is an example of a hard science, as it consists of an empirical view that requires ones senses to perceive it. For instance the formula to work out the sum of a certain amount of numbers in an arithmetic sequence was given as: Sn= n/2 (2U1 + (n-1)d ). There would be only one ‘absolute’ answer when this equation is applied.
This example reinforces the definition of a hard science being such that in literal terms is ‘hard’ and inflexible, therefore there is always certainty in what should be obtained. This would be similar to physics where formulas are applied to reach an objective.
There are various errors that could be made during the process therefore I’ve never thought hard sciences are reliable.
In comparison soft sciences are not based on reproducible experimental data or mathematical explanation of that data. The research which depends upon a prediction, and a qualitative analysis, that does not result in a specific result is referred to as soft science. For example in food technology one would be relying on the varying taste perceptions of each individual therefore may derive to a general conclusion but will never satisfy every single person.

Whilst hard science is determined by an absolute answer soft science varies in it’s conclusions.

Jacqui.W : AoK#3 Human Sciences

Science can be categorized as 2 main types, soft and hard science, where science is defined as a branch of knowledge or study, which deals with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.

Empiricism versus rationalism is like hard science versus soft science. Hard science is dependant on our perception, where we HAVE raw data and make sense of it while soft science is dependant on our sense perception where we take in raw data FROM our senses. I think that a hard science is considered one with solid facts and theories which, no matter how many times you do it, it’ll still be true. An example of this would be Hess’s Law in Chemistry. Hess’s Law states that the heat evolved or absorbed in a chemical process is the same whether the process takes place in one or several steps. This is proven to be true in most cases and if not, easily explainable as to why it wasn’t. However if this was tested under controlled environments where everything is perfect and no heat loss if possible, Hess’s Law would be proven correct every time. In comparison, for a soft science, I think it requires a lot more thinking and analyzing and interpretation however, the theories made up here would never be proven to be 100% correct even under controlled environments. An example could be Bradshaw’s Model in Geography. Bradshaw’s Model states that the velocity, wetted perimeter and other factors of a river will either increase or decrease as they go down the long profile of a perfect model river. From personal experience from the Thailand Geography Trip, it shows that Bradshaw’s Model does not fit with the river we studied in Thailand. This is not a personal opinion but a group opinion as no one had perfect results of the river which proves that a soft science theory is harder to prove and only works under certain specific circumstances which must be identical.

Some may argue that I was hypocritical in saying that soft science theories only work under certain specific circumstances similarly like the hard science theories should be tested under controlled environments. However the difference is, for the hard science experiments, it is easy to control the variables for example, mass/volume of reactants, equipment used to measure it and the condition of the room. For soft sciences however, it would be almost impossible to find 2 identical rivers to do the studies on and similarly, if the theory was for humans, it would be impossible to find 2 identical human beings. Even if they were identical twins, they would still be different in their own ways. This is the difference I am trying to explain between the “controlled conditions”. Hard sciences use this for experiments to test something they know, whereas soft sciences are trying to find out if it’s true or not. Although it seems like I have generalized it based on 2 examples only, but after deep thought I have thought about it seriously and believe that this is true in most cases.

Alyssa Wootten - AoK#3 Human Sciences

The similarities and differences between hard and soft sciences, I would say is that the hard sciences are more accurate as it tells us facts and figures straight up and hard sciences show us how to go about the world and how to generally understand it by giving us evidence gathered from observed experimental research.

The things discovered provide us with hard evidence, and things we wouldn't be able to understand nor explain with just common knowledge. Maths is a hard sciences as its something that more than half the time, you can't argue with or change to SUIT you, its there and you have to accept it whether you like it or not, its hard. Maths is also similar to chemistry, as they also have formulas for things to work out and base explanations - these formulas cannot be changed. Maths, Chemistry and the rest of the hard sciences are always deemed difficult, said that they demand alot of work and though, and concern discoveries far from the routine human experience --- such as DNA.
I’ve personally never liked the hard science of maths because (yeah ironically enough) it is hard, and if you don’t understand something and can't figure it out, it means you can't move onto the next thing/question because its just asking you the same thing over and over again in different ways and if you don't understand the basis of it its impossible to move on, this is mostly why I don't like hard sciences but another reason is that if I don't agree on something it doesn't really matter.

Soft sciences are based on 'theoretical' knowledge which is used to explain anything that science cant, and of course this means soft sciences lack evidence and are not as accurate. Soft sciences help us apply certain things to our lives and other peoples lives, and for example sociology, psychology, political science are some of the soft sciences because they are more understandable to the naked human mind and free of mathematical complications (!!) and concerned with every day concepts such as interpersonal relationships.

"Journalists help maintain this conceptual dualism, say leading Columbia social scientists. It happens, they say, because reporters tend to rely on social scientists as sources for commentary about current events such as crime, politics, or catastrophes. The media doesn't give much ink or air time to new knowledge generated by social science research activity, as it does in the hard sciences. As a result, the public image of social science research is more fluff than tough."
- Pamela Frost

To conclude hard and soft sciences both help us everyday of our lives and opposing them to one another won't achieve much if anything. They let us understand things we alone couldn’t and without, mankind would be substantially less civilized and instinctive. Hard & Soft sciences are the key to understanding ourselves and the people around us!

AOK#3 Human Sciences - Ming Fung

Science means : "In its broadest sense, science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge or practice. In its more usual restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research." - from wikipedia. Where science can then be broken down into Natural Science and Social Sciences, which studies the natural phenomena and human behavior respectively.

Hard science are sciences that we are well proven, in which are "facts" we all recognise, such as 1 + 1 = 2. Perhaps one would say Mathematics may well be the hardest science that exists. As anything in maths may well be inevitable after a proof comes and explains why this is happening. HARD science also means that the outcome would also happen under certain conditions.

Natural sciences are very hard and factual, however not as much as mathematics. Many of science proofs come from mathematic proofs, how they are linked is maybe sometime very abstract. It is up to the scientists to make sense what is happening, although we know for a fact that this would happen under these conditions. For example, we know that atoms are made of protons, electrons and neutrons. An experiment found that when alpha particles were fired into gold peices, most of the particles would go straight through, leaving the conclusion that particles are mostly space, and the neucleus is very small. But this is only an assumption by the scientists. I think natural sciences, we know what would happen, but the theory behind it is mostly by the scientist imagination, it may not well be correct other than the fact that it seems like it makes sense.

Soft Science on the other hand, are humanity studies, like geography, psycology, etc... They usually come up with theories according to patterns that are collected from humans. But humans are very hard to study, especially how we think as we are all different in thinking beacuse we have all had different experiences. Therefore, social scientists come up with theories to explain the GENERAL trend of our actions. For example, in geography we set models cities, how they should look like. However the reality is that it differs from the model because of many different reasons that create uncertainties. I think this kind of science becomes quite unrealible in getting exactly what humans do, but we do get a general idea, and we do study about why they are not following to the theories.

In conclusion, both sciences are quite similar, because in the end it is up to the scientist him/herself to understand and make sense to what is happening. Just that one has less uncertainties and could be put into numbers, and the other having so many unknown and uncertan factors.

Robert Win - AoK#3 Human Sciences

"Hard Sciences" refer to the Physical or Natural sciences which include theories which can be confirmed as correct or false, through the use and evaluation of quantitative data which dominates over qualitative data in these types of sciences. For example, in Physics which is a appropriate example of a 'Hard Science', theories such as the acceleration of a falling object have had to be proven before being accepted as a 'fact' using experiments and quantitative measurements and results.

"Soft Sciences" refer to sciences which study theories and concepts without needing to be proved by pure quantitative data, and only in some areas is quantitative used in a 'soft science', and example of this would be Economics, due to its use of core mathematics and application to attempt to prove value judgements and theories.
Soft Sciences include many non-physical concepts such as the human mind, and the relationship between different animals, which use mainly qualitative data and is the researchers own interpretation of what he/she is studying, therefore many 'Soft Sciences' are based on opinions and value judgements of those who have researched what is being studied. Psychology is a good example for a Soft Science as it is the study of the Human (and animal) minds and emotions as well as several other factors. Those who practice Psychology such as Psychiatrists and Psychologists explain there findings in words to describe and diagnose different emotions, and mental conditions.

These of course can be contradicted by other Soft Scientist's research but it is the general acceptability of the diagnosed condition by many researchers which separate Hard Sciences and Soft Sciences as Hard Sciences require calculations, and data which should have the same result after each calculation, involving little of the researchers own opinions in the final result, meaning if one Hard Scientist has a theory which other Hard Scientists disagree with, if he/she has a (quantitative) formula to support his/her claim, he/she will be able to 'prove' the others wrong, causing the others to also support the new theory. In a Soft Science, it may be very difficult to prove to other Soft Scientists on a new theory, as it would be one scientists word over another, as mostly qualitative data will be shared, with little or no quantitative used.

Therefore, Hard meaning 'fact', 'can be proven' and Soft meaning, 'acceptable (could be accepted)' and is 'ones opinion'.

AoK3: Human Sciences -- Lesson 1- Jason

The improvements in the sciences in the past 2 centuries has allowed our thinking and reasoning reach a mature stage. Science is not only about the study of natural phenomenons (biology chemistry or physics), it is also the study of human society, psychology and our morals (philosophy). Yet, natural and human sciences is not enough to categorize all the different sciences, we have to consider whether the sciences are pragmatic or abstract, whether it is factual or fiction, whether its soft or hard.

Hard sciences, I believe are sciences which are solid, and practical. As in, you can prove it again and again without any anomalies at the standard condition. One example of this is chemistry. Although there are still some chemistry theories yet to be proven. Some of the most basic reaction such as the reaction between sodium and chlorine, without doubts gives us Sodium Chloride or table salt when performed at standard room temperature and atmosphere.

While soft sciences are usually based on theoretical and abstract knowledge which are often used to prove anything that science cannot prove. These soft sciences lacks proofs but they do provide useful models which we can apply to everyday life. Philosophy is one of these sciences. Various theories such as free will will make us wonder whether our actions are controlled by our own will or constrained by an external force (the idea of Matrix).

In conclusion, hard and soft sciences benefit us in understanding ourselves and the world around us whether they are factual or not. It also allows us to self-discover what we are really are.

Chloe Chan - AoK#3 Human sciences

Sciences can be split up into different fields where each one focuses on different areas of concepts. Hard and Soft sciences are categories in which we can place the different sciences under to determine whether the theories they propose can be proved in matter and whether they are determined or undetermined focuses in science.

Hard Sciences are areas where scientific methods are used to test questions and theories are made. They rely on hard firm evidence and put value into accuracy and quantitative data, they also try to find correlations between variables regardless of the possibility that there may be no linking relationship. The hard sciences to me can be defined as systematic and rigid in terms of acceptance of theories. An example of this may be how light intensity affects the photosynthesis of plants, where the results gained must represent the relationship between light intensity and rate of photosynthesis. .

The Soft sciences are areas where data analysed do not have to directly link to what is trying to be found out. Assumptions are qualitative and come from critical thinking within the mind. Soft sciences are not definite and are hard to test, thus leading to the possibilities of uncertainties. I therefore believe that in soft sciences indefinite assumptions exist and therefore it can be said that soft sciences are generally more lenient on its findings. An example of a soft science may be how mental processes of memory work in the human mind. This concept is hard to research and is full of uncertainty, the results gained can also not be measured and analysed with graphs.

I personally find that both hard and soft sciences are all different in polar ways. However, both types of sciences do provide theories and assumptions that may not necessarily be correct and true.

Hey Tou Chiu - AoK#3 - Human Sciences

In my opinion, hard sciences allow us to understand the world we live in by basing evidence gathered from empirical research. The conclusions and facts obtained from the experiments conducted provide us with ‘hard’ and difficult to refute explanations. This area of science is usually seen as more accurate than other ‘soft sciences’ as there is less space for argument when compared with sciences like psychology and philosophy. I think a good example of a ‘hard science’ is mathematics. In maths, there are formulas that are ‘solid’ and it is extremely difficult for us to challenge them as they work almost every single time. However, this is not to say that ‘hard sciences’ are impossible to refute.

On the other hand, ‘soft sciences’ usually refer to studies that relate to individual humans. These studies usually make use of qualitative data obtained from experiments and provide explanations relating to cause and effect i.e a certain behaviour. Unlike the ‘hard sciences’ studies of ‘soft sciences’ tend to have more criticisms as there are more aspects and areas that can influence the results of the experiment. More importantly, as the ‘soft sciences’ focuses more on a group of similar people or the individual itself, explanations and conclusions reached from results cannot be generalized to the wider population. This problem in itself is probably why certain sciences are categorized as ‘soft’ since they cannot give a complete picture of everything or everyone.

In fact, I think it is very difficult to clearly distinguish the difference between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ sciences. This is because ‘soft sciences’ are also very similar in their way of investigating things. Research done in ‘soft sciences’ also have variables, hypothesis/predictions, analysis of quantitative data etc that are also methods used in studying the ‘hard sciences’. It can be argued that the only difference between the two is the subject that is being studied.

Yixia Gu: AoK 3- Human Sciences

The natural sciences enable us to understand the world around us. As the name suggests, the hard sciences are based on ‘concrete’ quantitative empirical evidence, which is evident in Maths and Physics. Theses studies are based on strictly logical and rationalizable facts. Everyone knows that 1+1=2 and that Newton’s law of gravity explains why we float off into outer space. To establish the evidence, much research and experimental would have been carried out, provided that all the extraneous variables and controlled so they don’t produce biased results.

Because the soft sciences are based on qualitative data, they are relatively flexible. Many of them especially relate to the study of humans as individuals, such as anthropology, thus much of the information cannot be generalised. And for some subjects such as History, there may not be one definite answer to certain historical events, or not one that every historian agrees on, as even certain statistics can be open to interpretations.

Both categories of sciences often overlap each other in concepts and theories such as that of evolution and anthropology. In addition, as ‘hard’ as the ‘hard’ sciences may be, it doesn’t mean that certain theories aren’t irrefutable, and similarly with the ‘soft’ sciences, different perspectives have different interpretations of the results they have. For example, the social problem of aggression may be explained by biological, societal, psychological and a multitude of other factors. I believe it is important to always look at the scientific data or evidence with a critical eye and come to an integrative approach, bearing in mind that there are still many mysteries in the universe that neither sciences can explain fully.

William Wong : AOK-Human Sciences

‘Hard sciences’ are the certain branches of natural and physical sciences that are perceived to be more accurate than its counterpart, the soft sciences. The hard sciences utilize empirical and quantifiable data obtained from the execution of an experiment(s) translated by the scientific method. Physics would be a hard science as an example because it has used data from an experiment utilizing the same amount of gas at different volumes to state Boyle’s law.

While the ‘soft sciences’ yield uncertain experimental results allowing for hypotheses and qualitative analysis of data to be produced. For example, the theory of direct democracy in political sciences has not established by quantifiable data therefore political sciences is not a ‘hard science’.

However there is much difficulty distinguishing between soft and hard sciences because many social sciences, like economics and psychology, use the scientific process to formulate hypotheses and test those using empirical data.

I believe we can only term ‘hard sciences’ and ‘soft sciences’ with a distinction at this time. But there is no one science that always pertains to one of the categories. For example, an experiment in chemistry has yielded anomalous results not due to any inconsistency in executing the experiment, remaining explained. Similarly, many other physical sciences have unexplained phenomena’s even to this date.

From this I believe soft sciences can actually utilize empirical data but not with the current level of science we are at. In Psychology, some argue that you can only describe human emotions or behavior with qualitative data. But I believe we can take one step further and go into a chemically molecular basis to investigate how a body of different atoms can form specific neurons that control behavior in different individuals at different times. There are many examples of this in the past, where scientists were not able to produce qualitative data from experiments thus yielding an uncertain conclusion.

Unfortunately, at this time we as humans are simply not able to translate some of the qualitative data into hard quantitative data.

But can we advance to development where we can obtain strong quantifiable conclusions in all social sciences? It is only with time, can we tell.

Norbert-AoK3: Human Sciences - Lesson 1

Hard sciences are studies of some areas of natural science, and are more accurate than social science. It relies on data gathered from experiments. For example, gravity is constant on the whole of Earth. Therefore the same object is attracted to the Earth by the same force, therefore weighing the same on the whole of Earth. However, there are always uncertainties that might affect the precision of the theory; the set of apparatus/substances that are being tested are assumed that they are identical to those used when the scientist were using when making those theories.
Soft sciences are studies of behaviour and relationships of human and the nature. Its theories are not based on experimental data; instead it is a very precise description of what generally happens in reality, but often there are exceptions. For example, when we are at home, humans would travel to the restaurant nearest to our home. It is a generalization of what theoretically happen. But for the example, it is restriction to our preference; we might prefer another restaurant because of its food variety, price, service….

The biggest difference between soft and hard sciences is how able it is to prove its theories and its precision of its theories. Certainly, they both have restrictions such as uncertainties for hard sciences and preferences for soft sciences as explored above. To explain my point, imagine your typical discussion with a friend/colleague. The topic of your discussion will be, for certain, affected by your preferences, events that have happened before or that will happen after your discussion etc. However, the theory of how it works is fundamentally the same. Air particles are vibrated, and sound waves are transferred by longitudinal waves, from the speakers’ throat to the eardrum of the listener.

AoK3: Human Sciences -- Lesson 1

In the first lesson, we considered the characteristics of HUMAN SCIENCES as a distinct area of knowledge. To do so, we highlighted a number of ways in which the HUMAN SCIENCES are both similar and different to the NATURAL SCIENCES (AoK#2):

• All sciences, whether natural or human, have to do with inquiry through observation and investigation (i.e. empirical approaches; use of the scientific method). They seek to understand and interpret our natural and social environment. Each science (and those working within the sciences: i.e. natural or human scientists) reveals only one aspect of the human condition.
• The NATURAL SCIENCES investigate the structure and workings of the body, human and other, as biological, physical, and chemical phenomena. They seek to understand and interpret the natural (or physical) environment. Examples of disciplines typically grouped as natural sciences include: Astronomy, biology, chemistry, earth science, and physics.
• The HUMAN SCIENCES examine the behaviour of human beings as social 'animals'. They seek to understand and interpret the social, cultural, and economic environment. Examples of disciplines typically grouped as human sciences include: Anthropology, economics, education, geography, history, law, linguistics, political science, psychology, social work, sociology.

However, whereas natural and human scientists study the natural and social existence of the body, human and other, using empirical methods, the HUMANITIES (and those working within the humanities: i.e. humanists) take largely analytic, critical, or speculative approaches to exploring and understanding the human condition. Humanists do not prioritize empirical approaches and/or rely on the scientific method in their inquiries. Examples of disciplines typically grouped as humanities include: Classics, history, languages, law, literature, performing arts, philosophy, religion, and visual arts.

For Lesson 2, you have been asked to do three things:

1. By Wednesday, April 15th, blog what you understand to be the similarities and differences between HARD and SOFT sciences in 250-300 words. To do so successfuly, you'll need to weave into your blog posting that you've studied WoKs (especially sense perception) and AoK1 (Mathematics) and AoK 2 (Natural Sciences). Please respond in a PERERR format -- i.e.
• make a POINT ("Hard sciences are...")
• provide an EXAMPLE ("An example of a hard science would be...")
• RETELL your example (describe it in your own words to illustrate your point)
• EXPLAIN your example (to develop your example, point)
• RELATE it to another example, experience ("This is similar to...")
• REFLECT upon it (i.e. inject YOUR voice, perspective, experience: "I've never enjoyed the hard science of X because I...").
2. Complete the hand-out's question #2 and bring to lesson 2.
3. Pplay the on-line game from the University of Chicago's Stereotyping and Prejudice Research Laboratory, The Police Officer's Dilemma. After reading the brief 'Paradigm' and 'Basic Findings' sections, scroll down to the bottom and select 'Try a beta version of our test on the web'. Give yourself 10-15 minutes to play and think about your results. Be prepared to talk about your results in Lesson 2.

Jacqui.W- Madness or Genius?

Madness. After reading the article, my immediate response is that the scientists are mad and or very gross. Some of them were funny, some were stating the obvious but others were pure disgust or madness. To be exact, the funny ones were the aircraft passengers, laughing and tickling one, nail biting boys and the men who can sleep through anything. The obvious ones are ‘disgust has no single expression’, ‘laughing is an innate response to tickling’, ‘extreme stress harms cognitive ability’ and ‘sleep learning is possible’. However, the elephant LSD dosage, drinking vomit, see-saw and turkey ones were disgusting. Besides being disgusting, I also feel very sorry for the animals, but in the vomit case, the person who drank it or had to watch that person drink it.
I think that the image of natural sciences has become completely ruined after these mad experiments. The funny or stating the obvious experiments was just a laugh but it didn’t make me think ‘wow scientists are so amazing and discover so many new things’.

According to my experiences and understandings, from my personal point of view, I can accept that natural sciences can sometimes be gruesome especially when dissecting dead things. But from this dissection I can understand the reasons behind it and the fact that they want to understand it more or even hope to find a cure of some sort for that organ. Also, with my education of natural sciences, I don’t think the experiments they did were necessary. A lot of them were necessary. I mean, injecting a LSD dosage 3000 times more than what a human would take isn’t necessary. It isn’t like an elephant’s going to find LSD by themselves and take it. The fact that a scientist wanted to find this un-necessary ‘discovery’ resulted in the death of the elephant doesn’t appeal to me. I think that the elephant shouldn’t have had to die for this stupid experiment. Also, to even give the elephant a name implies that someone has cared for it for some time and looked after it since it got moved to the zoo. By killing the elephant (even if unintentional) in the zoo seems slightly immoral. Overall, I simply don’t agree with the experiments and think they shouldn’t have been done.

AOK2:Natual Sciences . Ming Fung

"Madness or genius", I chose this text beacuse of the interesting content it talks about bizzare experiments which caught my eye.

The first picture I got from reading this article, was that science can be out of our imagination. We can put scientific reasoning behind anything, anyone. In the article it mentions creating double headed dogs, scientific research is suppose to be beneficial to the society and the progress of man kind, at least that is what I believe. As a whole, the article gives me a sense of cruelity, how humankind manipulates other creatures and trying to test their limits of the knowledge based on somethings that do not even relate to our needs.

However, I guess many important scientific breakthroughs came from madness, and the curiousity to do bizzare things. If it was not for the cave men playing with rocks and stone, we would never have discovered fire, therefore we would not even be exsisting right now! Of course, if the discovery is beneficial it would be an art of a genius, if it failed and created random results we call it madness. We have no right to define these experiements of being madness or genius.

Natural Science is what I think as constant experimentaling, like we at the very labs of our school. We draw conclusions, defining if it is useless or not. We set an aim before we do these experiments, of course we want to find something out. In my perspective, these bizzare experiments totally qualify being a good experiment, as they can draw results and conclusions out of it. However it may seem too out of the box for many people, reviving animal corpses, testing on elephants with LSD, and etc... These experiments maybe performed because everything useful that can be researched on has already been done, or not possible. The need of these experiments cannot be discussed, as it may contribute as some kind of benefit for us humans.

William Wong : Natural Sciences, Lesson 2

“Madness or Genius?” is a compilation of some of the most bizarre tests ever conducted. The article was definitely trying to portray some of the given experiments negatively. However experimentation being only one aspect of Natural Sciences has ceased the manipulative language techniques in the article to change my views and what I have believed in for several years.

All of the experiments from the article are definitely bizarre but they are validly justified as they for constructive scientific inquiry. Vladimir Demikhov in the 1950’s, conducted experiments that transplanted organs from animals to other animals. This paved the way for allowing human transplants, which has been proven, to have saved over 100 million lives worldwide. The preservation of many lives cannot justify the losses of a few. Furthermore, in most religions, wouldn’t human life be seen as more valuable than a canines?

Yes, some of these experiments can be seen as immoral, as consent was not always acquired or safety and rights always considered. But some of the outcomes, possible or definite, do overcome the moral implications that object to these experiments. Some would recall this as the philosophy of “For the Greater Good”. I believe that one must assess the outcomes of and the possibility of them weighing against the risks and the degree of risk involved. For an exaggerated example, if a Medical Doctor was to utilize extracted blood from a monitored person, to conduct an experiment that has a 95% chance of providing information to cure cancer, allowing “thousands” of human lives to be saved (seen as morally correct), but a small chance of not coming to any outcome would disadvantage a patient in surgery who would benefit from extra blood to recover faster, but does not necessarily require it. I would view this case, as very worthwhile.

Jason H- Aok 2 reactions on the 'Madness or genius' news article)

After reading the 'Madness or genius' news article on various bizarre experiments, science is depicted as mad, immoral and pointless, to some extent. Mad because drinking and rubbing yellow fever vomit on body is harmful. Immoral because LSD is hallucinatory drug which kills at high dosage; still, scientists injects a massive dosage of LSD into an elephant, inflicting large amount of pain on the animal to see if it "induces temporary madness". And pointless because the test on what extreme stress has on cognitive ability test, as we all know, extreme stress causes the brain to lose cognitive abilities which can be seen through the example of how we tend to forget lines whilst performing because of "stage fright".

However, we all know that not all scientists are mad, some discovered things that can alter the world.For example, Alexander Fleming discovered the first antibiotic in the world, Penicillin; Marie Curie discovered the radioactive element known as Radium. Both of these discoveries contributed to medical science nowadays, curing what once can't be cured. I understand that scientists wants to make discoveries that can change the world. Strong impulses hides their ability to think of the consequences. Its just like Frankenstein creating a being likeness of man, when he realized what he did wrong, it was too late already. My response can be summed up nicely by John Stuart Mill's quote "It is not because men's desires are strong that they act ill; it is because their consciences are weak."

AoK # 2- Natural Sciences : Yixia Gu

I chose the piece ‘Octavian Nothing’, as it provided interesting points on the purpose of Natural Science. Through reading this extract, we learn that Mr. Sharpe and Dr. Trefusis are disputing the best way the boy can learn. Mr. Sharpe puts forwards the point tat natural sciences cultivate a man in rational thinking. This is devoid of any imagination or ‘absurd’ content like those in narratives or literature. These two subjects are also on two ends of the spectrum, one objective and the other more subjective. By comparing training of the child to an experiment, the reader is provided with the impression that science in general is very structured and rigid. There are no extraneous variables such as “talking about jungle animals” or “myths”- everything is either true and there of it is not. That way, the results cannot be biased or subjective. More importantly, through the phrase, only “rational faculties…constitute growth away from his hereditary savage nature.”, promotes the idea that the natural sciences is a fundamental component of society, teaching mankind to develop the skills of reasonable and proper thinking, which in turn cultivates the intellect.

To a certain degree, the natural science to me is an area that requires us to use our logic faculties. All science experiments we conduct need a clear and logical methodology; otherwise the experiment would produce “prejudiced” results, as mentioned in the extract. We also need to have controls to make sure that the only thing that is being tested is the one contributing to the result. It is true that science is to do with rigidity in testing and unbiased subjects, but some of early theories may have had some element of ‘irrationality’. Consider Galileo Galilee for example. When he first proposed the idea that the earth revolved around the sun, and it was this rotation led people to think that the sun was moving across the sky. Although Galileo’s theory was later verified and accepted into the law of physics, people at the time would have thought that he was crazy. In addition, I don’t see how science links in with grammer except for the fact that they comprise of solid rules. However, I do agree with the notion that by learning the sciences, this enables us to be equipped with abstract thinking. This skill of applying abstract concepts to new situations applys to our daily life. If we saw someone snatch their hand away quickly from a hot stove, we would know that it was a reflex, which in biology is a natural response as a result of millions of neurons passing through a reflex arc. Certain concepts in chemistry such as chemical bonding and valency shells can be applied to explaining why liquids boil and solids don’t. This type of knowledge is very practical and flexible.

Natural science (article reactions) - Karriena Wadwani

1. From my chosen text ‘the magazine article’ I experienced a few emotions whilst reading about the different experiments which have taken place. I was amazed to the extreme lengths and dedications these scientists went through, just to prove a point or to gain knowledge.
   
   To the first experiment which was done on the Elephants I could imagine the poor elephant in shock running around and in my opinion I thought that this was a very inhumane just to gain knowledge which wasn’t even necessary. The second experiment which took place was on the plane the mission was to find out “how extreme stress affects the cognitive ability” I found this experiment humorous because its seems to unrealistic to imagine. The experiment to prove yellow fever wasn’t contagious I thought that this was very gruesome because eating other peoples sick is practically punishing yourself and you’d bound to fall sick anyways. A few of the other experiments which had taken place were as amusing and very hard to believe its true.
   
   

AoK 2 - Natural Sciences- Robert Win

The article 'Madness or Genius?' recounts several scientific experiments which were conducted which were considered the most "bizzare".

These experiments were conducted under unusual conditions to derive results which would be unexpected by many, for example, according to sources, in 1954 Soviet surgeon Vladimir Demikhov was able to join two seperate dogs together, froming a live, two-headed dog.

Experiments like these mentioned in the article suggests that Natural Sciences like many things can be manipulated and changed or effected by people. The article also draws a picture about Natural Sciences and how they affect outcomes, as the extract about 'how the assumption of one dieing can affect that persons ability to focus on a specific but none life saving task. The extract states that an experiment were a military pilot was told to tell the 10 military passengers on board that the plane was about to crashland after faking that one of the planes engines had failed. The soldiers were then asked to fill out insurance forms in case they were to die. Later on it was found that the soldiers writting the insurance forms under pressure and the fear of dieing made more writing mistakes than if they were not in any form of mental pressure of that state. The soldiers were later told by the pilot that it was all a lie for an experiment. Here, the examples of natural sciences would be the psychological 'pressure' put on the soldiers and how something we cannot see could have such an affect on ones performance.

The picture that Natural science is a sometimes invisible and modifiable form of science relates and matches to many examples where people are able to take something from nature and change it to ones will. In my opinion natural science was and is the basis of all science as through natural science we would not havebeen able to develop technologies from raw resources to modern machinery and chemistry.

AoK 2 : Natural Sciences –ALYSSA WOOTTEN

What 'picture' of the natural sciences do you get from your chosen text?

The text I have gathered a reaction to is ‘Madness or Genius?’, a list of the most bizarre tests ever conducted in name of scientific inquiry. My first reaction was pretty much, wow people can really be genuinely repulsive and do horrible, completely UNESSESARY things in the name of ‘scientific enquiry’. The picture that I’m given is a bunch of scientists in geeky jackets doing stupid things with drugs and such. I strongly disapprove of what they did, causing cruelty to animals and sometimes even to themselves (in the case of swallowing VOMIT). It just sounds and seems stupid. I also find it disgusting that when Vladimir Demikhov (1954) created a dog with two heads, and as if that isn’t bad enough, then the dog(s) are referred to as a ‘creation’, not a living being. When I read this I felt really remorseful for the animal(s), and then I read on to discover it was done 19 more times over the next fifteen years, with the longest lived lasting a month, suffering for an entire month. Good on the Sovient Union for dismissing it. Another experiment I found rather dumb – was by Robert Cornish at the university of California in the 1930s, where he attempted to bring dead animals back to life by tilting them up and down on a see saw. To be honest I found this rather (VERY) out of the ordinary when I first read it, it just seems so bizarre and in our days, right now if someone was to do what he did I would say they would probably get sent to a mental institution to be helped. Most of these experiments are being told to us in this magazine which complied the list together, to show us how science has progressed, and what exactly it has progressed FROM, and the different forms it comes and goes n. This ‘picture’ doesn’t really match my experiences and understandings of natural science. I think this because I didn’t really consider these sorts of experiments being done; I saw it more of a getting dirt and analysing it kind of science. So I was DEF. surprised!

AoK #2 - Natural sciences: Chloe Chan

From the text ‘Madness or genius?’ from the Guardian, we can see that science is in fact not as professional as it is perceived to be. The experiments presented in the text are in truth the complete opposite of what science is supposed to represent. Science theoretically is believed to explore the explanations behind something to acquire knowledge and understanding of a concept. However the concepts explored here are not typically asked questions, “Will tilting a dead animal on a seesaw revive it from death?” and are quite unreasonable in the face of science even though the scientific method can still be used. From this we can assume that science is a wide subject which spreads far into other areas, and that science is just about being able to wonder and question things. Also it can be established that science is just acquiring knowledge using the scientific method no matter how odd the idea maybe. Furthermore, this text demonstrates that with having odd queries we may discover something unknown and practical as suggested by the title. An example maybe Vladimir Demikhov where his most outrageous experiment, with creating a dog with two heads, led to successful heart transplants.

Compared to my understanding and knowledge of science, two of the most opposing things of ‘madness’ and ‘genius’ going together is completely different to what I have understood in science. I think this may be due to the large amount of logic and thinking required in science that makes us think that the two cannot go together. From past experience it is clear that the scientific method can be applied to any query like when trying to work out what an unknown object is, and what its functions are by observing it, using past experience to guess what it is, testing it by fidgeting with it etc. The scientific method can probably apply to many areas because of its original use to answer questions through experimenting, concluding and thinking.

AoK 2 - Natural Sciences - Hey Tou

Reading the ‘Madness or Genius’ article, I was shocked and taken aback from some of the experiments that have been conducted. From this text, I suddenly realize that the natural sciences and the experiments involved in this area are not always what I expect it to be. Here, it seems like science is not always used in the most ‘proper’ way. Some of the experiments mentioned in the article are somewhat absurd and ridiculous. They do not include informed consent or anything about the safety or rights of the participants. More importantly, some of these experiments does not even seem to take into account of the subject’s (whether human or animal) well being during or after the experiment. This is obvious in the experiment of aircraft passengers where they were told they were about to die due to a car crash. Subjects could have had huge problems after participating in the experiment as they were exposed to such extreme circumstances. The consequences of such an experiment could have traumatized them to the extent that they may not even function as usual. I believe that there are definitely other ways to investigate and research about how extreme stress harms and affects cognitive ability. It seems that some scientists have taken ‘experimentation’ of ‘new’ theories or things to such a severe and excessive extent that the experimentation method is completely abused. What the scientists are trying to look for are not even that relevant to real life that it is just illogical to create such experiments.

I believe that the experiments mentioned in the article absolutely go against my understanding of natural sciences. I have always believed that natural sciences and the experiments conducted are ethical and reasonable. People concerned in the experiments should come first over the theory and experimentation itself. The safety of subjects is most important. However, as seen from the article, many of the experiments are pretty meaningless and worthless. Is it really that important to know whether laughing is an innate response to tickling? I was particularly surprised by the experiment on animal corpses placed on a seesaw to bring them back to life. Even though two of the animal did survive, the both still suffered from blindness and brain damage. Is it really worth to succeed in an experiment through the cost of physically handicapping the subjects? I personally think that these experiments are needless, and that they cannot be counted as experiments in the natural sciences area.

AoK 2 : Natural Sciences – Norbert

I have chosen the 'madness or genius' article. Natural sciences are theories that have been proved. However, the variation of natural science in this article has become very experimental. It seems like humans are increasingly using experiments, but in this case, ‘gruesome’ experiments, to test out new theories that we don't really need to find.

These experiments are really not necessary. It is a damage to lives, taking away rights and very gruesome. A dog should not be modified in any way so that experiments can be carried out.

Who wants drink vomit just to find out whether a disease is contagious or not, unless they are some sort of a study freak of human disease, but otherwise it is very unsuitable, it is sick to me, even though I am just reading this off a piece of paper.

Imagine you are one of the soldiers on that plane trying to fill in an insurance policy form as if it really was happening just seconds before your death, and later told it was just a test? How mean is that? Honestly, I think people should not study how these soldiers, no matter how desperate they are.

It is an absolute abuse. This is not natural science in any measure of our imagination. It is not logical to conduct these tests, it doesn't necessarily help if we do, and through our senses we know they are also morally wrong. The person or animal that ate being were being tested weren't told beforehand.

I think it is never appropriate to be tested on without being told or without consent. It isn't even natural science.

 

AoK2: Natural Sciences -- Lesson 2

Thank you for welcoming so warmly Mr. Cotton's class today.

The AoK2 focus of today's lesson was on the scientific method:

• What is it?
• What are its elements?
• How does it guide the pursuit of knowledge in the Natural Sciences?

We used an adapted 'Monty Python' clip to develop our understanding of the scientific methods. The wikipedia entry refers to the 'scientific method' as:

• the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

The wikipedia entry goes on to outline the 8 steps in the scientific method:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis (from Monty Python: express as If... then... statement)
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis (from Monty Python: consider matters of validity -- i.e. study conducted supports conclusion reached -- and reliability -- i.e. consistency)
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

In the process, we built on last week's conclusions -- namely, that knowledge in the natural sciences relies on sense perception, reason (both inductive and deductive), and experience -- and saw the important role played by imagination and creativity in the scientific method.

For Lesson 3, you are now to react to one of the two texts (i.e. either 'Octavian Nothing' chapter excerpt or 'Madness or genius' news article) handed-out at the end of the lesson. Specifically, your post should answer this two-part question:

1. What 'picture' of the natural sciences do you get from your chosen text? Be specific.
2. To what extent does this 'picture' cohere (i.e. match) your experiences with and understandings of the natural sciences? How and why? Be specific.

Your post should be in two paragraphs and run about 400 words in total. To make your post successfully persuasive, and to convince readers of your point of view, be sure to: PERERR -- i.e.

• POINT -- make it clear what you're talking about
• EXAMPLE -- provide evidence
• RETELL -- describe/rephrase/paraphrase in your own words your evidence
• EXPLANATION -- explain more fully your evidence
• RELATE -- connect your explanation and evidence to the question at hand
• REFLECT -- inject your voice: 'I feel/think/believe/can see...'

Please post your response to the blog by Tuesday, February 29th.

Natural Sciences - Karriena

“Everything you have learned as ‘obvious’ becomes less and less obvious as you begin to study the universe.” (Buckminster Fuller, 1895-1983)

Everything that we know isnt as obvious as it appears to be after studying the universe.

I think that this quote means that the universe is so complicated there is so much more to it than we can imagine which is beyond our normal thinking and that if you do study it everything that we see as obvious will appear to be more complicated than it looks. For example if you asked an obvious question: What colour is an apple? The obvious answer would be Red but apples come in Red and Green. After studying the universe you may see more depth to the apple like how does it appear to be Red? and what makes it that colour?. You'll begin to think of bigger questions with obvious answers.

AoK 2 - Natural Sciences: Cole Pamuk

AoK 2 - Natural Sciences: Cole Pamuk

“Everything you have learned as ‘obvious’ becomes less and less obvious as you begin to study the universe.”

I think the meaning of this quote is to understand that when we were young, we learn the basic skills we need to know to survive and as we begin to understand things more as we grow, we understand that they are no so simple as there is very important reasons behind what goes on.

I agree with this quote because I feel that as we begin to get older and understand things more, we realize that they go into much more depth than we may think. For example, With sense percieption when we begin to see sweat on someone, we can logically understand with personal experience and knowledge that when you sweat, you are hot, this is to say that we sweat when we get hot or are working. This is simple, and this is what we understand when we are young from experiences, but as futher research and understanding into this field shows us that it is infact not so simple as to why we sweat but it seems so simple, we get hot and a watery salty substance appears on our bodies, but how does this get through our skin? and how does our body know to do this or how does our body know that this will cool us down? With this we understand what is obvious becomes not so obvious because we do not know the reasoning behind it, this is why we understand things more easily from personal experience and we think that it is simple because it has happened to us, but behind the scenes something very complex is going on to make these things happen, how is the world round? are you kidding? its flat....look im walking straight along it and into the distance we can see that it remains flat and unchanged? How romantic, the stars are out tonight? What is that white thing in the sky? Its just a star... We think that it is just a star, but, it is very complex to understand what it really is and why it is there.

In conclusion, Personal Experience contributes to what we think we know quite vastly, but as we get older and realize why things happen and why things are there, we begin to understand it is a very complex cycle as to why things happen and nothing, nothing at all, is quite so obvious once you have fully understood it.

A0K 2 : Natural Sciences - Alysa Wootten

Leo Tolstoy quotes, "Science does not tell us how to live." (1828-1910)

In response to whats been said by Leo Tolstoy many years ago, I would say hes correct as I myself don't believe it either, that "science TELLS us how to live", that is. Science tells us allot of things about the world and teaches us how to live to a certain extent. But "living" I believe is something only we can do ourselves and nothing can tell us how to fulfill that. Science however basically does make up our minds, so I suppose it depends on the way you look at the way he's using the word "live" as there are more than 1 interpretations/approaches that you could take to it. Science has been the result of many developments in the world, like technology over the years which can make our lives easier and control it in a way, but when it comes down to it its whats inside that counts. "Money cant buy everything", and usually science and developments come with expenses!

AOK2: Natural Science Ming Fung

"As a matter of historical fact, the history of science is, by and large, a history of progress" .
(Karl Popper, 1902-1994)

In this quote, Popper is expressing the fact that the history of science is the history of human progresss. As science is something that helps humankind to advance and survive; we can see in different ages, as science progresses, our life changes as well.

For example, humankind had only discovered copper, gold and silver, as they were the only metals that exsisted as an element. Not until science advanced, we discovered fire making us able to burn and extract metals from its ore. These metals helped us to forge weapons, make items to hunt inorder to survive. This progress did not stop, when the compound Silicon dioxide which is glass was discovered, it provided us with intruments like test tubes and etc for use to do different experiments exploring other different elements and theories about matter.

As science may well be the biggest achievement of humankind, science enchances our progress, which its history would show the very reasons of our progress and events happened. Like the haber process was invented for military use, however is now used for fertilliser which we have benefitted socially and economically.

Jacqui.W - Natural Sciences

"Science is built with facts just as a house is built with bricks, but a collection of facts cannot be called a science any more than a pile of bricks can be called a house." (Henri Poincare, 1854-1912)

I think what Poincare is trying to tell us here is that Science is something that is based on facts and the ideas and concepts of it are developed upon these facts. However, if we just have facts that we don’t relate to each other and explain it, this cannot conclude to be Science because the point is that Science is something developed and put into order and made sense of. There has to be a reason behind everything and (for example) why you decided that these 2 specific facts related to each other.

An example in life could even be as simple as a spray can. A spray can releases gas and the nozzle gets cold after this. This is a fact worldly known by most people. Simply by looking at this fact, there is nothing related to science at all. But if we explain things, go into detail and link the fact to something to explain it, it can become science. By explaining that, within a spray can, there is a liquid form of the gas that will be released. When we press down on the nozzle, it causes a reaction to take place, changing the liquid into a gas and being released. This chemical reaction takes in energy in order to break the bonds, changing it into a gas state and the change in energy here is positive therefore it is an endothermic reaction, causing the nozzle to be cold as the taking in of energy causes the nozzle to be less hot.

I agree with Poincare as Science in general is a very organised and well structured subject. If there is no order or explanation in Science, it makes it hard to understand and loses the meaning of it.

“The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.”

“The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.”

This quotation can be retold as, this world is so complex and perfect to the minutest scientific detail, that it is virtually impossible to understand and learn everything about it.

Interpreting the quote by Albert Einstein highlights the precision and flawlessness of the world. I would have to agree with him, the tinniest detail existing on the planet will hold a purpose and explanation for it. Einstein then explains through his use of word “comprehensible” that everything tangible existing relies on a logical explanation, a scientific reason. This is what causes perplexity and becomes hard to believe. Photosynthesis for example, seemed like a relatively straightforward procedure in primary school, this is how the plant makes food. Although as I further learned there was a whole procedure involving just light and carbon dioxide. Who we are today; how tall we are, the colour of our hair, our eyes, to some extent our personality, was determined by our DNA material before we were even the size of a fist.

As a biology student, learning the intricate details of the human body and existing organisms I have to keep convincing myself that it isn’t fiction!

“The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.”

Robert Win - Natural Sciences

“Science is built with facts just as a house is built with bricks, but a collection of facts cannot be called a science any more than a pile of bricks can be called a house.” (Henri Poincare, 1854-1912)

Here Poincare is saying that Science is everywhere and part of everything and that Science is not just a concept but physical reality. He also is saying that Science is the simplified and organised form of information and facts, and it is this organisaton and simplification which defines science from just information. This sentance was probably used to explain to ordinary people the definition of Science by Poincare, during his lifetime, as science was still conducted with knowledge and control by only a small amount of people at that time (scientists).

This statement, that science is part of and involved in everything, can be demonstrated by the act of throwing a ball at a target. If a child were to throw a ball, there would be no science here through the childs eyes, and the child would likely miss the target, and if the child was asked how it all happend scientifically, he/she would probably be confused by the question. This is because the child is unable to organise and simplify the information he/she receives through sense perseption, and has little to no past experience or understanding, advanced education to understand how the ball was able to be released and travel . The child is unable to organise and structure the information received, because of missing key factors (education, experience, development).

Through the mind of a physician, the ball being thrown at a target would be analysed and all the factors involving the range, speed, direction of a ball would be estimated and pre planned before and during the actual throw, because the physicisan has experience, education, and has physically developed which allows him/her to use his sense perception and uses all these to organise the information (which is the basis of scienece) received to be able to accurately throw the ball and hit the target.

The physcian structures his infomation, the child does not.

William Wong : Natural Sciences

“Science does not tell us how to live." (Leo Tolstoy, 1828-1910)

Leo Tolstoy being a philosopher and a notable novelist believes according to this quote that science and the rules pertaining from it do not answer the question of life. Why we can exist when something clearly cannot come from nothing? However he believes that religion can answer this question.

Another aspect of this quotation is how science does not help humans to live through life happily through various scientific systems, for example modern society or even technology. Humans are not able to peacefully live and interact together in a community. However I disagree, as sociology, the study of the origin, development, organization, and functioning of human society, have created architecture that is constantly improving to address bodies of individuals living as members of a community. Other sciences, such as Psychology has helped understand the human mind and their behavior leading to breakthroughs in attitudes and methods in living life.

AoK 2 - Natural Sciences: Chloe Chan

“Everything you have learned as ‘obvious’ becomes less and less obvious as you begin to study the universe.”

The things we have found out and labeled as understandable in the world begins to get harder to understand and more ambiguous the deeper we dig (into explaining the world).

I think this quote is trying to say that in our environment when we were younger we slowly developed our understanding of the world around us and in developing we began to reason logically, and this soon become common sense or in this case ‘obvious’. But in studying science (an understanding of our world), the theories proposed are not definite as there is no real proof of the theories existence as most theories are only a build on logic upon logic.

Taking the existence of atoms and its structure as an example, atoms cannot be seen and it is only assumed that they exist as they explain or fit in with every experiment initiated to test their existence, and every other finding before and after it. Therefore the reasoning used behind the theory is something obvious but the actual existence of this theory is not as obvious as there is no firm proof.

AoK 2: Natural Sciences- Yixia Gu

“The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.” (Albert Einstein, 1879-1955)

What I interpret Einstein to be saying with this quote is how we humans are awestruck by the fact that we can understand the world. In prehistoric times, the world to us and was an enigma. At present time, we have been provided with the answers to these puzzles and speculations, thanks to the subject of Science- its progression and discoveries which we have used as a tool to come into closer contact with nature and its elements.

The once most ‘incomprehensible’ things about the world and the universe can luckily now be understood. Take the principle of gravity for example: before the apple dropped on Sir Issac Newton’s head, people would have seen things falling to the ground and wondered why they couldn’t jump infinitely high and still wouldn’t realize that gravity is a natural force that prevents things floating away from the surface of the earth. Thus, it was through numerous extrapolations and theories, trials and scientific experimentations that we are in a position to comprehend the world, nevertheless bearing in mind that there is still a copious amount of things scientists can’t come to grips with.

AoK 2: Natural Sciences - Hey Tou Chiu

"Science is built with facts just as a house is built with bricks, but a collection of facts cannot be called a science any more than a pile of bricks can be called a house." (Henri Poincare, 1854-1912)

The quote above basically tries to explain how science cannot be defined as a ‘collection of facts’ in the same way as how a pile of bricks cannot be called a house. Henri Poincare tries to tell us how facts by themselves are not science because they involve much more. Science includes creative thinking, wild imagination, data collection, experiments/tests. However, this is not to say that facts are not needed.

I find myself agreeing with him. I believe that scientists investigate on something new to them or something that they are curious about by forming hypotheses of things. More importantly, they use the existing knowledge and facts that they have to prove or discover more about things unknown to them. Like the ‘black box’ activity, the class did the same thing in order to find out what was inside the ‘box’. The calculation, observations, guesses, and imagination is what allowed us to identify some of the items that were inside the parcel. I think that this whole process is what defines science.

AoK 2 : Natural Sciences – Norbert Poon

"Science does not tell us how to live." (Leo Tolstoy, 1828-1910)

To me, I agree Tolstoy’s quote the most, and has experience to his quote. I think it is saying sciences made our lives exist, it makes our living easier, but it doesn’t tell us the full story of how we can make it as good as our live can be. For example, our science is one of the most integrated working systems in the whole universe. Not even a space shuttle works better. We have all different kinds of hormones, cells, and other chemicals that enable us survive in treacherous conditions like being in the extreme cold. It made our lives easier, as we can adapt to different conditions. We have great technology advancements, that makes our living easier. But we often can not find one best solution to make our living very good. We have to use science to figure out what is the best WE CAN FIND. There must be better solutions then we can find. Science make our living better, but doesn’t tell us the best way to live it.

AoK2 : Natural Sciences - Jason Herrera

"Science does not tell us how to live." (Leo Tolstoy, 1828-1910)

Leo Tolstoy is a famous writer most notable for his writing War and Peace. What he meant by the quote is that Science is not the tool for us to explore and discover ourselves and the enviroment around us.

Tolstoy, as an Othodox Christian believes that faith is the only way that life can be rationalised. This can be shown in one of his works, A Confession. The book talks about the two big questions in life, "What will come of my life?" and "What is the meaning of life?". In the book, Tolstoy attempts to find answers to these questions through science and other areas of knowledge. He stated that only religion holds the key to the answers.

I do not agree to what Tolstoy said in the quotation not only because natural sciences have been a great tool for humans to understand more about life; but also the fact that it helped us to acquire clues to answer the two big questions to life Tolstoy stated.

"What will come of my life?" and "What is the meaning of life?"

AoK2: Natural Sciences -- Lesson 1

Guiding questions:

1. How are perception, reason, and experience used to determine knowledge in the Natural Sciences?


2. What is (a) scientific method?

I hope you enjoyed our 'Black Box' activity. In getting you to collaborate and predict what 'it' was, as well as what 'it' contained, you worked through an inductive process to illustrate the nature of scientific activity (as opposed to the subject/knowledge of science) -- i.e. you observed, thought, induced, explained, inferred, tested your hunches (hypotheses), justified your thoughts, etc. until you arrived at the most plausible account to answer the knowledge issue based on the evidence at hand.

To build on this introduction to AoK Natural Sciences and ready yourself for Lesson 2, you are to bring and post two things before next lesson -- i.e. please...

1. bring TWO advertisements that use the language of science in order to market their products (and be prepared to talk about them); and


2. post your reaction to one of the five quotations below by Tuesday, Feb. 19th -- your post should retell the quotation (i.e. put it in your own words), reflect your understanding of its meaning, and relate the quotation to your life by giving an example that illustrates your interpretation of it.

• "Science does not tell us how to live." (Leo Tolstoy, 1828-1910)
• “As a matter of historical fact, the history of science is, by and large, a history of progress.’’ (Karl Popper, 1902-1994)
• “The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.” (Albert Einstein, 1879-1955)
• “Everything you have learned as ‘obvious’ becomes less and less obvious as you begin to study the universe.” (Buckminster Fuller, 1895-1983)
• “Science is built with facts just as a house is built with bricks, but a collection of facts cannot be called a science any more than a pile of bricks can be called a house.” (Henri Poincare, 1854-1912)
  

AoK 1: Mathematics - Jason Herrera

Baking Bread
In this baking the bread example, Ian Stewart addressed the issue between invention and discovery. He stated that although it is important to distinguish the difference between inventing and discovering, he said that everything requires both of them. He then moved on to saying that "Mathematics has an internal structure of logical deduction that allows it to grow in unexpected ways." This means that new ideas can be generated to cover 'holes' in various theories. Also, he said that the origin of mathematics derived from the real world, and that the abstraction of mathematics came from reality itself. So basically, he is emphasizing the fact that mathematics was "always there"

Lottery Illusion
In this section, Stewart compare the Fibonacci numbers with biology. He stated the fact that the number of petals in a flower corresponds to the Fibonacci numbers, may suggests mathematics is inherent in nature. He also said that our minds tend to look for mathematical patterns, which sprang to theories like Newton's Law of Gravity and quantum physics. He then moved on to saying that "Mathematics is our way of understanding certain features of nature. It is a construct of the human mind, but we are part of nature, made from the same kind of matter, existing in the same kinds of space and time as the rest of the Universe." Which further connotes that mathematics is inherent. Stweart then moves onto a bigger picture, in whether aliens (if they exist) have the same kind of maths as us. But he then summarise that mathemtics is different in every enviroment.

Mathematics Lesson 1

Is mathematics the grand design for the Universe, or merely a figment of the human imagination?

Ian Stewart is trying to get us to think about Mathematics in general, and where it orignated from, is it out there, and do we have to figure it out, or do we make it up as we go along, these axioms together with using language percieption, we come to conclude that using language, language of the maths, many varied people have figured out various things such at pythagoras and i am convinced with this that, pythagoras does work, but we are yet to figure out that there is infact something that it does not work on, it is not infinate.

Lottery Illusion
In this, He is trying to get us to believe that Biology is maths, he thinks that suchs things like petals in a flower are fibonacci numbers such as the first two equal the next one, and from what i know about the mysteriousness about this world and the depth of biology, i agree with him, biology can be maths related such as when you are trying to work out the size of such cells, in MM or CM and you need to relate to maths to change your answer from MM to CM and so on, but such things in biology, such as how a plant grows has nothing to do with maths unless you think about it mathematically, how much water did we add? this effected the growth why? the cells downed etc and I think that we will never truly know everything, thats why theories and myths still live, because noone can truly prove their point because someone always has a better explanation.

Lottery Illusion- Karriena

Lottery Illusion is about how numbers relate to the way we behave/biology. The example given is that a flower has the number of petals which adds up to the Fibonacci numbers. It basically prooves that maths relates to your daily lives and that different numbers can send out different vibrations.
Humans have a tendency to link our daily lives to number patterns by having this tendency it has led to a number of laws on mathematics and the universe. But any patterns we think we see are illusions.
Human minds develope this tendency as we adapt to the real world for survival skills. "Mathematical minds cannot evolve in an unmathematical universe." If maths had nothing to then it would eventually die out.
Everyone has their own way of picking out these patterns and solving equations, "but i doubt that they would have anything like the pythagoras theorem", people adapt to the world in different ways and use maths for different reasons.

Jacqui.W: Herd of Elephants & Baking Bread

Herd of Elephants
Stewart believes that mathematics are simply problems that interlink us humans between the world of maths and the real world. The solutions to maths may answer something that isn't related to maths but something just as real and important but physically unrelated. By using "flow" and "backflow" Stewart gives us the impression that the maths problems are ongoing in a never ending nature's cycle, like tidal waves.
Stewart addresses maths as an abstraction and he strongly believes that human mathematics is so complicated that it's hard to grasp the idea or even write it down on paper. He says that the structure is totally impenetrable therefore being too much info for us to take in and that our behaviour is even related to mathematics being applied to our constituent atoms.
I agree with Ian Stewart and that mathematic problems can be related to something else other than maths, as maths does relate to lots of daily activities we do. However, I disagree with Ian Stewart when he says mathematics can relate to our behaviour as I don't think it can be. I think our behaviour is dependant on our mind and heart to decide, not human mathematics.

Baking Bread
Ian Stewart compares Mathematics to Baking Bread as he mentions that Mathematics starts in the real world, therefore firstly he compares it to an activity in real world and secondly to express his thoughts more easily. Stewart brings attention to whether things in life are a discovery or invention and the different cases in Mathematics between discovery and invention. Stewart says people often oversee the most important things of Mathematics, 'significance, simplicity and elegance'. This could be related to baking as often known, to bake bread, the amounts of ingrediants used must be significant and exact for the perfect texture and taste. The more simple the ingredient is, usually the more delicious and easier the bread turns out to be. Lastly elegance could relate to the feeling and pride gotten from the entire process and of completing and successfully baking bread.
When Ian Stewart says, "Mathematics has an internal structure of logical deduction that allows it to grow in unexpected ways" I think not only does he apply this concept to Mathematics but he's relating this directly to baking bread as well. The difference between Mathematics and baking bread is that for Mathematics, we can generalize theories to make our calculations easier but for baking bread, this is impossible and it must be done the long, hard way and there's no easy way to it because if there was, the bread wouldn't turn out as good anyway.

Baking bread and lottery illusion

The baking bread section suggests that in any area of human activity there is neither "invention nor discovery" but a "complex context-dependent mix of both." Ian Stewart compares the technique of baking bread to mathematics, the ingredients- or in another sense the basic number skills, once you have ditermined and made assumptions , then everything "flows" and is "predetermined'.
He later goes on to argue that math in a universe makes abstact sense. Hence since the abstraction came out of reality , it's no surprise if it applies to reality.
- generalising theories help it to apply to differential equations and suddenly you find applications again, but to dynamics, not to bakery.
The authors use of rhetorical questions "what is medicine?" "where does it live?" "is it invented or discovered?' has a persuasive element, as the reader wonders the posibilities of the answer.

Lottery Illusion
- mathematical patterns are evident in nature and biology, for example the number of petals on a flower are part of the "fibonancii numbers"
- seeking out mathematical patterns is biologically innate in us, as Stewart calims our minds havr a dendency to seet out these.
- this "natural" ability has led to the discovery of Newton's law of gravity and the equations of quantum mechanics in additon theres astrology and the great Pyramid's, which examplify the accuracy and measurements, human kind could achieve.
- Although, what mathematics tells us about choosing lottery nubmers is that any patterns we think we see are illusions.
- He then asks the reader how does our mind develop this tendency for pattern seeking.
- Mathematics is our way of understanding ceartain features of nature.
- It is in our brain to think mathematically
- Only Geometer God can create beins able to come up with geometery.

Alyssa Wootten - Mathematics Lesson 1

Is mathematics the grand design for the universe, or merely a figment of the human imagination?

"Mathematics exists only in the mind of the beholder"

Baking Bread
Ian Stewart speaks persuavingly about maths and other things such as medicine, plumbing, ballet, football, language and cycling and he generally compares them all against one another and he says that they are 'nor invention of discovery, but a complex context-dependent mix of both'.
It works in with the title as well because its something that is found then turned into different kinds of bread.
I would say that I agree with Stewart here, then again I myself think that mathematics is a figment of the human imagination AND ALSO a grand design for a universe as there are different kinds of maths in the world that we need for different sorts of things. Maths can of course lead to new ideas though and Stewart mainly asks us why maths is so important if it was invented by people ourselves, and that you cant go about maths simple minded because there is allot more to it than meets the eye.

William Wong : Is mathematics the grand design for the Universe, or merely a figment of the human imagination?

Nature’s Patterns

Ian Steward in his article believes Mathematics is a “complex context-dependent mix of both” invention and discovery. His example of the ripples on the sand dunes being similar to the wave patterns in liquid crystals illustrates that Mathematics already exists as a design of the universe. However he also believes “mathematics is in the eye of the beholder” meaning that it is also discovered. “We human beings do not experience the Universe raw, but through our senses, and we interpret the results using our minds.” Next steward tells us that invention and discovery can happen at the same time within a particular context by using Edison as an example, “Edison would have felt as if he had invented the idea of electric lighting, but then spent many years trying to discover how to make it a reality.” The title “Nature’s Patterns” suggests that the surrounding environment displays evidence of both invention and discovery.

I agree with steward as his argument claims valid and he has reinforced my beliefs towards this particular subject.

Baking Bread

In this sub-section Stewards explains that Mathematics is derived from the “real world”. From observation of two sheep and two more sheep make four sheep, 2+2=4, we have produced Mathematics that can be applied to “reality”. In addition Steward also claims that “Mathematics has an internal structure of logical deduction that allows it to grow in unexpected ways” which is reinforced by the title as it suggests that an idea in Mathematics can be used to create other ideas.

I have learned much.

William Wong : Emotions

I believe that emotions are both innate, already exists at birth, and natured, developed by the surrounding environment. One way to prove that emotions are innate, is the observation of a new born baby. At birth, a baby can show several different emotions, one could be sadness suggested by crying which shows hunger. During this time, the baby has not been able to develop his/her emotion unless you regard the development of the body in the womb as development of the emotions. Paul Ekman who created a theory on emotions found that even members of an isolated, Stone Age culture could reliably identify the expressions of emotion in photographs of people from cultures with which they were not yet familiar with.

However emotions are also developed, as one grows older and encounters different situations, their body will adapt to it so next time when a similar situation is being experienced, the body will be able to achieve a better outcome by doing whatever is necessary. If we take an identical twin, having minimal variation in genetics, and place them into different environments then we will find that there will be a large difference in their emotions or reactions to events.

Emotions are a function of the sensory and motor areas of the neo-cortex. Emotional reactions also require the use of the limbic system including the hypothalamus, anterior thalamus, cingulate gyrus, and hippocampus. These areas of the body have been proven different in all humans because of variation in the genetic makeup. If what controls our emotions are different, then we can assume the outcome which is the emotion will also be different if they are not developed by the environment into the same.

AOK: Mathematics, Ming Fung

Nature's Pattern:
Ian Stewart is stating that mathematics is imprinted on earth itself, "God was a mathematician". He says that we can see this from the natural trends we see in everyday life, e.g. circular ripples honeycombs are perfectly shaped mathematically. However, he states that these raw material or data we do not experience. But we use our senses to capture these data and interpret rationally with our minds. After that, he discusses that maths, maybe a combination of discovery and invention. I guess Stewart is right, I think many of the things that we invent, would be a mixture of both. And if we do not invent things we cannot possibly discover new things, and vice versa. This maybe why mathematics is incorporated in nature, as we extracted it from nature, and invented new theories and codes like numbers to rationalise what we actually sense.

Herd of Elephants:
Stewart compares mathematics to science. He states that we can put science into practice, but how about maths? Scientists use maths to calculate quantitative chemistry, and also physics. Then he writes that we, human beings may well be behaving according to mathematics, but it would be just be too hard to understand. Mathematics is everywhere, and is linked to everything. This suggests the world is programmed by these numbers, figure, mathematics, everything having direct links and correlation to each other. This reminds me of the matrix, how Neo should be quite a good mathematician because he can comprehend the mathematical matrix and manipulate it.

Robert Win - AoK Mathematics1

Natures Patterns

Here, Stewart explains that in nature, we see similar or the same mathematical shapes and patterns on different things, such as the circular shape of waves on sand dunes similar to the shape of rainbows. Using this, he tries to demonstrate that mathematics is an aspect or even the basis of nature and the universe. Stewart also tries to promote his view, that us, people, both invented and discovered mathematics (as, in his view, mathematics already existed in nature, but we took advantage and developed it further), using the example of how Columbus discovered America while trying to invent a new shipping route to India. This suggests Stewart believes we stumbled upon mathematics while trying to figure a way to interpret and sort things simply.

This particular example does not convince me, however I do believe that mathematics was both discovered and invented as mathematics, in my view, is just a psychological tool we use and a way to technically interpret things, which is what i also learnt from reading the article.

Lottery Illusion
Here, Stewart mentions that mathematics is embedded in biology, conveyed using the example of the number of petals on a flower usually being one of the Fibonacci numbers, which is a number pattern group, therefore implying that mathematics is also embedded in nature. This example is quite convincing to me, and has allowed me to consider the link between nature and mathematics more, however, i cannot say whether i agree or disagree with this statement, as I am not currently sure.

Stewart also discusses whether the mathematical patterns seen in nature are actually by chance, and that they do not represent any significance between maths and nature. Stewarts evidence supporting that humans discovered patterns which are of mathematical significance, and that maths exists within nature, is by implying that early humans noticed patterns, whether or not it was by chance or not, they knew that patterns discovered could be used in future and relied on these patterns. This reliance on patterns and has developed into what we know now as mathematics, as we use patterns and figures to prove or disprove a point.

Stewart also tries to share his view that mathematics is universal by suggesting that aliens would also be able to do mathematics, although not identical to our maths, they would probably also notice similar patterns which they could use to benefit themselves in understanding things


Overall, I have learnt form the article that mathematics is (in my view) a technical way of interpreting things, and a way of knowing and understanding things (as i mentioned above) and is also one tool we use to explain and to simplify things to allow us to understand complex theories.

Chloe Chan - Mathematics lesson 1

Baking bread
In this section Stewart considers whether existence is a discovery or invention. Stewart argues that it is not just invention or discovery that makes existence but a bit of both, as suggested by the title, the mixing of ingredients (invention and discovery) make bread, the existence of something. In the case of discovery the item already exists but was just not known to humans in comparison to invention which suggests taking a discovery and playing with it to make something new. Stewart gives us a guiding question of why maths would be so important if it were invented by people and tells us his answer that maths started in reality and in nature and therefore would apply to reality of life. However maths can lead to new ideas and theories can be made which apply to many different things, baking bread for example started out as a discovery from reality and open paths to new ideas. Stewart’s use of language, of questioning, makes the reader feel involved in the topic which in turn convinces the reader of his view.

In this section I have learnt that maths is one of the most basic yet complex things of life as maths started off naturally yet opened up to never ending branches of unknown ideas.

Lottery Illusion
Here, Stewart argues that mathematics is the source of many other subjects such as biology where the petals found on flowers are Fibonacci numbers, which is due to the cells of flowers. With this, he wonders whether mathematics is innate in nature and within us, where we have the natural tendency to detect and try to correlate things into patterns, which supposedly benefit our survival. Stewart argues that it is due to this natural tendency that we come up with many other theories and formulas. Therefore when watching the lottery we tend to think we see patterns in the lottery numbers and the winners but in actual fact this is just an illusion. He also introduces the idea of aliens having their own type of maths which could be similar or different to ours.

This section has made me realise that it is true that we tend to try and correlate things even if we know something is random. Therefore I think maths really is innate.

Norbert: AoK Mathematics 1: Baking Bread and Lottery Illusion

Baking Bread

Steward is exploring the key similarities of discovery and invention. Discovery to him is research in an area which has a specific answer to a question, and invention is trying to gathering ideas to solve a problem but sometimes it might be lost. To prevent this, we always make assumptions to invent the most we could. 

He also says 2+2=4, no matter what you are counting, from the smallest of ants to the biggest of planets, no matter how abstract it is, and no one should be surprised if it applies to reality. He thinks however that a discovery is useful; we sometimes will find it difficult to apply to our daily life because it only applies to a specific object. One might argue: what is considered as daily life and what is more abstract ideas. It is different to everyone, and it is factual. A scientist might see law of Mathematics a part of everyone’s life, but we might not have thought to create the things we have, mathematics actually plays a bigger part in our lives than we think it does.

What we can learn from these statements is that whilst mathematics is important to everyone, it might be viewed by us that it is more important to someone than to others, and we just have to accept this fact. It is also certainly making a point that mathematics is a discovery; a discovery of specific things in our daily life and not everything. We need to invent ways, and we already have, to help us make assumptions, otherwise we will be stuck.

 

Lottery Illusion

Stewart is claiming the nature has a lot of similarities to mathematics. He used the number of petal a flower usually has to a set of patterns, and from this example he claims mathematics is derived from nature, and we use mathematics to understand nature..  He thinks we also seek these patterns to ‘help us survive’, and that if we didn’t, we would die.

He raised up the question, would another species of living things agree with the mathematics we use? Steward said we might not have the same laws of mathematics because we have different things that surround us. To me, all he has said is very convincing, and rather logical as well. One point that although I agree mathematics helps us understand nature, but I disagree that nature made mathematics exist. In my opinion, mathematics is just a representation (language) of the everything that is physical. This is why I also agree máthema could mean science and mathematics.

What we can see from this section is that nature and mathematics has to be related, that is just a part of our lives. Mathematics let us understand nature, and nature has made us discover Maths, and invent more, and make the world a better place than it already is.