jelly beans experiment

the jellybean experiment we did in class was not scientific. The reason for this is that the experiment was controllable. We had to many variables. This makes it impossible to conclude that the blindfold was the crucial in tasting better. Because in our class the blindfolded people were male and they both smoke. The testpersons that could see were both female and didn't smoke. However we did use the five key steps. We had an observation, hypothesis, experiment. However the last 2 steps of the five were impossible, because of the variables. When we would do this experiment again and take out the gender and smoking variable and maybe age, then it is scientific.

perfect theory?

Some people might think that in the future we will be able to produce a scientific theory that contains the answer of every single question. Consequently there would be no paradigm shift anymore. However I don't agree with them. The main reason for me to disagree is the current economical crisis. After the fall of the Soviet Union and therefore the fall of the communistic idea, we all started to live in the capitalistic paradigm. The theory behind the capitalistic system was perfect. And every student started to learn the basic capitalistic principals at school. In the last decade an Asian economist made an equation. This equation gave banks the ability to calculate how they could earn the highest amount of money. This equation worked until the beginning of the current crisis. The problem of the equation was very simple; it did not work in a time with decreasing house prices. That economist did not realised this mistake was very understandable. Because house prices simply didn’t decline after the Second World War. Now we say that the capitalistic system is dead, and that the state should have more control over our economy. This is really a paradigm shift in the economical world.

What I am trying to explain is that we might be able to make a theory which can solve every question. However there will be a moment were something will change. This change will change the world or universe. Consequently the theory does not work any more and it has to change.

in my science class i always learned that, we have to check everything. This was a key element in every experiment. They same element occurs in the science done by famous scientist. One things he invented something and then a second scientist by doing an experiment proves that the first scientist was wrong. Consequently if you ask a scientist: "why does a pencil fall". Then he will replay by saying: " well, according the experiments we have done and checked. We could conclude that everytime there was a certain force pulling the pencil down. This force we called gravity". This explanation is crucial. Because when you ask the same question to a psuedo scientist, he would reply by saying: "well, it falls because it already falls for more then 500 years.

secondly another characteristics wich distinguishes psuedosciences from hard science is that scientist encourges you to disprove their theories. However a psuedo scientist would ask you why you would disprove a someting that is already working for more than 500 years.

in the field of mathematics, mathematicians have a better short term memory. However this is due the fact that mathematicians are often interested in Maths. Therefore they put effort in remembering mathematical information. However when you tell them something about footbal, then i am sure that i rember more. I nice television program which showed this was Beauty and the nerd. the beauties and nerds were divided in groups which constited out of 1 nerd and 1 beauty. Beauties were nice people without a brain, and Nerds were mathematicians with a low eq. Every show two teams were selected to participate in a knock out test. Beauties had to answer question in the field of exact sciences. And nerds had to answer question in the field of fashion, hollywood and making contact with other people. You would expect that Nerds would score better in test, because they have a higher IQ. However it were often the girls which scored relativley higher. Because mostly both groups did not study, you can say that it were the interest which determined the short term memory and not the brains.

A second problem is what is smart. I believe that Paris Hilton is smarter than the average IB student. Her IQ might be lower, however her business instinct is brilliant. Because she earns money with avery single action. Consequently i believe that a person with a high IQ, but works as a secretary is not very smart. Because she is not able to use her potential.