The document outlines a rubric for reviewing lengthy science articles, emphasizing key points to summarize and discuss, including main arguments and relationships to the reader's academic or career goals. It highlights aspects of the scientific method, types of scientific inquiry, and ethical obligations of science to society. Additionally, it covers various argument types and their relevance in scientific discourse, encouraging critical thinking about observations and hypotheses.

1. New York Times Article Review Rubric (10 pts)
Select a “lengthy” article (more than two paragraphs) that
summarizes or discusses one or more science projects.
Summarize your article (who, what, when, where and how) in
one paragraph (2 pts) and then answer the following questions:
1. In one sentence, what is the main point of the article? (1 pt)
2. What counter-arguments or counter-points does the author
make? (1 pt)
3. How does this article relate to anything we have or will
discuss in class? How does this article relate to something
related to your major, possible career and/or life? Note, your
article may not relate to the class, but it should at least relate to
your major, career and/or life. (2 pts)
4. Explain if these studies were observational, experimental,
technological or some combination of the three. If applicable,
identify the independent and (at least one) dependent variables.
What possible confounding variables are present in the study?
How do the authors “control” for these? (2 pts)
5. What questions does the article leave unanswered? (1 pt)
6. What did you learn from this article? (1 pt)
Electronically submit your answers to Blueline by noon on
1/26/16

2. What is Science?
Human Biology
1/18/16
A process whose essential characteristics are 1) guided by
natural law; 2) is explanatory by natural law; 3) is testable
against the empirical world; 4) is falsifiable.William R.
Overton, U.S. District Judge in a ruling prohibiting an AR law
giving balanced time for creation-science and evolution,
1982The observation, identification, description, experimental
investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural
phenomena.American Heritage DictionaryAbove all it is a
methodology for acquiring testable knowledge about the natural
world.Stephen Jay Gould
A process: methodology for generating new knowledge based on
cycling the following progression: observation, explanation,
prediction, test, results, conclusion. A product:
new knowledge with the following characteristics: it is
cumulative, knowledge expanding, explanatory, predictive,
systematic, testable, verifiable, tentative, self-correcting.
-OSU professorOR…
… a way of baffling the uninitiated with incomprehensible
jargon. It is a way of obtaining fat government grants. It is a
way of achieving mastery over the physical world by
threatening it with chaos and destruction.
Scientific Method Observation

3. Hypothesis
Prediction
Test of prediction
Scientific Method
Test of predictionTreatment versus control groupIndependent vs
dependent variables“control” confounding variables
large sample size
Cause and effect conclusions
Scientific MethodTypes of (dependent) variables
Categorical (color, sex)
Discrete (number of fingers or leaves)
Continuous (weight, height)
Appropriate ways to graph the above?
Scientific Method
Test of prediction
Hypothesis vs null hypothesis
Statistics is a tool
Scientific Method
3 Criteria of a good prediction

4. Improbability
Deducibility
Testable
Scientific MethodPrediction is true – reject the null
hypothesisConclude: data are consistent with the
hypothesisNOT: data prove the hypothesis
Or prediction is false
Scientific MethodConclusions are published
Conclusions are challenged by others
Scientific Method
Think about the Scientific Method
Think about bacteria: what do you know about bacteria? Where
does it occur? What does it do? What does it need to grow?In
groups of 3-4, list some observations about bacteriaGenerate
possible explanations (hypotheses) that could explain your
observations
Is Science Objective?“The objectivity of SCIENCE, imperfect
as it is, is not a function of the objectivity of SCIENTISTS. It
is a function of the “logical” rules of the game. These are
embodied in the specification of a good test, and thus in
Conditions 1 and 2. So there is no reason why scientists should
not try to justify their hypotheses and be very disappointed if

5. they are refuted. The rules of the game ensure that the harder
one tries to get a good justification, the greater the risk of
refutation – unless the hypothesis is indeed on the right
track.”R.N. Giere, 1984. Understanding Scientific Reasoning
Science and SocietyWhat obligations does Science have towards
Society?Tax dollars support a lot of scientific research
Ethical questions
Deductive ArgumentsMoves from the general to the specific
If the premises are true, then it is impossible for the conclusion
to be false (valid).
Examples of Deductive Arguments
All CU students are mammals.
All mammals have lungs.
Therefore, all CU students have lungs.Valid, true premises;
sound
If it is snowing, then CU cancels classes.
It is snowing.
Thus, CU cancels classes.Valid, false premise; unsound
Inductive ArgumentsMove from the specific to the general
Strong: if premises are true then it’s probable that the
conclusion is true.
Cogent: an inductive argument that is strong and has all true
premises

6. Examples of Inductive arguments
Bill is a partier.
Most business majors are partiers.
Thus, Bill is probably a business major.Strong but not necessary
support for conclusion
Deductive vs Inductive
Which tends to expand knowledge?
Which tends to preserve truth?
Which has valid, sound arguments?
Which has cogent, strong arguments?
Deductive vs Inductive
Which tends to expand knowledge? inductive
Which tends to preserve truth? deductive
Which has valid, sound arguments? deductive
Which has cogent, strong arguments? inductive
3 Types of Scientific Inquiry
1. Discovery science relies upon making observations and
descriptions of nature
Gathers and catalogs facts via discovery and detection of

7. patterns
Asks who, what, where and when
3 Types of Scientific Inquiry
2. Hypothesis-based (theoretical) ScienceExplains and predicts
by generating and testing models
Involves the proposal of hypotheses or possible explanations
Asks why and how
3 Types of Scientific Inquiry
3. Technological Science
New methodology or process
Problem solving
Models
Models are used to represent reality
They are used to make predictions about reality
Facts, Laws and TheoriesObservationExample: it’s raining
outside
Law Example: Dalton’s Law
Theory – a “meta-hypothesis” that explains why an observation
occurs
“A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the
results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it

8. a series of independent data and facts can be related and
interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory’s validity
depends on whether or not it can be tested against the facts;
wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its
limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought,”John
Paul II. 1997. The Pope’s Message on Evolution. Quarterly
Review of Biology 72(4): 381-383
Deformed and declining populations of amphibians
Could a parasite be blamed?
Observational studyJohnson et al. (1999) surveyed ponds to
determine that frogs with deformities were only present if the
parasite’s intermediate host snail was also present
Controlled lab experiment
Field experiment