1. What is Inquiry in the Natural World”?

3. What is a “physical object”?

4. What are physical objects made of?

5. Aristotle (384 – 322 BC) http://www.chem.uidaho.edu/~honors/history.html

7. Another early idea: “atomism” Leucippus & Democritus (~ 500 BC) John Dalton, 1808. A New System of Chemistry

8. http://snobear.colorado.edu/Markw /SnowHydro/mol.html The quantum physics model of matter

9. How easy is it to measure physical objects?

10. What can’t we see?

11. Modern instruments have greatly extended our detection abilities

15. Why do physical objects behave the way they do?

16. Anthropomorphic explanation

17. Mechanistic explanation

18. Can we make predictions about the natural world?

19. Given a knowledge of the “laws” of physics, can you predict what will happen if I drop this ball? Given a knowledge of the “laws” of physics, can you predict what will happen if I drop this ball?

20. Do the results support your prediction? Do the results support your prediction?

21. Chaos Theory Chaos Theory

22. Types of Inquiry

23. Curiosity

24. Curiosity-driven science Basic or “pure” often leads to surprisingly practical discoveries

25. Problem Solving

26. Problem-solving science Applied or “practical” Gives us power over the natural world http://www.colostate.edu/programs/lifesciences/TrangenicCrops

27. How do we investigate the natural world?

28. Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626) if we understand nature we can dominate it Questioned authority Emphasis on incompleteness of knowledge Proposed a new method of studying nature observation over philosophical speculation

29. Hypothetico-deductive scientific method

30. Step 1: Observations

31. The “Where’s Waldo” problem

32. Step 1b: look for a general pattern This step uses a process called Inductive Reasoning ~ in which we develop a rule based on many individual examples

33. Step 2: Think up explanations (hypotheses) for the patterns observed 3. is generally applicable A useful hypothesis: 1. leads to accurate predictions 2. is as simple as possible

34. Step 3: Make a testable prediction This step uses a process called Deductive reasoning ~ in which we use the rules of logic to generate a prediction

35. Step 4: Make observations or do experiments to test our explanations

36. How can you tell if someone is a Witch?

37. A Witch! A Witch! We’ve got a Witch

38. What’s the general pattern here?

39. If she looks like a Witch and acts like a Witch she is a Witch - Nose like a Witch - Hat like a Witch - Wart like a Witch -Turned someone into a newt Must be a Witch!

40. What do you do with Witches? Burn them!

41. What do you burn other than Witches? Wood

42. Why do Witches burn? Because they’re made of wood? How can you tell she is made of wood? Build a bridge out of her

43. But can’t you also build bridges out of stone? Oh Yeah!

44. Does wood sink in water? It Floats Throw her in the pond

45. What else floats? Bread! Apples! Very small rocks! Gravy! A Duck Cider! Cherries! Mud! Churches! Lead!

46. So, logically... If she weighs the same as a duck She’s made of wood And therefore... SHE’S A WITCH!

47. Bring my large scales She DOES weigh the same as a duck SHE’S A WITCH!

48.  Witch  Wood Witch  burns Wood  burns -------------------------------

49.  Duck  Wood Wood  Floats Duck  Floats ------------------------------

50. Duck  Wood Girl’s weight  Duck’s weight Witch  Wood Girl  Wood ------------------------------  Girl  Wood ---------------------------------  Girl  Witch

51. William of Ockham (1280 – 1347) “ Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate” Translation  Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily Ockham’s Razor “keep it simple”

52. Description of Motion of Planets around the Sun

53. Two Competing Models with Different Predictions

54. Kepler - elliptical Shape of Planetary Orbits Copernicus - circular

55. More accurate prediction is “better” Perform Experiment

56. Two Competing Models with the Same Predictions

57. Model # 1 Planets move around sun in ellipses

58. decreases as the square of the distance force between them and the sun

59. Model # 2 Planets move around sun in ellipses

60. decreases as the square of the distance force between them and the sun

61. Model # 2 Force is generated by will of powerful aliens

62. Models # 1 and # 2 Force between planets and sun determines motion of planets

63. Models # 1 and # 2 same type of force

64. Models # 1 and # 2 predicted motion of planets identical for both Models

65. Model # 2 has additional baggage (the will of aliens) that is unnecessary for description of system

66. Ockham’s Razor reject’s 2 nd model

67. motion of planets can be explained by simple idea of force Solar system may be permeated by alien intellect BUT no evidence of alien’s presence nor their absence

68. It does not guarantee that the simplest model is correct, it merely establishes priorities Application of Ockham’s Razor directs us to look to simplest model

69. Scientific Theories keep changing so where is the Truth?

70. Newton & Theory of Gravitation Newton’s theory “The Truth” 1666 – explained all the observed facts Predictions later tested and found correct to within accuracy of instruments used

71. Einstein & Theories of Relativity 19th century – more accurate instruments Slight discrepancies in Newton’s theories Einstein’s theory explained newly observed facts Found to be correct with accuracy of instruments used Einstein’s theory “The Truth”

72. Has the Truth changed? Theories can be shown to be incomplete No it hasn’t - Universe is still the same “Truth” means it agrees with all known experimental evidence

73. New Theories Devour and assimilate its predecessors Explain old and new data

74. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr. Ted Georgian for the use of a number of his slides and especially his idea to use Monty Python as a humorous example of the scientific method