Science, as defined in the dictionary, is systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. But how do we know we are right? In text books there is an answer key for every problem. There is no answer key for life. I was recently pondering this idea: most of science is based off of models of reality, not reality itself. For example, let's consider the science of economics. In a simple example, if there is more demand than supply in theory that should drive up prices. My question is why?
Most people would start to talk explain that because of scarcity, the determining factor in who gets the resource is determined by who offers the most compensation, which logically to most people makes sense, and accepts it as true. But does it need to be true, or is it even true? While this question may seem difficult, the answer is simple: it's the only way humans know how to solve the problem of scarcity, at least the way the majority believes it to be. Most have come to accept this supply and demand model because science says it to be true. This brings me to my final point. How much do we, as humans, let these representations of reality(science) influence our behavior?
Recently in Blog 1 Category
Little Alchemy is a unique game that challenges the player's reasoning and processing. In the game, the player starts with the basic elements of fire, water, earth, and air. From here, he or she combines these elements to form newer types of elements. For example, when the user combines water and fire, the resulting element is steam.
Given the first few elements, the user can mentally combine each of the elements to figure out newer elements. When a user is given the elements of earth and water, he or she can utilize bottom-up processing to infer that the result is mud. By synthesizing the elements that the player already has, new element combinations can be inferred.
However, this isn't the only way to consider the game. Another way to find the newer elements is to consider the elements that the game might include. Thus, the player could inductively reason different types of elements that the game might have. If the user wanted to figure out whether the game had elements like clouds or mountains, he or she would then use top-down processing to consider how to develop these elements from the available material or any theoretical transitional elements that might be needed to construct these elements.
Thereafter, the player will try to reach their goal, and once all reasonable combinations that might yield the right product are exhausted, the user can deductively reason that the element hasn't been included into the game.
This game illustrates problem solving strategies. The game challenges the user to create a network of interconnected elements, figure out how to create complex elements, and try to create goals that may be unattainable. Both inductive and deductive reasoning must be applied to find new elements and overcome getting stumped. The player can either figure out new elements from existing elements or start from a highly complex element and move backward to figure out what might be missing. These types of processing and reasoning are used in everything from car repair to population modeling, and this game combines a little fun with a little thought and a little frustration.
http://littlealchemy.com/
I can see the future. I can read your mind. And I can view hidden objects. In other words, I believe in ESP. Extrasensory perception, the perception of events outside the known channels of sensation, is a phenomenon believed by humans since the early 1930s, courtesy of Joseph B. Rhine and his card study magnifying how random people could predict cards (precognition), which card another person had in mind (telepathy), and which card could not be seen (clairvoyance). And by some sort of miracle, Rhine's study spread like wild fire, with people buying into the idea left and right. But for some reason, humans love to fall prisoner of the moment and blatantly disregard logic. In Rhine's study regarding ESP, which challenged conventional wisdom, seven correct cards out of 25 were predicted on average. For those keeping track at home, remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Is seven out of 25 extraordinary?! Logic would say no. But being the typical "prisoner of the moment" us homosapiens tend to be, studies such as these lead us to believe we can read minds and predict the future. The bottom line comes down to this: before you dedicate yourself to ESP and soothsaying, make sure you have undoubting evidence (greater than a card game) supporting your allegiance to such wild claims.
Chapter four had to do with sense and perception. All of the human senses were talked about, including what we see and how we see them. It also mentions how some are unable to do so. Many of us can't imagine what it's like to be blind, although we've probably tried on occasion. If it weren't for Braille, visually impaired people wouldn't be able to read and write. The code, applied to many languages, can be seen in various public places, but few know much more than that. It is read by moving fingers left to right along characters made up of dots. Each character, or cell, is arranged in two columns with six total dots. The number and placement of dots represents a letter, a number, or punctuation. Braille isn't as limiting as one may think, either. Just as people beginning to read or write in English, different shortcuts and symbols can also be learned the longer you do it. According to nfb.org, 90% of blind American children are not taught to read at all. That was a shocking fact to learn for me. It is so important for children born blind to begin reading Braille early on. One research study found that "literacy rates of blind high school students who began their Braille education at an early age are consistent with those of their sighted peers." Hopefully in the future blindness won't hinder people from reaching full potential.
There is no doubt that our cultural environment affects the way we live, the way we feel, and the way think. Most people do not try to find out why we have those feelings and why we think the way we do. Aside from our cultural environment's impact on our thoughts, are our genetic makeups involved in our thought processes? Yes, genetics affect our behavior, and its evidence is all around our natural world, from small insects to humans, and to every living species. For instance, people who have down syndrome tends to be happy at all time, even when they're doing boring jobs like washing dishes. 
Only when things are not "normal" then we see a difference. We "normal" human feel "normal" because at large, we share similar genetic makeups that determine our thoughts. But that doesn't mean we all process our thoughts the same way. Apart from cultural factors that impact our thoughts that are based on the human brains' capability of learning. Genetics can make some people more aggressive than others given the similar cultural environment. Many people fear height, but how many of us were told to fear heights? It is how our brains are programed to have the phobia of height. In evolution, the ones that don't have this traits are more likely to die from falling, therefore after a long time, more and more people have the phobia of heights. Same way ants are programed to respond to different chemical signals. We are programed in a more complicated way, that involves learning, and our natural instance build in our subconscious.
