29th October 2015 (Week 10 Reflection)

For today's lesson on Nature of Science, we learnt about Coherence and Truth. We had to be able to describe what is coherence and truth. According to the general dictionary, coherence itself is the quality of being logical and consistent. It can also be defined as the quality of forming a unified whole. Truth on the other hand is seeking the reality of something. The link between coherence and truth is that the justification is supposed to be the indicator of the truth. Justification here is an explanation to something or findings. For instance, we justify our empirical data in science to identify the truth. A theory is said to be true if it is an accurate representation of some part of what there is in the world, showing what kind of things are and how those things behave on their own and during interaction with us.  Theory is also true if it corresponds to the facts, to the the real world.

Truth in science is similar to the truth that is in the court of law. In science, we act similarly to a crime scene investigation as we will try to find evidence until we are able to proof the theory true. There is always a pattern to identify whether a theory can be considered true or not. Like the judge who analyses and announces the verdict, similarly a scientist has to be able to guess according to the evidence, data they have to proof the theory, whether it is right or wrong. This describes how justification is done in science.

          Picture 1 : Truth and Coherence

According to Peter Kasso (1992), we cannot rely on facts to guide the proofs of scientific theory. We need to describe and compare theory and facts. If they do match, then they are true. Facts are not conceptually accessible, so we cannot rely on mere facts as it is not a useful approach to collect evidence. Correspondence cannot be directly evaluated. Therefore, indicators of a truth must be internal. This means that  indicators of truth must be within the conceptual and theoretical system of the group of scientist. The coherence among theories will secure a cozy network of cooperation and consistent beliefs but will not secure the reality. There should be a requirement of internal coherence in order to restrict fanciful inventions of systems of theories that do not have any relation with the real world.

We then were assigned to do Activity 1 in groups of four where we had to create a mind map on The Dialectic Between Theory and Observation. The discussion was then done in the padlet link below.
http://padlet.com/norhayati_maska/BEdthedialecticbetweentheoryandobservation

The one thing that I would need help in is understanding the dialectic between theory and observation from the reading of the Book of Nature. However, I think with more reading and research on this subject matter, I would be able to enhance my knowledge on this particular subject matter.

I would definitely use this knowledge in my future teaching is by educating and sharing these information with my students so that they would be able to define the similarities and differences of observations and theory and also have the understanding of what is justification and how do these three things co-relate in science. This will help my students in their future undertakings and also in labs when they are conducting experiments as well as educate them to have critical thinking in order to achieve results like scientist do.

22nd October 2015 (Week 9 Reflection)

For today's lesson, we first did a recap on the Scientific Inquiry Method where we went through the process of it once again. It starts from stating a problem, followed by asking a question, conducting research (primary level - involve parents to guide their child like serving the internet to find information, a project based assignment for students of primary level),making a hypothesis, carrying out the experiment, collecting data and results, analyzing data and finally making a conclusion with explanation. 

We then moved on to the subject for today where we learnt about describing the blurring of the internal and external distinction. From here, I understood that the distinguishing of the internal and external features was only a suggestion. It was divided into two categories in order to evaluate a theory better. Information was obtained by the theory themselves, from other theories (auxiliary theory) and also from the information of the world. Therefore, justification of a theory is a combination of theory-to-theory relation (entrenchment, explanatory cooperation) and theory-to-world relation. I have also learnt that an initial hypothesis can be accepted or rejected depending on the evidence. If the evidence supports the hypothesis then only the hypothesis is accepted and vice versa. Therefore, it is clear that the validity of the hypothesis depends on the evidence acceptance.

If we look at external features only then a theory is considered as invalid. Therefore, we have to look at both internal and external virtues. Each element that is tested externally in an experiment has to have an observational evidence (a concrete evidence). It shows a comparison between hypothesis and other conceptually influenced beliefs. Beliefs are mere statements which are guesses that may not be true. These beliefs are caused by influences from the environment, but they are described and justified under the influence of other beliefs, which are assertive claims within our awareness.

We were then asked to read the Predicament from the Book of Nature and summarize the following in groups, which are in the padlet link below. There is a gap between a theory and evidence. Observations made can be accepted or rejected. When we compare theory with theory, there will be a new theory coming up which can create complications. If we do not compare our theory made with the entrenched theory or the information from the world, the theory we make can possibly been thrown away. The observations made in labs are always under pressure of theories. The observations can be rejected if they are not useful, informative or accountable. Evidence can be seen in the effect. For instance, we can see the bulb lights up. It is the effect of the electrons and electrical energy flowing through the wires. If evidence supports the theory, then the theory supports the evidence. If the evidence does not support the theory, then similarly the theory will not support the evidence. If the observable effect has feature X, then the un-observable cause has feature Y.

 http://padlet.com/norhayati_maska/nosthepredicament

We then read on Justification As Coherence and put our discussions in the padlet link below. A good justification tells us whether the theory is likely to be true. This can be done by comparing our theory with the information of the world or by comparing it with other theories. The relationship between two theories (our theory and another theory) is known as correspondence. We cannot evaluate it. Coherence on the other hand is an indicator of truth. It means if our theory is coherent with the information in the world or with another existing theory, then our theory is said to be a good one.

http://padlet.com/norhayati_maska/nosjustificationascoherence

We then read on the Objectivity From Within from the Book of Nature and discussed our views in the padlet link below.

http://padlet.com/norhayati_maska/nosobjectivityfromwithin

The one thing that I would need help in is to understand the Justification In Coherence matter. I think by more reading and doing research on it, I would be able to understand the matter properly.

I would apply this knowledge in the future by teaching my students the importance of knowing how to blur the internal and external virtues. This will help them to carry out scientific process in the right way and understand the role of a scientist better. 

17th October 2015 (Week 5 Reflection - Replacement)

For today's lesson, we learnt the chapter Observation. We learnt how to describe observation in scientific theory. I have learnt that observation is the distinction of external virtues since it is the contact of theory to the outside world. Observation becomes the source of the world inputs and guidance over our describing and modelling. I have also understood that the separation of external from internal virtues under a presumption that the worlds input through observation puts the external features beyond our control in the sense that it is not possible to force the observations to come out one way or another. The concept of observation is used liberally by scientists to judge the sort of things that they claimed they have observed. I also learnt that observation is a very important aspect in a scientific process, however it is important to give emphasis on this matter so that the importance of observation does not get lost in the analysis.

I have also understood the importance of observation when under going the scientific process. Observation is the decisive and authoritative arbiter of truth in science. Observations are inter-subjective as they are accessible by anyone and agreeable to everyone. The danger of error and bias and the products of thought could be just artifacts which might not have any relation to the real world. Observation on the other hand is hoped to be just the facts which are the unaltered information from the world.

Picture 1 : A description on observation

As we know, science is like a true and false exam as we must responsibly decide, among proposed theories, which to endorse as true. The important issue is which of the answers can be checked and agreed upon. The focus here must be on the observational report rather than on the physical event of sensation. Sensationalism here is a form of Empiricism that limits experience as a source of knowledge to sensation or sense perceptions.

I have also understood that in science, we have to look at accountable observations. Accountable observations are observations that we as scientist would like to see it participate in the scientific process. Observations can be useful to science if it some or rather make a contact with a theory as a proof or refutation in the future, Science can make use of observations only if they are accountable. However, accountability has two distinctive aspects. Firstly, an observation must be informative, must be an account of something  to serve as justification of other claims. Secondly, observation must be justified in the sense of being certifiable and are not haphazard or uncontrolled. These two features are required for observation to be informative and useful contributors to knowledge. To be evidence for a theory, an observation must be evidence of something. It is important for us to know that a useful observation must be reported in an informational form. In order to serve as justification, an observation must have some assertive content where it is half of the requirement of accountability. The other half is would be that observation report must be justified by itself if it is to have sufficient assertive authority to prove other claims. I have also understood that observations must be carefully done, carried out repeatedly in a controlled way, under proper conditions. In science, an observation cannot be entered as evidence unless it can be accredited.

I have also learn the two edges of accountability where firstly, in order to contribute to science or knowledge, an observation must be about something, be informative, assertive, and propositional. Next, the observational report has to be accurately about what it claims to be about. However, there are observational distortions that result from unsuitable conditions. Some of the examples are, an observer may be improperly attentive or too far way, the viewing conditions may be too dark or littered with obstructions or there may be an interference from outside sources causing a distorted view.

In this chapter, we also looked at the the Relationship of Theory and Observations. The discussion is stated in the padlet link below.

–http://padlet.com/norhayati_maska/NOSobservationandtheory

I have also understood about the Theory-Laden Observation as well as the similarities and differences between observing and reading. The discussion was written in both the padlet links below respectively.

–http://padlet.com/norhayati_maska/NOStheoryladenobservation

–http://padlet.com/norhayati_maska/NOSobservingandreading

The one thing that I would need help in would definitely be in order to understand the Theory-Laden Observation in more depth. I think with more reading and further discussion I would be able to understand this subject matter better. A little research on this topic would definitely increase my knowledge on it.

I would definitely use this knowledge in my future teaching by making my students to know the importance of observation in science and which ones can be acceptable and which ones cannot be. I would also enhance their understanding by teaching them about accountable observations with real life examples so that it would expand their knowledge as well as preach them on how to think like a scientist when conducting scientific experiments.

–

15th October 2015 (Week 8 Reflection)

   For today's lesson, we first did a recap on Chapter 4 which is Confirmation that we learnt last week. We were given more explanation on the Scientific Inquiry Method where Ms Nor gave us real life examples for instance to relate it back to how scientist used the Scientific Inquiry Method to proof their theory right. Also referring back to the Hypothetico-Deductive Model of Confirmation, Ms Nor explained more on genetic engineering and gave us a brief explanation on it. We also understood what was the difference between hypothesis and a prediction. A hypothesis is said to come before prediction where a hypothesis is tested by experimenting it and then the results are predicted. We were also given more explanation on auxiliary theory.

Picture 1 : The difference between hypothesis and prediction

   

We then begin the new chapter which was Chapter 5, Underdetermination. –In the philosophy of science, underdetermination refers to situations where the evidence available is insufficient to identify which belief we should hold about that evidence. We were asked to watch the video below to understand what underdetermination is better.

–https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co8adINPCns

     

      From this video, I have learnt that underdetermination is the phenomenon by where there are at least two distinctive or alternative theories that fit the same data set. In theory there can be any number of possible theories fitting the same set of data. As we see underdetermination where it relates to scientific theory, it occurs wherever there are empirical equivalent theories. An example for it would be Newton's cosmology. Underdetermination usually occurs when the evidence used to support the particular theory (T1) can also be used to support a different theory (T2). –The consequence of underdetermination in science is that it becomes difficult to tell if there are true scientific claims and theories, and scientific realism is threatened.– Instead, the other theory may be supported as true by modification of its background assumptions. I have also learn that theories are said to be underdetermined when there are plausible multiple theories that fit the facts. –Both theories seem equally valid, and as such it is underdetermined whether or not all the experiences are dreams or reality. I have also understood the aims of science and the explanation of it. The link of the explanation is in the padlet below.

–http://padlet.com/norhayati_maska/theresponsibleaimsofscience

I have also learn the responsible abilities of science and also the significance of observability.

The thing which I would need help in is in understanding the responsible abilities of science and the significance of observability. I would have to read this two parts a few more times in order to understand better what are they explaining about. I would also have to conduct a few researches online in order to understand this subject matter properly.

As for how will I use this knowledge in the future for my teaching, I will be able to explain the use of underdetermination to my students and make them understand the importance of it in Science. I will also learn how to use this knowledge of science to help them understand a scientific matter better and enhance their understanding on it by giving real life examples.

   

8th October 2015 (Week 7 Reflection)

    For today's lesson, we focused on Chapter 4 which is known as the Confirmation chapter whereby we learnt how to describe what is confirmation and how to confirm a Scientific Theory when it is tested. Firstly, we learnt on how Science is learnt and it is through the scientific inquiry method. We were asked to list down the scientific inquiry methods in groups in the padlet link below.

http://padlet.com/norhayati_maska/BEdscientificenquirymethod

                   
                                              Picture 1 : Scientific Inquiry Method

Then, we also learnt about ways to confirm whether a theory is true or not and that is by looking at the internal and external virtues of a theory. Internal virtues of a theory would be entrenchment, followed by explanatory cooperation, testability, generalisation and finally simplicity. Where as, external virtues of a theory are explanation, testing and finally confirmation. I have also understood that a theory must be testable and must be tested to confirm it. Testing can be done by carrying out experiments and the results should be supported by empirical data. This will then make science believable as the data is said to be the prove of the experiment that has been carried out. Confirmation by testing against observations is the most straightforward external event in science. Some theories cannot be observed so there is need to use different devices and machines (microsope, telescope) depending on the experiment. I have also learnt that theories describes objects that are not amenable ( amenable means open to testing and criticism) to observation. This makes theories difficult to be directly compared with what we are able to observe in the world. The theories that can't be seen, their effects are still visible. However, not all theories can be observed using our 5 senses.

Therefore, a basic model of confirmation which is the Hypothetical-Deductive Model of Confirmation (H-D model) was brought up. It is said to find the deductive consequence of a hypothesis. If the hypothesis is found to be true, then the effect will happen. Observing the effect and then seeing that the phenomena that's predicted happens, enhances the credibility of the theory. But this doesn't mean that the theory is true.This model captures the core of common sense about scientific testing.

                                             Picture 2 : The H-D model of confirmation

Using this model, theories can also be falsified. If the hypothesis is true but effect does not happen, then the theory is false. I also learnt today about the amendments that were done to this model in order to increase the accuracy of it. We were asked to state the amendments done in a padlet. The link is attached below.–

http://padlet.com/norhayati_maska/BEdmoredetailedandmorerealistic

It is said to be that if the hypothesis is true and conditions are right, then the effect will be observed. (hypothesis cannot be wrong)(conditions may be right or wrong). It is also stated that when u expect to see an effect, but it does not happen, look back at the theories (auxiliary theories), remove them, and put in new ones and test your experiment again.

      The one thing that I need help in is to understand the H-D model of confirmation more precisely. It is a little confusing to me. So, I will have to read it a few times to be able to get to the core of it.

      I will use these knowledge to teach science in the future in the sense that I would be able to share this knowledge with my students and at the same time enhance their understanding on this subject matter. it will also help them to expand their knowledge of the nature of science in a better way.

   

2nd October 2015 (Week 6 Reflection)

      For today's lesson, we were given a chapter of a book to read and summarize on the Explanations on Scientific Laws and Theories. As far as what I could understand and extract from the chapter that I read was, firstly, to be able to explain a phenomena that takes place in our lives is a major accomplishment in Science. A theory should also make sense as questions that arise before a theory is made are usually the 'why' questions. For instance, "why does this happen?" or "why are things this way?". When the questions are answered, that is when we get our scientific explanation. Explanations are worth working for as they enhance our understanding.

     

       Besides, I have also understood that there is a standard model of explanation which is the Covering-Law Model of explanation. This model focuses more on the patterns rather than on the contents of the explanation. An explanation is considered to be good by how it is put rather than what it has to say. The example that I got from the book while reading was about a stop sign. For instance, someone who is not familiar with traffic crosses the road and observes that cars stop before he crosses the intersection. Why cars stop at the side of the road is explained by the stop sign that is situated at the side of the road. Naturally, it is the citizens duty to obey the law and the law says that citizens with cars must stop at the stop sign. This is considered as a good explanation because when the law is understood and the conditions are realized, the event can be predicted.

Picture 1  :  Covering- Law Model of Explanation

        In addition, the covering-law model is also said to be the Deductive-Nomological Model of Explanation (D-N Model). I grasped that nomological is to be applicable to the laws, and the word deductive here relates to the relationship between the law, its conditions and the conclusion. All these relationships are compulsory, this is because if the law is true when the conditions hold, the event is bound to happen.

Picture 2 : Deductive-Nomological Model of Explanation

  Nevertheless, there were problems arising about the model of explanation and amendments had been done to these models. The first amendment that was done to the covering-law model is that a measure of unification was added to it, whereby an explanation reveals the unity in nature that covers a maximum number of phenomena. The second amendment to this model was to have an explanation that is related to causal laws or theories. This direct focus on the causal factors changed the emphasis of the standard covering-law model from showing that the phenomenon is expected, to bringing about why the phenomenon happened. 

       The one thing that i would need help in here is to understand all the new terms that i read in this chapter. Some of them are confusing and some are way too complicated to be understood. As far as we look at the Covering-Law Model of explanation, it is still a little confusing for me to understand it as a whole. To be able to do that, I might have to read this specific part of the chapter a numerous times.

        As a future teacher, I am happy that I gained this opportunity to read about the explanations of Scientic Laws and Theories in more detail as I will be able to share this same knowledge with my future students later on.

17th September 2015 - (Week 4 Reflection)

        In this week, I learnt what internal, external and virtues meant basically. Internal means inner part or features, external means the outward features of something whereas virtues means behaviour showing high moral standards (integrity). I also discovered the Features of Scientific Theory which are firstly, it must be reliable indicators of truth and secondly, we must be able to evaluate or access it. By these features, we are able to justify a Scientific Theory. I have also understood that Scientific Theory have different properties and they differ from one another in several different ways. For instance, the process of how the theory is discovered, by whom as well as the day and time. I have also learnt Internal and External Features. Talking about Internal Features firstly, these are features that can be evaluated without having to observe the world. It does not require observations in order to correlate a theory with what the world is like. It is economical as no experiments are needed to be carried out in laboratories in order to acquire a result. They can be evaluated by studying books and by looking at the structure of the theory and comparing it to other theories. An example of Internal Feature is Logical Consistency. It does not require any experiment. It is said that Logical Consistency occurs when a set of statements are all true as well as logical and there are no contradictory statements that goes against it. If there is, then the set of statement cannot be referred to as Logical Consistency. Here are a few set of statements that have contradictory statements in it.

                                     Picture 1 : A set of statements with contradictory statement in it.

To explain one of it, for instance the first example. "I am a man. I have brown hair." This is stated as logical consistency where the man says he is a man and he has brown hair. The contradictory statement here is the sentence "You have blonde hair." The man is trying to say that the person with blonde hair is not a man. There this statement shows contradiction and therefore this statement cannot be referred to as Logical Consistency. Next, I have also learnt about the 5 features of Internal Virtues which are entrenchment, explanatory cooperation, testability, generality and simplicity. Explanation for each feature can be read in the link below.
 https://www.edmodo.com/post/470288313

I have also understood that even though testability is known to be being part of experiments and laboratory work and it is suppose to be classified as an external feature, however, testability is also a part of the internal feature in the sense that a prediction is usually made before any experiment is carried out. Therefore the precision of the prediction made before an experiment is carried out explains the role of testability as one of the internal feature. Besides internal features, as mentioned above I have also learnt External Features. External Features require observations and in order for a test to be carried out, we would require knowledge from the external world, in other words we have to go out to fields and seas to carry out the experiment prior to its conditions and surroundings. By doing this, then only we are able to justify the External Features. For instance, Darwin's Theory of Evolution are still being falsified by biologists as they are carrying out experiments trying to prove that apes did not transform into humans and we, humans are not form of apes once upon a time ago. External Features consist of two parts which are the explanation and the testing and confirmation. 
Explanation
- theories should be able to explain an observed phenomena
- the more the phenomena that can be explained, the more likely the theory is to be true.
- a good theory should explain a wide variety of things.
Testing and confirmation
- accomplished by looking at new evidence as predicted by the theory
-doesn't explain why something happened but that it does happen according to predictions made.

          The one thing that I would need help in is to understand the internal and external features more precisely so I would be able to use them in the future and I am a little confused whether Internal Virtues and Internal Features have the same meaning in context or they do they differ from one another.

       I could use this knowledge to teach Science in the future by examining these values when experiments are being conducted in laboratories as well as teaching my students to be able to make predictions before a test is carried out. I will also encourage my students to understand all these virtues when learning Science or during laboratory activities.