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.”