Definition of the scientific method
Break the definition of science. Science is practical. Although sometimes learned in the science of textbooks or teachers in meeting rooms, the main activity is discovered.
Discovery is an active and practical process, not something isolated by scholars in the ivory towers. It is both a search for information and a search to explain how information has been inserted meaningfully. And almost always looking for answers to very practical questions:
How does human activity affect the greenhouse effect? Why has the bee population in North America suddenly fallen back? What does it allow birds to bridge such great distances? How do black holes form?
Science is based on observation. Scientists use all the senses to gather information about their environment. Sometimes they collect this information directly, without tools or devices. In other cases, they use a device such as a telescope or a microscope to indirectly collect information.
 |
| pic via Wired UK |
Either way, scientists write what they see, hear and feel. These recorded observations are called data. The data can reveal the structure of something. They are quantitative data that describe an object numerically.
Read Also: Science And Discovery Center Panama City FL - Florida Trail
The diameter of Jupiter is 142,984 kilometers. The length of a blue whale is 30.5 meters (100 feet). Note that the quantitative data consists of a number followed by a unit. The unit is a standardized method for measuring a certain dimension or quantity.
For example, the foot is a length unit. This is the counter. In science, the international system of units (SI), the modern form of the metric system, is the global standard. The data can also show the behavior. These are qualitative data that are a description of an object or organism.
You have to be in a quiet part of the galaxy: there are no supernova's in the neighborhood, black holes that you suck, gamma-ray bursts, etc. You need a stable, long-living single star. They need a gravity-stable solar system so that the planets are not disturbed by gravity and are sunk in the master star or completely removed from the main system.
You need to have a good Jupiter to absorb diverging comets and asteroids and / or gravity that would otherwise fall on your planet, which would otherwise damage the established ways of life ecologically. You need a planet in a beautiful circular path, one that does not move too close to the habitable zone around the parent.
A comment about planetary disasters or catastrophes is that they cut in both directions. In contrast to microbial life, it is also difficult to naturally transport a complex life in the galaxy. When a meteor hits the earth and blows a piece of land to Mars, it is a pity that the poor cockroach falls on the road.
Cockroaches are difficult, but not so heavy. And even if a cockroach would bring it to life, Mars says, it would not take long. If you have multicellular beings that have survived and flourished the generations in a relatively stable part of the universe, will they develop intelligence?
I mean, it's good to find an extraterrestrial equivalent of a trilobite, but we want to find beings like us. In my humble opinion, intelligence, the ability to solve things, has an evolutionary survival value and is often chosen and, over time, tends to develop life forms with an ever increasing IQ.
In order for SETI to be successful and UFOs to be extraterrestrial spaceships, our intelligent kind of technology must develop, and here I see bottleneck number two. The development of technology is not inevitable and has to do with many factors.
Read Also: Day Trips To Discovery Science Center Orange County
First, your home planet must be equipped with the right materials, such as oxygen and metal minerals and other objects, which can become useful tools and, of course, sufficient supply of different energy sources.
That is not a fact. The water worlds are not in the race because it is difficult to discover and use fire in this environment. You can not have all the necessary locomotive attachments in contact with the ground. Some must have the ability to manipulate objects in their environment.
Therefore, we have already ruled out that dolphins, whales and cephalopods are water-based creatures and birds with their useless wings in terms of the construction of things and all four-legged mammals. It is not so obvious that technology actually increases the long-term survival value.
Many technological developments, such as firefighting, agricultural development, the rise of modern medicine and food technologies. But many of the modern technological marvels, cars, CDs, sofas, microwaves and thousands of other consumer goods do not really contribute to survival. Of course, cars do not work when they consider the toll road!
This makes us think that technological things can sometimes work in the opposite direction. It raises an interesting question: would humanity ultimately survive longer if the technology was never included in the equation or not?
That is why the earth, with its multicellular beings and humanity with its technology, is a fairly rare planet in the universe. The main proponents of the so-called "rare-earth hypothesis" are the Brownlee and Ward scientists (see below) and they certainly stimulated the idea with an astrobiological sneaky nest.
That is good for science in the long term. The belief in an unproven but accepted scientific proposition, in this case that there are many complex, bizarre errors, must be questioned if the research areas do not stagnate.
In a sense, this science is trying to develop the manual that people will need as they take control of the global ecosystem and a large number of local ecosystems more and more. After all, societies, support science through simple curiosity and the satisfaction and enlightenment that results from recognizing the world around us.
As our friends at Megacorp show, research in the laboratory or in the field can be scientific, but it is not necessarily a contribution to knowledge. No one in the scientific community will rely on or trust in scientific research until it is published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Read Also: Kirby Science Discovery Center At The Washington Pavilion
You can read about new research or hear about vid newsgroups during a meeting, but nothing is taken too seriously before the data are published. This means that our ecologist must write an article (called "manuscript" for reasons that have become obsolete).
0 comments:
Post a Comment