In the scientific community, there is discourse about what truly happened to the dinosaurs. On one side there are scientists who believe that a meteor killed all of the dinosaurs, dubbed the asteroid impact theory, and on the other, there are scientists who believe that volcanic eruptions from the Deccan plateau in India wiped out the dinosaurs. This is a case in which the scientific method has been applied to both sides of the argument, but both reach different conclusions, which spurs argument and debate.

The problem with reaching a conclusion is that both conclusions that are reached by each theory are strongly supported by facts and evidence. On one hand, you have the asteroid impact theory, which came around due to a scientist noticing iridium scattered throughout the world, and on the other, there is the Deccan volcanism theory, which relies on ancient plants and fossils to show what happened to the dinosaurs. Both of these theories have started with an observation and created hypotheses based on both situations. This is problematic because results from each theory conclude that one theory or the other both happened, but that can’t be the case. It is even extremely difficult to pin down a duration of time that the dinosaurs were going extinct. If it were a more instant event, it would support the asteroid impact theory, but if it were over thousands of years, it would support the Deccan volcano theory. This goes to show that even though we keep coming up with new experiments and new data to support either side using the scientific method, it is absolutely possible that we will not reach a conclusion. What this means is that using the scientific method is much more complicated than creating a hypothesis based on evidence and that one truth that is heavily supported by fact and evidence may not even be the only one that is supported to such a degree.

(I will be commenting on the reading on page 34-38 and how it relates to my personal experience in science, as I was absent from the last lesson on Friday.)

In the reading, I found the analogy that Feynman used to be both interesting and accurate to how we approach science. The analogy that he used was that science is like a “great chess game” and we, as observers of the game, are only able to understand everything in our world and the universe once we know the rules of the game. I found this accurate to my own personal experiences with science, as we often do experiments in all 3 areas, biology, chemistry, and physics. I occasionally find myself unable to come up with an explanation for something that is happening in an experiment. However, once I finally understand why something happens, and know that what happens is a constant and will happen every time I do the experiment, I will be able to have an understanding of it, hence finding the “rules” of the experiment.

I also resonated with the idea that in order for something to be proven in science, there must be experimental data to prove it, meaning that it is completely objective as opposed to subjective. I resonated with this because this is one of the reasons that I find science so interesting because there can be cases where for years and years it is possible for the general public to believe a fact, but as soon as someone collects new, contradictory experimental data, it is possible for an entire idea to change. The example that the book used is that for hundreds of years, people believed that the earth is flat. Of course, eventually, people found new ways to collect data on the earth and concluded that the earth must be round.

3 Conceptual understandings

Valid scientific knowledge utilizes a hypothesis supported by reason and data in order to approach understanding

Science uses deductive reasoning in order to create laws which attempt to arrive at a truth.

Laws in science are not always compatible with the truth, which is why we create new hypotheses in order to improve the laws.

The first thing I noticed while reading the two articles is the hooks for each one were both personal examples. What differentiated them from each other was the stronger one related it closely to their thesis and also posed questions that they would try to answer in the rest of the essay. The stronger one also clearly stated what they would go through in their essay in their thesis statement, while the more mediocre one kind of gives the thesis as a thought rather than a full, clear thesis which I think makes it much weaker as a whole, because it is harder to relate your essay back to a thesis if the thesis isn’t that strong.

In the body paragraphs, the stronger essay seems like it may be going on a tangent with some of the examples but always ties it back to the thesis. The weaker essay tries to do this, but goes off on a bit of a tangent with some of the examples and doesn’t relate it back to the topic sentence or the thesis. Some of the language used in the weaker essay doesn’t seem articulated and seems like the writer was kind of thinking it through as they went along, while the stronger essay was able to connect everything together and have a strong structure they followed. The stronger essay also not only has a personal example at the beginning but also has personal examples throughout the essay.

It seems like the best way to write an essay would be to have a clear structure, both very personal examples and well-researched examples, tie everything back to topic statements, and a very clear and defined thesis above all.

I think that out of my IB subjects, math and physics have the most justified knowledge because both of them are deeply rooted in logic. Math is for the most part, solely logic-based, and everything can be proven. Physics is also very logical, and also uses a lot of math, but physics is also at a more basic level rooted in sense perception, as when we see something happen in an experiment, we try to make sense of it using equipment and logic. The only thing that I would say is unjustified with physics is the theoretical side of it, as none of that has been proven and we currently have no means to prove the theories generated in theoretical physics. Both of these are also very absolute and hard to challenge rather than subjective, although there are those out there who do decide to challenge it.

I think that out of my IB subjects, English and PSE have the least justified knowledge. Both subjects are very subjective and vary from person to person. For English, it is largely based on an individual’s perception of a text, which lets them form an opinion, which can vary due to different values, faiths, and intuition. PSE is similar as it is more individual-based and relies on emotion. PSE is also focused on things like value judgment and how we are different from one another, making it not very absolute in my opinion.