<p>Im trying to form some sort of consensus here. Can you ppl teel me what books you are using to prepare for the AISSCE?</p>
<p>I use my textbook...pretty much. (AISSCE is the CBSE right? I keep forgetting..soo)</p>
<p>Past papers also help. There's a book called Together With which I use for Physics..
And....Comprehensive,but that doesn't help much...it's just for your entrance exams and it's just TOO big.</p>
<p>Consider whether or not the scientific method is being applied in the following examples. If the scientific method is not being applied, are the people whose actions are being described performing a useful human activity, albeit an unscientific one?
[ul]
[li]A) Acupuncture is a traditional medical technique of Asian origin in which small needles are inserted in the patients body to relieve pain. Many doctors trained in the west consider acupuncture unworthy of experimental study because if it had therapeutic effects, such effects could not be explained by their theories of the nervous system. Who is being more scientific, the western or eastern practitioners?</p>[/li]
<p>[li]B) Goethe, a German poet, is less well known for his theory of color. He published a book on the subject, in which he argued that scientific apparatus for measuring and quantifying color, such as prisms, lenses and colored filters, could not give us full insight into the ultimate meaning of color, for instance the cold feeling evoked by blue and green or the heroic sentiments inspired by red. Was his work scientific?</p>[/li]
<p>[li]C) A child asks why things fall down, and an adult answers because of gravity. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle explained that rocks fell because it was their nature to seek out their natural place, in contact with the earth. Are these explanations scientific?</p>[/li]
<p>[li]D) Buddhism is partly a psychological explanation of human suffering, and psychology is of course a science. The Buddha could be said to have engaged in a cycle of theory and experiment, since he worked by trial and error, and even late in his life he asked his followers to challenge his ideas. Buddhism could also be considered reproducible, since the Buddha told his followers they could find enlightenment for themselves if they followed a certain course of study and discipline. Is Buddhism a scientific pursuit?</p>[/li]
<h1>[/ul]</h1>
<p>That's a lot for now!</p>
<p>Sorry i took so long to respond::</p>
<p>
[quote]
Acupuncture is a traditional medical technique of Asian origin in which small needles are inserted in the....
[/quote]
neither. The westerners refuse to accept something which seems to work, sort of like what the church did for centuries. The easterners, on the other hand, dont try to figure out why it seems to work, just as long as it does the job</p>
<p>
[quote]
Goethe, a German poet, is less well known for his theory of color. He published a book on the subject, in which he argued that scientific apparatus for measuring and quantifying color, such as prisms....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Very scientific. He never said that his work was final, he merely raised a question. For all we know, that question may prove to be inspiration to someone down the line who then makes some amazing discovery!</p>
<p>
[quote]
A child asks why things fall down, and an adult answers because of gravity. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle explained that rocks fell because it was their nature to seek out their natural place, in contact with the earth. Are these explanations scientific?
[/quote]
In my opinion, aristotles explanation was more scientific because you have to look at the thing from is point of view and the prevalant circumstances at his time to realise that simply by stating a variation of what we take for granted, aristotle took a brave step. His statement was quite scientific in that it explained everything which he could observe. Also note that he didnt require people to stop at his theory, but instead put forth a propositition which in time got refined by other phiosophers and scientists. Some great scientist said (i think it was newton, but hes supposed to be too concieted to say so) that we stand on the shoulders of giants. Every generations thoughts are limited by what is already known. The human mind is incapable of taking stong digressions from common thought in the fear of being proven wrong.
As for the adult speaking to the child, i think it is a perfect example of 'L\lies-to-chldren', so eloquently put forth by Terry Pratchett in his book, the science of discworld</p>
<p>
[quote]
Buddhism is partly a psychological explanation of human suffering, and psychology is of course a science. The Buddha could be said to have engaged in a cycle of theory and experiment, since he worked ....
[/quote]
I dont want to comment on that since i dont really know much about buddhism, but we do need to acknowlege that the countries which have completely embraced buddhism(like japan) have made reasonale progress on all fronts!</p>
<p>Good arguments. I'll check the answers for others and tell you, but about the third one - you said aristotle's is "more" rational and scientific. Actually it's not. First one is unscientific anyway. Now Aristotle's explanation did not comply with the universality requirement. Rocks can be made to fly and feathers can fall down. If Aristotle's explanation is to be believed, everything should fall down on Earth because they "belong" here. How then, would you account for meteors that "fall" into the earth (surely they don't belong to the earth but come from outside). Also, he did not realize that not only does the earth attract the rock, but the rock also attracts the earth. Now, is it because the Earth "belongs" to the rock?</p>
<p><em>gasps</em> What is this!? (referring to the questions) ........ :O</p>
<p>A Levels rule!</p>
<p>As i said, aristotle simply made an observation. He atleast recognized the fact that things tend to fall on earth, and explicitly specified so. It may seem an absurd statement to us today, but as i wrote before, you have to take into account the world he grew up in. Also, there's nothing wrong in attributing something to the supernatural, or something like that when you cant understand its source. That's basically what theoretical physicists do . ill complete later</p>
<p>contd...</p>
<p>do you know why the neutrino was proposed? because they couldnt balance the angular momentum equations. The neutrino has no mass, no charge, but has angular momentum. And then it was finally discovered long time later.</p>
<p>Just because the neutrino proposition turned out true while aristotles did not, it does not make either theory wilder or more sensible than the other.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, there's nothing wrong in attributing something to the supernatural, or something like that when you cant understand its source. That's basically what theoretical physicists do
[/quote]
HELL NO!</p>
<p>If I could get my intellectual, physical theorist, MIT/Caltech applicant friend to post here, he can give you a lecture or two about why attributing anything to supernatural forces is against the fundamental concept of physics (science).</p>
<p>Anyway what I wrote above is from a book I was reading (Simple Nature, available on <a href="http://www.lightandmatter.com%5B/url%5D">www.lightandmatter.com</a>).</p>
<p>perfectdark9 - don't worry these are NOT CBSE questions!!</p>
<p>Hey merc, you any good with maths? i means math in general, as in will you be able to master the math einstein used 100 years ago in, say, a couple of years? If you can, then i think i can use your help. Im currently working on a, well, theory of mine and i am simply too terrified to get down to writing any equations.</p>
<p>I'm only average at math. :) Board marks suck, but as far as concepts go, I'm ok.</p>
<p>As for the theory you're working on - EXCELLENT!! I'll hook you up with a friend of mine (I described above) who's into exactly the kind of mathematics you describe. Actually I am, as well, just not too good.</p>
<p>But pass it along mate, I'd love to have a look! My friend's coming over tomorrow so we'll review it together. It's SO COOL to see at least a fellow "quasi-scientist"!! :)</p>
<p>rao...a theory? give us a hint man! im darn interested...</p>
<p>Its kinda complicated to explain and ridiculously obvious; a natural consequence of einsteins work. ill be really surprised if someone didnt come up with it a 70 years ago! But i can still hope, right? If you still want the details itll probably take me sometime to put them together, nut ill tell you this much, its just a little bit more than a rewording of E=mc2 and dual nature, and just yesterday i found out that it supports the fact that light interacts as particles with matter and as waves with, well, waves</p>
<p>You know, shashank, in 8th grade 3 of my friends and I formed a science group called The Mercury Squad (hence my alias!). A year later, in 9th grade we put forward a theory called the Matter theory in a science seminar at our school (it was great - we distributed copies of it to the guest professors and I delivered a kick@$$ speech!). It proposed quantization of space, and tried to explain what matter and space are (the same thing basically!) and also many weird phenomena, and eliminated Mr Stephen Hawking's concept of "virtual particles". The teachers were all floored by it, but my friend did not participate because he disagreed with it on philosophical grounds.</p>
<p>Guess what, we had to abandon it within a couple of years, when we learned a little more about the universe :p</p>
<p>When I read your abstract tomorrow, it will be like reliving those days (SCHOOL AND BOARD EXAMS RUINED IT ALL!! :mad: )</p>
<p>merc, thanks to our awesome education system and my godawful board exams (physics tomorrow, still have about 4 chapter to read for the first time in my life) and the fact that it is less of a theory right now than a collection of related ideas written on the back of bus tickets over about a year and a half, it is going to take me a few days to get the basics onto a single document so that someone else (unless hes psychic or something) can understand it.</p>
<p>if my hypothesis is correct, you may have to revisit 8th grade. With a bang</p>
<p>lol no problem bro. I'm ready for it. Expect a thorough criticism.</p>
<p>Today Ill send you what i sent to mit . Kinda skeletal (too small to project anything useful). Mostly its a statement</p>
<p>Yep I just got it. I'll print it when I get home. :) Waiting on the "full" paper....</p>
<p>so far it looks like you are hinting at deBroglie's wavelengths. But yes, I'm happy that me and my friend are both familiar with the math needed and may be able to help you. (dont worry, we wont plagiarize - in this scientific fraternity ;))</p>