Critical Thinking in Natural Sciences - Asking Questions, Experimenting, and Integrating Findings

2. Chapter 19 Critical Thinking in the Natural Sciences

3. Learning Outcomes Identify the kinds of questions natural scientists ask Illustrate how natural scientists consider intriguing phenomena, testable explanation, experimentation, and integration of findings Describe the investigative methods used in the natural sciences

4. Learning Outcomes Explain the standards used to evaluate natural science research Describe social science applications in fields such as climatology, medicine, engineering, and agriculture

5. Chapter Opening Video

6. Critical Thinking Questions of Natural Scientists • Natural science: Systematic empirical inquiry into the causal explanations from the subatomic to the galactic in scope for • Observed patterns • Structures • Functions of natural phenomena • Thinking like a natural scientist

7. Thinking Like a Natural Scientist • Natural scientists: • Ask questions about nature and natural phenomena • Investigate the empirically asked questions • Utilize a shared understanding of terminology and methods of inquiry

8. Thinking Process of Natural Scientists Think curious and intriguing natural phenomenon Think empirically testable causal explanation Null hypothesis

9. Thinking Process of Natural Scientists Think how to prevent and bring about the phenomenon Think how to integrate new knowledge with broader scientific understandings

10. Think Curious and Intriguing Natural Phenomenon Observations of scientists are related to professional interests and training Natural phenomena that scientists find intriguing are associated with team’s project and program

11. Think Empirically Testable Causal Explanation • Natural science requires explanations of empirical reasoning applied to: • Potentially testable hypothesis about causal factors that produce the phenomenon

12. Null Hypothesis Two events, factors, or phenomena are not related Help investigators maintain a valuable level of objectivity in work

13. Think How to Prevent and Bring About the Phenomenon • Natural scientists prefer to mirror experimentally a logical scenario • If A, then B but not B so surely not A • Thinking like a natural scientist implies: • Discarding theories and explanations that are not consistent with the experimental data

14. Discussion Questions • People with severe headaches often experience physical reactions that hamper their daily activities • Has this happened to you? • What physical reactions did you experience? • Suppose you are a natural scientist, what possibilities might you investigate for preventing severe headaches?

15. Think How to Integrate New Knowledge With Broader Scientific Understandings • Fundamental assumptions of natural science • Physical phenomena occur through empirically discoverable causal mechanisms • Physical universe is an integrated whole

16. Think How to Integrate New Knowledge With Broader Scientific Understandings Synthesizing knowledge Anomalies: Solid scientific findings that are not consistent with prevailing theories

17. Natural Scientists’ Investigation Testable hypothesis: Can be shown to be false by reference to empirical evidence Let the empirical question drive the inquiry

18. Steps in a Scientific Investigation Identify a problem of significance Form a hypothesis Review the scientific literature to learn from the work of others Identify all the factors related to the hypothesis Make each factor measurable

19. Steps in a Scientific Investigation Ensure that the experimental conditions can be met Design a procedure to ensure the data reveals the full range of observations Run a pilot to test the feasibility of design plan Conduct the study/experiment and gather the data

20. Steps in a Scientific Investigation Conduct appropriate analyses of data Interpret the findings and discuss its significance Critique the findings Publish the research Design a follow up study

21. Let the Empirical Question Drive the Inquiry Scientists do not retreat from an empirical question Natural scientists treat a phenomena as a falsifiable hypothesis and investigate it empirically

22. Let the Empirical Question Drive the Inquiry Scientists are focused on scientific interpretation and falsifiable question Empirical investigation of a hypothesis requires documented data

23. How do Natural Scientists Think About Standards? Confidence in scientific findings Confidence in scientific theories

24. Confidence in Scientific Findings • Strong critical thinkers assert findings with warranted confidence • True to a scientific certainty • Causal factors in natural sciences function with precision and regularity • Statistical significance: Represents the probability that an obtained result has not occurred by chance

25. Confidence in Scientific Findings • Finding what isn’t there and not finding what is there • Wrong to conclude that reliance on numerical data will eliminate human vulnerabilities

26. Confidence in Scientific Theories Scientific research is iterative Understanding of natural phenomena becomes accurate, and deeper with every investigation Natural scientists embrace a set of standards for evaluating scientific theories

27. Confidence in Scientific Theories • Explanatory scientific theories strive to be: • Consistent • Testable • Comprehensive • Productive • Parsimonious

28. Natural Science Applications in the Real World Mitigation of the impact of global climate change on human food supplies Microbiology, chemistry, and the promise of gene therapy Interaction of genetics, environment, and personal determination in lives Enviropig project and genetically modified foods

29. Natural Science Applications in the Real World • Science Education for New Civic Engagements and Responsibilities (SENCER) • Sponsored by National Science Foundation • Assists colleges and universities in the development of science courses • Focuses on real-world problems

30. Sketchnote Video