DOCSLIB.ORG

Rational Inquiry?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rational Inquiry? H UM 3310 Online U NIVERSITY OF HOUSTON-DOWNTOWN S ummer I 2006 CRN 30143 assignment is due, and may not What is 'Cultural contact you if you have failed to What is 'Rational turn in an assignment. Online Criticism?' classes demand extra diligence. Inquiry?' Follow the reading schedule on your According to the UH-Downtown In one of his more accessible syllabus, check our blog regularly, Catalog, HUM 3310 is a survey of works on human cognition, the read all notes posted on our web different ways of analyzing human American linguist Noam Chomsky site, and make sure that you budget culture. Students examine major framed the study of knowledge in plenty of time in your schedule to schools of criticism and interpretation terms of two problems. The first, read each of the works carefully. of society and its creative activity. which he called "Plato's Problem," This course is the gateway course to Orwell's Problem is the demands an explanation of how the Humanities program. May be problem of individuals who, in humans can know so much when repeated once for credit, with spite of being well-read, well- evidence is so scarce. "Rational permission of Arts and Humanities educated, and often well-meaning, Inquiry" is the study of how people Department Chair. assent to ideas that are easily do that: how they come to have debunked by facts readily available to anyone willing to reliable knowledge about the world Who's Teaching 3310 This expend the slightest intellectual they live in. Summer, When and Where effort. The class meets in real time, from 5:30 pm to 7:15 pm, Monday through In order to complete a successful Thursday, in the WebCT chat space. term paper at the end of the The first half hour, from 5:30 pm to semester, you will have to do 6:00 pm, is for office hours only. independent research and read other Attendance is not required at that works in addition to those on the time. reading list. Be sure to allow You can get in touch with Dr. yourself adequate time for that as Hagen at 713-221-8116 or via his cell well. And remember that writing a phone. All correspondence concerning successful paper of any sort means this course should be sent via WebCT that multiple drafts and careful e-mail. The summer 2006 version of editing, revising and proofreading HUM 3310 is online. are absolutely essential. The HUM 3310 Web Site The second, which Chomsky Working Online calls "Orwell's Problem," demands Working Online Here is how you can get to our web an explanation of how in other All the information you need for the site. (1) Go to www.uhd.edu, (2) circumstances humans can class is right here on our web site (of click (on the apparently know so little when course you can always use e-mail if menubar, far right), (3) click Log In evidence is abundant. Plato's you have questions). Students must to WebCT, (4) Enter your WebCT Problem touches not only on take individual responsibility for user name and your password, and questions of knowledge and reading and understanding the (5) Click the entry on your course knowledge acquisition, but on requirements. The professor will not list to access HUM 3310. questions of science and its necessarily remind you every time an methods as well. HUM 3310 University of Houston-Downtown 1 Orwell's Problem, on the other hand, Reading Material Responsibilities diverts us into the less exalted territories of egotism, ideological devotion, and the Here are the books and other The USA has the best university psychology of self-delusion. It is the material you will need for class: system in the world. We can only problem of individuals who, in spite of maintain that standard -- and you the being well-read, well-educated, and ✗ Shermer, Michael. Why People student can only benefit from it -- if you often well-meaning, assent to ideas that Believe Weird Things. New York: make a concerted effort to do your part. are easily debunked by facts readily W H Freeman & Co. Any edition That means, among other things, that available to anyone willing to expend will do. you should keep the following in mind: the slightest intellectual effort. This ✗ Park, Robert. Voodoo Science. ✗ Be respectful to points of view that course is about Plato's Problem and New York: Oxford University differ from your own. Keep in Orwell's Problem in contemporary Press. mind that the readings and class Western culture. discussions may challenge some of ✗ One other book on the topic you your long and deeply held beliefs. Critical Thinking choose to analyze for class. This is not a personal attack, but The course is designed to nurture ✗ Various articles from your simply an effort to get at the truth. critical thinking, which is your ability to professor and from your ✗ It is unlikely that students with poor evaluate truth claims and cultural values independent research. study habits will succeed. Such objectively, meaningfully, and Requirements students fall behind in their independently. To put it another way: readings, they miss test reviews, things are not true just because someone Your grade will be based on the and they don't benefit from the says so, or just because a lot of people following: interaction with other students. believe them. We will see that in fact This class is no exception, even our culture is chock-full of notions that ✗ Four short-answer quiz/tests on though it is an online class. are at once popular and absurd. Our the concepts we study in class objective is to analyze those notions in (10% each, for a total of 40%). ✗ Students who enroll in classes with detail by reading the works of those who unrealistic expectations are often ✗ One progress report on your promote them as well as those who disappointed with their grades. If term paper, due midterm (10%). critique them. you believe that this university, or this department, or this class, or the ✗ One in-depth, term paper (4,500 words, 3,000 words rock-bottom online format (or this professor!), is minimum) on a topic selected "easier" than others, then you may from the list of weird ideas below. be tempted to give less than your You must select a topic by the end best effort. That means that you of the second week of class. No will probably get less than the best exceptions. (30%). grade possible. ✗ Make up exams are possible only in ✗ One slide show outline of your research project, which you will extraordinary circumstances, and share with the class. (10%). only when students have made a bona fide effort to notify the We will examine narrative from both ✗ One subjective evaluation by professor in advance. a tactical and a strategic vantage point; your professor on the extent to tactical when it deals with the tricks of which you contributed to the Things are not true just because argumentation that are most successful discussion board. Check the board someone says so, or just because in developing and defending weird regularly, read the insights from a lot of people believe them. We ideas, and strategic when it deals with your fellow students, and share will see that in fact our culture is the broader plan of devising weird ideas with us what you have discovered chock-full of notions that are at that have the right appeal to attract a in the course of your research. once popular and absurd. following in the first place. (10%). HUM 3310 University of Houston-Downtown 2 Tentative List ofof Activities Week 4: June 19 – 22 Linguistics: ✗ Suggestology/Accelerated Week 1: May 30 – June 1 Topics Learning ✗ Weird Academia ✗ Origins of Language Topics ✗ History Research ✗ Introduction ✗ Philosophy ✗ Talking Apes ✗ Rational Inquiry and ✗ Anthropology Skepticism Read Psychology and Education: ✗ The Paranormal ✗ Shermer, Chapter 8, 12- ✗ Psychoanalysis ✗ UFO’s and Outer Space 15 ✗ Facilitated Communication Read ✗ Semiotics and ✗ Repressed Memory ✗ This document, in its Deconstruction. Syndrome entirety. ✗ Transgressing the ✗ Neuro-Linguistic ✗ Shermer, Chapters 1-3, 6 Boundaries. Programming ✗ Park, Chapter 2, 4, 9 ✗ Letter to the AAA. ✗ The Mozart Effect ✗ Strange Fish ✗ Jungle Fever. ✗ Multiple Personality Submit Submit Disorder ✗ E-mail me your term paper ✗ Test #3 ✗ Dianetics topic Week 5: June 26 – 28 Science: Week 2: June 5 – 8 ✗ Remote Viewing Topics ✗ Cryptozoology Topics ✗ How Low Can it Go? ✗ Ufology/Alien abduction ✗ Science and Religion Read ✗ Psychics ✗ Evolution and Creationism ✗ Facilitated ✗ Science Goes Bad Communication Religion Read Submit ✗ Creationism ✗ Shermer, Chapters 5, 7, 9, ✗ Test #4 ✗ Faith Healing 11 & 16 ✗ Term Paper ✗ Left Behind ✗ Park Chapters 1, 5, 6 ✗ Slide show ✗ Scientology ✗ The Texas Textbook Wars Submit Weird Ideas for Your Term Philosophy: ✗ Test #1 Paper ✗ Postmodernism ✗ Ayn Rand and Objectivism Week 3 June 12 – 15 Anthropology: ✗ The Tasaday Hoax History: Topics ✗ The Chagnon/Yanomami ✗ Holocaust Denial ✗ Health, Physical and Mental Scandal ✗ Civil War Revisionism Read ✗ The Noble Savage Myth ✗ Park, Chapters 3, 7 , 8 ✗ Rigoberta Menchú Criminology: ✗ Recovered Memory ✗ Ancient Astronauts ✗ Polygraph Testing Syndrome. ✗ Castaneda's Hoax ✗ Hypnosis Submit ✗ Pseudo-archaeology ✗ Psychic Detectives ✗ Test #2 ✗ Progress Report HUM 3310 University of Houston-Downtown 3 Some Key Concepts in Rational and Skeptical Inquiry ad hoc fallacy equivocation positive-outcome bias argumentum ad hominem facilitated communication post hoc fallacy argumentum ad ignorantium faith healing postmodernism argumentum ad populum false dilemma pragmatic fallacy argumentum ad verecundiam falsification Proto-World alien abductions feng shui pseudohistory ancient
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Ten Lenses of Philosophical Inquiry Philosophical Inquiry Research Project1
    The Ten Lenses of Philosophical Inquiry Philosophical Inquiry Research Project1 The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes. – Marcel Proust A huge part of Philosophical Inquiry is learning how to see the world with new eyes. To accomplish this goal, you will be introduced to the “ten lenses of philosophical inquiry.” The ten lenses of philosophical inquiry are tools to help us critically engage with, and analyze ourselves, and the world around us. Like a pair of glasses, the ten lenses help to change our perception and give us the power to re-examine our reality. In this philosophical inquiry research project you will get introduced to each of the ten lenses so that you become comfortable using the lenses both inside and out of our class. You will also learn more about a philosopher, their philosophy and the lens of philosophical inquiry that they are most clearly connected to. Focus Question What are the ten lenses of philosophical inquiry, and what are some examples of how they are connected to the philosophies of different philosopher’s throughout history? Philosophical Inquiry Research Process 1) QUESTION - Develop the philosophical questions that you will use to drive your inquiry. 2) PLAN – Determine the types of sources that you will need to answer your questions. 3) GATHER EVIDENCE – Gather the information (textual, visual, quantitative, etc.) you need to explore and answer your questions. 4) ANALYZE – Analyze the answers to your questions, making sure to keep in mind the larger focus question guiding this inquiry. 5) COMMUNICATE CONCLUSIONS – Use evidence and reasons to write an organized (logically sequenced) explanation to the inquiry’s topic/focus question.
    [Show full text]
  • A Feminist Epistemological Framework: Preventing Knowledge Distortions in Scientific Inquiry
    Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont Scripps Senior Theses Scripps Student Scholarship 2019 A Feminist Epistemological Framework: Preventing Knowledge Distortions in Scientific Inquiry Karina Bucciarelli Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_theses Part of the Epistemology Commons, Feminist Philosophy Commons, and the Philosophy of Science Commons Recommended Citation Bucciarelli, Karina, "A Feminist Epistemological Framework: Preventing Knowledge Distortions in Scientific Inquiry" (2019). Scripps Senior Theses. 1365. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_theses/1365 This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Scripps Student Scholarship at Scholarship @ Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scripps Senior Theses by an authorized administrator of Scholarship @ Claremont. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A FEMINIST EPISTEMOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK: PREVENTING KNOWLEDGE DISTORTIONS IN SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY by KARINA MARTINS BUCCIARELLI SUBMITTED TO SCRIPPS COLLEGE IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS PROFESSOR SUSAN CASTAGNETTO PROFESSOR RIMA BASU APRIL 26, 2019 Bucciarelli 2 Acknowledgements First off, I would like to thank my wonderful family for supporting me every step of the way. Mamãe e Papai, obrigada pelo amor e carinho, mil telefonemas, conversas e risadas. Obrigada por não só proporcionar essa educação incrível, mas também me dar um exemplo de como viver. Rafa, thanks for the jokes, the editing help and the spontaneous phone calls. Bela, thank you for the endless time you give to me, for your patience and for your support (even through WhatsApp audios). To my dear friends, thank you for the late study nights, the wild dance parties, the laughs and the endless support.
    [Show full text]
  • Principles of Scientific Inquiry
    Chapter 2 PRINCIPLES OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY Introduction This chapter provides a summary of the principles of scientific inquiry. The purpose is to explain terminology, and introduce concepts, which are explained more completely in later chapters. Much of the content has been based on explanations and examples given by Wilson (1). The Scientific Method Although most of us have heard, at some time in our careers, that research must be carried out according to “the scientific method”, there is no single, scientific method. The term is usually used to mean a systematic approach to solving a problem in science. Three types of investigation, or method, can be recognized: · The Observational Method · The Experimental (and quasi-experimental) Methods, and · The Survey Method. The observational method is most common in the natural sciences, especially in fields such as biology, geology and environmental science. It involves recording observations according to a plan, which prescribes what information to collect, where it should be sought, and how it should be recorded. In the observational method, the researcher does not control any of the variables. In fact, it is important that the research be carried out in such a manner that the investigations do not change the behaviour of what is being observed. Errors introduced as a result of observing a phenomenon are known as systematic errors because they apply to all observations. Once a valid statistical sample (see Chapter Four) of observations has been recorded, the researcher analyzes and interprets the data, and develops a theory or hypothesis, which explains the observations. The experimental method begins with a hypothesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Experiential & Inquiry-Based Learning with Youth in Non-Formal Settings
    Working with youth in non-formal settings ensuring rich enrichment Experiential & Inquiry-based Learning with Youth in Non-formal Settings 4-H Science learning for youth can be deepened by building inquiry-based learning methods into programs and curricula. For over two decades of educational reform, science education has focused on inquiry as a method for learning and doing natural science in formal classrooms. When used to make sense of the natural world from within the discipline of science, inquiry-based learning is ‘scientific inquiry. ’ Non-formal program designers and practitioners are faced with decisions about which scientific inquiry methods to transfer from the formal classroom to the non-formal setting, which methods to adapt to better fit the non-formal learning needs of youth, and how to best prepare adults to facilitate scientific inquiry with youth. Why is this thinking important to 4-H staff and volunteers? Evaluation results indicate that inquiry-based methods support youth in Key Concepts their learning. Minner et al (2010) reviewed 138 evaluation studies and found that inquiry-based approaches in the science, engineering, technology ,and math Experiential learning: content areas had the largest effect sizes, or made the greatest positive Constructing learning through hands-on experiences that are difference, when there was an emphasis on active learning and involvement in highly social in nature. the investigative process (asking questions, designing investigations, collecting data, drawing conclusions, communicating findings). Hands-on experiences with Inquiry-based learning: Constructing learning through natural phenomena were also found to be associated with increased conceptual hands-on experiences that provide learning in the science content investigated.
    [Show full text]
  • The Stoics and the Practical: a Roman Reply to Aristotle
    DePaul University Via Sapientiae College of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences Theses and Dissertations College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences 8-2013 The Stoics and the practical: a Roman reply to Aristotle Robin Weiss DePaul University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/etd Recommended Citation Weiss, Robin, "The Stoics and the practical: a Roman reply to Aristotle" (2013). College of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences Theses and Dissertations. 143. https://via.library.depaul.edu/etd/143 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in College of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE STOICS AND THE PRACTICAL: A ROMAN REPLY TO ARISTOTLE A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy August, 2013 BY Robin Weiss Department of Philosophy College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences DePaul University Chicago, IL - TABLE OF CONTENTS - Introduction……………………..............................................................................................................p.i Chapter One: Practical Knowledge and its Others Technê and Natural Philosophy…………………………….....……..……………………………….....p. 1 Virtue and technical expertise conflated – subsequently distinguished in Plato – ethical knowledge contrasted with that of nature in
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Hume's Problem of Induction 1748 - Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding
    1740 - Treatise of Human Nature Notes on Hume's Problem of Induction 1748 - Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding Recall: Subject of confirmation = How scientific claims are justified. This assumes that they are capable of justification in the first place. Hume asks: Is there a rational basis for inductive inferences? Hume response: No! Consequence: To the extent that scientific claims are based on inductive inferences, they cannot be justified. Example: All observed ravens are black. Hume asks, Can we ever be justified in believing the conclusion? All ravens are black. Two types of objects of knowledge, according to Hume (I) Relations of ideas = Products of deductive (truth-preserving) Ex: 2 + 2 = 4 inferences; negation entails a contradiction. (II) Matters of fact = Products of inductive inferences; negation does Ex: All ravens are black. not entail a contradiction. Outline of Hume's Argument (1) Matters of fact can only be known through experience ("a posteriori"). (2) Therefore matters of fact can only be justified by recourse to experience. (3) But any attempt to do so is circular. ∴ There is no justification for inductive inferences. ASIDE 1. Hume is not just saying that we can never be certain about inductive inferences (i.e., we can never be 100% certain that all ravens are black). This would be uncontentious: Most people would agree that there's always room for error in making an inductive inference. However, most people would at the same time claim that we are justified in making (some) inductive inferences, even though they aren't 100% guaranteed to work (i.e., we think there are standards by which we can judge good inductive inferences from bad ones).
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Philosophy
    An Introduction to Philosophy W. Russ Payne Bellevue College Copyright (cc by nc 4.0) 2015 W. Russ Payne Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document with attribution under the terms of Creative Commons: Attribution Noncommercial 4.0 International or any later version of this license. A copy of the license is found at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ 1 Contents Introduction ………………………………………………. 3 Chapter 1: What Philosophy Is ………………………….. 5 Chapter 2: How to do Philosophy ………………….……. 11 Chapter 3: Ancient Philosophy ………………….………. 23 Chapter 4: Rationalism ………….………………….……. 38 Chapter 5: Empiricism …………………………………… 50 Chapter 6: Philosophy of Science ………………….…..… 58 Chapter 7: Philosophy of Mind …………………….……. 72 Chapter 8: Love and Happiness …………………….……. 79 Chapter 9: Meta Ethics …………………………………… 94 Chapter 10: Right Action ……………………...…………. 108 Chapter 11: Social Justice …………………………...…… 120 2 Introduction The goal of this text is to present philosophy to newcomers as a living discipline with historical roots. While a few early chapters are historically organized, my goal in the historical chapters is to trace a developmental progression of thought that introduces basic philosophical methods and frames issues that remain relevant today. Later chapters are topically organized. These include philosophy of science and philosophy of mind, areas where philosophy has shown dramatic recent progress. This text concludes with four chapters on ethics, broadly construed. I cover traditional theories of right action in the third of these. Students are first invited first to think about what is good for themselves and their relationships in a chapter of love and happiness. Next a few meta-ethical issues are considered; namely, whether they are moral truths and if so what makes them so.
    [Show full text]
  • REMAKING of JEWISH SOCIALITY in CONTEMPORARY POLAND: HAUNTING LEGACIES, GLOBAL CONNECTIONS. a Thesis Submitted to the University
    REMAKING OF JEWISH SOCIALITY IN CONTEMPORARY POLAND: HAUNTING LEGACIES, GLOBAL CONNECTIONS. A thesis submitted to The University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in the Faculty of Humanities. 2013 JAN LORENZ SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES List of contents Abstract 3 Declaration 4 Copyright statement 4 Acknowledgements 5 PART I Chapter 1 Introduction 7 Chapter 2 Framing the research. Methodology and visual media 38 Chapter 3 Film and ethnography 54 PART II Chapter 4 The haunting 73 Chapter 5 Belonging 111 Chapter 6 Gmina 151 Chapter 7 Interzone 172 Chapter 8 Becoming 203 Chapter 9 Conclusions 222 Bibliography 230 Word count: 87 797 2 Abstract The University of Manchester Jan Lorenz PhD in Social Anthropology with Visual Media “Remaking Jewish sociality in contemporary Poland: haunting legacies, global connections.” 2013 The Holocaust and post-war anti-Semitism-propelled migration changed the face of Poland, a country that for centuries has been the heartland of the Jewish diaspora. Remnants of the Polish Jewry that did not emigrate, regardless of whether they considered themselves Poles, Poles of Jewish descent or Polish Jews, often felt fearful about speaking of their ancestry, let alone acting upon it. Jewish organizations and social life did not disappear, but religious congregations in particular gradually diminished in number and activity. Post-socialist Poland has become an arena of profound transformation of Jewish communal life, fostered by stakeholders with distinct agendas and resources: empowered and politically emancipated Jewish Religious Communities, now-marginalized secular organizations of the communist era, a nascent generation of Polish Jewish activists and volunteers, and transnational Jewish non-governmental organizations.
    [Show full text]
  • Turns in the Evolution of the Problem of Induction*
    CARL G. HEMPEL TURNS IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM OF INDUCTION* 1. THE STANDARD CONCEPTION: INDUCTIVE "INFERENCE" Since the days of Hume's skeptical doubt, philosophical conceptions of the problem of induction and of ways in which it might be properly solved or dissolved have undergone a series of striking metamor- phoses. In my paper, I propose to examine some of those turnings, which seem to me to raise particularly important questions about the nature of empirical knowledge and especially scientific knowledge. Many, but by no means all, of the statements asserted by empirical science at a given time are accepted on the basis of previously established evidence sentences. Hume's skeptical doubt reflects the realization that most of those indirectly, or inferentially, accepted assertions rest on evidence that gives them no complete, no logically conclusive, support. This is, of course, the point of Hume's obser- vation that even if we have examined many occurrences of A and have found them all to be accompanied by B, it is quite conceivable, or logically possible, that some future occurrence of A might not be accompanied by B. Nor, we might add, does our evidence guarantee that past or present occurrences of A that we have not observed were- or are- accompanied by B, let alone that all occurrences ever of A are, without exception, accompanied by B. Yet, in our everyday pursuits as well as in scientific research we constantly rely on what I will call the method of inductive ac- ceptance, or MIA for short: we adopt beliefs, or expectations, about empirical matters on logically incomplete evidence, and we even base our actions on such beliefs- to the point of staking our lives on some of them.
    [Show full text]
  • The Inquiry Wheel, an Alternative to the Scientific Method. a View of The
    Chemical Education Today Reports from Other Journals The Inquiry Wheel, an Alternative to the Scientific Method A View of the Science Education Research Literature by William R. Robinson For many years I have felt that the scientific method as entific inquiry emerged and led to the description of the presented in many textbooks was not how my colleagues in inquiry wheel illustrated in Figure 1 and discussed below. chemistry did research. Even so, when I wrote a general However, before we look at the inquiry wheel, I think chemistry text I was told to put in a description of the sci- it worth noting that the majority of the scientists interviewed entific method because it was expected. Now, Reiff, (38 of 52) identified the most important aspect of an in- Harwood, and Phillipson have developed a more satisfac- vestigation as being literature based. To them a worthwhile tory model of scientific inquiry, the inquiry wheel, based on investigation was one that crossed the boundary from the information gathered from practicing scientists. This model known to the unknown and a knowledge of the literature is described in their paper “A Scientific Method Based upon is important in identifying that boundary. Research Scientists’ Conceptions of Scientific Inquiry” (1) based on interview data described in “Scientists’ Concep- Stages of Scientific Inquiry tions of Scientific Inquiry: Voices from the Front” (2). As a result of their interviews (2), the investigators de- The informants in this research were 52 science faculty scribe the process used by scientists as they pursue research members in nine science departments (anthropology, biol- as a wheel with questions at the hub and various stages of ogy, chemistry, geography, geology, medical sciences, physics, the inquiry in a circular arrangement around the hub (1).
    [Show full text]
  • SCIENTIFIC METHOD NOTES Modern Scientific Inquiry Or Science
    SCIENTIFIC METHOD NOTES Modern scientific inquiry or science (from scientia , Latin for knowledge) is generally attributed to the historical contributions of Galileo Galilei and Roger Bacon. However, some historians believe that their practices were inspired by earlier Islamic tradition. In spite of the rich human tradition of scientific inquiry, today there is no single or universal method of performing science. According to the National Science Teachers Association, science is “characterized by the systematic gathering of information through various forms of direct and indirect observations and the testing of this information by methods including, but not limited to, experimentation.” Although this definition is helpful in explaining the process of science, it does not specify a list of experimental steps that one should logically progress through to perform an experiment. (An experiment can be defined as an organized series of steps used to test a probable solution to a problem, commonly called a hypothesis.) Despite the absence of a standard scientific method, there is a generally agreed upon model that describes how science operates. Steps of the Scientific Method 1. State the problem: What is the problem? This is typically stated in a question format. EXAMPLE: Will taking one aspirin per day for 60 days decrease blood pressure in females ages 12-14? 2. Research the problem: The researcher will typically gather information on the problem. They may read accounts and journals on the subject, or be involved in communications with other scientists. EXAMPLE: Some people relate stories to doctors that they feel relief from high blood pressure after taking one aspirin per day.
    [Show full text]
  • Ritual Year 8 Migrations
    Institute of Ethnology and Folklore Studies with Ethnographic Museum at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences — SIEF Working Group on The Ritual Year Edited by Dobrinka Parusheva and Lina Gergova Sofia • 2014 THE RITUAL YEAR 8 MIGRATIONS The Yearbook of the SIEF Working Group on The Ritual Year Sofia, IEFSEM-BAS, 2014 Peer reviewed articles based on the presentations of the conference in Plovdiv, Bulgaria, 26-29 June 2012 General Editor: Emily Lyle Editors for this issue: Dobrinka Parusheva and Lina Gergova Language editors: Jenny Butler, Molly Carter, Cozette Griffin-Kremer, John Helsloot, Emily Lyle, Neill Martin, Nancy McEntire, David Stanley, Elizabeth Warner Design and layout: Yana Gergova Advisory board: Maria Teresa Agozzino, Marion Bowman, Jenny Butler, Molly Carter, Kinga Gáspár, Evy Håland, Aado Lintrop, Neill Martin, Lina Midholm, Tatiana Minniyakhmetova, David Stanley, Elizabeth Warner The Yearbook is established in 2011 by merging former periodicals dedicated to the study of the Ritual Year: Proceedings of the (5 volumes in 2005–2011). Published by the Institute of Ethnology and Folklore Studies with Ethnographic Museum at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences ISSN 2228-1347 © Authors © Dobrinka Parusheva & Lina Gergova, editors © Yana Gergova, design and layout © SIEF Working Group on The Ritual Year © IEFSEM-BAS CONTENTS Foreword 9 THE SEED-STORE OF THE YEAR Emily Lyle 15 MODERN SPORTS AWARDS CEREMONIES – A GENEALOGICAL ANALYSIS Grigor Har. Grigorov 27 THE RITUAL OF CHANGE IN A REMOTE AREA: CONTEMPORARY ARTS AND THE RENEWAL OF A
    [Show full text]