Critical Thinking in the Natural Sciences Chapter 19 Critical Thinking in the Natural Sciences

Learning Outcomes Identify the kinds of questions natural scientists ask Illustrate how natural scientists consider intriguing phenomena, testable explanation, experimentation, and integration of findings Describe the investigative methods used in the natural sciences Learning Outcomes The chapter identifies the kinds of questions natural scientists ask. Further it illustrates how natural scientists consider intriguing phenomena, testable explanation, experimentation, and integration of findings. Then it describes the investigative methods used in the natural sciences.

Learning Outcomes Explain the standards used to evaluate natural science research Describe social science applications in fields such as climatology, medicine, engineering, and agriculture Learning Outcomes Chapter explains the standards used to evaluate natural science research. Finally describes social science applications in fields such as climatology, medicine, engineering, and agriculture.

Chapter Opening Video Chapter Opening Video In the video, the duo discusses the relationship between the increase in the level of methane in the atmosphere and fracking. They try to analyze the possibility of the relationship using critical thinking. This chapter explains how strong critical thinkers engage in natural science inquiry and apply natural science understandings and strategies to support their professional work.

Critical Thinking Questions of Natural Scientists Natural science: Systematic empirical inquiry into the causal explanations from the subatomic to the galactic in scope for Observed patterns Structures Functions of natural phenomena Thinking like a natural scientist Critical Thinking Questions of Natural Scientists Natural science: Systematic empirical inquiry into the causal explanations from the subatomic to the galactic in scope for: Observed patterns. Structures. Functions of natural phenomena. Thinking like a natural scientist. Mainly ask questions about nature and natural phenomena. Engage in scientific inquiry seeking to understand, explain, and predict the mechanisms of nature and establish a knowledge base.

Thinking Like a Natural Scientist Natural scientists: Ask questions about nature and natural phenomena Investigate the empirically asked questions Utilize a shared understanding of terminology and methods of inquiry Thinking Like a Natural Scientist Natural scientists: Ask questions about nature and natural phenomena. Analyze, interpret, and explain the recurring patterns in the natural world. Investigate the empirically asked questions. Utilize a shared understanding of terminology and methods of inquiry.

Thinking Process of Natural Scientists Think curious and intriguing natural phenomenon Think empirically testable causal explanation Null hypothesis Thinking Process of Natural Scientists Think curious and intriguing natural phenomenon Natural phenomena that scientists find intriguing are associated with team’s project and program. Think empirically testable causal explanation Scientists require a causal explanation that can be empirically tested. Natural scientists prefer to explain, predict and control naturally occurring phenomena. Null hypothesis Two events, factors, or phenomena are not related.

Thinking Process of Natural Scientists Think how to prevent and bring about the phenomenon Think how to integrate new knowledge with broader scientific understandings Thinking Process of Natural Scientists Think how to prevent and bring about the phenomenon. Thinking like a physicist means finding patterns and connections between phenomena to synthesize a deeper understanding of the workings of the natural world. Think how to integrate new knowledge with broader scientific understandings. Physical phenomena occur through empirically discoverable causal mechanisms. Natural scientists ask themselves four questions. How can we accurately describe the pattern of events in the natural world we are seeking to understand? Can we find an empirically testable causal explanation for the natural phenomenon? What can we do to make the pattern in nature recur or prevent it from recurring? How well does the knowledge newly gained integrate with our broader, more established scientific understandings of the natural world?

Think Curious and Intriguing Natural Phenomenon Observations of scientists are related to professional interests and training Natural phenomena that scientists find intriguing are associated with team’s project and program Think Curious and Intriguing Natural Phenomenon Observations of scientists are related to professional interests and training. Natural scientists are focused and purposeful about work. Natural phenomena that scientists find intriguing are associated with team’s project and program. Scientific research teams are formed on empirical reasoning, around a topic or issue of broader concern.

Think Empirically Testable Causal Explanation Natural science requires explanations of empirical reasoning applied to: Potentially testable hypothesis about causal factors that produce the phenomenon Think Empirically Testable Causal Explanation Natural science requires explanations of empirical reasoning applied to potentially testable hypothesis about causal factors that produce the phenomenon. Policy recommendations are arrived post the findings of scientific investigations.

Null Hypothesis Two events, factors, or phenomena are not related Help investigators maintain a valuable level of objectivity in work Null Hypothesis Two events, factors, or phenomena are not related. Natural scientists protect inquiry from policy biases by investigating the null hypothesis and experimenting to prove the hypothesis is wrong. Help investigators maintain a valuable level of objectivity in work. Scientists should not leap to the wrong conclusion when an experiment falsifies the null.

Think How to Prevent and Bring About the Phenomenon Natural scientists prefer to mirror experimentally a logical scenario If A, then B but not B so surely not A Thinking like a natural scientist implies: Discarding theories and explanations that are not consistent with the experimental data Think How to Prevent and Bring About the Phenomenon Natural scientists prefer to mirror experimentally a logical scenario, if A, then B but not B so surely not A. Thinking like a natural scientist implies discarding theories and explanations that are not consistent with the experimental data. Thinking like a physicist means finding patterns and connections between phenomena to synthesize a deeper understanding of the workings of the natural world. Natural scientist’s quest is underlying mechanisms that explains, predicts, and possibly controls the phenomenon.

Discussion Questions People with severe headaches often experience physical reactions that hamper their daily activities Has this happened to you? What physical reactions did you experience? Suppose you are a natural scientist, what possibilities might you investigate for preventing severe headaches? Discussion Questions People with severe headaches often experience physical reactions that hamper their daily activities. Has this happened to you? What physical reactions did you experience? Suppose you are a natural scientist, what possibilities might you investigate for preventing severe headaches? These discussion questions should help the student analyze problems as natural scientists would do.

Fundamental assumptions of natural science Think How to Integrate New Knowledge With Broader Scientific Understandings Fundamental assumptions of natural science Physical phenomena occur through empirically discoverable causal mechanisms Physical universe is an integrated whole Think How to Integrate New Knowledge With Broader Scientific Understandings Fundamental assumptions of natural science. Physical phenomena occur through empirically discoverable causal mechanisms. When current scientific knowledge cannot explain a phenomena, knowledge needs to be updated. Physical universe is an integrated whole. Various scientific domains are engaged together in one grand enterprise, to explain empirically how everything works.

Synthesizing knowledge Think How to Integrate New Knowledge With Broader Scientific Understandings Synthesizing knowledge Anomalies: Solid scientific findings that are not consistent with prevailing theories Think How to Integrate New Knowledge With Broader Scientific Understandings Synthesizing knowledge Offers confidence in new findings and larger theories that can be related. Anomalies: Solid scientific findings that are not consistent with prevailing theories. Constant reminder to scientists that something is not right.

Natural Scientists’ Investigation Testable hypothesis: Can be shown to be false by reference to empirical evidence Let the empirical question drive the inquiry Natural Scientists’ Investigation Natural scientists investigate questions by open-mindedly seeking good evidence to describe, explain, and predict the patterns of events in natural phenomena. Testable hypothesis: Can be shown to be false by reference to empirical evidence. Strategy of expressing conjectures about natural phenomena. Let the empirical question drive the inquiry. Natural scientists treat a phenomena as a falsifiable hypothesis and investigate it empirically.

Steps in a Scientific Investigation Identify a problem of significance Form a hypothesis Review the scientific literature to learn from the work of others Identify all the factors related to the hypothesis Make each factor measurable Steps in a Scientific Investigation Identify a problem of significance. Form a hypothesis. Describes what we can expect to happen under certain conditions. Review the scientific literature to learn from the work of others. About the hypothesis or similar hypotheses. Identify all the factors related to the hypothesis. Identify the factors of phenomenon of interest that it will be important to measure, control, or monitor. Make each factor measurable.

Steps in a Scientific Investigation Ensure that the experimental conditions can be met Design a procedure to ensure the data reveals the full range of observations Run a pilot to test the feasibility of design plan Conduct the study/experiment and gather the data Steps in a Scientific Investigation Ensure that the experimental conditions can be met. Design a procedure to ensure the data reveals the full range of observations. Run a pilot to test the feasibility of design plan. Feasibility test can be conducted to at least some portion of the study. Conduct the study/experiment and gather the data.

Steps in a Scientific Investigation Conduct appropriate analyses of data Interpret the findings and discuss its significance Critique the findings Publish the research Design a follow up study Steps in a Scientific Investigation Conduct appropriate analyses of data. Interpret the findings and discuss its significance. Critique the findings. Publish the research. Contributes to better understanding of the healthcare environment. Design a follow up study.

Let the Empirical Question Drive the Inquiry Scientists do not retreat from an empirical question Natural scientists treat a phenomena as a falsifiable hypothesis and investigate it empirically Let the Empirical Question Drive the Inquiry Scientists do not retreat from an empirical question. Good investigators employ critical thinking skills to decide relevant evidence and methods to answer natural phenomena in a fair-minded, systematic, and accurate way. Natural scientists treat a phenomena as a falsifiable hypothesis and investigate it empirically. Permitting ideological frames of reference to limit search for knowledge should be avoided.

Let the Empirical Question Drive the Inquiry Scientists are focused on scientific interpretation and falsifiable question Empirical investigation of a hypothesis requires documented data Let the Empirical Question Drive the Inquiry Scientists are focused on scientific interpretation and falsifiable question. Investigation of a phenomena requires restating the claim to interpret empirically and organize a scientific study of the hypothesis. Empirical investigation of a hypothesis requires documented data. Documented data should be systematically gathered and objectively analyzed.

How do Natural Scientists Think About Standards? Confidence in scientific findings Confidence in scientific theories How do Natural Scientists Think About Standards? Confidence in scientific findings. Level of confidence in the results of investigation. Confidence in scientific theories. Standards that apply to theories.

Confidence in Scientific Findings Strong critical thinkers assert findings with warranted confidence True to a scientific certainty Causal factors in natural sciences function with precision and regularity Statistical significance: Represents the probability that an obtained result has not occurred by chance Confidence in Scientific Findings Strong critical thinkers assert findings with warranted confidence. Mindful of the risks associated with empirical reasoning. True to a scientific certainty. Causal factors in natural sciences function with precision and regularity. Statistical significance: Represents the probability that an obtained result has not occurred by chance. Standard expectations for statistical significance are demanding. Tolerance for random error is lower. Statistically significant findings are asserted by scientists to be true to a scientific certainty.

Confidence in Scientific Findings Finding what isn’t there and not finding what is there Wrong to conclude that reliance on numerical data will eliminate human vulnerabilities Confidence in Scientific Findings Finding what isn’t there and not finding what is there. Wrong to conclude that reliance on numerical data will eliminate human vulnerabilities. Setting the level of tolerable error at one-tenth of 1 percent is high a risk in some circumstances and stringent in other circumstances.

Confidence in Scientific Theories Scientific research is iterative Understanding of natural phenomena becomes accurate, and deeper with every investigation Natural scientists embrace a set of standards for evaluating scientific theories Confidence in Scientific Theories Scientific research is iterative. Scientists strive for larger theories, which can integrate and explain more social phenomena. Understanding of natural phenomena becomes accurate, and deeper with every investigation. Natural scientists embrace a set of standards for evaluating scientific theories. Theories can be of unequal quality.

Confidence in Scientific Theories Explanatory scientific theories strive to be: Consistent Testable Comprehensive Productive Parsimonious Confidence in Scientific Theories Explanatory scientific theories strive to be: Consistent - Integrate information and new research findings without producing mutually contradictory statements. Testable - Open to being independently replicated by other investigators in an array of investigative conditions. Comprehensive - Integrate all of the accepted facts and findings about the patterns evident in natural phenomena. Productive - Suggest new directions and new hypotheses for research that goes beyond a restatement of initial findings. Potentially enable investigators to strengthen explanations and make well-founded predictions about the patterns evident in natural phenomena. Parsimonious - Provide the simplest, concise representation of the complex phenomena under investigation.

Natural Science Applications in the Real World Mitigation of the impact of global climate change on human food supplies Microbiology, chemistry, and the promise of gene therapy Interaction of genetics, environment, and personal determination in lives Enviropig project and genetically modified foods Natural Science Applications in the Real World Mitigation of the impact of global climate change on human food supplies. Scientific information affects everything from personal and family concerns to the policies developed by government agencies. Microbiology, chemistry, and the promise of gene therapy. Interaction of genetics, environment, and personal determination in lives. Enviropig project and genetically modified foods.

Natural Science Applications in the Real World Science Education for New Civic Engagements and Responsibilities (SENCER) Sponsored by National Science Foundation Assists colleges and universities in the development of science courses Focuses on real-world problems Natural Science Applications in the Real World Science Education for New Civic Engagements and Responsibilities (SENCER) Sponsored by National Science Foundation. Assists colleges and universities in the development of science courses. Focuses on real-world problems. Examples of courses listed by SENCER Web site. TeachEP - An Emerging Model of Curricular Integration. Evolutionary Medicine. Undergraduate Biochemistry Through Public Health Issues. Pregnancy Outcomes in American Women.

Sketchnote Video Sketchnote Video The video summarizes how natural scientists apply critical thinking to explain and predict the causes of natural phenomena.