Diffusion

- Does the exhibit demonstrate the Scientific Method? Pay close attention to the final conclusions. "From Stability to Change." Based upon data, is the author's statement a logical one: "As we'll see, it is this movement which life captures and makes use of to move itself it the opposite direction, from less probable to more probable, from disorder to all the organized complexity we think of as life."?

I believe the exhibit demonstrates part of the Scientific Method. After reading the article, I remember during my readings in chapter 2, discussing the arrangements of electrons and atoms. Electrons are hard to see with the naked eye but if stoped in place, each electron has a specific location and can be seen. The chapter uses the example of a ceiling fan, although it's hard to see the blades while the fan is in motion, if stopped the blades become easily visable and stop in their location. The author explains how molecules and atoms move about freely, however the movement is not easily seen with the human eye but if slowed or at a standstill the matter is easily visable.

I have gained more knowledge of molecules and atoms movement after completing the assignment.

Alicia Boyd-122433

The author did make an observation which was that with what appeared to be a motionless surface was actually very small molecules in a continuous motion. He asked several question in this regard as well. He then used prior knowledge of the subject from Erwin Schrodinger to base his hypothesis off of. His prediction was that if the molecule followed the same path then there would be abrupt changes such as a ripple in the water or a wave. However if they all move separately and in different directions this gives the appearance of a motionless surface. He tested the his hypothesis with the box diagram and showed that the molecules will move in separate directions and stay spread out evenly in the box. He collected his data and interpreted his results, so in my opinion he did in fact use the Scientific method. He may not have had the best format of showing this but it is all there.

Yes, I do believe this article is an example of the Scientific Method. There were explanations of the hypothesis, which was a logical but unproven explanation for a given set of facts. There was a theory and a law that they described using they hypothesis. Describing the probability and movement.

This was a good example of the Scientific Method. He made observations, ask questions, took prior knowledge and formulated a hypothesis. The prediction was tested, the data was interpreted and a conclusion was discussed in a way many people could relate to. I thought this was a very thought provoking article and experiment.

NM

Yes, this module's assignment does demonstrate the Scientific Method. The hypothesis was clear and logical. The un-trained person would believe that they lake is still, however it is not. There are molecules constantly moving to keep the water in its liquid state. He made an observation, came up with a question, made a hypothesis, experimented and then made a conclusion. This was a neat assignment.

The exhibit was amazing to me. I think the exhibit demonstration does exhibit the "Scientific Method". The example of a still lake in the forest was a good example of being still yet moving. The environment contributes to the movement of stillness as well. I think the only thing that is certain is change and that the environment around contributes to change.

This does show the scientific method to a certain degree. I think that the article asks alot of questions but it also answers the questions right after. It doesnt show any sort of theory.

The above experiment did show use of the scientific Method. The author asked questions, formed n hypothesis, analyzed the data and used interactive examples to help form a conclusion. This assignment did help me better understand atoms and molecules.

This does show the scientific method to a degree. It does pose questions but doesn't form a hypothesis to test. Instead, it tests the questions asked. So it does show a bit of the method, but not the whole thing.

The exhibit demonstrates the Scientific Method. It used all the steps in the process. It developed the hypothesis, conducted the experiment, analyzed the data, compared the results, and determined a conclusion. The author used the scientific method to teach us about movement and diffusion. It explained when it was a good thing and when it was not.

The author did use the scientific method to draw his conclusions. I had to read the essay several times to make sure I understood it. The grammar and sentence structure were so poor that I had trouble following parts of it, for example:
"Its important not only to realize that adding things each of which changes can make some other things change less, but to have a feeling for why that happens." This sentence made no sense to me. In regard to his final conclusion, I was uncertain if "less probable" was the same as or equal to "disorder".
I read the "Second Law of Thermodynamics" link and I understood it to mean the opposite, but I am unsure.
After this module, I realized I have much to learn about biology! I did enjoy the interactive experiment, which allowed me to test the laws of diffusion.

Does the exhibit demonstrate the Scientific Method?

While reading this assignment and doing the experiment on my own, I feel that the author did use the Scientific Method. From the beginning he made you think and dive into his question of 'was stability the norm'. Through the experiment he was able to show us that it was in fact the movement that was the norm and that all living things are constantly in some type of motion or they would not be 'living'. I was very intrigued to see that heat actually did to the cells also. I played around with the controls and noticed that the cells speed up at the higher levels of heat. I wonder if that is why we sometimes feel faint when we get hot, because or cells are moving so rapidly. Well, the answer is yes, I believe that he effectively used the scientific method even though it was was not directly laid out the way that it was step by step in the text.

Pay close attention to the final conclusions. "From Stability to Change." Based upon data, is the author's statement a logical one: "As we'll see, it is this movement which life captures and makes use of to move itself in the opposite direction, from less probable to more probable, from disorder to all the organized complexity we think of as life."

I think that the author's statement was logical because it draws on the fact that 'all things must work together in order to form something that is functional'. That statement is mine but to me helps me to make logical sense of what the author is saying. It cells are not working together by bonding and being in constant movement, things like out skin, or water, or trees, really would not exist as we know them but would take another form that may not being in exact order to be useful.

In my opinion, this article is more informative. I can see how he incorporates the Scientific Method, asking questions and experimenting, etc. I like the box idea, but I personally understand better when the example is something real. Like at the end when he uses the example about cream in coffee or perfume fillig the air, because when I think of diffusion I don't think of dots in a box per say, but (like in the book) dye in water dispersing itself over time.
The statement the author makes is logical because we can understand and explain how objects are what they are. In other words, when we know microscopically what objects are made up of we can understand them better.

Does the exhibit demonstrate the Scientific Method? Pay close attention to the final conclusions. "From Stability to Change." Based upon data, is the author's statement a logical one: "As we'll see, it is this movement which life captures and makes use of to move itself it the opposite direction, from less probable to more probable, from disorder to all the organized complexity we think of as life."?

The author in some aspects does demonstrate the Scientific Method, he made an observation and he asked a question. He looked at prior findings and formulated a hypothesis from the prior findings. Also in the “From Stability to Change” he make a prediction tested the hypothesis, collected and interpreted data also in the end he drew a conclusion that “As we'll see, it is this movement which life captures and makes use of to move itself it the opposite direction, from less probable to more probable, from disorder to all the organized complexity we think of as life”.
The author's statement: "As we'll see, it is this movement which life captures and makes use of to move itself it the opposite direction, from less probable to more probable, from disorder to all the organized complexity we think of as life." A logical statement the reason is that because life does move us in directions with the events that happen to us in life, there for we move from less probable direction to a more probable direction.

In this article, we learned about particles and atoms that make up certain things. At the begining of the article, it uses the example of a still lake. To the human eye, it looks as though there is no movement what so ever. In reality, there are particles moving in continuous motion. The rest of the article goes on to explain in better depth the movement of a particle using little dots in a white box. I do understand this subject better having read this.