Check my answers: science or pseudoscience questions?
srich Asked: Check my answers: science or pseudoscience questions?
Example 2 (5 points)
Researchers at a university want to know if higher levels of nitrogen in fertilizer will increase the production of tomatoes per plant. Twenty plants are given normal levels of nitrogen and twenty other plants are given ten percent higher levels throughout the growing season. The plants receive the same levels of sunlight, water and are planted in the same soil on one farm. At the end of the experiment the average number of tomatoes produced is the same for each group. The scientists repeat the experiment on two additional farms further south that season. The researchers conclude that increasing nitrogen levels by 10% in tomatoes is not beneficial.
Would this be a well designed reliable experiment? Support your decision with at least three reasons.
Yes, this would be a well designed reliable experiment. The three variables were involved that makes up an experiment. The independent variable was the nitrogen, because that was the variable that was being changed in order to test the hypothesis. The fertilizer was the dependent variable because they are dependent on the changes of the independent variable. The controlled variables were the sun light, soil and water because they werent changed for the experiment.
Example 3 (5 points)
There is a new brand of water on the market that has been proven to relieve headaches. It is selling like crazy! When the Food and Drug Administration asked for scientific proof that the water actually does what it claims to do, the owners of the company produced a scientific research study that they had paid a group of scientists to perform. In the study researchers gave this special water to a group of 50 people who claimed to have a headache. The people drank the special water whenever they felt thirsty over a period of 24 hours. After the 24 hours, 99% of the people reported that their headache was gone.
Should the Food and Drug Administration trust this scientific study and allow the company to sell the water with this claim? Would this be an example of Science or Pseudoscience? Support your answer with at least three reasons.
No, the Food and Drug Administration should not trust this scientific study and shouldnt allow the company to continue selling this water with this claim. This would be an example of Pseudoscience. There was not a group given regular water to compare this experiment. Water alone will get rid of a headache, so it makes sense that the peoples headaches disappeared after drinking water all day. This experiment was made to profit off of, it was not an experiment made purely for public knowledge.
Example 4 (5 points)
A group of researchers from a local lab are trying to get funding for a research study to determine if the color blue is better than the color green. They have written a proposal and submitted to the company that could potentially give them the money needed to conduct the study. The researchers proposed to carry out their study in four different geographic locations and use variations of both the color blue and the color green to ensure that they will gather reliable information.
Should the company give the researchers the money to conduct this study? Support your decision with at least three reasons.
No, the company shouldnt give the researchers the money to conduct this study. This experiment is based purely on opinion, because no color is scientifically better than the other. Also, the experiment wouldnt be made in a controlled condition. There should only be one independent variable, which would be the colors. The experiment should then be repeated by the same scientists in the same exact way the first experiment did.
Example 5 (5 points)
The town of Seaside needs to build a new power plant. The old coal burning plant produces too much pollution and is no longer safe. The mayor decides that he will do some research on alternative forms of energy like nuclear power plants and solar power plants.
What types of resources should the mayor use to conduct his research? Why would these be considered reliable source of information and why? What types of resources are reliable? How can he use what he learns to make the best decision for the town?
The mayor should use the internet as a resource and it would also be a good idea to talk to other communities that may have dealt with the same issue he is having. These would be considered reliable sources of information, because depending on the websites the internet is usually unbiased. Listening to other communities that have dealt with similar issues would also be considered a reliable source because he can listen to their observations to make an educated hypothesis on which power plant would be best for him. He can then make the best decision for his town.
Thank you for anyone that takes the time to check these answers. I appreciate it a lot, because I want to raise my phsyics grade.
Answers:
Your answers are fine … except for example 5.
The internet is not a good source of information. It is certainly not reliable. Suppose I look at a page about nuclear power. How do I know that the person who wrote that page really knows anything more than I do? How do I know that, in two weeks time, that page will still be there? How do I know that, in four weeks time, the opinion won't have changed?
You say that the internet is 'unbiased'. If there are 20 million pages advocating creationism, and 20 million pages advocating evolution, does that mean both ideas are equally valid? This is 'balanced' in terms of journalism, not in terms of science. If, instead, I concentrate on the webpages of academic departments in life sciences I'll find there is a bias! And that bias is by the people we've trained to scientifically evaluate such things in favour of evolution.
In other words, we might like to think that everyone's opinion is equally valid. It isn't. My opinions on nuclear power are not as valid as a nuclear physicist who designs nuclear power plants and has been doing so for 40 years. My opinions on whether neutrinos travel faster than light are less valid than the people who actually did the experiment!
A better source of information is books and journals, written by known, named, people with known expertise. If I want to know the pros and cons of nuclear power, then I'll listen to a nuclear physicist rather than some bloke who read a book once and created a webpage. If I want to find out about the efficiency of solar energy, then I'll talk to academics, companies that have installed prototype solar energy furnaces, etc.
This is why governments do not pay search engines for policy decisions. They employ advisors and set up task forces and hire 'expert' opinion and 'independent' groups. This is also why we have 'expert' testimony in trials rather than picking people off the street and asking them what they think!
Got a better answer? Share it below!
No related posts.
