EXAM 1 HUMAN BIOLOGY STUDY
GUIDE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
define science, naturalism, and realism - ANSWER--science is a discipline of study
that tries to explain the natural world using critical, observational tests of ideas and
questions that are usually derived by the combination of observation and logic.
-naturalism is the idea that natural processes explain the world we perceive as "real"
-realism is the idea that what we perceive as "real" actually is real.
explain why the process of "doing" scientific research implicitly assumes naturalism
and realism, even if the scientist doing the work doesn't "believe in" naturalism or
realism. - ANSWER-when a process relies on observation to test/challenge ideas
and answer questions- as science does- the process has no ability to
examine/include "causes" other than those found in the "natural" world (i.e., the
world we can perceive with seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, touching) thus, the
process of "doing" science assumes naturalism. Although there may be more "out
there" than the stuff we're able to perceive as reality, and even though the
interpretations of what we observe as being real can be wrong, we have no
alternative way of knowing; thus the process of "doing" science assumes realism.
Why is science unable to answer questions about the supernatural (e.g., spirituality,
magic, ect.) Hint: think about the criterion science demands to validate ideas. -
ANSWER-because science relies on observation to test/challenge ideas and answer
questions, and the supernatural cannot be observed directly or even indirectly. by
definition *super* natural is *beyond* natural, meaning it's beyond being perceivable
via our sense of perception (seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, touching)
What are two weaknesses did I associate with knowledge gained through
observation? The knowledge is subject to ________ and it is limited to
____________. - ANSWER--misinterpretation
-known conditions
Although confident in the validity of repeatedly confirmed scientific explanations, the
scientific community claims that such knowledge is probabilistic rather than certain,
absolute truth. why? - ANSWER-because science relies on observation to
test/challenge ideas and answer questions, and knowledge gained through
observation is subject to being misinterpreted and is limited to known conditions (i.e.,
the conditions under which the observations were made)
what must be true about multiple observations (i.e., observational tests) for them to
be considered scientific evidence for or against a proposed explanation? -
ANSWER-they must be independent of each other
based on the way scientific investigation usually proceeds, an idea is considered
"scientific" if it ____________ - ANSWER-can be challenged/tested
Although knowledge gained through scientific investigation can be wrong or
incomplete, and is always produced by biased individuals (all people are biased)
, scientific explanations that have stood the test of time and been widely accepted are
usually correct. why? - ANSWER-because well accepted ideas have usually been
repeatedly confirmed by independent observations. some studies involve *direct*
observation. others involve *indirect* observation
Hundreds of scientists over the last 50 years have performed hundreds of different
experiments testing the effect of eating tomatoes on aging. Roughly 85% of the
experiments show that eating tomatoes reduces the rate of aging. Given that science
(or any other human endeavor) can never "prove" an explanation with absolute
certainty, is it reasonable to believe that eating tomatoes reduces the rate of aging,
or is it reasonable to believe that eating tomatoes does not reduce the rate of aging?
support your answer in one sentence - ANSWER-it is reasonable to believe that
eating tomatoes reduces the rate of aging because 85% of hundreds of studies show
that they reduce the rate of aging, whereas only 15% of studies fail to show this
result (possibly because tomatoes don't always reduce aging or perhaps because of
flaws in the experiments, BUT THE POINT- is that it is NOT logical to place your bet
on a 15% chance event rather than an 85% chance event.)
science embraces the notion that the most ________ explanation is usually the best
explanation, all else equal. - ANSWER--simple
do all ideas or explanations require the same amount of evidence? - ANSWER-no,
no, no! the more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence people demand.
logic in the form of ________ is used to generate testable predictions from
hypotheses that are themselves developed by detecting patterns using logic in the
form of ________.
*note: induction = inductive reasoning
deduction = deductive reasoning - ANSWER--deduction
-induction
How do we know that people are not just any kind of placental mammal, but are
primates? - ANSWER--opposable thumbs and the associated "power grip"
-flattened finger nails instead of claws or hooves
-trichromatic color vision
-several other traits, but these are sufficient for our purposes
how do we know that people and apes are NOT monkeys? - ANSWER--we and apes
lack tails (usually, interestingly, we still have genes that can produce tails, but they
usually don't turn on during apes' development or our development)
-we and apes have flat-ish faces rather than snouts
-several other traits, but these are sufficient for our purposes.
what are the different kinds of apes? - ANSWER-gibbon, gorilla, orangutan,
chimpanzee, bonobo
what distinguishes people from apes? - ANSWER--people have 23 kinds of
chromosomes whereas apes have 24 kinds. interestingly, however, human
chromosome 2 is practically identical to ape chromosomes 12 and 13 fused together
end to end, AND, our chromosome 2 has the nucleotide sequences of two
GUIDE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
define science, naturalism, and realism - ANSWER--science is a discipline of study
that tries to explain the natural world using critical, observational tests of ideas and
questions that are usually derived by the combination of observation and logic.
-naturalism is the idea that natural processes explain the world we perceive as "real"
-realism is the idea that what we perceive as "real" actually is real.
explain why the process of "doing" scientific research implicitly assumes naturalism
and realism, even if the scientist doing the work doesn't "believe in" naturalism or
realism. - ANSWER-when a process relies on observation to test/challenge ideas
and answer questions- as science does- the process has no ability to
examine/include "causes" other than those found in the "natural" world (i.e., the
world we can perceive with seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, touching) thus, the
process of "doing" science assumes naturalism. Although there may be more "out
there" than the stuff we're able to perceive as reality, and even though the
interpretations of what we observe as being real can be wrong, we have no
alternative way of knowing; thus the process of "doing" science assumes realism.
Why is science unable to answer questions about the supernatural (e.g., spirituality,
magic, ect.) Hint: think about the criterion science demands to validate ideas. -
ANSWER-because science relies on observation to test/challenge ideas and answer
questions, and the supernatural cannot be observed directly or even indirectly. by
definition *super* natural is *beyond* natural, meaning it's beyond being perceivable
via our sense of perception (seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, touching)
What are two weaknesses did I associate with knowledge gained through
observation? The knowledge is subject to ________ and it is limited to
____________. - ANSWER--misinterpretation
-known conditions
Although confident in the validity of repeatedly confirmed scientific explanations, the
scientific community claims that such knowledge is probabilistic rather than certain,
absolute truth. why? - ANSWER-because science relies on observation to
test/challenge ideas and answer questions, and knowledge gained through
observation is subject to being misinterpreted and is limited to known conditions (i.e.,
the conditions under which the observations were made)
what must be true about multiple observations (i.e., observational tests) for them to
be considered scientific evidence for or against a proposed explanation? -
ANSWER-they must be independent of each other
based on the way scientific investigation usually proceeds, an idea is considered
"scientific" if it ____________ - ANSWER-can be challenged/tested
Although knowledge gained through scientific investigation can be wrong or
incomplete, and is always produced by biased individuals (all people are biased)
, scientific explanations that have stood the test of time and been widely accepted are
usually correct. why? - ANSWER-because well accepted ideas have usually been
repeatedly confirmed by independent observations. some studies involve *direct*
observation. others involve *indirect* observation
Hundreds of scientists over the last 50 years have performed hundreds of different
experiments testing the effect of eating tomatoes on aging. Roughly 85% of the
experiments show that eating tomatoes reduces the rate of aging. Given that science
(or any other human endeavor) can never "prove" an explanation with absolute
certainty, is it reasonable to believe that eating tomatoes reduces the rate of aging,
or is it reasonable to believe that eating tomatoes does not reduce the rate of aging?
support your answer in one sentence - ANSWER-it is reasonable to believe that
eating tomatoes reduces the rate of aging because 85% of hundreds of studies show
that they reduce the rate of aging, whereas only 15% of studies fail to show this
result (possibly because tomatoes don't always reduce aging or perhaps because of
flaws in the experiments, BUT THE POINT- is that it is NOT logical to place your bet
on a 15% chance event rather than an 85% chance event.)
science embraces the notion that the most ________ explanation is usually the best
explanation, all else equal. - ANSWER--simple
do all ideas or explanations require the same amount of evidence? - ANSWER-no,
no, no! the more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence people demand.
logic in the form of ________ is used to generate testable predictions from
hypotheses that are themselves developed by detecting patterns using logic in the
form of ________.
*note: induction = inductive reasoning
deduction = deductive reasoning - ANSWER--deduction
-induction
How do we know that people are not just any kind of placental mammal, but are
primates? - ANSWER--opposable thumbs and the associated "power grip"
-flattened finger nails instead of claws or hooves
-trichromatic color vision
-several other traits, but these are sufficient for our purposes
how do we know that people and apes are NOT monkeys? - ANSWER--we and apes
lack tails (usually, interestingly, we still have genes that can produce tails, but they
usually don't turn on during apes' development or our development)
-we and apes have flat-ish faces rather than snouts
-several other traits, but these are sufficient for our purposes.
what are the different kinds of apes? - ANSWER-gibbon, gorilla, orangutan,
chimpanzee, bonobo
what distinguishes people from apes? - ANSWER--people have 23 kinds of
chromosomes whereas apes have 24 kinds. interestingly, however, human
chromosome 2 is practically identical to ape chromosomes 12 and 13 fused together
end to end, AND, our chromosome 2 has the nucleotide sequences of two
