STS Exercise and Reflection: Scientific Method, Science and Postnormal Science

STS Exercise and Reflection for Sections THX (TTH 2:30 to 4:00) and WFX (WF 2:30 to 4:00)

Due to the holidays this week and in order to note waste time. Watch the following videos on the: scientific method; Citizen Science, Pseudo- Science and Postnormal Science. Watch all videos in sequence. Take some break in-between the videos. Reflect on the issues and topics that were discussed. Try answering the question how does this discussions influence you? As a group leave your concise reflection on this blog post.

Scientific Method Songs

The Scientific Method is Crap

The Awesome Power of Citizen Science

The citizen science revolution | Leesa Ricci | TEDxSUU

SCIENCE AND POSTNORMAL SCIENCE

Karl Popper, Science, and Pseudoscience: Crash Course Philosophy

Calling Science Pseudoscience by Babette Babich

Part2
Part3
Part4

Postnormal Science

Daniel Sarewitz – “We have always been post-normal”

This entry was posted in STS and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to STS Exercise and Reflection: Scientific Method, Science and Postnormal Science

  1. Jamie Mayo says:

    STS WFX Group 9
    Science is not as scary as people make it to be. Everyone can “take part.” Before, scientific method was all we were introduced to. However, one of the videos make a good point in refuting it based on several reasons, but one that we most agree with would be that it is linear. We are obsessed with conclusion, we fail to see, sometimes, the purpose of the discovery. But again, science is, as we gathered, now the continual questioning and providing answers to what they can, what we see is that it prevents blind or passive acceptance.

  2. Christine Felizardo says:

    STS WFX Group 17

    In elementary and high school, we were taught about the scientific method, which is a way to solve a discovered problem through experimentation and research. However, science is not like that – it’s not linear and it doesn’t stop at finding the answer. From one answer sprouts many more questions, all of which needed to be addressed. Science, then, is a continuous process of learning. The scientific method perhaps should be modified as a cycle. Given that, one doesn’t need to be a scientist by profession to contribute to or learn about science.

  3. Alvin Carandang, Jr. says:

    STS WFX Group 11

    Almost all of us in the group are more familiar with the linear scientific method due to early education, but everyone agrees that its cyclic alternative is more effective due to its adaptability and openness to real-world contingencies. We also support the citizen science advocacy which makes scientific research much more accessible to the public. Lastly, it’s time that the world gets rid of the notion of rigid and fixed scientific facts, elevating our framework to an ever-changing and dynamic universe.

  4. Group V (THX) says:

    STS 1: Group V (THX)

    Scientific Method

    It’s amazing how technology makes knowledge dissemination fast and efficient. The convenience of technology assists the distribution of information to reach farther and wider audiences. A dreaded topic on the understanding of science, for example, is easily understood if expressed in a way people can relate to via popular culture. Scientific method can be learned so quickly with the help of rap music, 1) identify a problem 2) do some research 3) form a hypothesis 4) do an experiment 5) analyze data and 6) draw a conclusion. These steps were preserved through generations and were thought to be an unchangeable fact. Now, because of these discussions, we were mind blown that on the thought that scientific method was actually limiting the progress of science. Our big mistake was, probably, never asking why. We were only accepting everything as facts and never actually asked why they were considered as such.

    But why is it that the songs posted for scientific method are both rap? Even the songs about science and technology that we have already listened to, most of them are in rap. But hey, there’s nothing wrong with rap. In my opinion amateur raps are the easiest song to make since you don’t have to deeply think of its melody. The problem is that the songs made for science and technology in general feel like amateur or unearned. Once we listened to it, we’ll surely forget about it on the next day. Yes, there’s the childish animation and on the other video, there are scientist dressed in stereotypical look of a scientist and around them are the kids. Maybe the posted videos are catered for kids. We don’t really understand why Teman Crooke hates the scientific method. Yes, maybe the book definition of scientific method suggests a linear flow between the processes of scientific methods however, we pretty sure that every scientist knows that scientific method is actually an iterative process. Citizen science is definitely a very promising approach of dealing with computational hard problems, as long as the citizen scientists don’t sabotage the data gathering. The problem however with citizen science is that it is not realizable on other fields of science, especially math.

    As mentioned above, the songs created for scientific method although presents a creative idea on teaching it, are too mediocre especially for kids, even though these are supposedly catered to them. Children would not be able to easily remember all those facts even through rap because they weren’t that catchy and their tunes weren’t easy to sing along to; which is why we think that even though the idea of making songs on scientific method if executed properly would really be beneficial in learning the subject, however, these two songs particularly didn’t do so. Regarding Teman Crookes’ opinion on scientific method, we can’t say that we totally agree with him. Although he presented some points where the scientific method was lacking and presented an alternative method, we don’t think that they are sufficient to actually call it crap. Yes, scientific method is not the perfect way to do science; however, we believe it is its core. It might not be mentioned in the songs about scientific method, but even grade schoolers were taught that from your drawn conclusion, you would still ask questions about it regarding your experiment which makes it intuitive as opposed to what he said.

    Science and Pseudoscience

    Karl Popper provided us with a framework of what a scientific study should be – in order to seek the true answers for our questions and to prove our beliefs. A scientific theory should seek to disconfirm a thing; allows risky predictions; should be refutable; and eventually, a scientist must be willing to give up his/her theory if evidences won’t adhere. However, Popper comforted us by saying that we should not be discouraged even if we come across false beliefs, what’s important is that it should lead us to pursue the discovery of the truth.

    On the other hand, even though Popper discredited Freud’s method and probably his field which is psychology, we must not fully close our perception on social sciences. Like sociology, they also use empirical data to test their theories and are equally important in the pursuit of knowledge of truth, and they perhaps play a role that natural sciences don’t provide.

    It was a preconceived notion that science is mostly, if not always, right and thus must be believed for. But the science that people know and that most believe in must not be limited with the discoveries in pure sciences such as that of Einstein’s. Sometimes, phenomena can be explained with social issues as well. This is why both sides must be considered, which in the concept of pseudoscience, it tries to separate the two fields. But it must be known that science is not absolute.

    Postnormal Science

    Ever since we’re in elementary school, we were taught that everything related to science can be explained by theories and laws of nature such as Newton’s Law on gravity and Inertia. However, after watching the set of the videos, we were convinced that some phenomena are not capable of being answered by any professional (surgeons & senior engineers). This is where post-normal science takes into place where facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes are high and decisions urgent.

    Nowadays, there are increasing numbers of extended peer communities to be able to have a consensus on a particular issue that is very evident in college organizations. Post-normal sciences aren’t achieved by scientists or anyone with higher degree. It now involves extension of peer communities to be part of the decision-making and implementation on health and environmental issues. These are definitely remarkable as people are more getting involved and voice out their opinions via internet, surveys and blogs.

  5. jazzmaniri says:

    STS THX – Group 13

    As we go on our daily lives, we recognize that a lot of things happen around us. These events make us curious and ignites questions as to why and how they happen. Basically, this is how the scientific method starts. We question our world in a way that would give us answers with a lot of sense and not just with generalizations that don’t abide a strict basis. The scientific method helps us understand a simple process like how a plant grows with the conditions it is exposed with to complex ones such as how the world came to be what it is today.

    However, looking at the other page of the book, it can also be said that the scientific method has its flaws. Some suggest that it, indeed, is too linear — as if what happens in our world happens at a fast and simple rate. This is necessarily not the case as phenomena vary. It branches and it doesn’t end with a definitive conclusion. As a matter of fact, the scientific method is too “conclusion-centric” and is all towards proving a point without realizing that its constituent components like facts, observations and even the variables are all dynamic and ever-changing.

    However, it must not be discounted how this has helped foster science in our society. It has been a good pillar for research and development and has given us the freedom to question and to inquire. From the early times of the 18th century, science was actually just a commodity and something that was done by those who can afford to do science. Since then, science has expanded to become a legitimate career for people who share the love of this field. The government and academia has given premium to this field as it offers a lot of understanding and practicality to the general public. It is still important to note that science isn’t only just a professional field that requires intense education for mastery — take citizen scientists for instance. The love of science has transcended from the novelties to basically everyone and anyone who sees the light this field brings.

    It is also important to note how we have pseudoscience which is fueled by humanistic endeavors of proving what we feel are right, or in any case, wrong. Despite any confidence with our observations and assumptions with science, there could still be loopholes and that’s where post normal science comes in. It stressed that there are gaps in the scientific world and all events could be explained by multiple truths. We accept them and don’t put any other truth on top of another to prove a point. It basically is what it is. Science is evolving, ever-changing and dynamic — and it will continue to be so.

  6. Trenton Tan says:

    STS THX – GROUP 8

    The science videos provided have shown us that science itself is difficult to define as people have different approaches towards matters about how the universe works.

    The first approach discussed is the scientific method which is the foundational procedure of all scientific endeavors. This is something that all of us in our group, regardless of course, have encountered before which is why it was interesting to hear someone claim that it is no good. There’s the cycle of scientific thinking which anyone with a curious mind and a desire for knowledge through experience can adopt as a better way of looking at science. It’s a shift in focus from straightforward conclusions to a continuous process of learning.

    Another approach to science that was mentioned was citizen science which allows the normal people to make contributions toward new discoveries in sciences. Through citizen science and the availability of new technology, the joint forces of volunteers and the scientific community have been able to solve problems in a much faster way. There is so much more potential for scientific discovery when all of us contribute to the sciences. It now seems that contributing to science is within almost everyone’s reach and it is an encouraging idea that we can take part in discovering something that would help mankind. We found this to be one of the most interesting ideas in the videos.

    After this, there is pseudoscience which delves deeper into what is considered science. Most of us agreed that “real” science that isn’t pseudoscience is really a more objective way of trying to understand our world. There is less confirmation bias although we also believe that some pseudoscience can still very be valid.

    Lastly, there is post normal science. We thought that it raised a very important point: that science has limitations and is not meant to be the solution to everything.

    In these last videos, we have found that the way we view science is continually changing as just as discoveries have continually led human needs and wants to change. We think that how science is presently viewed could possibly be different in the future, but despite that, what is important is how the discoveries contribute to the well being of mankind. A key takeaway of our group is that an open and curious mind that is willing to consider multiple perspectives of a topic or issue will allow us to better understand science as we use it in our lives because science ultimately remains an important aspect of human living that will continue to develop in our future.

  7. Group 18 - WFX says:

    STS WFX – Group 18

    The scientific method is a simple way to understand how scientists study and learn about anything although we do agree that it is not reliable and accurate and far from what actual scientist do. Science should not be treated as a constant field. Just arriving to a conclusion is not enough, you should go further beyond that. Learning is a cycle and not a straight line that has an ending.

    Citizen science is a cool way for people without an advance knowledge of science help scientist gather data and complete their experiments. As long as you are interested in a study, being an indoor or outdoor scientist, having a PhD or not, it should not hinder you in contributing in research and help it evolve.

    There was a comparison between the scientific discoveries of Einstein and Freud. There arose the concept of pseudoscience which was based on how theories and concepts are tested. Pseudoscience does not disprove its claims; it only proves positively. Science disconfirms while pseudoscience only confirms. True science relies to falsify theories in order to test the validity and the truth of the theory. The theory must be refutable (or to be tested) for it to have value.

    Sometimes using theories or facts is not applicable in certain issues like moral issues, values, discipline. Deciding in these issues should not be left to professionals only. Communities should also help and contribute in these cases. Thus going beyond what normal science is based on.

  8. Rafa Cantero says:

    STS WFX
    Group – 10

    Maybe, science isn’t really what we think it is. Normally, one sees the field as the way in which we explore the natural and extranatural world. It concerns almost anything probable in this world. From mathematics to economics, to to engineering to astrophysics, the definition and scope of science is too important to be left to professional scientists alone.”

    Ever since we started studying, we are taught that the scientific method is linear. The linear system of the scientific method is too simplified and rigid that it fails to represent how science really works. We know that in reality, scientists engage in many different activities in many different sequences. Scientific investigations often involve repeating the same steps many times to account for new information and ideas. Thus, the scientific method should be modified to be cyclical.”

    Science isn’t as hard as people make it out to be. You don’t need degrees or expensive labs to be a scientist. Just a healthy dose of curiosity and the willingness to find answers to your questions.

  9. STS THX Group 17

    We already learned in highschool that it is important to employ linear scientific method in speculating and analyzing about a certain problem. It starts with a hypothesis, a question you might have developed about a particular phenomenon. Then you observe, conduct experiments, and collect and analyze the data recorded. From these treated data you can provide, or at least infer, an answer to your hypothesis. In short, linear scientific method is conclusive, but science is not merely so. It is represented more accurately by the cyclic scientific method, which states that you develop more questions after concluding your experiment, which leads to more opportunities to speculate.
    The formality this method imposes may be a factor as to why some people feel intimidated with regards to conducting research on their own. We tend to think that only professional scientists are licensed to develop questions, explore the world, and provide reliable answers. But we can all be scientists; we may not be considered professional scientists yet but we can still be amateur or citizen scientists. We may think that our contributions are insignificant but with collective effort from citizen scientists, we can take part in making the task a lot easier for professional scientists.

  10. Group 18 STS WFX says:

    STS WFX – Group 18

    The scientific method is a simple way to understand how scientists study and learn about anything although we do agree that it is not reliable and accurate and far from what actual scientist do. Science should not be treated as a constant field. Just arriving to a conclusion is not enough, you should go further beyond that. Learning is a cycle and not a straight line that has an ending.

    Citizen science is a cool way for people without an advance knowledge of science help scientist gather data and complete their experiments. As long as you are interested in a study, being an indoor or outdoor scientist, having a PhD or not, it should not hinder you in contributing in research and help it evolve.

    There was a comparison between the scientific discoveries of Einstein and Freud. There arose the concept of pseudoscience which was based on how theories and concepts are tested. Pseudoscience does not disprove its claims; it only proves positively. Science disconfirms while pseudoscience only confirms. True science relies to falsify theories in order to test the validity and the truth of the theory. The theory must be refutable (or to be tested) for it to have value.

    Sometimes using theories or facts is not applicable in certain issues like moral issues, values, discipline. Deciding in these issues should not be left to professionals only. Communities should also help and contribute in these cases. Thus going beyond what normal science is based on.

  11. More than anything, the videos teach us to be critical thinkers. Whether one is versed within the sciences or not, the ability to think critically and make careful assessments regarding the truth and the being substantial of a given proposition is a basic human skill that each person needs to have in order to be effective learners and communicators.

    Always remaining open to the idea that one’s belief might be wrong is the best way to get closer to the truth is what Karl Popper wants us to do. It is important to the society because we get to be more critical on what is the truth. Everyone has preconceived notions of some kind whether its personal or cultural but we must also think that some of the things that we believe are false. This beliefs can be proven true or false through science and pseudo science. Science disconforms and pseudoscience conforms. In order to test this, the confirmations should be done under risky predictions and prove the belief in every possible way. If the theory cannot be tested, then it does not have much value but if it is proven false, this will get us much closer to believing only true things.

    When it comes to the topic of scientific method, we agree with the TedEx speaker’s point about how you cannot use the scientific method for everything. However we don’t think we need to scrap the scientific method just yet. The system is a simple one to follow that can work even in fields outside of science. It’s a classic method of inference. We still think that the scientific method should still be thought to the youth. The children need a strong foundation for learning efficiently and effectively and we think the scientific method is what will enable that until they can begin to develop their own ideas. This ensures that these ideas have a more legitimate background. Nevertheless, we welcome the idea of exploring the other methods or processes for scientific thinking.

    Indeed, ordinary citizens should be a part of the scientific community. After all, the improvements and discoveries in science and technology aim to improve the life of society, not just one person. It makes sense to add citizens to the arsenal at the scientist’s disposal.However, measures should be taken that citizens also know the precautions of science if in a dangerous experiment. Furthermore, the use of citizens should be 100% consensual when applicable. They should be enthusiastic and not only pushed into the situation.

  12. STS THX Group 16 says:

    Some of us also find it hard to believe that a man with Ph.D in theoretical physics (Teman Cooke), refuses to believe in the scientific method. Every research we have encountered in our life has undergone such procedure. Scientific method enables the researchers to dissect the parts of the study and be able to thoroughly examine the different parts. Teman Cooke proposed an alternative which he named as the Cycle of Scientific Thinking. We do believe that his proposed alternative is just another way of looking into the scientific method. Different terms, same meaning. Also, we were surprised about the leraning of the existence of what we call ‘pseudo-science’, which are defined as statements and practices that claims to be true, in the midst of not having any tangible evidence. Furthermore, pseudoscience can be created through present-day constrictive scientific methods. Because of this, there is a need to think critically at all times, regardless whether theories or facts we are faced with everyday are presumed to be true. we also agree with what Daniel Sarewitz said that we have always been post-normal, which means that we have always been living with uncertain facts, disputed values, high stakes and urgent decisions. In addition, the power in numbers proved to be helpful in solving problems such as the Mason-Pfizer Monkey Virus (M-PMV). It was mentioned that researchers who are, of course, regarded as the experts in their fields were not able to solve the problem in 15 years. However, with the help of the citizens, it was solved in 3 weeks. This scenario has proven to us that science is indeed a vast array of knowledge which can be found from average people to experts.

  13. STS WFX Group 16 says:

    The scientific method has been very helpful to mankind but not all phenomenon can be explained by using it. It is just one of the many other ways to justify an answer.

    Time and again, we have seen the scientific method be put to use not only during scientific experiments, but also in other fields such as philosophy and history. This is a testament to the usefulness it brings as it provides a systematic way of solving a particular problem or issue. This can also lead to the fact that the scientific method can also be applied to our daily lives and it can possibly lead to better critical thinking, or rather a better life overall.

    In contrast with mythologies, religion and superstition, scientific method enables us to be systematic and coherent in answering questions about the natural world, to predict the future by observing trends and making technology a helpful tool in making our lives.

    We should open to the idea that our beliefs now might be wrong. Post-normal science tells us that instead of saying there are phenomena that don’t fit our current understanding, it makes more sense to say that there are realities that science hasn’t caught up to yet — we need to test them, and challenge them to bring us closer to the truth.

  14. STS WFX Group 5 says:

    It’s quite polarizing to believe that some established scientists choose not to follow the scientific method, especially since most of us who have taken Science related classes (whether it may be Chemistry or Biology) and whether this may be at highschool and even now in college, have always been taught that the collection of ideas scientifically must follow a certain order of steps. Despite this however, it is important to note that science constantly evolves and that not everything in life can be discovered by following the same usage of the very same steps.

    However, the scientific method doesn’t necessarily have to be used for something related to science, since it also can be used in the normal doings of a person. It gives us this systematic way of solving problems in everyday life. Even though it can’t seemingly solve everything as we have established before, it gives us this certain guideline or framework that helps us go through what we should do to systematically solve a certain problem.

    We also stress the importance of scientifc research being an accessible to the common people. It is essential for the common person to be aware of what is happening to the advancements in science and technology since these very things would affect his/her life in one way or another.

    Finally, we must be open-minded in realizing that the very “facts” we know about our world could be very much fallacious. Correcting the stigma that certain things are simply IMPOSSIBLE since they don’t flow with what we know breaks down a barrier to unlocking the human potential to discovering more truths about his/her world around him/her.

  15. STS WFX Group 15 says:

    In essence, the scientific method is designed to efficiently produce results by requiring scientists and/or observers to observe, research, make an intelligent guess, test, and analyze. Analysis is necessary to conclude if the acquired data and sets of information are in accordance with the hypotheses formulated. Otherwise, the scientific method necessitates the repetition of the process with a different hypothesis. One’s thought process must not be linear as it does not end in/with the conclusion; it is cyclic/circular and continuous by nature.

    With this, it is the group’s belief that the problem lies not in the structure and/or nature of the scientific method but on the perception of it. Some are left to believe that it is exclusive only for professionals in their respective fields, we believe otherwise. Everyone benefits from the method as it provides more avenues for one to think and analyze, and to evaluate previous works that would lead them to a more efficient process through recommendations from said researches.

    The group is also steadfast in its assertion that labelling some sciences as ‘pseudo-science’ is inappropriate. All these fields contribute significantly to the greater body of knowledge by providing a new angle, a distinct vantage point that may potentially address concerns and inquiries that other fields may overlook.

    Finally, the group claims that postnormalism is a good thing as it puts a spotlight on the side of science that contracting data can be resolved if viewed differently. Personal biases that tarnish the truth are what beset science with difficulties. This is what compels people to waver in their pursuit for the absolute truth as they begin to explore science halfheartedly for their own gain. In science, there should always be progress in thinking, one must not cage himself/herself based on what he/she believes in. An open mind is integral in paving the way for new discoveries and knowledge that can help the society.

  16. STS THX Group 7 says:

    Science is dynamic. For something empirical and systematic one would think Science is already entirely true. What is considered scientific truth today might not be the case a hundred or even a thousand years from now, because our understanding and comprehension of science is ever improving, and due in no small part to the use of the scientific method. However, it has been brought to attention that scientific method is linear, thus, might have the remote chance of missing out on what it is not covering. We grew up with the concept of a linear scientific method always ending up with a conclusion – but in reality it doesn’t always end up like that. We cannot expect a linear procedure, that is the scientific method, to fully harness and quantify a concept is undeniably nonlinear, that is science. Secondly, Citizen science closely resembles the way how Wikipedia rose up to be a popular online encyclopedia. Wikipedia outsourced its information gathering by allowing to non-experts to write “wiki” articles, thus, resulting to an unprecedented to more than forty million Wikipedia articles at the time of this writing, a feat that would certainly be not possible if writing “wiki” articles was just restricted to experts. Same goes with science. It would require for us to realize that we don’t need to be professional scientists or researchers to contribute to the advancement of science. Finally, we should not be hesitant to take time to contribute to scientific research (for topics or fields that we take particular interest of course), no matter how big or small our potential impact would be.

  17. Prabhmehar Chhabra says:

    STS THX Group 20

    Scientific Method

    First of all, the video of Physicist Teman Cooke shook our view of the scientific method. We have learned and accepted the scientific method ever since we started school. But after watching the video we do realize that most of the things Cooke said are in fact not hidden from us, during our practice in our respective fields we may already have realized that the scientific method is incomplete. But then again we have mixed feelings about its validity and invalidation. Although it is true that science is not linear and the Scientific Method might state otherwise, we can also see that the cyclic Scientific Method branches or has almost the same steps as the original Scientific Method so we can say that the Scientific Method can be seen as a general overview, an introductory way of thinking towards science and the process of discovery. But as we get older, as we move towards our specific fields we do realize that the chain of discovery is unending, as stated by the cyclic method. The cyclic method is what we and all prominent scientists rather people from various fields do. But this cyclic method tells us a little more, it tells us that we don’t need to follow certain steps in order to achieve something all the time, but what is important is the way we think, we don’t need to master the Scientific Method or any other method that will lead us towards discovering new things, its the scientific thinking hence critical thinking skill that we must possess no matter what field we work in, in order to succeed we need to think critically.

    Citizen Science

    The Citizen Science concept is much like the famous crowdsourcing method nowadays. And it just goes to prove that each and everyone of us think differently and specialize in certain things. Just because you have a degree that does not mean that you are the best, which was proven by the protein sample problem which was unsolved by scientists for 15 years but once they released it, in merely 3 weeks of time the problem was solved.It is also a very efficient way of discovering things, we are aware of the fact that there are still unlimited amount of knowledge waiting to be discovered and we cannot rely on a handful of practitioners to gather all that knowledge and provide it to us on a silver plate, in fact it is impossible for them to do so. So why not use the special skills each and everyone has through these projects to make a contribution to mankind. For a certain person, a citizen science project may just look like a game but he might not realize that by playing that game he is actually making new discoveries or helping prove theories or solve problems. This is a very good concept as it allows those who have a nick for science to contribute without having to completely submerge in the field and gain degrees in order to practice.

    Pseudo-Science

    The concept of Pseudo-Science and stating that Science is meant to disprove a theory is kind of parallel to what we know about Scientific thinking, it merely tells us that the process of discovery, proving and disproving cannot stop and you must be very critical since your goal is not to prove that you’re right by providing evidence of it but rather prove it by disproving that you’re wrong. We can take Mathematical theory as an example, in the field of mathematics when you’re asked or given the problem of proving that an identity or property is true, it is very hard to do so, we can say that is a negative goal, why? Because you have to think of every possible example that will prove it right but that is impossible, you cannot really think of all possible combinations for a certain problem. But if you can think of even one counter example, you can easily disprove the theory.

    Post-Normal Science

    We think that the main idea here is just to say how science and its practitioners have evolved. A few years back, if you stated something in the field of science and did not show immediate evidences to support it you’ll be mocked by the community, as to what happened to a lot of great scientists, but once they were able to prove their visions they became prominent and were recognized as the masters of the field. But nowadays that might have changed. today if someone has a vision or a theory it is not mocked rather a group of people get together and immediately try to prove it or disprove it because in that process they still discover a lot of new things. The concept of post-normal science is basically accepting that science is limitless and no idea or theory is incorrect until proven so.

  18. STS THX Group 12 says:

    Scientific Method

    Watching the videos about the Scientific Method led to me believing that there is some form of “disconnect” between a lot of people and science in general. The reason for this is because We think topics that get turned into songs or raps tend to be topics that are hard to understand because the aim of explaining concepts in song-form is for people to easily comprehend them. Teman Cooke believes that one factor of this “disconnect” is the flawed model of the Scientific Method that is being taught. We also agree with what he proposed as We also think that the cyclic nature of his method helps build a more curious mind that is always hungry for answers which is a great trait to have as a scientist.

    Citizen Science

    It is true that citizen science is important for conducting scientific research because they are the ones responsible for gathering and analyzing data, which are used for experimentation. We think this is a great way of bridging the “gap” between professional scientists and people that are just interested in science. This presents us with a win-win situation as scientists get valuable data that can help further our knowledge in science while also satisfying the people that appreciate science.

    Pseudoscience

    We liked the fact that the correct way of scientific thinking is to always try to disconfirm beliefs or hypotheses. This kind of thinking develops a trait or a characteristic in us that makes us question everything around us. And We think that that is a great way to live because as one of the videos said if we find out about false beliefs, “it gets us closer to believing only true things”.

    Postnormal Science

    Post-normal science represents a novel approach for the use of science on issues where facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent. It also helps us in finding answers or solutions or at least help in our decisions regarding complex science-related topics like climate change, ecological preservation, etc. What’s special about this topic is that it focuses on aspects of problem solving that tend to be neglected in traditional accounts of scientific practice: uncertainty, value loading, and a plurality of legitimate perspectives. With this knowledge, We agree with Daniel Sarewitz in that we have been post-normal. Especially now where a lot of science-related issues are popping up. We also believe that this type of scientific thinking will become more prominent in the near future.

  19. Maxine Maog says:

    STS WFX Group 1

    First of all, the video is slightly disturbing because of how the concept was presented but weirdly enough, it can make you remember their introduced steps from having a hypothesis to drawing conclusions. This kind of material helps people understand more and better. They tend to make concepts simplified in a visualized manner that is easily understood by anyone watching the said video. The concept of the scientific method clearly defines a step-by-step procedure on solving and answering things or questions that is bounded by science.

    The music video is a simple medium that enables the scientific method to be easily learned, understood, and remembered. The video is targeted for kids and seems effective because it is repetitive and thorough yet lively and entertaining. It is a clear example that proves that science isn’t synonymous to difficult and boring.

    The PNS “Postnormal Science” is a science that reacts on styles of analysis based on risk and cost-benefit analysis prevailing at that time, and as an embodiment of concepts of a new “critical science” developed in previous works by the same authors. I realize that from the example that was mentioned from the video, on the Copernican Revolution wen Copernican’s idea of heliocentric was ignored when it was introduced, while Galileo’s geocentrism was believed by many and yet, in the end, the knowledge of cosmology was revolutionize that Copernican’s idea was the truth. So basically, scientific knowledge progresses through socially constructed paradigm shifts where normal science is what most scientists do all the time and what all scientists do most of the time.

    The video started by introducing Karl Popper, which is well-known philosopher. The narrator further introduced Karl Popper by giving an overview regarding Popper’s philosophy about Pseudoscience and Science. Two well-known personalities were used to differentiate Science and Pseudoscience, Einstein for Science and Freud for Pseudoscience. Einstein’s theory of relativity and Freud’s theory about human behaviour were briefly discussed. And in the end, it was shown that Science disconfirms and Pseudoscience disconfirms.

    The strategy of the narrator was effective. He clearly explained Karl Popper’s philosophy regarding Science and Pseudoscience. He gave examples that were easy to understand. And he used illustrations to better explain the philosophy.

    Science may seem like a subject only worthy of being expanded by “Scientists” who have complete difficult courses in university studies, obtaining prefixes to their names such as “Dr.” Or “Proffessor”. Actually, these people are not the only ones researching and evolving our sciences. We also have citizen scientists helping out the proffesional scientists. From gathering data about the earth and its life forms to analyzing pictures of galaxies,
    Citizen scientist helps a great amount to the professional scientists making their lives easier. As such, with the help of citizen scientist, it accelerated the ability of professional scientists to propel our understanding of the universe forward. One can even help by simply lend their computer’s processing power to analyze data. Without these, people it would have taken ages for scientists to sort through huge amount of data.

    Things nowadays are far more complex than before. This is due to the tendency of decision makers to satisfy a specific party’s need, whether it be consistent with decisions made beforehand. This practice is observed throughout the daily lives of humans. We look for a reason behind an event that satisfies us more than how it satisfies itself scientifically.

    Common citizens, such as unprofessional researchers, can help in providing additional discoveries and information in the field of science with just using their idle internet time anchored with their motivation to contribute in scientists’ discovery of knowledge. I liked how the speaker in the video, using various examples, persuaded her audience or listeners for that matter, to not hesistate in taking part in many citizen science projects to help scientists handle and interpret the voluminous amount of data they’re gathering. The speakers is effective in reiterating that citizens don’t need an outstanding grasp science and math to help in these citizen science projects for as long they have their motivation and persistence,

  20. STS THX Group 18 says:

    The problem, as presented in the videos, lies in the way people perceive and subsequently treat science: a one-way, linear process that is unilaterally aimed at arriving with more or less, a fact or piece of “universal truth”. This mistake in the common construal of science posits that it should be infallible; the traditional scientific method stops at the conclusion so it is very easy to believe that that conclusion is a hard fact. As far as science is concerned, however, a fact is only a fact until an evidence comes along to prove that it isn’t.

    Our group firmly believes that the methodology of science should be cyclic and not limited to the linear method that most are familiar with. Modern scientific thinking should be testable, refutable, and falsifiable. Science is, afterall, a process of questioning, of learning and of discovery, so, to stop at an “answer” and not to continue observing, testing, etc. would cease the purpose of science as an ever-changing, ever-developing, and ever-searching process/”truth”/field. It must be clear to everyone that science is not about confirming theories but rather disproving one’s beliefs. Every false belief actually brings us closer to the truth.

    Moreover, we think that science shouldn’t really be exclusive for scientists. Citizen science is important because it gives us new perspectives and new angles to discover the never-ending breadth of possibilities that registered scientists cannot accomplish on their own. Furthermore, it enlists regular people, making one feel that s/he can make a difference without having to graduate with a degree in science.

    The points posited by postnormal science should actually be standardized with regards to all types of study, not just science; in that it offers the liberty of space for constant debunking, improvements, scrapping, and revision of pieces of knowledge that are starting to turn yellow.
    We can look at citizen science and postnormal science as possible improvements over the current paradigm but then we must remember to set ourselves to the constant task of verifying if it really does offer solutions to the shortcomings of the traditional scientific method.

  21. STS WFX Group 4 says:

    Through the videos, we are encouraged to abandon the practice of the traditional scientific method because of its linear approach and obsession with a concrete conclusion. Instead, we are encouraged to develop a scientific thinking that through observing, predicting, and evaluating our observations and predictions little by little, we will discover new facts that will remain as facts unless proven otherwise.
    Moreover, it reflects that science is really hard to define. Some say these are the facts; scholars say falsification will prove it; some give boundaries to psuedo-sciences and real sciences, while some say the contrary. However, we can say that it is all science and all the efforts and processes we make to give light to what is true is science itself. Given this, no matter what we may choose to believe is the true about science, we can atleast agree upon the fact that our goal is unified, seeking the truth, and that through mass mobilization of citizen scientists and through the constant efforts of professional scientists, people can discover new things more efficiently and quickly.

  22. STS WFX Group 3 says:

    Ever since gradeschool, we were taught the steps in scientific method, and it is refreshing (but also very cringe-y) to see educational videos about it. But our group also agrees to Teman Cooke’s points about scientific method. Some of us, had the same questions whenever doing a research: How do I make a hypothesis when I don’t have an idea what could happen? The whole process becomes focused on proving a preconceived conclusion, and other side discoveries may be neglected. We’re not saying this happens all the time; If the researcher is a good one, a curious one, he would have included ALL he observed and discovered through the process. We guess that the scientific method perfectly applies to some areas of science, but not to all. This is also shown in the video about Karl Popper’s Science and Pseudo-science. When you have a preconceived notion of something and aim to confirm it, like in Pseudo-science as Popper puts it, you are prone to committing a fallacy of hasty generalization and appeal to ignorance (lack of contrary evidence). And so he says that a good way of doing science is like a method in math and logic where you prove a statement by contradiction. Post-normal science, however becomes the grey area, when James J. Kay said that “one should not necessarily attempt to resolve or dismiss contradictory perspectives of the world, whether they are based on science or not, but instead incorporate multiple viewpoints into the same problem-solving process.”

    Cooke’s point about the fear of science because of its strict process is then solved by the next video about Citizen Science which allows non-professionals to participate in scientific research. We think this is great to promote helping the scientific community expand its pool of knowledge, and at the same time disseminate information. Though it is important that a professional/ trained person is present to guide them.

  23. STS WFX Group 8 says:

    Post normal science allows the application of science to public issues “where facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high, and decisions urgent.” and is also at the same time linked with the values and concerns of the public. And this intertwining of knowledge and values makes it more complex than previous approaches. This approach allows for improvements, adjustments, revisions, or even scrapping completely of previously established ideas or theories. Post-normal science, along with citizen science, is a big step towards the advancement of science and technology as it makes up for the shortcomings of the outdated, more linear scientific method.

  24. STS WFX Group 12 says:

    Scientific Method

    When we were younger, we were introduced to the concept of the scientific method which we all know shows that for every problem, there is an organized and systematic way to look for the solution. We always observe the world and we try to figure out how things work, which the scientific method gives light for us in numerous steps. Although it has been helpful for us to understand the world, it still lacked a lot of things. It did not have an accurate representation on the reality of what actually happens in science. Research showed that people feel uneasy about science in general and the scientific process doesn’t do anything to lessen that because the scientific method doesn’t show the actual thought process of things. This is why Teman Cooke, the speaker, introduced the Cycle of Scientific Meaning which he says, shows a better representation of their thought process. Answers like “I don’t know” are good enough as long as it probes for more questions. Observe. Explain. Predict.

    Citizen Science

    We learned in the videos that citizen science isn’t merely a job for people in the science industry but a collaboration with those who aren’t in the field. It is a useful way to pursue knowledge because it expands to gain more of it and to provide access of information to the volunteers. Ever since being a scientist became a professional job, there is this sort of air of elitism with scientists. That it seems they are the only ones capable of searching for knowledge and that gaining knowledge about the world needs a degree. Citizen science has the means to seek that anyone can help in the pursuit of science, and that it is an old concept and how science was really done before that, us, as ordinary citizens can be scientist as well. This gives us the ability to have more ideas about the world and in a way able to help make new discoveries and reflect on them without the degree or even completely submerging yourself in the field.

    Post Normal Science

    When it comes to science, people usually associate concepts related to this with hard facts and physical data. In recent years, more and more concepts and theories are being formulated without having actual physical evidence that support these concepts. These are slowly being accepted by the scientific community as a whole through a collective effort. These theories and concepts are being peer reviewed, discussed, reviewed by many members of the scientific community. Post normal science accepts and validates theories based on a collective effort wherein several experts try to accept and rationalize ways to accept these new ideas without having concrete evidences to support these claims. This way of formulating ideas will continue as new scientific discoveries are being made.

    Pseudoscience

    According to Karl Popper, you can only demonstrate the unreality of things by disproving it, which means you can only try to disprove everything to know of their existence and not try to prove them. For Popper, science disconfirms the reality of objects while pseudoscience confirms it. Scientific method taught us to make predictions and we ought to test them to gain the reality of things which makes science prohibitive that rules things out. As we falsify these predictions we move closer to the undeniable truth and the only genuine way of knowing the truth is attempting to disprove it. This is how the modern scientific way work, we try to falsify the hypothesis instead of accepting them.
    Latour said that there is a problem on hermeneutics or the theory or methodology we used to interpret written literature. In addition, today we comply to or believe what is said to be true and we do not ask if it is really the truth or not. With this, we subsume our knowledge to the knowledge of the ”whites”, thus there are collection of knowledge which are mistakenly taken to be true and based on scientific method, this is known as Pseudoscience.

    The video talks about the pseudoscience of the denialism of AIDS and Homeopathy. How these beliefs should be denounced as pseudosciences. Some controversies were also mentioned like the controversy on vaccination, cancer and its causes, and climate change, which some people do not believe. Some even deny it. Scholarly and scientific silencing continue to have implications on biological research. The video also talked about the “bandwagon”. Which is the standard today like citing the right sourcer, right in accord with accepted conventions. Some write against the convention, off the grid, off the bandwagon, for the sake of being different or unique.

    The term “pseudo” might be confusing due to the fact that this term is used medically. Also such symbolisms were used centuries ago (Gold, Silver, Iron as mythical creatures like Apollo, Diana, Mercury) and people perceived that illnesses are caused by demons. These beliefs were incorporated to illustrate how diseases are acquired (pictures of airborne diseases shown with little demons going with it). Lastly, myths opens the doors to knowledge and can be learned through an individual experience which cannot be logically justified. An inexperienced individual merely learns but does not discern. Meanwhile, a scientist knows that things can be discovered through repeated experiments. However, in the case of syphilis experiments, some reactions worked out which cannot be repeated through experiments nor can be explained by logic. It was only through collective experiences and experiments through which it was achieved.

    Then it discussed the sensitivity to the history of science specific in the medical field in relation to diseases’ signs, symptoms, and ideologies. Many common fatal diseases were tackled, how they are defined in the medical science and how social changes significantly affect death rates from these infectious diseases. The disregard of these diseases’ symptoms has also a role in the scientific claims that are rarely discussed in connection with philosophy of science; the beliefs or practices mistakenly viewed as being based on scientific method. One can think that it is possible that the way we define and currently fight diseases may perhaps be wrong from the future perspective.

    How does this influence you?

    The thing about science is it always changes, it makes us discover things and theories that the past hasn’t been able to do so. Any of us can make these such discoveries even if we don’t have the title or the degree. We need to be always open for these changes to occur unless there is no such evidence which would falsify our beliefs which means that it must be probable and contingent. It influences us in such a way that there is a possibility that our beliefs are wrong but the only way for them to mean anything is for us to hold on to them because if we don’t it would seem like we are just sticking to the status quo and not trying to find the reality of things. Even if we are wrong with our beliefs or hypotheses, it leads us closer to the undeniable truth, which science seeks. It asserts us to seek knowledge because this is what science teaches us, to find the truth and gain knowledge from our mistakes along the way.

    – STS WFX Group 12

  25. GROUP 2 - STS THX says:

    The scientific method we were taught when we were young simplifies the scientific process. Little did we know that this brevity misrepresents what scientists actually do and what science is all about. So, this explains why when we explain things around us scientifically, we tend to cower for not knowing the right answers (derived from the end of the traditional scientific method: that we need a conclusion). One should incorporate other perspective in the same process as science isn’t linear. It is inclusive, a collective knowledge wherein citizen scientists also take part in.
    And that science, therefore, is more than a fixed set of rules.

    The concept of post-normal science is about accepting the fact that there are still numerous possibilities that science hasn’t discovered yet. This takes into consideration the phenomena that don’t seem to be aligned with the facts that we currently know yet there may still be future studies in which science catches up to discovering facts that may serve as proof and explanation as to why those phenomena exist. Looking at ideas as “possible truths” helps communities to avoid disregarding ideas that may be useful in the future, and this allows science to progress further into proving and disproving different concepts.

  26. Ynnah Retoma says:

    STS THX Group 10

    Regarding the first videos, we agree with the scientist saying that the scientific method is crap. It is true that the scientific method has been ideal and logical to prove and answer something but when you actually look at the process, you’d see that is actually hard especially when it comes to the variables. There’s just a lot of variables and we think that it is impossible to list all of them down especially since most of them came from nature and is not something mechanical. They are alive and constantly changing. A lot of misinterpretations of science are due to the way scientific method is being taught in schools. We agree that we need to have a new way of dealing with information and start accepting that a lot of facts are constantly changing.

    For the second videos, we are awed that such a thing as citizen science exists. Everyone can be involved in science however, we also thought that this could be bound to a lot of human error and that maybe someday, bots will still be better used in pursuing science that no citizen should be needed at all as bots, being mechanical things, can utilize power more efficiently. This is a good idea though because anyone can help in discovering science without needing to have a degree as in the grand scheme of life, degrees are more for just formalities.

    About the third and fourth videos, pseudoscience is something not necessarily science but would seem like one. It also, kind of, disproves theories unlike science who confirms it. As for post-normal science, we think that it’s just a new proposed method of solving scientific issues as our minds are already hay wired to think outside the box and see beyond to better get things even though it would see like science is something that’s hard to look at at first glance.

  27. STS THX GROUP 19 says:

    The strength of science as a body of information lies in the concept that it is organized and tested in a systematic process to explain different intellectual predictions. Although this form of science has been used predominantly for a time, many other scientists would like to break away from the notion that science is a process and would rather consider it as a cycle mainly because this is actually representative of what scientists do. As Teman Cooke explained, “if you give me a model that consistently predicts the right thing, I can say with certainty that your model is not wrong… yet.” This goes against the previous concept of the scientific method where it is seen as something linear, focusing on experimentation and coming up with a conclusion. When we think of science as a cycle, we eradicate the idea that we need to arrive at a definite answer, but rather view it as a continuous questioning to come up with a better model.

    Science is also about being open-minded. One cannot limit their ideas to what they believe in nor the ideas that they have reasons for justifying. In science, people must be willing to accept that there beliefs can be refuted and falsified, which goes to show the difference between what Karl Popper coined as science and pseudoscience. Science disconfirms while pseudoscience confirms. With this, we therefore see science as something testable, refutable, and falsifiable. In the occasion that we do come across wrong predictions, it leads to the continuous cycle of the scientific theory. As Karl Popper said “every false belief we discover is actually good, because that gets us that much closer to believing only true things”. In believing that science is open-minded, we also shouldn’t shut ourselves out from pseudoscience since they also contribute to how we understand phenomena, especially in the human behaviors (be it in psychology, sociology or any other soft science). What we can do however is to be less conclusion-centric and not just passively accept everything laid in front of us.

    Science also teaches us that open-mindedness is also in relation to understanding the context that which these pieces of information have been given to us. Perhaps these ideas perforated because of the experiences and beliefs of that particular society of that specific time. As civilization progresses these concepts and beliefs change as well. Therefore, when we are presented with ideas even from people just a few generations back from us, we must take these with a salt and do our best to understand that the context of what they are saying is influenced by the belief system they grew up in.

    Science really has changed from how it previously was and the world is a very different place today because of it. Currently, the cycle of scientific thinking is not limited to those who have degrees in their respective sciences but everyone is given the opportunity to have a contribution in science. With advancements in technology, the ordinary person is propelled beyond just reading about science to being at the forefront. Through the internet, each one can become active participants, contributing to the vast pool of information and knowledge accessible to people and scientists on the opposite side of the world. Scientific research becomes an endeavor not confined to the rooms of universities. Citizen science bridges the gap between the professional scientists and the amateur scientists. With this inclusive view of science, people around the world help each other understand the world we live in.

    Lastly, postnormal science was conceived in response to the new conditions of science in a social context. Viewing science in relation to its changing environment, postnormal science allows the integration of multiple perspectives in order to come up with an understanding that is beyond what we can explain with only the use of normal or traditional science.

  28. STS WFX Group 19 says:

    STS WFX Group 19
    Science came about from our need to understand the world around us. Typically, the way we test this understanding is from the scientific method. While useful, as seen in the third video, it is far from perfect. We see it as a kind of template, but should not be strictly followed. Like everything else in life, science evolves and keeps changing. Anyone can do science, even ordinary citizens, that’s one thing that’s attractive about it. However, not all science are created equal. As Popper said, there is science from historical data and pseudo-science from guessing future outcomes. Then, there’s post-normal science where there is a lot of uncertainty. This influences the way we see the world by making us question everything we know about science and not blindly accepting everything we are told is true.

  29. STS THX GROUP 1

    As my group watched the science related videos, we gained some new insights and able to understand more information about science not just from within its field but also its role in the society and how it affects those people who are not in to the field of science to be involved.

    The group found out watching the videos related to scientific method and comparing it to a video which explains the scientific process or science as a cycle that scientific method is impractical and unrealistic in a way that its first step tackles about “Formulate a problem” in which in our opinion is such a big hurdle to start with. Imagine, who would want to create problems or formulate one? Formulating one alone is a big challenge and scary knowing that in real life, problems are challenges and challenges are meant to be hard. This idea alone is already a big NO approach knowing that you want people to appreciate science and be engaged with science and have fun doing it. Moreover, the linearity of the scientific method is one of the main reasons why our group come to a conclusion how impractical and unrealistic it is.

    On the other hand, when we deal science using the science as a cycle and process wherein you start your work with an observation and so on and arrive at the conclusion and back to observation. This cycle is what you actually do in real life and more practical since you actually start something by observing compared to the scientific method which is to start by formulating a problem. The point is, what is considered fact today can be a fiction in the future. Science is constantly changing and this alone explains why scientific method is not fit, and impractical due to its characteristic being linear and what should be appropriate is the scientific cycle knowing that your conclusion from previous observation and experimentation can be changed in the future after additional and careful observation.

    The video citizen science shows us that everyone can be involved in something bigger science project or research without expertise on the science field your working with. The videos about citizen science encourage people to take part or help scientist on their work since a collective effort bring much faster results and may help scientist to have an idea about something they don’t know and just actually learned after the feedbacks of people who are involved in their research.

    Meanwhile, the videos about science and pseudoscience try to explain and draw the line between the two. It is shown in the video how science should be objectives and how one should see something as true unless proven false and when it does proven to be false, one must discard the idea. “Science tries to find false to theories”. Pseudoscience on the other hand is more inclined to what the society perceives and subjective in a way wherein it tries to prove an idea by providing pieces of evidence to give confirmation to the existence of such idea. Science is ought to find an undisputed truth while pseudoscience is ought to find truth that are accepted by the majority as such.

    Lastly, the videos tackling about postnormal science(PNS) show how big the role of science in molding our society since PNS is an analysis about a certain science related issue in which requires mankind to participate highlighting the urgency of the topic and the need of solution to be made. . It just shows how science became a major influence on creating policies in our society.

    In conclusion, the series of videos give us depth understanding about science starting on how we deal science, how everybody should be involved and relevant in science, the difference between science and pseudoscience which is from the truth and make believe truth and finally how science creates an impact and how it influences policies in our society.

    PS
    (Some videos are boring. Wisdom and eloquence must always be in pair to have good communication.)

  30. STS THX GROUP 10 says:

    At first, the group also thought of the scientific method as something that is logical and ideal to prove and answer something, but when one actually thinks of that method and its process, they will see that it is difficult especially when it comes to the variables because there’s just a lot of variable and we don’t think all of them can be listed down. The reason for that is because most of the variables are from nature. It’s not something mechanical. It’s alive and it changes and life always finds a way.

    Furthermore, the group thinks that in the third video, where a scientist was discussing how the scientific method is crap and that we should have another kind of scientific process or thinking, it makes sense. We don’t think we’ll ever be really able to answer all our questions about the world precisely no matter how much experimenting we do, so we think that it’s more ideal to have multiple answers in a way.

    The speaker laid out very good points regarding the scientific method, as well as the flaws of it. Though not all, it may be true that there are some misinterpretations to science due to the way the scientific method is being taught in schools. We also agree with his point regarding the facts being constantly replaced with new ones and today’s society have a hard time accepting those things.

    The main point is that the group is that the scientific method suggests a linear view of things instead of the cyclical scientific process. We believe that science does not stop at conclusions and should be more open to new interpretations and ideas.

    The group has never heard of citizen science prior to watching the videos and we think it’s a great idea that through this, everyone and not just the “professional” scientists get involved in discovering and studying the matters of the world. Citizen science encourages people, no matter to explore, learn, and discover more about the world regardless of their educational attainment.

    The power of citizen science is overwhelming. Although this method is bound to a lot of human error, the ability of humans compared to bots is still more powerful. The participation of the community in the pursuit of science is really great, but there may come a time that robots may be too smart that citizen science might be overpowered by fast-growing technology.

    The group thinks that pseudoscience disproves theories while science confirms it. However, the group did further research and understood a little more about the topic. As it is called “pseudo”, it is not necessarily science but that of which seems like it is science but is not necessarily one.

    As the for the post-normal science, we think it was just saying that science may seem hard to look at but people already figured out ways on how to understand it. Our minds have already been hay wired to think outside the box and see beyond to better get things. Post-normal science is somewhat a new proposed method in solving scientific issues.

  31. Group 7 (STS WFX) says:

    Group 7
    STS WFX

    Even though the scientific method has long served as the backbone of scientific studies, we realized that it is not an all-around solution. Its linearity, though convenient because of its step-by-step approach, is also its limitation. Other perspectives, such as Pseudoscience and Postnormal Science, introduce different ways on how to find the truth in science. There is also a possibility that the stereotype that science is only reserved for what laymen consider “geniuses” will eventually fade because of the inclusivity that Citizen Science brings into our society as it allows for a faster and more collaborative learning and research through citizen participation.

  32. Group 3 STS THX says:

    Postnormal Science
    Postnormal science reminded us of how conspiracy theories are created. It is a very interesting approach to answer curiousity since the very existence of post normal science screams, “question everything!”

    Citizen Science
    Citizen science is the lovechild of “scientific research” and “social responsibility”. It is a type of scientific approach that relies on collective effort. It is actually inspiring to know that there is an existing act like a charity science-ing wherein citizens can contribute to a research/screntific project regardless of their educational attainment.

    Scientific Method
    We actually think that it is practical to use scientific method because it is the most systematic way to understand everything we wish to know. The very essence of the scientific method is promoting curiousity and desire for knowledge.

    Pseudoscience
    Pseudoscience is a process or belief in which it does not satisfy the requirements to be considered as “real/true science”. The fact that the results of pseudoscience cannot be verified because of little to no experimentation makes it invalid. Knowing about the concept of pseudoscience, it actually reminded us of the Perils of Pluto – there is no definite truth, something might be true today but not tomorrow. On our understanding, pseudoscience basically means that something is true unless proven wrong. It is actually confusing because we think that it could mean that there is no true science. Or aren’t pseudoscience and science just the same?

  33. patricia says:

    Group 4
    STS THX

    Science is very complex, with science itself having different views on different subjects and people having different definitions of science and its methods.

    On the scientific method, we agree that it is very linear and conclusion-centric that it can’t reflect the ever-evolving and changing knowledge/data around us. Going back to Perils of Pluto, no single knowledge is an absolute truth.

    The Citizen Science Revolution talks about how non-scientists can contribute to the advancement of scientific research. Even though scientists are dedicating their lives to research, it simply makes sense to ask help from regular citizens in order to solve their problem or gather more data. There is strength in numbers, helping to collect huge data sets, and making data analysis faster, plus it allows scientists to learn new things through the observations of these many citizen scientists. With these, we can see how powerful citizen science is, because of how each individual contributes to the whole project, and it also promotes science in interesting and fun ways, encouraging all to contribute.

    On pseudoscience and postnormal science, Popper gives us testable, refutable, falsifiable scientific thinking, with science disconfirming and pseudoscience confirming thoughts. Popper also believed that certainty isn’t possible, that people should be open that their beliefs can be false. What is of importance is that what we discover should lead us to truth, and that discovering that something is disconfirmed isn’t bad, as it leads us to believing only the truths. Now with increasing uncertainty, there must be extended peer communities which bring about issues into dialogue. This challenges the thinking that science is commonly understood, and even science has its own limitations.

    Overall, science is very complex and dynamic, with everything changing through time and theories being proven or disproven. What’s important is to keep a keen eye for observing our world and continue to question, even those that are considered “fact”, which allows science to develop further. Critical thinking and community contributions are the key things that our group has taken from these lessons.

  34. STS THX Group 9 says:

    Scientific Method

    In grade school and high school, we were taught that testing out experiments and discovering the truth were all anchored in the scientific method. Because we were naive, it made perfect sense for us knowing that all these steps were what scientists actually did, just in a much bigger scale. However, the video served as a wake up call to all of us. Although we were all blinded by the scientific method being very linear and unintuitive, it made us realize all the problems associated with its use. An important problem that we surprisingly found was that instead of making the scientific process seem much simpler to us, it actually made us more intimidated and afraid. Due to the fact that the scientific method required conclusions and facts, it seemed so one ended. But, the speaker’s proposal of a much better way, the cycle of scientific thinkings, seemed much more approachable. Because it’s more engaging and forgiving, the view of science changed. It’s able to tell people that it’s okay for scientific facts and explanations to change. It actually depicts a much more accurate representation of what scientists do and how they work.

    Citizen Science

    Prior to watching the two videos about citizen science, majority of us didn’t know that it existed. We didn’t know that citizens and hobbyists actually contributed a lot to researches in the field of science. The development of citizen science is something we praise. Knowing that anyone who is interested in science or curious about the research of technology can actually help out professional scientists, makes science much more engaging. It doesn’t make science seem so limited to the professionals. It actually welcomes “normal” people to help these professionals with their projects. With citizen science, our group thinks that the development of science can progress in a much more faster rate than ever before.

    Pseudo Science vs. Post Normal Science

    We were able to distinguish the two sciences after watching the videos regarding Pseudoscience and Post Normal Science. Post Normal Science is basically saying that facts may vary and that decisions should be made urgently. It requires society to go beyond the issue and to actually made a solution. On the other hand, Pseudoscience, from its name, actually sounds like it’s “fake” or an alternative science. It is saying that something is true unless it is actually proven wrong. It focuses on doubting and questioning the facts rather than confirming.

  35. Group 13 STS WFX says:

    Scientific Method

    Ever since we were kids, we were taught that there is a correct step by step, a systematic process for experimentation and this is called the Scientific Method. The Ted Talk, “How The Scientific Method is crap” influenced us in challenging the notion and debunking the scientific method’s certainty.
    The speaker exposed how the scientific method affected the normalization of ideas such as the thinking that science is linear ( but actually, in reality, it is not) and it misrepresents what scientists do, and what science is all about.
    The speaker also discussed the “cycle of Scientific Thinking” saying that this is a more excellent way of dealing with science and discovering things because “from observations, we can come up with predictions, and from predictions, we can come up with an answer or another question.”
    This influenced us in thinking that we don’t have experts in the field to be able to do science nor do we have know everything to answer scientific questions, rather, Observing, explaining and predicting is enough.

    Citizen Science
    The videos inspire people who are not really “into science” to contribute to science minus all the technical stuff they don’t like. We learned that even at home, you can contribute to science without actually doing anything, just lending your computer to a much bigger purpose. You don’t have to be a professional scientist to make a contribution to our collective knowledge. In fact, even people who are not experts can land themselves a page in science journal just by being citizen science. Citizen Science allows regular people to do real research and discover real important things. Truly, nothing is limiting anyone from contributing to science and making a change.

    Science and Postnormal Science
    Pseudoscience
    The video discussed the Karl Popper’s view on the difference of science like Einstein’s theories and pseudoscience like Freud’s. When you look at Einstein’s and Freud’s theories, you will notice that they use different methods. Evidences to support Freud was everywhere, while Einstein used past data to predict the present and the future. Popper referred Freud’s science as pseudoscience. Methods in pseudo-science were only used to confirm a belief. In general, science confirms, while pseudo-science disconfirms. According to Popper, the only genuine test of a theory is the one that’s attempting to falsify it. In real life, we have beliefs of our own, and we must be open to the idea that what we believe might not be true. If we want to verify the truth of these beliefs, attempting to falsify it will open us to a wider possibility, and closer to the truth. This discussion got me thinking that thinking negatively is actually helping. Because the science that we accept today is testable, refutable, and falsifiable.

    Postnormal science
    the stage we are in today, where all comfortable assumptions about science, its production and use are in question
    Uncertain facts, disputed values, high stakes, decisions urgent

    As the basic tenet of postnormal science suggests, science should be a unifying dialogue that aims to solve a certain issue rather than to simply describe and find the truth about a certain matter; even if this means having laypersons contribute in the resolution of issues.

  36. James Carlo Guillarte says:

    Group 13 STS WFX

    Scientific Method

    Ever since we were kids, we were taught that there is a correct step by step, a systematic process for experimentation and this is called the Scientific Method. The Ted Talk, “How The Scientific Method is crap” influenced us in challenging the notion and debunking the scientific method’s certainty.
    The speaker exposed how the scientific method affected the normalization of ideas such as the thinking that science is linear ( but actually, in reality, it is not) and it misrepresents what scientists do, and what science is all about.
    The speaker also discussed the “cycle of Scientific Thinking” saying that this is a more excellent way of dealing with science and discovering things because “from observations, we can come up with predictions, and from predictions, we can come up with an answer or another question.”
    This influenced us in thinking that we don’t have experts in the field to be able to do science nor do we have know everything to answer scientific questions, rather, Observing, explaining and predicting is enough.

    Citizen Science
    The videos inspire people who are not really “into science” to contribute to science minus all the technical stuff they don’t like. We learned that even at home, you can contribute to science without actually doing anything, just lending your computer to a much bigger purpose. You don’t have to be a professional scientist to make a contribution to our collective knowledge. In fact, even people who are not experts can land themselves a page in science journal just by being citizen science. Citizen Science allows regular people to do real research and discover real important things. Truly, nothing is limiting anyone from contributing to science and making a change.

    Science and Postnormal Science
    Pseudoscience
    The video discussed the Karl Popper’s view on the difference of science like Einstein’s theories and pseudoscience like Freud’s. When you look at Einstein’s and Freud’s theories, you will notice that they use different methods. Evidences to support Freud was everywhere, while Einstein used past data to predict the present and the future. Popper referred Freud’s science as pseudoscience. Methods in pseudo-science were only used to confirm a belief. In general, science confirms, while pseudo-science disconfirms. According to Popper, the only genuine test of a theory is the one that’s attempting to falsify it. In real life, we have beliefs of our own, and we must be open to the idea that what we believe might not be true. If we want to verify the truth of these beliefs, attempting to falsify it will open us to a wider possibility, and closer to the truth. This discussion got me thinking that thinking negatively is actually helping. Because the science that we accept today is testable, refutable, and falsifiable.

    Postnormal science
    the stage we are in today, where all comfortable assumptions about science, its production and use are in question
    Uncertain facts, disputed values, high stakes, decisions urgent
    As the basic tenet of postnormal science suggests, science should be a unifying dialogue that aims to solve a certain issue rather than to simply describe and find the truth about a certain matter; even if this means having laypersons contribute in the resolution of issues.

  37. Mariane Angela Capistrano says:

    Group 15 STS THX

    Since grade school, we believed that the scientific method can be simply defined in several steps. However, after watching these discussions, we are convinced that it is not simply something that has a start and end, rather, it is an endless cycle of questioning and validating certain data because it is the only way we could fully understand our ever-changing world. Furthermore, as a part of this world, every human whether or not he/she is a scientist could definitely take part in the constant research for the truth.
    In addition, as we gather and analyze more data through the help of citizen science, the knowledge we know also evolve, like the scientific thinking do. We continue to question what we currently know and account all the uncertainties and risks. This is possible through the post normal science framework.
    All these concepts affect our individual lives by changing the way we look at science and opens our eyes to new ideas that change how we observe our surroundings.

  38. Scientific method has been taught to all of us since we were in elementary. It seemed to be the correct way on analyzing things but it all turned out that there are other ways of seeing things. Some questions of mankind cannot be answered by scientific method. Also, some models used, like statistical models, also have their errors in it and you cannot tell that your results are true. Using scientific method is like an easier way of understanding something. But it’s far from what scientists actually do. After arriving at a conclusion, it seems like the job is already finished. But it should not stop there. We should go beyond that and continue formulating questions even after arriving at a conclusion to make sure that we get a more accurate result. Just like Popper’s idea, a real scientist should never close his mind on the possibility that his conclusion, although a million times supported by experiment results, may not be true.

    Citizen science are also a big help in the development of science and technology. It means that all people, despite of their background, can have contribution to science. But it is saddening that these are only for people of privilege who has the capabilities of having the instruments and gadgets for the endeavor. Searching for scientific knowledge should not have any limitations. People should start thinking that contributing to science is open for all those who are willing to help for the benefit of mankind. In this way, we will be able to solve problems more efficiently.

    It is very enlightening to hear about science and pseudoscience. After learning about this, we can say that some discoveries were pseudoscience after all as they cannot be disconfirmed. Science disconfirms, and whatever the result is, the scientist should be willing to let go of his beliefs and just accept the evidences. On the other side, pseudoscience confirms. There is a bias, because it’s much easier to find confirmation if we’re looking for it. But it can provide us another way of understanding things, especially when our theory cannot be tested. Popper also said that science, although it relies on probability and contingency of the prediction with the data, should never be based on certainty because it closes a scientist’s mind on the possibility that his prediction is false.

    In our time today, paradigms are shifting and there are many things that are uncertain. After all, science is dynamic. In times when facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high, decisions urgent, post-normal science emerges. There are things that cannot be explained by science. In solving problems today, it is advisable not only to consider what scientists say as a basis but we should also incorporate multiple viewpoints of people, professional or not.In this case, we will be able to fully understand the problem and provide an appropriate solution for it.

    Group 20
    STS WFX

  39. Angemeir Chloe C. Francisco says:

    GROUP 2
    STS WFX

    The pursuit of definite answers to questions about the world is what makes Science intimidating for people. Since Science has established its reputation as the fact finding institution, many have forgotten about the true objective of the field which is to celebrate the inquisitive nature of humanity. The linear nature of the scientific method only exacerbates the wrong perception that Science’s only concern is producing conclusions instead of putting more emphasis on the process itself. Because of this, it has portrayed the scientific community wrongly to the public’s eyes. It is good to see that there are efforts recently that are geared towards changing this perception, and transitioning to a methodology that places more importance on nurturing discourse.

    Making Science more accessible to the public through creating spaces for knowledge-sharing, such as Citizen Science, contributes not only to the expansion of knowledge but also creates a more cohesive community that has a deeply rooted appreciation for Science. The fact that it has created a platform for “lay people” to participate in the process of discovering new things sends the message that at the end of the day, Science is still about the celebration of the human capacity to think; that there is no such thing as a monopolization of intellect. However, we have to also highlight that due to inaccessibility of education, a myriad of opportunities to hone great minds through providing them with the necessary skills is still being lost. Hence it is important that technology is also used as a tool to transcend these structural barriers.

    Lastly, the concept of a fact is being challenged nowadays. This is due to differences in schema and motives. However, this should not be taken by the Scientific community as a threat but rather as an opportunity to recalibrate their goals and reevalute their methodologies.

  40. Roda Vasquez says:

    THX GROUP 2

    The scientific method we were taught when we were young simplifies the scientific process. Little did we know that this brevity misrepresents what scientists actually do and what science is all about. So, this explains why when we explain things around us scientifically, we tend to cower for not knowing the right answers (derived from the end of the traditional scientific method: that we need a conclusion). One should incorporate other perspective in the same process as science isn’t linear. It is inclusive, a collective knowledge wherein citizen scientists also take part in.
    And that science, therefore, is more than a fixed set of rules.

    The concept of post-normal science is about accepting the fact that there are still numerous possibilities that science hasn’t discovered yet. This takes into consideration the phenomena that don’t seem to be aligned with the facts that we currently know yet there may still be future studies in which science catches up to discovering facts that may serve as proof and explanation as to why those phenomena exist. Looking at ideas as “possible truths” helps communities to avoid disregarding ideas that may be useful in the future, and this allows science to progress further into proving and disproving different concepts. In addition to this, that there are lots of things science hasn’t dwelled into yet, pseudoscience tells that the knowledge we have today can actually be questioned. Facts we know are facts because they are proven; this may cease when proof arise that this fact can be challenged

  41. bead says:

    THX Group 11

    The videos were able to elaborate for our group the notion that science is dynamic, and that its changes come not only from the professionals but from the rest of society as well. Even simple differences like the shift from a scientific method to cycle of scientific thinking show that there are many ways to “attack” studying science as a whole. We like the idea of the scientific cycle because it’s more realistic as it gives room for error and gray areas when it comes to findings, and supports continued growth of the study/topic/data involved. It contextualizes the fact that sometimes, we are not always entirely right or entirely wrong when it comes to studying something. We think that post-normal science and pseudoscience both reflect and negate the idea that science is dynamic, because it both acknowledges changes in scientific thinking, but also assumes that there was a “norm” to begin with. However, we do think it’s important to question things that were once considered facts. We think being critical and being able to challenge previously established ideas will lead to more discoveries and better understanding of things that were once unable to be comprehended by humans. We think that all of this will be able to progress better because of citizen science, the open involvement of non-professionals in scientific studies mostly through data gathering and analysis. We think that the idea of citizen science promotes curiosity, concern for what is happening around us, mental growth, and a sense of community and importance, knowing that even small tasks we can do like taking pictures of plants or stars can help with a bigger project. We realized that science grows not only because of challenging older ideas, but also the different insights we get from people all around the world coming from different points of view. This is empowering to people, for example those that want to help with environmental concerns but don’t really know how.

  42. Audrielle Santos says:

    STS WFX GROUP 6

    In our early years we were taught that the scientific method was a linear process. However, this video opposes that idea as it promotes that it is, rather, a cycle. After all, the scientific method triggers our curiosity and desire to attain knowledge through our continuous questioning of the world around us.

    The Citizen Science Revolution talks about how non-scientists are capable of contributing to the science world in even the simple ways. People who don’t have advance knowledge to science may help scientists gather or complete their research. This video promotes that science is not only for those who specializes in the field, but is a collaboration of those inside and outside the field since people have unique ways of understanding and interpreting things. Thus, will lead us to more complex ideas as our curiosity expands. We were also able to distinguish pseudoscience as something believed to be true unless disproved and post normal science.

    Science is inevitable to change due to more contributions that will be made over time. Through the series of videos, we were able to grasp the idea that we should be open-minded to allow these changes to take part in the research as it leads you to different results that may affect your theories and beliefs. Moreover, it is inspiring to think that a person that is not entitled to any science field may contribute to a scientist’s research. It promotes how we are able to affect change around us in every simple way.

  43. Gracely Tolosa says:

    STS THX Group 14 says…

    The way people interpret science, both the field and the act of discovery, will continue to evolve and change over time. From the procedures, to its uses, to our view of science will develop based on our needs of it and how we believe it to be most effective in our uses. Although some of the procedures has its problems, like the scientific method, no one can deny the things we’ve achieved through the use of it. All these different ways and processes all lead to the pursuit of knowledge because learning about the world we are living in is a never ending process. The option to unravel what science can do to our lives is within our reach, may it be in the simplest ways, as a profession or how you can imagine it to be.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.