Chapter+Four


 * Chapter Four**

Please answer at least one of the questions below and then respond to one of your classmates in the questions below...

1. How do scientific disciplines differ from nonscientific disciplines?

2. Why are events that happen only once difficult to analyze from a scientific point of view?

Nick : Events that happen only once make drawing conclusions difficult. Typically, in order to achieve sound results, anything that is going to be analyzed scientifically needs to be compared to something. This is why in experiments it is necessary to make a control group, as scientists need something to compare their observations to.

3. How important are the first and second laws of thermodynamics to explaining environmental issues? Using the concepts in these laws of thermodynamics, try to explain a particular environmental issue. How does an understanding of thermodynamics change your conceptual framework regarding this issue? media type="youtube" key="Xb05CaG7TsQ" height="315" width="560"

4. What happens to atoms during a chemical reactions? Mohan : During chemical reactions, new product atoms are not created, and the old reactant atoms are not destroyed. Atoms are rearranged as bonds are broken and formed. In all chemical reactions, mass is always conserved.For example, if Carbon (C) is burnt in Oxygen (O2) to form Carbon Dioxide, a Chemical Reaction occurs.
 * In chemical reactions, atoms rearrenge to form products.**

5. Are all kinds of energy equal in their capacity to bring about changes? Why or why not?

6. True or False: Correlation implies causation.

Kelcie: False, correlation does not imply causation. This is saying that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other. These could change for many different reason, the most common reason for these to change is that the two are both being strongly affected by one or more variables that were not considered. Another reason could be that it happened by chance. Nice clear answer Kelcie. Can any one think of an example of some one trying to argue correlation leading to causation?. Bof

Nick: It is easy to believe that correlations imply causation when examining statistical data, but it is important to keep in mind that there are often lurking variables that must be considered in data analysis. I will preface my Gore bashing by saying that I think that Al Gore is both respectable and a cool dude, but if one were to watch __An Inconvenient Truth__, they would see that for much of the film it would appear as though Gore is trying to make the statement that a correlation is implying causation. Gore shows pretty extensive statistical evidence that compares the levels of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere over time, with the average temperature of the Earth. Though there may be a lot of other statistics to back up this relationship, the comparison of the two variables in and of themselves is not sufficient enough to state that one causes the other. 7. Laws & Theories... what is the difference, anyway? Kelcie: A **law** is a readily observable fact about something. Laws are simple and obvious statements about a phenomenon that never require a second guess, or an experiment, to verify them A **Theory** is a advanced hypothesis. A hypothesis is a plausible, testable explanation of how a phenomenon works and/or why it works that way.

media type="youtube" key="qodOwQ-U1oQ" height="315" width="420" 8. What is pseudoscience? Why is it a problem?

Alex: Pseudoscience is a "false" science, where people use the appearance or language of science to convince others of something that is not actually scientifically true. Usually pseudoscience is used when something is being marketed or sold. An example is when a pharmaceutical company develops a new drug. They might advertise that being around certain materials will cause disease, and they may use false data tables or scientific language to "prove" the results. In turn, this might mislead people to believe that they need the company's new drug in order to prevent themselves from getting sick from exposure to the stated materials. Nice clear response Alex. Nice job including an example.Bof

Catie: I really liked how Alex gave the definition of pseudoscience, but then backed up her definition with an example of how pharmaceutical companies make false claims to advertise their drugs. This really helped me connect pseudoscience as a concept in real life. I feel like we experience pseudoscience a lot when companies are advertising products.

9. Why is it so important that scientists share data and work together? Freddie: Scientific collaboration is just as important as the scientists ability to find the data. If the smartest person in the world could not effectively distribute their findings and data to other scientists or people who might benefit from it, his or her data is useless. The purpose of pursuing the data would be irrelevant because even if it would help many people, if it can not be communicated clearly, it will not be able to. Also, no one is perfect. None of us are as smart as all of us. No one person can achieve more than many minds. So why not share your findings among other scientists, some might find errors in your work, or might be able to expand upon your research. Every person who has spent too long on one problem, whether that be in math or english, knows what tunnel visions is. When you spend too much time with one problem, you find it harder and harder to look at that problem from different angles. New minds can open whole new paths of thinking that you never would have thought of. Collaboration is essential in all facets of life, but especially important in the scientific community. It maximises the number of eyes, increasing the possibility of alternate uses being found and further discoveries.

Catie : It is important for scientists to share data and work together. When a scientist is conducting an experiment, he may come to unreasonable conclusions or may make unusual observations. By having multiple scientists asking questions about an experiment and its results and observations, scientists have the opportunity to criticize, make suggestions and agree with others. This process makes results and experiments much more sound. Often times when scientists publish their work, they publish opinions that may not always be supportable, and may be unconsciously bias. When results are subjected to examination by many minds, this bias is eliminated, and scientists can build off of one another's ideas and findings to come to a true consensus. Not only that, but the concept of reproducibility allows for independent investigators to reproduce an experiment to see if they get the same results. It is important for scientists to share data and work together to make sure their experiments are sound and accurate. Two heads (or even more!) are better than one! Max: Catie's explanation elaborates upon the errors that can be made with a single and possible biased scientist can make. Freddie explains the importance of collaboration, which can lead to much stronger and meaningful discoveries.

10. Describe your dream car .... and then discuss the environmental implications of that car.

Max Blazon: My dream car is probably a Lamborghini Murcielago, the pinnacle of Italian car engineering. Yet, with the V12 engine and all the power that comes from it, the environmental impact of the car is far greater than that of your average Toyota or Ford. The carbon emissions are so great, that even after a 35% reduction, they still emit almost the most CO2 of any production car. The car only gets 8mpg, and the most expensive and highly treated gasoline must be used. In the standard EU test drive, they emit 495g of CO2 for every kilometer driven. It exists in the top 2.5% of the most environmentally inefficient cars. So, with the beauty comes a dear cost to the environment. Nice complete detailed reply ...somehow I knew it would be a boy who answered this question. Bof Mohan: I like how Max has all of the specific statistics of what the car has and how much CO2 it emits and where it stands next to other cars. It shows that some of the "nicest cars" cost more then just the price tag.

11. Increasingly, environmental issues such as global climate change are moving to the forefront of world concern. What role should science play in public policy decisions? Charles: In recent years, climate change has gained much more attention than it had in the past. Yet, it seems that despite this increased attention, little action has taken place. The general population, as well as policymakers, need to be doing more to solve the problem at hand. I think that in areas such as global climate change, public policy should be built around central scientific evidence. Without strong scientific support, changes in public policy will do little to solve this issue.

Alex: I agree with Charles; there is a lot of attention put on the issue of climate change, but there has been far less action. I think another thing that would help to get the public policy decisions going would be to educate people more using science. Many people hear a lot about environmental issues and climate change, but a good amount of the time the information has no solid evidence or does not come from a reliable source. If we greater educate the population and use solid scientific evidence to back up the claims, then more public policy decisions concerning the environment and climate change would be made.

12. How should we decide between competing scientific explanations about environmental concern such as global climate? What might be some of the criteria for deciding what is “good science” and what is “bad science”?