Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

TOK science lesson

No description

Kim Yaeger

on 3 December 2012

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of TOK science lesson

Some examples of pseudo-science: Activity: Pseudo-science Is this an accurate representation of what the person saying this is trying to present? "...down to a science" -Trying new techniques on an instrument to see which works better
-Cooking (adding salt and baking soda to make bread rise, using yeast, boiling, baking soda and vinegar reactions, change of state when baking)
-Growing plants (using legumes to fix nitrogen, 6CO2 + 12H2O -> C6H12O6 + 6O2)
-Using a microwave to heat up food Are these sciences? Is this science? What makes science science? The Natural Sciences -Acupuncture - inserting needles balances energy and relieves pain
-Astrology - the position of celestial bodies and date of birth determine character
-Crystology - crystals have magic healing powers
-Graphology - handwriting reflects character
-Homeopathy - what causes symptoms also cures them
-Phrenology - the structure of the skull determines mental ability Person number one is a believer in acupuncture, and person number two believes that it is a pseudo-science. Person number one must convince person number two that acupuncture is truly a science. Does what we consiter science change based on age? -Is it still science after becoming usable by every-day people? -It works because of the laws of science - does that make it science? -A child making a volcano with baking soda and vinegar as opposed to an adult.
-A science kit from the toy store making slime as opposed to an adult creating slime for a child's party Does what we consiter science change based on time? -The earth is round
-Apples fall from trees due to gravity
-Grass grows because of water, sunlight, and air
-Burning marked candles or using shadows to tell time If these are still considered science, have they at least lost some of the awe people hold for them? Definition: "Any of various methods, theories, or systems...considered as having no scientific basis." (from dictionary.com) Based on the discussion, is there a possibility that some things we call "pseudo-science" are labeled incorrectly? Why do we have science? What are the boarders between science and math? What are the boarders between science and ethics? -atomic bomb
-Darwinism v. Creationism
-cloning -technology
-theoretical physics How do we know when we're right? -What if our common sence tells us that science is wrong? (geocentric vs. heliocentric; earth is round vs. earth is flat)
-Each time the model of the atom changed, it was consitered right, so how do we know that the present model is right?
-The repetition of experiments should confirm it, but experiments don't always expose everything... (gold foil) How much is too much skepticism? -If we are not skeptical at all, we will end up with an abundance of false laws.
-If we are too skeptical, we will not move ahead at all. Perception fallibility in science Confirmation bias - we see what we expect to see Is it possible to look at the experiment from a non-biased point of view? Should scientists dismiss data points that do not agree with their conclusion? Simplistic tendencies There is often more than one hypothesis for a set of data - how do we know which is right? Most humans choose the simpler one... but would a scientist with knowledge of this tendency choose the more complicated one for that reason? From a TOK perspective The scientific method: -ask a question
-do background research
-state a hypothesis
-perform an experiment
-collect data
-analyze the data
-state a conclusion Must all sciences follow these exact steps? How do we know that hypothesis without the means to experiment are correct? Einstein's Theory of Relativity E=mc^2 The danger of inductive reasoning If a scientist were to create an experiment that, performed with a very wide range of data, would come out with an equation asymptotic to the x-axis but they used only a small range of data that happened to be on the x-axis, they would think the equation would be y=0 when it really was y=1/x, then assuming a part represents the whole would be fatally wrong. The fallibility of confidence Under-confidence:
-"My experiment disproved Newton's 2nd law - I must have been terribly wrong!" Overconfidence:
-"I'm always right." ...so we end up not finding out what may be crucial information while also receiving information that is incorrect. $$$ Scenario:
You are a scientist doing cancer research and find a revolutionary discovery about cloning. Your contract is for cancer research only and you won't be getting any grant if you switch. What research would you persue?
Full transcript