Biological Analysis Focus Questions (1-4)

Is science best thought of as a body of knowledge or a process of discovery? Explain

A process of discovery because science is always learning new things and unlearning false things- it is non-linear and illerative (meaning it is a process).

Science is a body of knowledge but only exists because of the process of discovery and collaboration etc.

Why is science difficult to define?

Because science is not just a body of knowledge but a process we use to learn new things. Science is also research which seeks out new knowledge. Science can also be more descriptive than explanatory, as science tries to uncover truth. It’s more than just facts.

What is the checklist for explaining science?

1. focuses on the natural world

2. aims to explain and describe phenomena

3. relies on testable ideas and empirical evidence

4. critically, involves a community and leads to ongoing research.

Why can’t science be done in isolation?

A community is needed for science to share ideas and evidence. Humans are fallible and we like to have bias and when science is done in collaboration, these biases can be identified.

For example, scientific papers get peer reviewed.

COMMUNITY IS KEY

Give and example of behavior that would run in opposition to good scientific behavior

If you do not let someone else test your theories. Because science is a system of knowledge and discovery. A scientist must stay up to date with the field and keep thinking of questions and testing their ideas.

If you change results and report fraudulent science, this is bad behavior, science must share ideas to advance toward truth.

Distinguish between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism

Methodological- science must ONLY appeal to natural causes, science does not address supernatural, but still leaves it to exist

Philosophical- this means there is NOTHING beyond the natural world, and DENIES the existences of the supernatural

In what context can methodological naturalism be compatible with an SDA Christian worldview?

Methodological naturalism is compatible with this view when it is in the context of nomological science which is science that focuses on discovering and explaining the unchanging laws and properties of nature and asks how the universe normally functions- you are seeking natural explanations for how a system normally operates or studying the world how God designed it to function

In other words- science is not denying the supernatural but define the scope of the study- for example- a Christian can perform a chemical reaction and use methodological naturalism to explain it while still believing in the supernatural

Also- nomological science is NOT time dependent

And in what context would methodological naturalism not be compatible with an SDA Christian worldview? Explain.

When historical science is used, which seeks to reconstruct the past and determine the causal history of the world.

Here is the conflict- if a scientist adheres to methodological naturalism in historical science they must think that every event in the history of the universe had ONLY a natural cause- which contradicts the supernatural creation story

What is the TWO BOOKS framework?

Adventist theology balance the tensions of previous questions with this idea- the book of nature (God’s works) and the book of Revelation (God’s words) science is the tool for studying nature and both much be used together

What is rationalism and give an example of its reasoning.

Rationalism- is deductive reasoning from a big to small conclusion

Example- is all crows are black, this is a crow, therefore this crow is black

What is empiricism and give an example of its reasoning?

Empiricism is based on inductive reasoning, which involves making observations and abstracting patterns from that data. It is a "data-up" rather than a "postulate-down" approach.

• Observing Patterns in Nature: Rather than sitting in a chair and reasoning about how the world should work (as the ancient Greeks often did), empiricism requires going out into the natural world to see what is actually happening. This is based on the idea of the "contingency of nature"—the belief that because God could have created the universe in any way He wanted, we cannot simply guess its laws; we must observe them.

• Analyzing Experimental Data: When a scientist runs an experiment and collects results, they are using empiricism. They look at the evidence to see if it supports or refutes their ideas, recognizing that because science is empirical, there is always an element of uncertainty and a lack of absolute "proof" like that found in math

Explain how empiricism follows from a Christian worldview?

Empiricism naturally follows from a Christian worldview because Christianity teaches that the universe is contingent, intelligible, and studied by fallible humans. Since God was free to create the world in any way He chose, nature cannot be fully understood through pure reasoning alone and must instead be observed to discover how God actually ordered it. At the same time, Christianity holds that a rational God created an orderly universe and that humans, made in God’s image, have reliable senses and reasoning abilities that allow them to uncover patterns and meaning in creation. Yet because human reason is affected by the Fall and prone to bias and error, Christians recognize the need for empirical testing, data collection, and communal verification to correct individual mistakes. In this way, empiricism functions within the Christian “Two Books” framework as the proper method for studying the Book of God’s Works—nature—complementing Scripture by humbly seeking truth through observation of God’s creation.

How does the recognition that we are fallen and fallible lead to both good theology and good science?

Recognizing that humans are fallen and make mistakes leads to both good science and good theology because it teaches humility. In science, knowing we are biased and error-prone is why scientists test ideas, collect data, and rely on the wider community to check their work instead of trusting personal opinions. This allows science to correct itself when new evidence shows an idea was wrong or incomplete. In theology, the same awareness keeps people from becoming arrogant or shutting down questions, reminding them that human interpretations of God’s truth are limited and can grow over time. Rather than forcing our own ideas onto nature or onto God, acknowledging our fallibility pushes us to listen, learn, and stay open to correction—creating a mindset that supports both careful science and faithful theology.

Why isn’t science predictable and predetermined?

Any point in the process leads to many possible next steps where that next step leads could be a surprise, ex- instead of leading to a conclusion about tectonic plate movement, testing an idea about tectonics could lead to an observation about an unexpected rock layer

Describe three important ways the larger scientific community plays a role in the process of science.

1. Fact-checker and critic PEER REVIEW (assumptions are reasonable not based on flawed reasoning)

2. Innovator and visionary (idea generation)- interactions within a diverse and creative community GENERATE NEW IDEAS IN COMMUNITY

3. Self-Correction TO ELIMINATE BIAS AND FRAUD

1. Give an example of how the scientific process interacts with society at large.

• Medical Technology: Investigations into X-rays led directly to the creation of CT scanners, which are now fundamental to modern medical diagnostics.

• Genetic Engineering: The discovery of the structure of DNA provided the foundation for practical societal applications such as DNA fingerprinting, genetically engineered crops, and tests for genetic diseases.

• Public Health Policy: During the COVID-19 pandemic, research into viral shedding (SARS-CoV-2) dramatically changed public health advice. Initially, officials based their advice on the first SARS virus, where shedding happened only after symptoms were severe. When new data showed that shedding was highest at the very onset of symptoms, society shifted to recommending widespread mask-wearing to control transmission.

Explain why scientific theories are more important than facts or laws.

Theories are larger than laws because they are an explanation and our best working model to explain a phenomena at the moment-

Scientific theories are considered the most important structures in science because they serve as powerful, broad explanations that integrate and make sense of a wide range of observations, facts, and laws. While facts are the raw data of the natural world and laws describe how it functions, theories provide the essential "why" and "how" that allow science to move forward.

Give an example of a situation where a researcher’s conclusion is incorrect because of a confounding variable.

Ex- forest bathing, hypothesis*forest bathing reduces stress, those who walk in the woods for 30 minutes a day will have less stress than those who sit at home for 30 minutes a day

·      BUT another factor that impacts stress in one group but not the other the word WALK

·      Walk in the woods vs sitting at home, if the stress reduction the walking or the forest bathing? We don’t have independence to assess stress without reference to anything else

Give an example of Simpson’s paradox

We collect data and uncritically pool it

Ex- admission rates for men and women at university, male have higher rates than females of admission- data pooled to mask real evidence, split it by department than females have higher rate slightly, because when pooled it isn’t accounting for the department

Females applied to programs with lower admission rates was the issue

1. Explain the effect of random variation, sample size, and effect size on power.

Random Variation- Effect on Power: High levels of noise decrease the likelihood of detecting a meaningful result, thereby reducing the power of the study

Sample size- Effect on Power: Increasing the sample size is the most significant way to increase the power of a study because it enhances the study's sensitivity to detect a signal

Effect size- Effect on Power: A large effect size (a "big signal") is much easier to detect than a small one

1. Explain how a sample size could be too small.

This means the signal won’t be detected because the study is underpowered

Explain how a sample size could be too large.

A sample size is considered too large when it exceeds the "sweet spot" of an experimental design, leading to diminishing returns in statistical power and unnecessary expenditures of resources and lives.

Explain why a study with a sample size that is too small might be unethical. Explain why a sample size that is too large might be unethical.

Too small- not likely to detect what you are looking for so why waste money, time and resources etc.

Too large- putting extra at risk unnecessarily

Ethics- the use of humans and animals, use as few as possible, risk discomfort, distress

Ex- does the scientific knowledge gained outweigh the risks and discomfort to the humans/animals?, drugs have risk to the animals, do not want to waste these- too few not useful, too many useful results, but putting more animals at risk

1. What do the abbreviations IACUC and IRB stand for? What is the function of these groups?

IACUC- Institutional Animals Care and Use Committee (vertebrate)

IRB- Institutional Review Board (Human subjects)

What is Hume’s law

IS VS OUGHT

“Is” refers to the way things are (descriptive), science

“Ought” refers to how thing should be (normative), judgment of value, morality

Ex- science tells us that human embryos are just cells so abortion is ok

Ex- science tells us gays are born that way so its okay

How do empiricism and rationalism work together to help science advance?

Science moves forward through a repeating cycle that combines reasoning and observation. Scientists first use rational thinking to form theories and make predictions about what should happen, but they cannot rely on logic alone because the natural world does not have to behave the way humans expect. To check their ideas, they use empiricism by observing and experimenting to see what actually happens in nature. If the results match the prediction, the theory is strengthened; if not, the theory is revised and tested again. This ongoing process keeps science self-correcting and reminds scientists to be humble, since careful observation and repeated testing are needed to overcome human error and bias and to build more accurate knowledge about the world.