Natural+Sciences

The Nature of Natural Sciences
 * Are there any assumptions made about what can be understood and explained in the article about Life in the Universe? If so, what does this imply about natural sciences as an area of knowledge?


 * 1) Life exists/does not exist elsewhere in the universe

The Methods of Gaining Knowledge in the Natural Sciences > List which other areas of knowing also use these methods. > Can you then explain why knowledge in the natural sciences is considered more valid than in other areas of knowing. For example, how is biology different from the studies in evolutionary biology?  The Natural Sciences and Knowledge Claims
 * Are there similarities and differences in methods used in the natural sciences in comparison with those used in other areas of knowing? List some of the ways we gain knowledge in the natural sciences. What types are referred to in the article on Life in the Universe?
 * 1) Methods used in the natural sciences are all empirical based. for example, the article mentions them observing the stars on earth with telescopes, and more recently, they sent out the kepler for more accurate and rel
 * Do the entities in scientists’ explanatory models and theories (for example, Higgs bosons, selfish genes) actually exist, or are they primarily useful inventions for predicting and controlling the natural world? How do these explanations influence public perception and understanding of science in explanations of reality? And yet, if they are only fictions, how can they create such accurate predictions in many cases?

Natural Sciences and Values 
 * It has been argued that certain discoveries (such as quantum mechanics, chaos theory, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, Einstein's theory of relativity, Darwin's theory of evolution) have had major implications for knowledge outside their immediate field. Why is it that science has the power to inform thinking in other areas of knowledge such as philosophy and religion? To what extent should philosophy and religion take careful note of scientific developments?
 * 1) Trick Q science does not influence values
 * 2) Science is a field that strives for concrete evidence
 * 3) Values are based on belief
 * 4) Increased the value of empirical knowledge
 * 5) Science has caused paradigms and shifts which changed values

Natural Sciences and Technology
 * Is scientific knowledge valued more for its own sake or for the technology that it makes possible? Is there any science that can be pursued without the use of technology? What is the role of technology in developing understanding in the natural sciences and in the study of Life in the Universe?

Natural sciences: Metaphor and reality 
 * Does scientific language and vocabulary have primarily a descriptive or an interpretative function? Consider here expressions such as “artificial intelligence”, “electric current”, “natural selection” and “concentration gradient” or "evolution of intelligence".

According to the Oxford American Dictionary, a hypothesis is "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation". Taking into account that scientists base and rely their knowledge on empirical information, a hypothesis is useless unless one does something with it, or "further investigates". The hypothesis alone is worthless if it is not supported with evidence for or against it.
 * To What Extent Do Scientists Rely On Either Confirming Or Falsifying a Hypothesis? Is Either Matter Ever Straightforward? What Does This Tell Us About the Nature Of Scientific Endeavour?**

**Natural Science Questions**
- Are factual information more important(more valuable) than Hypothetical? - Can we gain useful knowledge from historical knowledge claims? - Historical knowledge claims cannot be 100% true, so why do we rely on them for answers? - Why is it so important to know where we came from - Historical: Discovery of evidence, based on documented evidence - Scientific: Creation of evidence
 * How different are the knowledge claims of those disciplines that are primarily historical, such as evolutionary biology, cosmology, geology and paleontology, from those that are primarily experimental, such as physics and chemistry?**

**What kinds of explanations do scientists offer, and how do these explanations compare with those offered in other areas of knowledge? What are the differences between theories and myths as forms of explanation?** - In this day and age, people trust and value factual information rather than theoretical - Myths can guide people, but facts lead them - Those listed above are attempts to provide answers, why is it so important? - Scientists come up with questions, not only explanations - Myths: based on unanswered questions, stories, legends, ideas that have not been proven, based on common belief - Explanations in science: rely more on evidence, form theories, explanations lead to more questions, theories well thought of/ well established - Explanations in AOK: some are based on perspective, pleasure, expression 