VNOS/VOSI-ASTR



POST VNOS/VOSI-ASTR Responses

1. In your view, what is astronomy and how is it different from other sciences?

A: Astronomy is still very similar to physics. I would even consider Astronomy a branch off to physics. I think there is also some chemistry components involved as well. I would call Astronomy an applied science. It is not a pure science like Biology, Chem, Phys. It is a combination of these pure sciences.

B: Astronomy is the study of the universe. It is different than other sciences because in my opinion it is harder to study something that you cannot get close and even touch.

C: Astronomy is the study of celestial bodies. It is different because all other sciences are relating to earth, its living beings, and its atomic interactions.

D: Astronomy is that science that deals with the body of knowledge about the universe, from its origin, evolution, components, and possible future. It differs from other sciences, in that the sources of data (stars/galaxies) are so far away that what we now see is actually emissions that occurred thousands, millions, billions of years ago. In addition to the vast distances, there is also the time frame. In this respect, time aspects in Astronomy are much like that of Geology, vast and difficult to fully grasp for novices and newcomers. The processes that are used to investigate, analyze, and interpret data are much like that of other sciences, therefore, there are many common characteristics that Astronomy shares with other disciplines.

E: 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. In astronomy, scientists make careful observations of the above mentioned items in order to predict occurrences and formulate hypotheses of varying natures that fit into preexisting theories of the current view of the universe. Theories may become altered over time to more carefully express the data or information gathered by the scientists. Astronomy is more similar to other science fields than different because of the processes that scientists take part in such as experimentation, observation, recording, creating, reasoning and formulating new answers to existing questions. 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!

F: Astronomy is the study of the cosmos and everything in it. I don’t believe that it is fundamentally different from other sciences except that it is the study of the cosmos. All sciences are going to have similarities such as how scientists work to obtain information, “scientific method”, etc.

G: Astronomy is study of the universe, including our earth, stars, and other heavenly bodies such as comets. While astronomy shares a focus on systematic, logical observation of natural phenomena with other sciences, it differs in what can be directly studied. The biologist can directly observe an animal or plant, the chemist can perform experiments with elements, etc. The objects of the astronomer’s interest are very far away, so tools must be used to study them. The astronomers then make inferences based on their observations.

2. What does a star look like? How certain are astronomers about the structure of a star? What specific evidence do you think astronomers used to determine what a star looks like?

A: Spherical, burning, varies in color due to temperature. Very sure, we are just not sure why neutrinos are not as abundant as predicted. Can visually see some colors of stars. Use the sonograms that measure the sound waves radiating out.

B: A star looks like a ball of glowing gases. Astronomers are fairly certain about the structure of the stars—or at least as certain as they can be without being able to get close to it. The evidence they use is through observation, telescopes and spectroscopy.

C: I am really not sure what a star looks like outside of the sun. I do not think they know what stars actually look like. They classify them by their brightness.

D: Stars are gaseous in nature, heavier elements present in the core, with lighter elements enveloping the core. Astronomers are fairly sure of the structure of stars based on spectroscopic analysis; spectral patterns give evidence of the composition. Brightness is a function of the mass of the star, as it also indicates something about temperatures. By comparing what spectral patterns are observed with that of known elements, composition is determined. With information about thermonuclear reactions involving those same components, temperatures can be estimated.

E: To the naked eye, stars look like white dots in the sky. Sometimes they can have a faint blue or red appearance. In the telescope, they will also have a white or faint blue and red appearance. Scientists are fairly certain about the structure of stars due to studying the emissions or radiation given off by the stars. 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.

F: I don’t think stars have a definite shape per se as they are large balls of gas. They do have a color sometimes visible with the naked eye, or visible via a spectrophotometer. Astronomers are not 100% certain about the structure of stars. They attempt to judge based on information obtained by the sun, the closest star to earth. They are able to ascertain what gases the star is made from, and what stage in the life of the star it is in. Science is not stagnant, and as technology increases, astronomers learn more about what stars look like. I think scientists use technology such as telescopes, spectrophotometers, satellites, etc. to help them determine what a star looks like.

G: Through the naked eye or through a telescope a star looks like a disc of brightness. They vary in color, with the brighter ones being blue-white and dimmer ones red. I think astronomers are pretty certain about the structure of stars. They have observed the “birth” of stars in various nebulae as well as conducted study of our own star, the Sun. Astronomers used specific evidence of what stars look like from viewing them with the naked eye and then through telescopes. At first they just drew records of what they saw but as technology developed, they were able to capture the star images as photographs or digital images.

3. Some astronomers believe that the universe will expand forever, others believe that it will stop expanding and start contracting, and some believe that it will expand until it gradually stops but will not contact. How are these different conclusions possible if all astronomers are looking at the same observations and data?

A: Because we do not understand where we are in the evolutionary process. The time scale that the universe is on is so much longer than our lifetimes.

B: They are hypotheses based on observations, inferences and prior knowledge. It is like a scientific law—it is believed to be true based on certain conditions but at some point could be proven false. The different astronomers believe differently based on difference interpretations of what they have prior knowledge on.

C: All of these conclusions are scientific guesses. Each astronomer can only draw conclusions based on what they believe and not on hard facts.

D: Different conclusions are based on differing interpretations of the available data. That stars are moving away from each other is a fairly universal (no pun intended) notion. Evidence from Doppler shifts of spectral analyses continues to point in that direction. What happens beyond that is in the category of possibilities. Mass estimates of the universe are tough to get a handle on. If there is enough mass, it is possible that the universe will slow and begin to reverse direction of expansion. In what limited reading I’ve done, it would seem that to reach a maximum size and stop would be an unlikely scenario, without specific evidence to support it. The ever-expanding notion is the other possibility. Until evidence to support one case over the other is uncovered, there will be discussion as to which is more feasible.

E: 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. 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.

F: Not all astronomers believe the same theories about the universe. It is possible to have the same data and reach different conclusions as they may have had different experiences, studied under different astronomers, etc. Data interpretation is sometimes very subjective. As new information becomes available, even the same person may reach a different conclusion on the same data.

G: Astronomers are thinking human beings. Even if they all look at the same observations and data, they may draw differing conclusions based on their background knowledge and experiences.

4. Does the development of scientific knowledge, including astronomy, require experiments?

a) If yes, explain why and give an example to defend your answer.

A: Experiments are questions, not necessarily mixing chem. A with chem. B. Astronomy has to ask questions or it would never develop nor would it be a science.

B: I believe this to be true with a vague meaning of the word experiment. Even observations could be experiments if that is the method you choose for data collection to answer a posing question and test a hypothesis.

C: Yes. If one wants to develop knowledge of positrons, one must do research and perform experiments on atoms and their subatomic structures.

D: Of course, Scientists have to conduct experiments in order to gather data or information. The amount of scientific knowledge in an area is drastically effected 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? 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.

E: Experimentation is but one aspect of the development of scientific knowledge. This is one thing that I believe all branches of science share…experimentation. Without experimentation, science, especially medical science, would not be able to move forward and would remain stagnant. Without experimentation, many of the known elements would never have been discovered, and Mendeleyev would never have been able to dream up the periodic table.

F: N/A

G: Yes, I’m sure the development of scientific knowledge in astronomy requires experiments. How else could astronomers have figured out which elements give off which color of light, if they didn’t experiment. That type of spectroscopic study would be very useful in determining star composition, since the astronomers can’t just test a piece of the star. All they have available is that light that started towards us from the stars long ago.

b) If no, explain why and give an example to defend your answer.

A: N/A

B: N/A

C: N/A

D: In the sense of experiments (scientists controlling and manipulating the activity) to see if there is some effect or pattern of behavior based on the independent variable, then no. We arrived at some specific knowledge of our binary without having to introduce some variable, and see if there was some change in another variable. Our topic was predetermined, within the context of the class, and our job as researchers was to uncover some more recent information (data) about our star. What we learned was just as valuable scientifically, as if it had come from some controlled experiment.

E: N/A

F: N/A

G: N/A

5. What types of activities do astronomers do to learn about the universe? Be specific about how they go about their work.

A: Observation of cosmos. Measuring of star movement. Taking pictures. Using instruments to receive electromagnet radiation from space. Discussion with other scientists.

B: Astronomers use direct unaided observations, telescope aided observations, inferences and spectroscopy to learn about the universe.

C: They build different types of telescopes and mark the movement of stars through the sky. They also collect data on brightness of stars and calculate their approximate distance and parallax.

D: Much like we accomplished this summer, astronomers gather information (electromagnetic radiation of some frequency that may vary) and examine it is some fashion. It may be like our activity, comparing our data to existing data for verification of the status of the star, or it may be collecting data about something that has previously been unobserved. Data may be in the form of images using the visible portion of the spectrum, recordings using data received via radio telescopes, infrared, ultraviolet, or x-ray images where the computer is used to enhance and make visible images from radiation that is not visible to us.

E: 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. 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. Some astronomers tend to focus more on the macro universe or bigger entities such as new galaxies being found while others choose to focus on the micro universe such as binary star research. All in all, human interest plays a big part in the activities of human astronomers.

F: Astronomers will look through a telescope, both on earth and via satellite. They read other astronomers research. They conduct their own research. They collaborate with others. They make presentations of their research to others in the field to allow for brainstorming. They publish their work in prestigious journals. Amateurs may also publish their work in journals made available to the general public.

G: As cliché as it sounds, astronomers really are stargazers. They vie for time at the best telescopes so they may collect data to use as evidence. Once the star (or other heavenly body) images are made, the real work begins. Analysis of that data requires careful measurement and recording of information along with lots of geometry and algebra to determine many things about the stars. Astronomers may also study data recorded by others and by unmanned telescopes (such as Hubble) looking for patterns or anomalies to be explained.

6. What astronomers choose to study and how they learn about the universe may be influenced by a variety of factors. How do astronomers decide what and how to investigate? Describe all the factors you think influence the work of astronomers. Be as specific as possible.

A: What they personally have a question about. What needs to be answered, What they can be paid to answer.

B: Astronomers probably decide to investigate whatever their university or organization researches. To a less extent—they may study some aspect of astronomy just by their level of interest.

C: They may choose a subject that needs further research. Astronomers decide what they will investigate by looking in catalogues or conferencing with other astronomers about subjects of interests.

D: Astronomers, like other scientists, may be driven to topics by childhood interests, shared interests with people who are significant to them in their early years (relatives, close family friends, etc), or they may be introduced to research topics by mentors, professors, or through jobs or internships when they are older. Whatever the trigger, eventually astronomers settle in on something that has appeal to them, something that causes them to see a question, problem, something that they can’t explain. Through this inquisitiveness, research is born.

E: 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.

F: There are many factors that may influence what an astronomer chooses to study. It may be based on what his/her mentor was studying. It may be based on what grant money is to be used for. It may be based on what is popular at the institution the astronomer is housed. It may be based on what is the popular topic at the moment. It may be based on something exciting the astronomer may have read by another famous astronomer.

G: In a perfect world, astronomers would choose what to study based on their passion for learning. They would spend all their time and effort on the celestial objects of their desire, so to speak. In the real world, time at telescopes costs money, as do plane tickets and other modes of transportation to various locales. Soooo, topics of study for astronomers is sometimes determined by institutional (research university, NASA, etc.) needs or by other types of funding (National Science Foundation grants, etc.).

7. a) Write a definition of an scientific astronomical observation.

A: Observation is Looking and recording what you see, when you saw it and where you were when you saw it.

B: A scientific astronomical observation is an observation of the universe that is used as part of data collection during a scientific inquiry.

C: The use of catalogues, telescopes, and other optical magnifiers to find out information about celestial bodies.

D: A scientific astronomical observation is any thing that involves searching the heavens that leads to new information, and therefore, a building of the knowledge base of the science. This observation may be of the casual type of observing that leads to a question, or a thought about a particular phenomenon, or it may be part of the formal research-driven type of observation designed to learn something particular about a specific topic.

E: 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.

F: An observation is based on the five senses, and/or actual measurements. A scientific astronomical observation would involve some study of the cosmos in which knowledge was gained through experience while making an observation.

G: A scientific astronomical observation in one that involves observing celestial objects systematically and carefully, recording meticulously what is observed. It might also involve analysis of data observed by others.

b) Give an example from something you have done or heard about in astronomy that illustrates your definition of a scientific astronomical observation?

A: Binary Star project.

B: I observe a comet flying across the sky while I am out star viewing during an investigation of some kind.

C: Finding out that a certain binary star printed in a catalogue may not even exist by using the camera and telescope at HLCO.

D: This summer’s research fits that definition. We actually started with the casual type of observation that first night at the observatory. I know that for me, it was a way of tying into the interest generated by seeing a binary star up close, seeing the moon in a way that I’d never experienced, or being able to use the telescopes to find the stars. It continued with our own stars chosen from the WDS database as the target of our observations where we collected specific data to compare with the historical data of the star.

E: We conducted a scientific astronomical observation by observing SEI 548 and conducting scientific fact gathering. In this, we added to the preexisting knowledge base for the scientific community. This helps expand the understanding of the universe. We also conducted scientific astronomical observations the first night we went to the observatory to use the equipment. That first observation night we observed several stars and our moon, which enlarged the knowledge base for all involved. The first night’s activity helped me better understand the universe. In my opinion, that was why it was a scientific astronomical observation.

F: An example would be looking through the small mobile telescope at various stars and the moon. I made qualitative observations as to color, size, etc., and quantitative observations in location. It was scientific in that I gained knowledge through the experience.

G: Wow! I’ve always thought of myself as an amateur astronomer, one who studies star charts and then views the sky trying to see constellations, etc. But, these observations wouldn’t be considered scientific since I didn’t systematically record what I observed. However, this summer, I got to do scientific astronomical observations by reading existing data (using the Neglected Binary Star catalogs of the USNO and Digital Sky Survey images) and then searching for the same information in the actual sky using a real telescope. Images of the binary were recorded digitally and then measured by all members of our group to come up with our position angles.

c) Explain why you consider your example to be a scientific astronomical observation.

A: Made observations of star, recorded the observations, noted time, date, location of us and stars

B: Because it was an observation as part of a scientific inquiry.

C: We used a telescope and we researched what we were looking for in a scientific catalogue.

D: As a result of our data and the comparison to historical data, we came to the conclusion that nothing much in terms of conflicting data did we get. Our measurements came out to be within limits close to the measurements that had been taken 75-100 yr ago. While learning nothing new, there is certainly value in confirmation of the existing data.

E: 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.

F: See above.

G: I think I said that in b) . . . the systematic recording and analysis of the data makes the astronomical observation scientific.

8. An astronomer notices that with their unaided eye they see more blue stars in the night sky than red stars. Using a telescope they also find more blue stars than red stars. This person concludes that blue stars are more common than red stars.

a) Do you consider this person’s investigation to be scientific? Explain why or why not.

A: It is not scientific and it is not valid. To many other variables that have not be controlled for. Size the bigger it is the easier it is to see. Blue light travels better through space (its not filtered as much)

B: Yes, observation if part of data collection which is part of the scientific method.

C: Yes, It is scientific because they used more than one way to come up with their data. However, the astronomer should go to the Southern Hemisphere and conduct the same experiment.

D: N/A

E: 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 itself 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.

F: Yes. The observer made qualitative and quantitative observations gaining knowledge through experience.

G: This depends on what the person was doing. Were they always looking at/pointing the telescope at the same portion of the sky? Was it always the same time of year? Did they actually count the stars they saw or just estimate? All of these factors would affect the scientific nature of the investigation.

b) If you do not think their work was scientific, how would you change the investigation to be scientific?

A: N/A

B: N/A

C: N/A

D: To be scientific, I think that there must be some contributory aspect of the knowledge. Certainly this astronomer has data to support that there appears to be more blue stars than red, but unless that information is shared with others, compared to other observations, open to question by other astronomers, there is little intrinsic value or contribution to the body of knowledge of Astronomy. The investigation is okay, in a limited sense, but from there, I’d look for other astronomers who also had made observations of the like. Were their results similar? Do the observations hold to some level of consistency with other astronomers? Has there been dialogue with other interested parties to see what their conclusions are? Have other surveys been conducted and are their conclusions similar?

E: It was scientific.

F: N/A

G: To make it scientific, the astronomer should diligently record (preferably with images, not just drawings) stars seen in a particular portion of the sky for many, many nights.

9. Some people have claimed that all scientific investigations, including astronomy, must follow the same general set of steps, or methods, to be considered science. Others have claimed there are different general methods that scientific investigations can follow. What to you think and why?

A: It has to follow a logical progression. The scientific method is a problem solving approach. It has step but they are not rigid. There is however a process of questioning and learning that is generally followed to find answers.

B: They don’t need to follow the exact steps but should at least try to prove of disprove a hypothesis or answer a posing question.

C: I think that if everyone followed the same set of rules every time, there would be a lot fewer scientific breakthroughs. It is my guess the some of the great scientist of our planet were not even aware of a general set of steps and therefore were not trapped in their thinking.

D: I think that there are some things that have consistently shown to be effective when it comes to scientific investigations, but to limit a scientist, regardless of discipline, to a set of prescribed steps to follow, shows little regard for the innate tendency of people to question their surroundings and try to make sense of them. Nor does it allow for the creativity needed to reach plausible explanations (hypotheses) to research. The structure of the ‘scientific method’ should not hinder scientists’ abilities to ask questions, look for patterns, delve into a topic beyond the superficial level, but should provide for the structure to investigate and explore.

E: 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.

F: Growing up, I believed in the “scientific method”, a sequenced set of steps scientists used to investigate. I no longer believe that to be true. While there are steps involved, they do not necessarily have to follow an unwavering order.

G: Sometimes scientific investigations follow the “scientific method” of stating a problem or question, making a prediction or hypothesis, collecting data/experimenting, analyzing data, and drawing conclusions. Often after analyzing data, the scientist finds he/she needs to collect more data/experiment further. This part of the process if often repeated. Some scientific investigations are the “aha” or “eureka” type where something is observed that the scientist didn’t expect or wasn’t even looking for. This type of serendipity does not fit the “scientific method” described above.

10. a) If several astronomers, working independently, ask the same question (for example, what was the Universe like 10 billion years ago?) will they necessarily come to the same conclusions? Explain why or why not.

A: No, if working independently they may interpret the same observations and data differently.

B: No, some of it is based on interpretation of the past research.

C: No, there are no solid facts they could all build from. Therefore, they would all probably recreate their own set events that they would give them a different view of the Universe 10 billion years ago.

D: They will not necessarily come to the same conclusion, as each could have their own interpretation of the data available. Each had his/her own experiences that molded their learning and knowledge acquisition. Therefore, what they conclude from available information is colored or influenced by that which they have experienced.

E: 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.

F: They may not come to the same conclusion. As in question 3, these astronomers may have the same data and reach different conclusions. They may interpret the data differently. They may not adhere to the same theories, but may ask the same question. This is how science changes and expands with time. If everyone came to the same conclusion, I don’t think science would change as much, or move forward.

G: See #3

b) Does your response to a) change if the astronomers are working together? Explain.

A: They still may disagree, thus creating a tense work environment. One may influence the other or persuade him to consider her theory.

B: No, people interpret things differently and many will not change their opinion just because someone in a group feels differently.

C: Yes, they may not all agree but I believe there would be less theories produced by the group because they were all thinking together.

D: There working together doesn’t preclude them having different experiences in earlier years, which means that they are still entirely likely to come up with different interpretations of the data. The thing that can happen, however, if they are working in the same group, is that there can be an interaction amongst them. With shared discourse, there might be some ‘compromising’ that occurs, as each makes his/her ideas known to the group.

E: 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!

F: No. 2 people together in a room are not going to have the same opinions about politics so why would astronomers working together come to the exact same conclusion each and every time?

G: I do believe in group dynamics, and if the astronomers were working together, they could provide arguments to sway each other to their viewpoints, particularly if they back up their ideas with data.

11. a) What does the term “data” mean in astronomy?

A: information collected, distance, magnitudes, star angle, and separation….

B: It can mean numbers like measurements as well as observations and inferences.

C: It means Right Ascention(sp) parallax, aperture, and other terms that produce numbers that can be reproduced by other scientists.

D: Data in any information that we gather when the heaven’s are explored and observed. The data may be observational (the brightness of that star seems to vary), it may be empirical (computer image used to measure position angle or separation). Data is in the form of some frequency of electromagnetic radiation collected formally or informally.

E: 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.

F: Data refers to factual information organized for analysis or for making decisions. It may be qualitative or quantitative in nature.

G: In astronomy data means what is collected for scientific investigation. It may be an image of a section of the sky, or plots of stars on a chart.

b) Is “data” the same or different from “evidence”? Explain.

A: Evidence is the result of many data.

B: Different. Data is collected individually and when combined can become evidence.

C: They are different. One may use their data to provide evidence. Evidence is produced by data. They can not be one in the same.

D: Data is anything mentioned above. Evidence is that which when compared to an existing knowledge base, causes a scientist to see consistency (confirmatory evidence) or see discrepancy (contradictory evidence). It is the comparison with the existing body of knowledge that puts it into the category of evidence.

E: 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.

F: Evidence is the data on which a conclusion or judgment can be established. To me, this means that data is part of evidence.

G: Once data is analyzed, it can be used as evidence to back up an idea or theory.

12. a) What is “astronomical data analysis”?

A: Trying to draw conclusions from data that has been collect and apply it to the principle of study.

B: Analysis of data collected during the study of the universe.

C: It is the use of data to predict the location of stars, moons, and other celestial bodies.

D: It is that process of taking the data and corresponding calculations to see if there are any patterns; by comparing to existing knowledge base to see if there is agreement or not, astronomers are able to see the ‘story’ that the data tell.

E: 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.

F: Studying factual information regarding astronomy to make a decision or reach a conclusion.

G: Astronomical data analysis a systematic process of analyzing data (from telescopes, etc.), looking carefully for similarities and differences.

b) What is involved in doing “astronomical data analysis”?

A: Crunching numbers, running statistical test to check for validity in the numbers and significance, and standard error. Compiling all the data into charts and tables so that it is easily read and interpreted.

B: Analyzing measurements and observations to determine conclusions.

C: gathering data, calculating distances and orbits, and parallax.

D: There may be, after data is collected, the need to do calculations (as we did for position angle and separation), plot data to see if there is a trend (again as we did with the polar coordinate plot or the calibration star data plot). It may start with something as simple as comparing images taken at different times to see if there are any changes in objects of interest or background, or it may entail something as complicated as using computers to make calculations or extrapolations of any trends noted.

E: 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.

F: Making qualitative and quantitative observations, collecting the data, and studying it to reach a decision or conclusion.

G: This process can involve examination of images, measurements of images, calculations with those measurements, and then an assimilation of the meaning of all of these pieces of information into a coherent whole.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download