Pt1420 Week 3 Discussion 1

I asked Nikki how long has she been attending the school she goes to now. Nikki said that she has been at this school for two months. I asked Nikki what pronouns she would like everyone to use. She said he/him pronouns.

Superintendent Elliott made some errors in this situation. A couple of the errors were responding to the parent complaint without referring him to the proper level and failing to listen to the principal. The complaint that was made by the parent is something that should have been handled by the building principal. Instead of trying to take care of the situation himself the superintendent he should have led the parent to the correct building level channel first to come to allow them the chance to come to a solution. The building principal should have been able to build a stronger school community relation with this parent by being honest and handling his mistake.

One of the first steps that I had taken when I approached this weeks assignment was to determine how the article had fit into my research topic. While it was difficult as I remained intent on finding the articles that dealt with Transnational Criminal Organizations and Terror groups, the search was made a bit easier with the APUS library. After I had located the articles I believed I was going to be using one of the next steps was to determine the articles content, I had questioned the content as well as what the author was trying to convey. As was described in the lesson this week as well as seeing the example given, I made an outline as well as placed them in my own words. What my criteria was in order to determine what was appropriate was, the keyword as well as content.

Week 5 Discussion thread Week 5 Discussion Question What are the reasons for establishing a personal health record? To keep a record of all healthcare that is created by a medical provider.

Majority of society believes in the myth of a noble scientist; taking no consideration that scientists are just as human as your average employee. It’s in human nature to make mistakes, to rationalize actions, and to make hard decisions to benefit themselves or others. Science has never been perfect, and most results that are known in the field come from failure. Moreover, it is difficult to meet the expectations of a perfect scientist because conflict occurs when trying to handle the responsibilities of research. There are a plethora of intrinsic and extrinsic factors that may have an effect on an individual.

How would you decide what scientific work should be kept secret. Whose responsibility is it to make that decision. The decisions of if the information should be kept secret should be determined by how important the information is. If the information could be deadly if it got into the wrong hand then it should probably be kept a secret so nobody is put in more danger.

The Scientific Revolution showed that a rise in observations and conclusions became an acceptable source of knowledge and truth, where it had been less so in earlier

Scientific progress is beneficial, but when scientific developments go to far, and too much technology is developed there can be a problems. There is a very fine line that stands between scientifically advanced and too scientifically advanced that millions of people are killed off, and Atwood made the difference very clear. How society reacts to issues depends on the perspective that society has on issues that are happening in the world and how they are going to deal with

In this class, we have spent a good deal of time discussing scientific revolutions and how they have unfolded over the course of history. We've explored how scientific developments are very closely tied to the culture and society which bore them, and how this can act as either a hindrance or an advantage, depending on the circumstances. We've discuss the wide variety of obstacles and complications new scientific developments encounter before they can be successfully integrated into the scientific community and society as a whole. We've examined how vagueness or ambiguities in new scientific developments can lead to a wide variety of interpretations each with different philosophical implications. In this essay review I aim to explore the variety of obstacles that have been overcome in the development, establishment, and interpretation of new scientific developments.

The reason for this difference is because the natural sciences are based heavily on sense perception which is a generally imperfect way of knowing. Sense perception, as a way of knowing, is heavily influenced by many other ways of knowing including faith, emotion, intuition, reason, and language. Any variation in these five ways of knowing can influence sense perception and create a completely different knowledge claim. This can include confirmation bias as well, especially in biology. If a scientist is stressed by upcoming journal pressures and has a hypothesis that they strongly believe in, and sees anything remotely similar to the results they expect, then their interpretation of sense perception may be very different from a scientist with no emotional connection.

Another goal is to convince the audience that the research if factual, hold no bias, and is clear. A researcher wants to ensure that their work has been thoroughly checked and has no room for personal opinion. They want the research to be well organized,

During this period of time, many scientists started circulating their own research work around, reason being, some of the conclusions of their research work differs from the already-established ones. The unpredicted analysis had brought several scientists into the spotlight, particularly, the 3 mentioned below.

It begins with better communication relayed with facts and decision-making empowerment that involves the public as participants not as spectators. Rebuilding trust in science will require more than changes in rules or policy. It will rest on the manner in which our public health officials and experts communicate and educate the public rather than leaving them at the mercy of the misinformed activists with commercial interests or the fickle press. Successful communication depends their willingness to embrace fairness, openness, accountability, cooperation, competence and honesty. Lack of trust in science is a far more serious problem than most politicians believe, one that cannot be resolved easily.

A number of basic standards for determining a body of knowledge, methodology, or practice are widely agreed upon by scientists. One of the basic notion is that all experimental results should be reproducible, and able to be verified by other individuals.[13] This standard aim to ensure experiments can be measurably reproduced under the same conditions, allowing further investigation to characterize whether a hypothesis or theory related to given phenomena is valid and reliable. Philosopher Karl Popper (?) in one of his project attempted to draw the line between science and pseudo-science.

In mathematics the knowledge we obtain is justified with reason that have straightforward theories and laws. In natural science on the other hand the information we collect is firstly obtained with observations which can be perceived in the wrong manner and then carried out wrong after that, in the natural world things are always changing therefore the results we get now won’t necessarily be correct one hundred years down the line therefore the knowledge we have now of the natural sciences is correct until proven wrong. Knowledge is trustworthy in most of our subjects at school but we can never know if the information we are receiving is 100% accurate or not because in the future we may learn that the information we have is