TheBiologySpace.BioBlog

The scientific method is common throughout the field of science. I believe the concepts (i.e. hypotheses, data gathering, etc.) are the same for everyone and everyone follows the same steps in the method. Science can be used to answer anything. Every single living, breathing organism on this earth can be explained through science. Humans may not yet know how to explain certain phenomena but it is not impossible to find the answers. Science is the door to discovery and life can be explained by it most definitely. I completely agree with the statement that imagination plays a major role in the science process. Scientists must think outside-the-box in order to design experiments. They must be practical but having a bit of creativity allows scientists to test things no on else would think of testing. A neuroscientist named Merzenich was one of the first pioneers of neuroplasticity. Because of his creative mind, he opened the door and tested his idea with innovative, new methods. Without him, scientists may have never known that our brain was flexible and “plastic”, not immutable like once believed. Laws and debates are always open to discussion and subject to change. Scientists are always discovering newer things every day and most things are not set in stone. Humans do not know everything there is to know and should be willing to accept new changes in their thinking. Science may be based on fact but every scientist has some sort of bias. Our personal beliefs and ways of thinking influence the experiments we perform and how we interpret them. Scientists strive to eliminate bias but some bias is always there in their minds. The Canon really opened my mind to how scientists think and the challenges they face everyday. I think my responses now to the five statements are different after reading the book because my grasp on science is a bit stronger. I hope that taking AP Bio will give me an even better grasp on what science is all about.

I agree with the first 4 statements about science. There is a scientific method that everyone uses with only minor differences such as organizational order. Science is based on evidence and evidence can prove anything wrong or right and without it any answer is just a hypothesis. Without imagination and creativity a scientist can not come up with new ideas or test them, and is instead left to reinstate already proven facts. Scietific laws and theories constantly change and are proven wrong or right all the time so it only makes sense for them to be debated upon often. The last statement is definitely wrong though. Science is not fact. It is not definitive. 2+2=4 is definitive. Science involves variables, opinions, and indefinite measurements that can warp ideas and conclusions. Perfect proof is that scientific theories and laws have changed through time repeatedly and will continue to change. For example the atom used to be viewed as the smallest particle. Then protons, netrons, and electrons were the smallest. Now there are even smaller particles that make those particles up. Lastly, the model of the atom has changed alot over many years. So science is how we believe things are and can support with evidence even though wwe might not be right.

I agree that their is a single scientific method which is agreed upon, although i believe their are variations in its format because it is so widely acceped. Because science it based on evidence, it limits the possiblity to answer any question. Imagination, and creativity play a role in how scientist construct experiments to single out variables. The laws of Science are not as commonly open to debate as theories, but with scientific advancments it truely is a dynamic field. Although science is based on facts, the variable of a scientific bias can fluxuate playing bigger roles than expected in scientific activities. EX: pre-modern misconception of a superior sex. My overall perception of science did not change but the reading introduced insight from an actual scientists point of view.

I believe that the first four are true, but not number five. Bias can play some role in scientific activities, it can affect how one scientist intreprets his data and creates his conclusion.

I completely agree with the first, third, and fourth and the second to a certain extent, however, I do not agree with the last one at all. Science is based on evidence and can help lead to an better understanding of things, but there are some questions that we will never be able to answer. And bias can make all the difference. For instance, if scientist discovered that religion was a lie, all the die hard relgious folks would choose to ignore it because they are biased on the subject. They would always find a loop hole to throw the facts out the door.

the first four are conclusive but the 5th one just reeks with “nay, nay, nay”. in fact, before the modern age, christian bias in the church of England affected almost every “fact” that was accepted in the country. the only thing they had or believed in was the word of God. and even now, there can be some levels of bias in our conclusions when we are “interpreting” the data we’ve collected.

I think that bias doesn’t play a big role in scientific activities like the last statement says. Facts change, and that causes what is proven by science to change. With more facts of the unknown comes more understanding of what is misunderstood. A scientist is not biased during his or her experiment, and he doesn’t change his data because of what he believes. He changes it because of the facts presented to him. People who look over his work may have biased opinions on what went on, but the actual scientist used only the facts given at the time of the experiment.

(1)To me, there is a common scientific method that every scientist uses. We have known the method since grade school (purpose, hypothesis, etc.) and every challenge we encounter we perform the same steps as any other scientist would. (2) Science can be used to answer any question since it is based on evidence. If one has evidence, one has the answers, just like in a court case. The entire world is influenced by science, therefore, we as humans can find the answers to world phenomena using science as our guide. (3) I most definitely agree with the third statement. Imagination and creativity are critical to a scientist, even though science can be very rigid and stringent. Scientists must posses creative minds in order for them to be able to design a whole array of experiments that one would never think of. Thinking outside of the box is crucial to uncovering answers and discovering things that no one else would even think of. I once read about a neuroscientist named Merzenich who wanted to prove his theory of neuroplasticity. He performed many experiments that others would not even think of. Even when no one else believed him and shunned his work, he stepped outside of the box and made an incredible discovery about the human brain that has helped the medical field greatly. If he had not had an imaginative mind and wondered about humans having a “plastic” brain, patients would have never known that they could heal themselves simply by using the power of mental force. (4)Laws and theories are never set in stone. They may have proven themselves accurate over the years but discoveries are always being made and theories are always subject to change. (5) Bias is prevalent in every field. Scientists are humans and humans possess bias, no matter what profession we are in. Even thought scientists might try to block out thier personal biases, bias will find some way to crawl into their experiments and findings.

As discussed in class, there is definitely bias in science, although one might not think so since science is supposed to be based on facts. It was also agreed upon in class that bias may not always be a bad thing when it comes to scientific activities. I concur with the concept that bias makes all the difference, as Latiolais mentioned. Bias enhances the scope of understanding when it comes to the perceptions and interpretations of data or information.

In my opinion, the third and fourth statements are intertwined to such a great extent. If imagination and creativity were completely taken away or removed from situations in science, laws and theories, consequently, would not be debated or challenged at all. Science, to some degree, would come to a standstill. Scientific advances would not be made as quickly or efficiently as they would with the presence of imagination and creativity, which allow for countless ways in approaching scientific activities and interpretations of information.

-Concerning the first method, I agree. The scientific method has not deviated from form, of my knowledge, since I first learned it in elementary school.

-With the second, I first, before reading The Canon, would have probably said yes, but afterwards, now that I have a clearer perception of how flexible science is and how infallible it is not, I realize that this only applies to a certain degree. We can’t gather evidence for every single unexplained issue, and at times when we DO gather evidence, it can be interpreted in different ways, providing varying answers to the same question.

-I completely agree with the 3rd statement; as scientists research and work through their experiements to discover the unknown, they sometimes pioneer the art that is science and have to be imaginative. When working on experiments, it takes creativity alonside knowledge and curiousity to ensure the experiment will prove accurate. If a scientist is stuck and the experiment isnt working, they have to work around the obstacles and orchaestrate other ways to find an explanation of why something is the way it is. The canon reinforced this belief, explaining how interwoven science is with the rest of the world that seems unconnected.

-The fourth, I also concurr wih, as the world around us evolves and is everchanging, so should follow the way we percieve it. A map of Pangea many ago, wouldnt apply to the geographical regions that are today. The same goes with scientific laws. As we accumulate more understanding of the nature of things, we have to be able to mold our theories to the maturing of the sciences as they unfold in front of us over time. Angiers novel supports this as well, as she talks about evolution pertaining to science beliefts and how we have to be constantly chaning our methods as the world continuously changes.

-The fifth, I actually disagree. Science may be something based upon fact, but humans are not. We are far from systematic and err frequently. Not only this, but every individual is different and the different experiences they share affects the way they interprete life. Bias occurs most often as humans are the ones interpreting the results, and each person can derive one truth from the results, but another pulls out a different answer.