1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
Scientists start with observations and then make a HYPOTHESIS (a guess), which show the why their data and results are correct. They must use CONTROLS which are QUANTITATIVE (based on values and figures, not emotions). Science needs both ideas (the hypothesis) and facts (the qualitative results). They examine their data and develop newer ideas. Then they have more observation and refinement of their hypotheses. There is an evolution for every idea... (1) Hypothesis (something that uses a few observations) People want to risk their lives because they need a Rite of passage the send A themselves on, walkabout, vision quest, I can give religious/transcendant experiences with machines and fire, to witness their mortality To feel alive (2) Theory (something that uses many observations, it can also use additional, unrelated facts and new relationships) OBSERVATIONS: How to get people to go on their own journies. How to get people to run machines? What to build? How to build each machine? What will it do to audience who experience show? What is art? How can I present__________ experience to the audience? How would they respond? What I want for outcome/Results: I can change the world/make it better an outcome of machine/human interaction To give volunteers Transcendant experiences. To send them on their path. To give them a completely new experience. Science with emotion 3) Principle or Law (stands the test of time, is proven over and over, can create true predictions for different situations, has uniformity and is universal) man needs this to grow or he dies. What is the ``scientific method''? The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this: (2) Observe some aspect of the universe. Life has become sedentary, lame, boring……. People want intense transcendant experiences, they want to feel alive. (3) Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed. I give these experiences to them. (4) Use the hypothesis to make predictions. I will change them. helping our planet along Hypothesis is always changing cuz results always vary (5) Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results. Each show/tour/new machine (6) Keep building new "tests", (Machines) (7) Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation. OK When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made. A frequent criticism made of the scientific method is that it cannot accommodate anything that has not been proved. The argument then points out that many things thought to be impossible in the past are now everyday realities. This criticism is based on a misinterpretation of the scientific method. When a hypothesis passes the test it is adopted as a theory it correctly explains a range of phenomena it can, at any time, be falsified by new experimental evidence. When exploring a new set or phenomena scientists do use existing theories but, since this is a new area of investigation, it is always kept in mind that the old theories might fail to explain the new experiments and observations. In this case new hypotheses are devised and tested until a new theory emerges. There are many types of ``pseudo-scientific'' theories which wrap themselves in a mantle of apparent experimental evidence but that, when examined closely, are nothing but statements of faith. The argument , cited by some creationists, that science is just another kind of faith is a philosophic stance which ignores the trans-cultural nature of science. Science's theory of gravity explains why both creationists and scientists don't float off the earth. All you have to do is jump to verify this theory - no leap of faith required. http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node8.html (1) Observe some aspect of the universe. People want AND NEED intense transcendant experiences, they want AND NEED to feel alive. (2) Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed. People want to risk their lives because they need a Rite of passage they send THEMSELVES on, walkabout, vision quest, I can give religious/transcendant/EMOTIONAL/INTELLECTUUAL experiences with machines and fire, to witness their mortality To feel alive. I give these experiences to them (4) Use the hypothesis to make predictions. This art helps people, fulfills something in them I will change them. helping our planet along Hypothesis is always changing cuz results always vary ? (5) Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results. Each show/tour/new machine (6) Keep building new "tests", (Machines) (8) Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation. OK I need consistency How are my data and results correct ? observations are explained and predictions are made I need to explain a class of phenomena a way to combine Arts and Sciences - true Alchemy. metaphysics - the knowlege of what we don't know, the knowledge of the other world. the knowledge of what we have forgotten, the knowledge of the former world artists should face the fact that the objects they create are a kind of experiment that will lead to much greater opportunities Science in the 20th century has been much influenced by the ideas of the Austrian philosopher, Karl Popper. Popper argues that a scientific idea can never be proven true, because no matter how many observations seem to agree with it, it may still be wrong. On the other hand, a single contrary experiment can prove a theory forever false. Therefore, science advances only by demonstrating that theories are false, so that they must be replaced by better ones. The proponents of Cold Fusion took exactly the opposite view: many experiments, including their own, failed to yield the expected results. These were irrelevant, they argued, incompetently done, or lacking some crucial (perhaps unknown) ingredient needed to make the thing work.
|