PHI210 Chapter 6 Webtext. Question, Answers and Explanations.

PHI210 Chapter 6 Webtext Imagine that you go into your home and see muddy footprints on the floor from shoes you know are not your own. Give examples of two plausible explanations and two unlikely explanations for the f ...

PHI210 Chapter 6 Webtext Imagine that you go into your home and see muddy footprints on the floor from shoes you know are not your own. Give examples of two plausible explanations and two unlikely explanations for the footprints. My husband came inside and didn't clean his feet; someone broke in and left footprints. The landlord came in sneaking around the house; a monster ran through the house. Which of the following explanations for a sudden increase in car accidents at a particular intersection is an unfalsifiable hypothesis? • Drivers going through the intersection are experiencing a secret impulse to drive recklessly. • The new mall built nearby has drawn more young, inexperienced drivers to the area. • A popular new nightclub has opened two blocks away, leading to more impaired drivers in the neighborhood. • Road conditions have worsened due to an unusually cold and wet winter. Tyler and Grace water their amaryllis plant regularly, yet for some reason the plant withers and dies. Tyler suggests, “Maybe there was some peculiar property of this particular amaryllis that caused water molecules to react with the soil molecules and chemically change into arsenic molecules, and the arsenic poisoned the plant.” Which of the following is one of the drawbacks of Tyler’s proposed explanation? • It is too simple and doesn’t make enough assumptions about how water molecules behave. • It confuses correlation and causation by assuming that watering the plant had something to do with its death. • It is consistent with what science knows about chemical reactions involving water molecules. • It contradicts itself by claiming that water both helped the plant and hurt the plant at the same time. In the situation presented in the first video, what was in need of an explanation? • why England had more epidemics than other countries • what caused the bad smells in London • why cholera was so much more dangerous than other diseases • what caused the cholera outbreak According to the “Answering the Three Questions” video, in what way was the “miasmas” (bad smells) explanation inconsistent? What explanation did Dr. Snow settle on? • Cholera spread from animals to people. • Cholera spread through contaminated air. • Cholera spread through the water supply. • Cholera spread through contaminated food. How was Dr. Snow able to test his proposed explanation? Explain how Dr. Snow was able to demonstrate that he wasn’t confusing correlation with causation. Good explanations are often simple, yet they can explain a lot. Explain how the story of Dr. Snow’s “ghost map” drawing demonstrates this. Steven Johnson argues that the story of the cholera epidemic and Dr. Snow’s map is “fundamentally optimistic.” Explain whether or not you agree and why. I agree because the map was dependent upon proving the deaths were caused by the water. Which of the following questions would you MOST likely look to science to answer? • Will passing legislation limiting air pollution antagonize voters who oppose government regulation? • Will life be more fulfilling if you devote it to the pursuit of meaningful interpersonal relationships or to the work of making the world a better place? • Did Percy Shelley’s poetry have more influence on English Romanticism than Lord Byron’s? • Are there any circumstances in which humans can telepathically communicate with one another? Which of the following is an accurate statement about the nature of science? • Science is the only way we construct knowledge. • Science is self-correcting and perpetually seeking out the best and most accurate explanations. • Science avoids considering alternate explanations or being open to the possibility of error. • Science relies heavily on anecdotal evidence. A friend claims that eating chocolate can strengthen your bone marrow. You’re skeptical of the credibility of that statement, so you read two scientific studies. The first, funded by a large chocolate manufacturing company, confirms this assertion, while the second, funded by the American Society for Nutrition, reaches the opposite conclusion. Should you be more inclined to trust one of these reports over the other? Explain your answer. Because there is a clear financial motive for the large chocolate manufacturing company to want to make a positive nutritional claim about chocolate, while the American Society for Nutrition is by comparison a relatively disinterested party, you should be more inclined to trust the American Society for Nutrition’s report. According to Shermer, why do people believe in “weird things”? • Our brains are wired to find meaningful patterns. • Only scientists are capable of sorting out truth from falsehood. • Our nation’s educational system fails to adequately teach the difference between science and pseudoscience. • People fail to realize that they should only believe what they can see with their own eyes. One of the examples of bad science in the video is the story of the Fleischmann-Pons cold fusion experiment. What was the problem with the cold fusion claim? • The media misrepresented their claims. • Fleischmann and Pons lacked scientific backgrounds. • There was no practical use for cold fusion. • No one else could replicate the experiment. According to Shermer, what is the difference between the people at SETI and people who believe in UFOs? • People who believe in UFOs have a preponderance of evidence. • The SETI people use a lot of high-tech equipment. • People who believe in UFOs are idiots. • The SETI people are playing by the rules of science. One of the nurses says, “I’m a nurse, and I know this for a fact.” Explain how this comment could be used to illustrate the fallacy of unqualified authority. The fact that the woman is a nurse might qualify her as an authority on matters of nursing. But because the question of whether the full moon truly has an effect on human behavior involves a completely different field of expertise, her bringing up her nursing background in support of her claim demonstrates the fallacy of unqualified authority. Point 5 in the Baloney Detection Kit asks whether anyone has tried to disprove this claim. What does the video suggest regarding this point? Point 6 in the Baloney Detection Kit asks where the preponderance of evidence seems to point. While this video depicts conflicting claims, it suggests that most of the evidence supports which side? In the flashback to the 1984 news report, the newscaster references a study conducted by a Florida researcher that demonstrated that more murders were committed during a full moon; Shermer then reveals that the study proved to be flawed. Using one of the elements of good vs. bad science detailed above, offer a theory as to what might have gone wrong in this scientific study. Sharlene is supposed to poll people about their voting choices for her American Government class. She asks four random people on the street about their vote and then reports to her class that 75 percent of the city voted Republican. What is the MOST obvious problem with her statistic? • Background information is missing. • The statistics are based on guesswork. • The survey question is manipulative. • The sample size is too small. To find out if members of the community are opposed to soft drinks being sold in middle school cafeterias, Gregoire conducts a survey asking, “Do you support the practice of schools pushing the sales of substances known to lead to obesity and heart disease onto impressionable minors?” After analyzing the results, he concludes that 78 percent of people oppose the sale of soft drinks. What is the problem with his statistic? • Background information is missing. • The survey question is manipulative. • The sample size is too small. • The sample is biased. Imagine that you run across a statistic online claiming that men are 25 percent more likely to ski on dangerous slopes than women. Give examples of at least two pieces of information you would want to know about this statistic before you would accept it as fact. In the scenario the writer describes in the beginning, what are law students most concerned about? • whether they will have high levels of student debt • whether they will be accepted into a prestigious law school • whether they will get well-paying jobs after they graduate • whether they will pass the bar exam The writer discusses a statistic about the economic value of a law degree. Which types of people would MOST likely have a personal investment in accurately understanding this statistic? • people who used to work in law but have now switched professions • people who haven’t previously considered going to law school • people who are evaluating whether going to law school will be financially worth it • people who hope to teach at a law school The study analyzed by the writer arrived at which of the following conclusions? • On average, people with law degrees will earn $1,000,000 in their lifetimes. • Female law-school graduates are projected to earn more than male graduates in their lifetimes. • All graduates of the most prestigious law schools earn $1,000,000 in their lifetimes. • All law-school graduates earn $1,000,000 in their lifetimes. The writer criticizes Simkovic and McIntyre’s paper because it “fails to include some other big numbers.” What “big numbers” does the statistic avoid addressing? • the lifetime earnings of the average law-school graduate • the costs of going to law school • the income difference between men and women • the difference between earnings in the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles What does the writer mean when he says, “There’s a long tail that comes after the tall head”? • Law-school graduates have many long years of paying back student loans after their three years of law school. • Law-school graduates usually have to wait a long time before they can get a job in their field. • The huge expense of going to law school will be followed by long years of solid income to make up for it. • There is a small number of law-school graduates who make very high salaries, but there is a far larger number of law-school graduates who make significantly lower salaries. Now that you’ve read the writer’s evaluation of the claim that “the mean pre-tax lifetime value of a law degree [is] approximately $1,000,000,” explain whether or not you think that statistic qualifies as “deceptive” and why. Imagine that you’re considering going back to school for an MBA and trying to evaluate whether the investment of time and money will be worth it. You read on this website that, according to the 2012 Alumni Perspectives Survey of the Graduate Management Admission Council (GMAC), “the median annual salary for MBA degree-holders was $95,000 with additional compensation (bonuses, etc.) of $18,123 annually.” Provide at least two questions you would want to ask about this statistic before accepting it as fact.