Blog Assignment #2 - Scene 5

Watch scene 5 from Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail.  Although this is a comedic sketch, I would like you to watch it, read the script if you like, and reflect on the following questions. Choose one of the questions and answer fully in a new blog post.

1. Go to blogger
2. Create a new post.
3. Title the post Scene 5
4. Respond fully to one of the questions
5. Publish your new post by Tuesday at Midnight.

1. How do you see the use of the scientific method in this scene? Describe the steps that you see and how that step is carried out in the scene.
2. Does this argument make sense logically? If it does explain why? If it does not, identify where the argument breaks down? What part of the argument is not correct?
3. If you are able to watch the clip again, do so and identify as many measurement/observations as you see take place in the scene.

Scene 5

 
  CROWD:  A witch!  A witch!  A witch!  We've got a witch!  A witch!
  VILLAGER #1:  We have found a witch, might we burn her?
  CROWD:  Burn her!  Burn!
  BEDEMIR:  How do you know she is a witch?
  VILLAGER #2:  She looks like one.
  BEDEMIR:  Bring her forward.
  WITCH:  I'm not a witch.  I'm not a witch.
  BEDEMIR:  But you are dressed as one.
  WITCH:  They dressed me up like this.
  CROWD:  No, we didn't... no.
  WITCH:  And this isn't my nose, it's a false one.
  BEDEMIR:  Well?
  VILLAGER #1:  Well, we did do the nose.
  BEDEMIR:  The nose?
  VILLAGER #1:  And the hat -- but she is a witch!
  CROWD:  Burn her!  Witch!  Witch!  Burn her!
  BEDEMIR:  Did you dress her up like this?
  CROWD:  No, no... no ... yes.  Yes, yes, a bit, a bit.
  VILLAGER #1:  She has got a wart.
  BEDEMIR:  What makes you think she is a witch?
  VILLAGER #3:  Well, she turned me into a newt.
  BEDEMIR:  A newt?
  VILLAGER #3:  I got better.
  VILLAGER #2:  Burn her anyway!
  CROWD:  Burn!  Burn her!
  BEDEMIR:  Quiet, quiet.  Quiet!  There are ways of telling whether
      she is a witch.
  CROWD:  Are there?  What are they?
  BEDEMIR:  Tell me, what do you do with witches?
  VILLAGER #2:  Burn!
  CROWD:  Burn, burn them up!
  BEDEMIR:  And what do you burn apart from witches?
  VILLAGER #1:  More witches!
  VILLAGER #2:  Wood!
  BEDEMIR:  So, why do witches burn?
      [pause]
  VILLAGER #3:  B--... 'cause they're made of wood...?
  BEDEMIR:  Good!
  CROWD:  Oh yeah, yeah...
  BEDEMIR:  So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
  VILLAGER #1:  Build a bridge out of her.
  BEDEMIR:  Aah, but can you not also build bridges out of stone?
  VILLAGER #2:  Oh, yeah.
  BEDEMIR:  Does wood sink in water?
  VILLAGER #1:  No, no.
  VILLAGER #2:  It floats!  It floats!
  VILLAGER #1:  Throw her into the pond!
  CROWD:  The pond!
  BEDEMIR:  What also floats in water?
  VILLAGER #1:  Bread!
  VILLAGER #2:  Apples!
  VILLAGER #3:  Very small rocks!
  VILLAGER #1:  Cider!
  VILLAGER #2:  Great gravy!
  VILLAGER #1:  Cherries!
  VILLAGER #2:  Mud!
  VILLAGER #3:  Churches -- churches!
  VILLAGER #2:  Lead -- lead!
  ARTHUR:  A duck.
  CROWD:  Oooh.
  BEDEMIR:  Exactly!  So, logically...,
  VILLAGER #1:  If... she.. weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood.
  BEDEMIR:  And therefore--?
  VILLAGER #1:  A witch!
  CROWD:  A witch!
  BEDEMIR:  We shall use my larger scales!
      [yelling]
  BEDEMIR:  Right, remove the supports!
      [whop]
      [creak]
  CROWD:  A witch!  A witch!
  WITCH:  It's a fair cop.
  CROWD:  Burn her!  Burn!  [yelling]
  BEDEMIR:  Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?
  ARTHUR:  I am Arthur, King of the Britons.
  BEDEMIR:  My liege!
  ARTHUR:  Good Sir knight, will you come with me to Camelot,Monty Python Scene 5
      and join us at the Round Table?
  BEDEMIR:  My liege!  I would be honored.
  ARTHUR:  What is your name?
  BEDEMIR:  Bedemir, my leige.
  ARTHUR:  Then I dub you Sir Bedemir, Knight of the Round Table.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

Thinking Critically about Science

Science is a broad and complex term. Merriam-Websters's Dictionary provides the following definitions.

1:   the state of knowing :  knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2 a :  a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>

b :  something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>

3 a :  knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

b :  such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena :  natural science

4:  a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>

To simplify, science is both the body of knowledge and the practice of obtaining new knowledge through the use of the scientific method. However, science is not always easily reconciled to people's beliefs and assumptions. Below is an excerpt from the National Center for Science Education's website describing how scientific knowledge is gained.

Scientific Knowledge

“In order to understand the limitations of science, one needs to know some general characteristics of scientific knowledge and a few things about the record of works that developed this knowledge.
Scientific knowledge is organized around many hundreds of sets of ideas. The number of ideas in a set is few, usually from five to ten. A theory consists of one set of ideas plus many facts plus many lines of reasoning by which facts are used to support the ideas and by which facts are explained or predicted. The ideas, often called postulates, are human made and are established, by consensus, through the centuries. Ideas about the mystical and the supernatural are excluded from science.
All reasoning in science hinges around sets of ideas which are assumptions about nature. If the ideas seem reasonable in light of the facts available, if the ideas make it possible to explain many facts, and if the ideas make it possible to predict facts that are not yet known, then we say that we have a good theory. The ability to explain and predict facts leads scientists to think there is some truth in the ideas. But scientists aren't satisfied. Truly, they are obligated by their discipline not to be satisfied. When possible, they question and test the ideas directly. They question the explanations of facts that others have given. They make predictions and test them by extensive observations and experiments. And
they continue these operations until they have (1) disproved a theory, (2) changed the theory by modifying its assumptions, or (3) established the range of its applicability and limitations.
Theories, even the best of them, are never universal, perfect, or complete. Each theory applies to a limited range of human experience and, even within this range, it may be impossible to make certain kinds of predictions because the theory is too imperfect. With large theories it is impossible to follow out all of the logical consequences or predictions because of the limited time, tools, and resources available. Large theories are always incomplete.”

Keeping these ideas in mind, I would like you to select from several pairs of articles. The articles are selected to represent opposite sides of several controversial topics. Choose one of the topics and read articles from both sides of the argument.  In a blog post, you need to 1)  briefly summarize both sides of the topic and 2)respond to one or more of the following questions using evidence from the articles.

1.  How can there be such different ideas about the same topic?

2.  What factors contribute to my stance on the issue? What things make you believe the way you do about this topic?

3.  Is one side of the argument clearly science and the other non-science?

4.  Are there limitations to the role of science in our lives? Can science dictate how we live, what we believe and what is right or wrong?

5.  How important is it to keep an open mind when considering another person's point of view?

Global Warming vs. Global Cooling

Catastrophism vs. Uniformitarianism

For and Against Embryonic Stem Cell Research