CB-Post-NOS Aspects
Aspect
/Quotations
Tentativeness(Red) / Theories may become altered over time to more carefully express the data or information gathered by the scientists.
…formulating new answers to existing questions.
Scientists cannot be 100 percent certain because they cannot directly observe the structure of the sun. The evidence that scientists use to determine the way a star looks is through high-power reflective telescopes that utilize different filters that give quality images. Scientists also study binary stars in order to calculate the mass of a specific star, which enables scientists to understand the evolutionary cycle of stars. The specific cycle that a star is in says much about how the star appears or looks.
Post Interview:
CB: The use the data that has been integrated, in the form of a catalogue.. from the binary star research ,from my own background, I would say that they use that data and try to <analyse it >like we did. They build upon that data, they build upon the existing body of knowledge. And sometimes that existing body of knowledge has gone down a bit, when some things don’t always enter into our own theory. Maybe a planet or a star rather, is not exactly where it is supposed to be, where we thought it was, the mass we thought it might be, and we have to change.
.
.
.
CB: We did all that. But ,still, in a way, I’m not sure it was accurate. They were the final judge, I guess .There was disagreement among the astronomers that ..<possibly “ were at my thing> They liked what we did ,but there was a disagreement on weather or not the use of those calibration stars really impacted our physical data. I felt that in that room /I don’t know about..
JW: Did you feel that was a bad thing?
CB: No, I felt that was a part of science.
JW: Okay. They <something>discussed the distance. Obviously the naval observatory accepted it, that doesn’t mean that twenty years from now, somebody else isn’t going to come along and say “oh, oh, everything else up to this point has been garbage.”
CB: That’s right, and that got me thinking about in 1939, in 1939 observations who judged that one?
JW: uh-huh.
CB: I’m like, “okay wait a second. This is what science is. <something> .It is built on the hustle and bustle of the culture, you know, we have to make it work ,so lets.
JW: So, well, nono ,you are questioning the 1939 data?
CB: I’m questioning weather or not <something> two other observations
JW: And you are questioning what made them so good? Or were they even so good?
CB:<something>
JW: No, no ,they didn’t . You are right. What is the year the star was observed?
CB: I think 1932.
JW: 1932.
CB: Yeah.
JW: So, you just kinda go.. “what made these guys be right?” Or were they right?
CB: Exactally. So, science is based on perception. How you perceive…. <laughing>
JW: It’s fine.
CB:<something> walk out.. <laughing>
JW: Man, I’m getting some stuff here, boy. You should keep talking.
CB: It’s about perception, everything is based on perception, how you perceive. Science is..
Empirical based
(Orange) / In astronomy, scientists make careful observations of the above mentioned items in order to predict occurrences
Astronomy is more similar to other science fields than different because of the processes that scientists take part in such as experimentation, observation, recording, …
Of course, Scientists have to conduct experiments in order to gather data or information. The amount of scientific knowledge in an area is drastically affected by the amount of research that has been conducted in that area. A very important part of that research is in the area of testing/research. Where would this world be without the multitude of tests that have been run in order to correlate cancer increase and smoking?
Astronomers take part in several activities to learn about their universe. One such activity is in the area of using telescopes to study and track star movements and orbital patterns. Astronomers will conduct research on many different binary stars in order to better understand the evolution of stars.
When a person observes the stars, planets, the moon or any item in space, that observation becomes scientific when the individual understands the nature of scientific endeavor. That nature is simply to try and understand more fully the universe and all that it contains.
We conducted a scientific astronomical observation by observing SEI 548 and conducting scientific fact gathering.
If science is about better understanding the universe, as it exists, then both nights of observing helped provide data, which added to the existing body of astronomical knowledge. The observing of SEI 548 and of the three binary stars that first night expanded and built upon the knowledge of others. SEI 548 gave new updated data about a neglected binary while the first night observations helped novices understand and build upon their prior conceptions of astronomy. Both observations were equally valid scientifically.
I believe the observation to be scientific because of the fact that with both the unaided eye and the telescope the person was making an observation. This observation in and of it self is scientific. The act of observing is one of the foundational process skills associated with science. The fact that this person viewed more blue than red stars does not matter in light of the more important process of observation.
Post Interview:
CB: We determine things in the world through logical means, and we observe, observation is a key thing, weather it be astronomy, or geology, erosions, rock slides, whatever, we observe these things and put two and two together, and we infer an idea about a origin that is basically these concepts that we study.
Subjectivity
(Gold) / The nature of science is one, which allows for the individuality of conclusions when dealing with data. Because much of scientific advancement is theory-laden and human intuition is distinctly different among humans, scientific conclusions are different in many cases.
I believe that different astronomers working independently would not come up with the same conclusions even if they used the same data because of a couple of reasons. The first reason is because the astronomers are all human and because of this reason the astronomers always bring their backgrounds, culture and individual differences to bear on the initial data observations. In other words, these observations are all skewed because of individual differences that make the conclusions reached different for each person. Secondly, data analysis always fits under the umbrella of theory. If scientists go into an observation believing in different theories, they will most certainly change the conclusions reached instead of the theories.
It does not change because of a group analysis because individuals still make up groups. The only way my response could be different is in the event that a group of scientists were getting paid to come up with an idea favorable to a certain group. Has this ever happened before? Probably!
Post Interview:
CB: <laugh> Science by definition is a viewpoint of the world through logical processes. We view our world systematically. Now, the nature of science goes above and beyond that, in that it adds a dimension to it that is not always point A, point B. It has a human element, that allows us to use our creativity to formulate hypothesis based upon our <something> theories, or human <something>
JW: Okay.
CB: We determine things in the world through logical means, and we observe, observation is a key thing, weather it be astronomy, or geology, erosions, rock slides, whatever, we observe these things and put two and two together, and we infer an idea about a origin that is basically these concepts that we study. We assume a lot. <difficult to make out> .. we also assume that we can figure it out, we can….. The nature of science, or scientific inquiry, is based upon human intuition, ….., subjective, as well as theories that we’ve come up with in the past.
JW: Define what you mean by subjectivity. Just so I know what you are saying.
CB: Subjectivity. .There is.. Individualization of scientific concepts.
Creativity
(Green) / ..creating, reasoning..
Post Interview: Nothing
Social/cultural
embeddedness.
(Blue) / Science is not truth but it is a worldview that contains several truths that differ according to the backgrounds, beliefs and natures of the many scientists who live on our vastly changing world.
With this in mind, it should be asked as to whether or not any experiment can be totally free from bias as to its outcome. Scientists like all humans are plagued by biases both internally and externally. It should also be noted that experiments are the closest vehicle that the scientific community has in taking much of the biases away.
All in all, human interest plays a big part in the activities of human astronomers.
I think time has a big influence on astronomy. For example, I was amazed at the possibility of being published in an updated version of a star catalog. Then I received the latest e-mail describing the fact that our findings for the class will be published by a star catalog. This only confirms the fact that time plays an important part in what astronomers choose to study and why they study certain things and areas. There just is not enough time to conduct certain forms of research because there is not enough man/woman power, instrumentation and funds available. Astronomy seems to be a wide open field that allows for the novice as well as the expert to contribute to the knowledge that is accelerating at a fast pace.
Post Interview:
JW: Mhh Okay, so, by individual scientists. You think they would do that even if they were working on a team?
CB: Yes. Yes.
JW: Like you guys were working on a team?
CB: Mhh-hhrrm. I think we had different viewpoints about the..
JW: How did you resolve those viewpoints?
CB: Cave into B.
JW: <laughing> silly me.
CB:<laughing> Cave into B, don’t make any waves. But anyway.
JW: <laughing> Fine. Well, we didn’t have to cave to B.
CB: Well, we tried to use discourse, but <something> two different world views. I don’t know if you are aware of this.
JW: Okay, tell me about them.
CB: If this won’t get back to the other two.
JW: This is between you and me.
CB: Well, Brenda is Jewish. I’m Christian. And I don’t know what <some person’s> religious background was.. but, I think they were three different religious backgrounds. Now, to me that’s important. Now, that’s to me. You look at the world differently through your religious <something> Though, maybe also that’s my interest.
JW: The fact that you have a what, masters?
CB: No no, a bachelor’s degree in pastoral studies. That tends to make people of different religious backgrounds.. that’s one thing on the plate that we don’t have in common. The one thing we did have in common was our interest in science. Ah. We are interested in that logical sequence of events that had to come together to produce the outcome that we are trying to find. I thought that we came together, from very different worlds, to another area of life that is different. <something> and we agreed <something>. And we had worked from the assumption that we wanted to see the job done. I just wanted to get the job done. Let’s just get it done.
JW: Are you talking about you or B?
CB:B. She came from that-
JW: Okay. That’s what I thought you were talking about.
CB: I was scared we were gonna mess things up. I was kind of afraid that I was gonna, it was kinda fear based, I just don’t want to be in an (possible serious project) and look like a fool. In front of the professors when we present this thing. I can’t remember.. I need.. A came from the stand point of really wanting to learn. And I sort of did, too, when I found out that it wasn’t as hard as I thought it was gonna be. But, Anita really, she dived into the stuff. She really brought to the table something that we missed. Because we weanted to rush through..
JW: We meaning you and B
CB: Yeah.
JW: you being scared to death that you were gonna screw something up.
Observations and
Inferences
(Indigo) / Nothing written.
Post Interview: Nothing
Theories and laws
(Violet) / Nothing written.
Post Interview: Nothing
CB-Post-SI Aspects
Aspect
/Quotations
Methods(Dk Red) / Where it is different is in the methods that scientists use to gather the information. Both radio and optical telescopes are both specific devices of astronomers. Biologists would probably not use them!
This is an interesting question because it brings to bear the specific issue of whether or not the scientific community follows a strict, rigid and linear scientific method. As you well know, the scientific community does not follow a strict, rigid and linear scientific method. True scientific pursuits are often more creative, fluid and holistic. For example, Alfred Wegener was a meteorologist who came up with the initial hypothesis of continental drift. This hypothesis was initially rejected because it did not fit into the mold of scientific philosophy in the early 20th century. His hypothesis was more holistic in that it tried to explain many areas of geology instead of one or two. It was also adaptable and fluid in that it could be modified to take into account new data. Wegener did not use one specific scientific method to come up with results but used many common sense observations to reach a specific conclusion.
Post Interview: Nothing
Consistency
(Lt Orange) / Nothing written.
Post Interview: Nothing
Interpretations
(Lime) / Nothing written.
Post Interview: Nothing. See subjectivity.
Data/evidence
(Sky Blue) / Data is specific values given to observable information. For example arc seconds is a specific value assigned to the separation between two stars. The number of arc seconds equates to a value placed upon separation.
Evidence is a term used to describe support for or against something like a theory, hypothesis or a conclusion. Data is different than evidence because data is just values placed upon information. Scientists would then take the data and use it to reach a scientific conclusion that is theory-laden. In this way, data would then become evidence because it would be a tool in the hands of a scientist to reach an individual conclusion.
Post Interview: Nothing
Data analysis
(Lavender) / Astronomical data analysis is the practice of both looking at data and using that data to reach conclusions about the universe. With the above information in mind, astronomical data analysis is simply the scientific process at work in the field of astronomy. Astronomers will take pictures of stars and calculate specific figures that help them understand more about their field of inquiry. They are guided by their own interests and their individual differences in that they look at the data skewed by their own thought processes.
Astronomical data analysis is not just about looking at observational data gathered through both research and astronomical practice (viewing through a telescope) but it also has to do with asking questions and pondering the information in light of other information collected. This last part is specifically human. Isn’t it funny that with all of the computers in the world that are working with specific information, it still takes humans to give the final say so on whether a conclusion or hypothesis is accepted or rejected.
Post Interview: Nothing
CB-Post additional categories used in this study.
Aspect
/Quotations
Astronomical(Dk blue) / Astronomy is the study of the stars, planets, our sun, the solar system, comets, meteorites, meteoroids, meteors, nebula, dark matter, solar wind and anything that occupies our conceptions of space beyond our atmosphere.
Post Interview: Nothing
Mathematical
(Pink) / Nothing written.
Post Interview: Nothing
Communications
(Brown) / Astronomers will also study the vast body of research that is already present in the form of catalogs, books and the Internet. Astronomers try and stay connected with each other to compare data and findings.
Post interview: Nothing
Calibration
(Tan) / Nothing written.
Post Interview: JW: What makes astronomical observations useful, socially?
CB: <something>
JW: No, it’s not. I mean, so you go out and you make an observation. How did you guys make the naval observatory take notice that this was useful information, or think that you guys were just a bunch of jerks who didn’t know what you were doing. Just a bunch of little old teachers, didn’t have a clue, let’s ignore you. But, hey didn’t do that. What did you do, what did we do that said, “This is something you should pay attention to.”
CB: Well, because we updated something that needs to be done. There you have this huge list…………. This huge area… you told us that.
JW: mhhrmm.
CB: You also so told us this ,with the right instruments, that any one could do this. People would have to check it out and stuff.
JW: …. Check it out?
CB: Well ,you have to, like we did, you have to have it verified, you’d have to show it an present it, and …………………….
JW: Okay. What I’m getting at here is how did you convince that group that when you say that it is so many arc seconds apart, or certain position ,that you are telling them a correct answer?