Philosophy 115/Astronomy 101                                                                           Spring 2004/VanLeer and Shapiro

Final Project/ 100 points                                                                                 To be presented in class on 6/7 or 6/9

 

This assignment is designed to give you an opportunity to demonstrate your ability to assess and compare scientific claims (specifically in astronomy or related sciences) and claims made by individuals and/or groups whose standards of evidence may or may not be entirely consistent with the scientific method.  In other words, this assignment gives you the chance to compare the reasons we have to accept (or reject) claims made and/or reported upon by the authors of our astronomy textbook and what the authors of our critical thinking textbook call “weird” or “extraordinary” claims.

 

You may use whatever method you’d like to assess these claims; it’s not a bad idea, however, to consider using the SEARCH method (or some variation of it), especially if you’re using a claim that you’ve already explored in short paper #4.  However, it’s up to you.

 

You will work in groups of 5 (and one of 6) to do the following.

 

You are to create a “poster” presentation that compares and evaluates both an astronomical claim and a “weird” claim.  Your poster should provide the basis of an oral presentation that demonstrates your understanding of both claims, of the evidence for both claims, and which compares the reasons we are supposed to have for believing these claims to be true.

 

You can think of your presentation as having (at least) five parts.

 

  1. A clear and specific description of the astronomical claim being made, (for instance, the claim that the universe is approximately 12 billion years old), along with the best evidence and/or arguments which support that claim.  The evidence should be given in your own words and should demonstrate that you understand how the evidence is meant to provide proof for the claim.

 

  1. A clear and specific description of the “weird” or “extraordinary claim being made, (for instance, the claim that human beings sometimes spontaneously combust), along with the best evidence and/or arguments which support that claim.  The evidence should be given in your own words and should demonstrate that you understand how the evidence is meant to provide proof for the claim.

  2. Your evaluation of the astronomical claim and the evidence/argument for it.  Here, you may want to use the SEARCH method.  You should certainly evaluate the evidence, consider (an) alternative hypothes(i)es, and rate them (it.)

 

  1. Your evaluation of the extraordinary claim and the evidence/argument for it.  Here, you may want to use the SEARCH method.  You should certainly evaluate the evidence, consider (an) alternative hypothes(i)es, and rate them (it.)

  2. Your comparison of the ways in which the two claims are supported.  Is the evidence different?  If so, how?  In what ways is it similar?  Does one set of evidence give you better reason to accept the claim?  If so, why?  What conclusions about scientific reasoning and other ways of knowing can you make?

 

You will present your poster to groups of classmates on either 6/7 or 6/9.  You will assess each other’s presentations using a rubric provided for you.  Part of your grade depends on the assessment you do of each other’s work, so plan on being in class both days, whether your group is presenting or not..
Outcome rubric for this Project by:

 

Component

Advanced Level  (18-20 pts)

Intermediate Level (15-17 pts.)

Beginner Level  (14 or under)

State the astronomical claim and provide the evidence

 

The claim is stated clearly and specifically.  Viewer understands exactly being claimed and how the student arrived at this claim.  The evidence/arguments in support of the claim are rendered in detail and in a manner that demonstrates that the student understands them as opposed to just reciting them by rote. 

The claim is stated in a way that makes it testable.  However, it may not be as clear or as specific as it could be.  The evidence/arguments in support of the claim are rendered well, although some details may be left out.  Some of the evidence may seem as though student does not fully understand it but my only by reciting it by rote. 

The claim is either not stated or is stated unclearly or non-specifically.  The evidence for the claim is incomplete or confused.  Where evidence is provided, it may not be clear that the student sees the connection between the evidence and the claim.  Viewer may get the impression that the student is simply presenting evidence s/he does not fully understand.

State the weird claim and provide the evidence

 

The claim is stated clearly and specifically.  Viewer understands exactly being claimed and how the student arrived at this claim.  The evidence/arguments in support of the claim are rendered in detail and in a manner that demonstrates that the student understands them as opposed to just reciting them by rote. 

The claim is stated in a way that makes it testable.  However, it may not be as clear or as specific as it could be.  The evidence/arguments in support of the claim are rendered well, although some details may be left out.  Some of the evidence may seem as though student does not fully understand it but my only by reciting it by rote. 

The claim is either not stated or is stated unclearly or non-specifically.  The evidence for the claim is incomplete or confused.  Where evidence is provided, it may not be clear that the student sees the connection between the evidence and the claim.  Viewer may get the impression that the student is simply presenting evidence s/he does not fully understand.

Evaluate Evidence for the astronomical claim

A number of pieces of evidence in support of the claim/hypothesis are offered and critiqued carefully, thoughtfully, and completely.    Student articulates the nature and limitations of the evidence.  S/he considers whether any of the evidence should be rejected and if so, why.  At least one alternative hypothesis is offered.  Hypothesis is creative and thoughtful and represents a reasonable alternative to the original hypothesis that is offered.  Any additional hypotheses are similarly thoughtful and careful.  Student carefully assesses the alternate hypotheses according to the criteria of adequacy. 

Some evidence in support of the claim/hypothesis is offered and critiqued.    Student needs to say more to articulate the nature and limitations of the evidence.  S/he needs to explain further whether any of the evidence should be rejected and if so, why.  At least one alternative hypothesis is offered.  Hypothesis is adequate; there may be some question as to whether it really represents a reasonable alternative to the original hypotheses.  Additional hypotheses may be less than fully fleshed out.

Evidence in support of the claim is either not offered or the connection between the evidence and the claim is not made clear.  Student does not really analyze the evidence carefully and/or say whether any of the evidence should be rejected or why.  Student doesn’t really offer a reasonable alternative hypothesis.  Hypothesis may be a “straw person” and only serve to shore up the original.  Student needs to more seriously consider really viable and reasonable alternatives.

 

 

Notes:

Evaluate Evidence for the weird claim

A number of pieces of evidence in support of the claim/hypothesis are offered and critiqued carefully, thoughtfully, and completely.    Student articulates the nature and limitations of the evidence.  S/he considers whether any of the evidence should be rejected and if so, why.  At least one alternative hypothesis is offered.  Hypothesis is creative and thoughtful and represents a reasonable alternative to the original hypothesis that is offered.  Any additional hypotheses are similarly thoughtful and careful.  Student carefully assesses the alternate hypotheses according to the criteria of adequacy. 

Some evidence in support of the claim/hypothesis is offered and critiqued.    Student needs to say more to articulate the nature and limitations of the evidence.  S/he needs to explain further whether any of the evidence should be rejected and if so, why.  At least one alternative hypothesis is offered.  Hypothesis is adequate; there may be some question as to whether it really represents a reasonable alternative to the original hypotheses.  Additional hypotheses may be less than fully fleshed out.

Evidence in support of the claim is either not offered or the connection between the evidence and the claim is not made clear.  Student does not really analyze the evidence carefully and/or say whether any of the evidence should be rejected or why.  Student doesn’t really offer a reasonable alternative hypothesis.  Hypothesis may be a “straw person” and only serve to shore up the original.  Student needs to more seriously consider really viable and reasonable alternatives.

Comparison of the support for the claims

Student gives a thoughtful and complete comparison of the ways in which the two claims are supported.  S/he explains ways in which the evidence is similar and different.  S/he articulates clearly whether one set of evidence provides a better reason for accepting the claim and if so, why.  S/he draws conclusion(s) about the differences/similarities between scientific reasoning and other ways of knowing.

Student gives an adequate comparison of the ways in which the two claims are supported.  S/he offers some ways in which the evidence is similar and different, but leaves a few questions unanswered.  S/he mentions whether one set of evidence provides a better reason for accepting the claim but doesn’t fully fill out why.  More could be said about differences/similarities between scientific reasoning and other ways of knowing.

The comparison between the ways of supporting the claims is incomplete.  It’s not made clear how the evidence is similar/different.  Viewer is left wondering whether one set of evidence provides a better reason for accepting the claim and/or if so, why.  Little is said about differences/similarities between scientific reasoning and other ways of knowing

 

 

Notes: