1. 1-3 The study of Biology

2. Objectives Outline the steps of the scientific method
Summarize how observations are used to form hypothesis
List the elements of a controlled experiment
Describe how scientists use data to draw conclusions
Compare a hypothesis and theory
State how communication & peer review prevent dishonesty

3. Scientific Method Organized approach Natural causes
Not supernatural
Have to be able to disprove something
Uniformity: The laws of nature are the same everywhere

4. Steps of method Observation Hypothesis Prediction Exeperiment
Analyze data
Communicate findings

5. Experimental design Control Groups: provide a normal standard
Experimental Group: Different from control by 1 factor  the independent variable
Dependant variable: what is affected by independent variable

6. Quantitative vs. Qualitative

7. Analyzing Data Is the data reliable?
Does it support your hypothesis or not?

8. Conclusions Can’t prove much
Theories: when hypothesis is confirmed many times and it explains a lot
Law: Theories that have been confirmed many many times
Beyond a doubt

9. Scientific Method Bacon (1561-1626) and Descartes (1596-1650)
were not scientists but did invent new habits of scientific thought
scientific method as habits of disciplined creativity, careful observations, logical thinking & analysis of observations
way of seeking trends & drawing generalizations
Convinced governments of England & France to form academies of science that still exist today
Scientific way of thinking based on assumptions & methods that are reliable, objective & testable

10. Making observations until capable of drawing generalizations and making predictions
anatomy is a product of inductive method
Proof in science can not go past “proved beyond reasonable doubt”
reliable methods of observation
tested and confirmed repeatedly
not falsified by any credible observation
In science, all truth is tentative
Inductive Method

11. Hypothetico-Deductive Method
Physiological knowledge gained by this method
Ask a question and formulate a hypothesis -- an educated possible answer
Good hypothesis
consistent with what is already known
capable of being tested and falsified with certain evidence
If nothing could prove it wrong, it is not a scientific belief
Hypotheses are written as If-Then predictions
modified and rewritten after testing

12. Experimental Design Sufficient sample size to prevent chance event
Control group and treatment group receive the same treatment except for the variable being tested
Prevention of psychosomatic effects
use of placebo in control group
Experimenter bias
prevented with double-blind study
Statistical testing to be sure the difference between groups was not random, but was due to variable being tested
Placebo: Latin for I shall please
“Have your pirin” The bird cage
Milgram Experiment Forcing the tester to hurt the subject.

13. Peer Review Critical evaluation by other experts in the field
prior to funding
verification and repeatability of results
Ensures honesty, objectivity & quality in science

14. Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang of South Africa, known for putting vegetable remedies ahead of anti-retrovirals, endorses Dr Matthias Rath's vitamin treatments.

15. Dr. Rath and his cure for AIDS: Mega Doses of Vitamin C
A doctor who worked with Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling
has taken the advocacy of vitamins into all-out war on the pharmaceutical companies
Buys ad space in the NY Times, and fills them with editorials masked as facts
Without getting confirmation of his studies is taking his cure to the people of Africa
Problems: Too much Vitamin C can lead to Diarrhea which can kill an AIDS patient.
Blames George Bush and Tony Blair for AIDS

16. Facts, Laws and Theories
Scientific fact is information that can be independently verified by any trained person
iron deficiency leads to anemia
Law of nature is a description of the way matter and energy behave
resulting from inductive reasoning & repeated observations
written as verbal statements or mathematical formulae
Theory is a summary of conclusions drawn from observable facts
it provides explanations and predictions
sliding filament theory of muscle contraction

17. Logic is the anatomy of thought -John Locke
Conditional arguments: the basis of hypothesis forming. Two parts
Part 1: If p then q
P = antecedent
Q = Consequent
Part 2 allows us to draw conclusions
If P happens then Q happens (Modus Ponens
If Q did not happen, P did not happen (Modus Tollens)
Consider the following examples:
If Chinua arrives late, he will miss the bus.
Chinua will miss the bus if he comes late.
Chinua, if he arrives late, will miss the bus
Note you can change the way its said
For economy, we might shorten that to "If arrive late, then miss bus." In this case, p=arrive late, and q=miss bus.
In other words, if the original conditional is true, we can draw the following valid conclusions: Chinua arrived late and therefore missed the bus; or Chinua did not miss the bus, and therefore he must not have arrived late. These two valid conditional arguments are expressed by the following paradigms:
Example 1. "If Chinua arrives late, he will miss the bus. And he does arrives late. Therefore, he misses the bus." This is a valid argument, because it fits one of the two forms for a valid conditional (in this case, modus ponens):
If p (arrives late), then q (misses bus). P (arrives late)
Therefore, Q (misses bus).
Example 2. "If Chinua arrives late, he will miss the bus. And he does miss the bus. Therefore, he must have arrived late." This is an invalid argument, because it does not fit one of the two valid forms. In a valid conditional, the second premise must be either p or not q. In this case, the second premise ("miss bus") would be q, so no valid conclusion can be drawn. We say this second premise "affirms the consequent," which is invalid. (This may sound like a good argument, but it is easy to see why it is not, because the conditional says nothing about what might happen when Chinua does not miss the bus. Perhaps he arrived on time, or perhaps he got there late and the bus was delayed--we have insufficient information to conclude anything.)
Example 3. "If Chinua arrives late, he will miss the bus. But he does not arrive late. Therefore, he did not miss the bus." This is an invalid argument, because it does not fit one of the two valid forms. In a valid conditional, the second premise must be either p or not q. In this case, the second premise ("not arrive late") would be not p, so no valid conclusion can be drawn. We say this second premise "negates the antecedent," which is invalid. (Again, this may sound like a good argument, but it is easy to see why it is not, because the conditional says nothing about what will happen if Chinua arrives on time. Perhaps he did catch the bus, perhaps he fell asleep and missed it anyway--we have insufficient information to conclude anything.)
Example 4. "If Chinua arrives late, he will miss the bus. But he does not miss the bus. Therefore, he did not arrive late." This is a valid argument, because it fits one of the two valid forms (in this case, modus tollens):
If p (arrives late), then q (misses bus). Not q (not miss bus).
Therefore, not p (not arrive late).
Note there can be problems with the original thing: If P then Q has to be a valid statement

18. There is a claim that lycopene, the reddish substance in tomatoes and peppers, is of value in protecting people from Alzheimer Disease. How would you, as a scientist, go about substantiating or refuting this suggestion?