eviDences foR classRoom innovations, leaRning gains & teaching ...

eviDences foR classRoom 

innovations, 

leaRning gains & 

teaching-leaRning 

mateRials 

1. thermodynamics innovations pefalec 

course code : cmt251 & cmt408 

2. philosophy 

course code : fsg500 

3. Basic physics ii 

course code : phy407 

4. scholarship of teaching & learning 

“The great aim of education is not knowledge, but 

action” 

- Herbert Spencer -

philosophy 

couRse coDe : fsg500 

“I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem 

to have been only a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting 

myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell 

than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered 

before me” 

- Isaac Newton -

Website & syllabus

Dr JJ or Dr Jaafar Jantan Homepage 

DrJJ's Home Page FSG500 PHY407 FSG500 syllabus UiTM Homepage 

PHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHY of of of SCIENCE SCIENCE FSG500 FSG500 SEMESTER SEMESTER Jan Jan 2010 2010-Apr 2010 Apr 2010 

2010 

PLEASE BE SURE YOU DO THE ONLINE STUDENT EVALUATION. YOU GET TO ASSESS ME..... 

Students Who Failed to engage in class and are not committee members for the Premiere Debate will meet me April 20th, 

5:30pm, Room 510. 

DEBATE: CONGRATS for participating & finishing the debate successfully. However, there are a few who did not make the 

minimum passing marks. 

These students will see me THURS, Apr 15th, 5:30pm, Room 509. Check here to see if You FAIL the debate Your Debate Marks 

Debate Matrix Debate Rubric Debate Format Evaluation Form-Affirmative Evaluation Form-Against Judges Khairani Attendance 

Stephen Hawkings-A Brief History of Time 

Premiere Debate will be held Apr 13th, 2010 at Sri Budiman Hall (DSB), UiTM 7:45pm-10:30pm. 

Debate Title: "Should Malaysia Go Nuclear??" Dress-code: Formal 

Adjudicators include UiTM LPU Chairman (TSWZ), Dep VC Acad & Intl. (Dato' Mus)-represented by AP Dr. Ahmad Ridhuan 

(AVC-Comm & Corporate), 

AVC Puncak Alam Campus (Prof AZA), & Prof Norhadiani (FSG) 

Attendance to the Prem Debate is COMPULSORY to ALL FSG500 Students. Attendance is taken from your composition 

after the session is over. 

Bring writing papers with you to the Premiere Debate. List of Premiere Debaters. 

Premiere Debate Rubric Premiere Debate Format Premiere Debate Evaluation Form-Affirmative Premiere Debate Evaluation Form- 

Against Khairani Enter Marks (xls) 

Congratulations to the Premiere Debaters for a heated and exciting session. Congrats also to the Opposition team for bringing home the trophy. 

You have brought pride to your fellow future scientists and technopreneurs. Congrats to Khairunnisa & Nurul Jannah for being Best Speakers. 

I thanked Ms Khairani and her committee members (Amri & the gang), Dr Roy & Dr Rozana, Datin Halimah, Norleza, Mimi, Zaliha, Ahmad Kambali, 

Nora, Ijat, Faizal, Halim, the 2 science 

officers, technical personnel and those whose names are not listed but who made a difference in making the Premiere Debate memorable & 

successful. 

My endless gratitude is expressed to the 4 adjudicators who assessed the debaters, the Dean, Deputy Deans, Program Heads and my beloved 

students 

who came and gave moral support to the event. 

FINAL TERM PAPER: READ the articles from the hyperlink for examples of how to effectively write term paper & use the 

APA style writing. 

Please NO COPY & PASTE from internet sources or other sources. Paraphrase them in your own words. 

Submit (upload) your file to Turnitin Plagiarism Software to Check Your Originality Index. But you must first do the following: 

Use the class ID and password given below to create a profile for New Users. You must create the profile as a student. Use the quickstart 

guide to know how to to enroll. 

Quickstart guide to use Turnitin: http://www.turnitin.com/static/pdf/tii_student_qs.pdf or HELP Register ME 

Use the ID and password below to enroll in the respective classes. 

Dr JJ's class: Class ID: 3064177 Philosophy of Science Jan2010. The Password to login is fsg500 (ACTIVE) 

Page 1 of 10 

Munzatina's class: Class ID: 3094533 Philosophy of Science Jan2010-Chemistry. The Password to login is fsg500chem. (Instructor Not 

Participating) 

Nirul Hafizah's class: Class ID: 3094534 Philosophy of Science Jan2010-Biology. The Password to login is fsg500bio. (Instructor Not 

Participating) 

http://drjj.uitm.edu.my/DRJJ/itmclass/fsg500.html 

13/05/2011


The similarity index will be calculated by TURNITIN and you may view how many percent of your paper is similar to the internet 

sources. 

Papers with similarity index more than 40% (i.e. less than 60% of the paper is original) will not be accepted. 

How to enroll Forgot your password?? 

Information about last semester's class 

CLASS WILL MEET FOR THE FIRST TIME ON TUESDAY NIGHT Jan 5 th , 2010. 8:00pm DK DELTA 

ATTENDANCE IS COMPULSORY TO ALL STUDENTS. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO COME, 

MAKE PRIOR ARRANGEMENT TO SMS ME. MY MOBILE # is 0193551621. Muzanita's hp#: 0196952835; Nurul Hafizah's hp#: 0192256761 

"The strongest arguments prove nothing so long as the conclusions are not verified by experience. Experimental science is the queen 

of sciences and the goal of all speculation." - Roger Bacon 

"I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only a boy playing on the sea-shore, and 

diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all 

undiscovered before me". - Isaac Newton 

Associate Professor Dr. Jaafar Jantan 

a.k.a. Dr. J.J. 

� Born June 21st, 1961 in Malacca, West 

Malaysia. 

High Schools: 

� St. David's High School, Bukit Bahru 

('74-'76) 

� Sekolah Menengah Sains Melaka (Sek. 

Menengah Muzaffar Syah), Air Keroh 

('77-'78) 

� Sek. Dato' Abdul Razak, Seremban ('79) 

Viewing your originality 

index 

Debate List Scheduling Your Debate Marks 

SELAMAT DATANG (WELCOME) 

APPLIED SCIENCES EDUCATION RESEARCH GROUP (ASERG) 

Faculty of Applied Sciences (FSG) , Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) 

40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, MALAYSIA 

"Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know".- Bertrand Russell 

FSG 500: Course Objectives Lesson Plan Assessment References Debate list 


How to submit paper Sage Dictionary 

DrJJ's HomePage FSG500 PHY407 TOP UiTM Homepage 

But just call me 

Tertiary Education 

� Kansas State University, Manhattan Kansas 

('80-85; '91-94) 

� Maktab Perguruan Temenggong Ibrahim, 

Johor Bahru ('86). 

Present Position: 

Page 2 of 10 

� Vice-Chair, Asian Physics Education 

Network, UNESCO 

� Chair, Asian Physics Education Network, 

Malaysia 

� Chair, Outcome-Based Education (OBE), 

FSG, UiTM 

� OBE consultant and trainer for OBE 

curriclum design 

� Faculty Member, Physics Dept., Faculty of 

Applied Science, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 

Shah Alam, Selangor, MALAYSIA ('87 - 

13/05/2011


For further information, please contact: 

Untuk maklumat lanjut, sila hubungi: 

Phone: 6-03-5544-4593 (Direct); 6-019-355-1621 (H/P) 

Fax: 6-03-5544-4562 


E-mail: fsg500@gmail.com and copy to drjjlanita@hotmail.com or drjjlanita@yahoo.com 


Introduction: 

This course is offered in order to address the faculty's vision and mission which are reflected in the program's educational objectives. Specifically, 

FSG500 will be addressing MOHE outcomes LO3, LO4, LO5 and LO6. . FSG hopes that upon the graduation, students will be able to: 

Course Objective: 

Philosophy of science will focus on epistemology through the concepts of knowledge, beliefs, truth and logic, followed by the domain of 

metaphysics, the nature of scientific explanations, critical and science skills as well as moral and ethical issues in science. Students will 

occasionally listen to but mostly will participate and actively engage via dialogues during the 2-hour lecture session. In addition, they will be 

reading, researching and philosophically analyzing content of selected articles on science propositions and methods and will communicate their 

arguments and reasoning both verbally and in writing. It is hoped that students will develop or enhance their science reasoning and critical skills, 

always able to find ways to provide evidence through the scientific method in justifying their claims. It is also hoped that students will be able to 

enhance and use their declarative and functional (procedural) knowledge in science to help them become a knowledgeable citizen, able to identify 

problems, provide scientific arguments and solutions verbally and in written form to assist, counter or balance the decision-making process by 

themselves, by their family, by teams at their workplace but most importantly those that are made by the country and by the Islamic brotherhood 

worldwide. 

Course Outcomes: On completion of this course, students will be able to: 

Google Search 

present). 

LO3 Propose solutions to authentic discipline and societal problems using the scientific and critical thinking skills. 

LO4 Verbally and in writing, express and articulate scientific ideas effectively. 

LO5 Work affectively in a team. 

LO6 Demonstrate the ethics, values and professionalism in their science pursuit. 

LO7 Demonstrate skills on life-long learning 

1. Identify their learning preferences, their attitudes towards science and propose strategies of change management towards 

meaningful learning. (LO7) 

2. Explain the concepts of truth, beliefs and knowledge and justify their own belief about science knowledge in chemistry, 

physics or biology through conceptual inventories. (LO1) 

3. Individually and in teams, philosophize (discuss, reason and justify) on the scientific methods, principles, laws and theories 

about the natural world and on contemporary science issues (LO3,4,5) 

4. Identify their level of science reasoning skills and propose action plan for continuous improvement.(LO3) 

5. Critically write an original 3000 words position paper in favor or against contemporary issues on science that concern ethics 

and morality. (LO3) 


Page 3 of 10 

13/05/2011


Week 

3.0 LESSON PLAN (download the syllabus) 

Total 

Hours 

1 2 

2 

1 

1 

3 2 

Course Objectives Lesson Plan Assessment References 

Contents 

(Knowing You knowing Me - Learning Styles & Views About Science 

Survey) 

Course introduction. (Overview of the course) 

In-class writing: Introduce yourself by including the following: (Will be graded). Try 

out the TURNITIN software by uploading your word file for this exercise, Knowing 

Me Knowing You 

Group registered in FSG500, Program, Semester, Name, Commercial 

Name, Student ID; 

1. Your vision, mission, your family background, your current 

academic standing (CGPA) 

2. Name the course (name the course in your field of study, for 

example, phy430 if you are in physics) you learn most and the 

course you learn least so far. 

3. Then provide justification why you are learning least and why 

you are learning most for the courses that you named above. 

Explain, how you would change the teaching & learning 

methods if you were to teach the class. 

4. Write also your expectations for this course, FSG500 and 

explain how you are going to accomplish that expectation. 

Out of class writing: You will need to write a complete composition on the above and 

email to fsg500@gmail.com and upload to TURNITIN NO LATER THAN Jan 17th, 

2010. 

Email to fsg500@gmail.com with a message title 'your group', 'your name' & 'date 

sent' (example of your message title: ASB2IP- Asmah Saim-170110).Save your 

word file with 'your group' & 'your name' & 'date sent' (example: ASB2IP Asmah 

Saim-170110.doc) 

(Knowing You knowing Me - Learning Styles & Views About Science 

Survey) 

Science Attitudes Survey (VASS) & Learning Preferences Inventory (ILS) 

Introduction to Philosophy, knowledge, beliefs and truths 

Download the lectures: PDF zipped PPS zipped 

1. The concept of philosophy, epistemology, metaphysics, logic and ethics in 

philosophy 

2. Definition of Knowledge: beliefs, truth, knowing and conditions for knowledge 

(Justified True Belief, Evidence, Skepticism) 

End of class composition on beliefs about the natural occurrences. 

Link to Aristotle Physics 

Introduction to Philosophy, knowledge, beliefs and truths 


1. The concept of philosophy, epistemology, metaphysics, logic and ethics in 

philosophy 

2. Definition of Knowledge: beliefs, truth, knowing and conditions for knowledge 

(Justified True Belief, Evidence, Skepticism) 

3. Do you have the knowledge?? Diagnostic test using standardized instruments. 

( A 45-mins test on your present knowledge in your field of study) 

� Conceptual Survey in Electricity & Magnetism (for the 

Physics, Material Science, Textile & Polymer groups) 


Page 4 of 10 

13/05/2011


4 2 

� Chemical Conceptual Inventory (Chemistry, Applied 

Chemistry, Food Tech, Forensic & Environment groups) 

End of class composition on knowing about the natural world. 

Link to Aristotle Physics 

Philosophizing on the Sciences, the scientific method & philosophy of science 

1. Do you have the knowledge?? Discussion of the scientific beliefs and the 

conceptual knowledge based on Conceptual Survey in Electricity & Magnetism 

(CSEM) & Chemical Conceptual Inventory (CCI) 

2. The Methods of Modern Science: From Observation to Conclusion (Theories, 

Laws, Principles, Predictions, Methods, Instruments, Experimentation, 

Variables, Tables, Graphs, Analysis of results & Conclusion) 

Mid-term paper assignment: 

Title: 

I Can Be a Scientist/Technologist Five Years After I Get My Degree From UiTM 

Introduction: 

Outline the characteristics of scientists and state your 

position on the title. 

Body of Composition: 

You are to discuss whether your curriculum (courses 

you took) can prepare you to attain those 

characteristics. (focus on the program at UiTM) 

Then discuss what your efforts are both while being a 

student and within 5 years after graduation for you to 

attain those characteristics. (focus on YOU) 

Note that the focus of discussion is on being a scientist by 

embarking on your own education (your learning process) in 

achieving meta-cognitive skills, the science technical skills 

(knowledge and abilities) and the professional (generic attributes) 

skills. 

1. Length: Body of text (does not include the references) must be 

no less than 500 words & not to exceed 700 words. 

2. Font: Arial size 11. Paragraph spacing 1.5. 

3. Margins: Body of text is 1-inch all around on A4 paper. It must 

contain an Introduction. The body of the text must have at 

least 4 arguments followed by a conclusion. Use the usual 

APA or science format when citing your sources in the body of 

the text. 

4. First page must contain the title, your group & program, your 

name, KP UiTM, your picture, your hand-phone number, your 

email address and your position on the title (can or cannot), 

5. The references (bibliography) page, if any, is a separate page 

and must be attached at the end as an appendix. 

Websites for you to consider visiting to find guides on effective 

journal writing. 

1. APA Research Style Crib Sheet 

2. http://dbem.ws/WritingArticle.pdf 

3. How to Write Guide- Introduction to Journal-Style Scientific Writing 

Hard copies are due in my box (both boxes anchored on the wall are 

for me), outside room 516, level 5, Block A, FSG, no later than 

midnite, Feb 12 th , 2010. 

Digital copy can be sent at any earlier dates. Email your word file to 

fsg500@gmail.com and upload it MIDTERM PAPER assignment on 

TURNITIN with a message title 'your group' & 'your full name' 

FSG500 MTP date (example of your message title: MTP ASB2IP 

Asmah Saim 120210). Save your word file with 'your group' & 'your 

name'-MTP-date (example of filename that you attach: ASB2IP- 

Asmah Saim-MTP-120210.doc). 

YOU MUST SEND BOTH HARD & SOFT COPIES. 

DO NOT ASK A FRIEND TO SEND IT FOR YOU!!! 


Page 5 of 10 

13/05/2011


5 2 

6 2 

7 2 TERM BREAK 

8 2 

9 2 

*Note that proof of sent is NOT proof of receipt. 

End of class composition on methods of science. 


Science, the scientific method & philosophy of science 

The Methods of Modern Science: From Observation to Conclusion (Theories, Laws, 

Principles, Predictions, Methods, Instruments, Experimentation, Variables, Tables, 

Graphs, Analysis of results & Conclusion) 

End of class composition on science versus non-scientific methods. 

Why Philosophy of Science? 

The Nature of Scientific Inference: Induction and Confirmation 

Reasoning: Deductive vs. Inductive (Arguments, Propositions, Premises, Fallacies & 

Conclusions) 

1. The problem of Induction 

2. The hypothetico-deductive method 

3. The method of conjecture and refutation 

End of class composition on inductive versus deductive reasoning 

Why Philosophy of Science? 

The Nature of Scientific Inference: Induction and Confirmation 

Reasoning: Deductive vs. Inductive (Arguments, Propositions, Premises, Fallacies & 

Conclusions) 

1. The problem of Induction 

2. The hypothetico-deductive method 

3. The method of conjecture and refutation 

[For the Debate: 

Each group will be divided into smaller groups of no more than 12 to 

a group. 2 lecturers will be assigned as judges. Titles will be handed 

out 2 weeks in advance and you will be assigned as either affirmative 

or against. The aim is for you to justify and convince your audience 

that as a group, your arguments are scientifically sound. Arguments 

will include reasoning based on ethics and morality. 

Topic 1: Scientific activities and not Natural Phenomenon is the 

Chief Cause of Global Warming 

Topic 2: Solar Power is Key in Reducing Emissions and Hence 

Reducing Global Warming 

Check the schedule (will be available by week 10) 

End of class composition on inductive versus deductive reasoning 

Critical and Science Reasoning Skills in Philosophy of Science 

Critical Thinking Skills 

1. Categories of Critical Thinking Skills 

2. Philosophy of Science and critical thinking skills 

3. Critical and Science Reasoning Skills 

4. Identify your Science/Critical Thinking Skills Using Lawson's Test 


Page 6 of 10 

13/05/2011


10 2 

11 2 

12 

13 

Critical and Science Reasoning Skills in Philosophy of Science 

Critical Thinking Skills 

1. Categories of Critical Thinking Skills 

2. Philosophy of Science and critical thinking skills 

3. Critical and Science Reasoning Skills 

4. Improving Your Science Reasoning/Critical Thinking Skills Through Philosophy 

of Science 

End of class composition on critical thinking disposition. 

Communicating and reasoning in philosophy of science: Verbal & Written 

1. Effective Oral Communication: Traits of Effective Oral Communication base on 

Reasoning Techniques 

2. Planning Your Effective Oral Communication Session 

3. Planning Your Effective Written Articles: Outlining and Writing 

End of class composition on effective communication. 

Ethics & Morality in Science 

Moral Judgments 

1. The moral society and the principles of morals 

2. Science and Ethics in Science Reporting 

End of class composition on ethics in science reporting. 

Public Speaking a.k.a. DEBATE. First session will be held on week 13 (MARCH 30TH) 

ALL students will attend all sessions as either speakers or audience. The list of 

speakers will only be available by week 11. 

14 (Public Speaking a.k.a. DEBATE). ALL students must attend. 

PREMIERE DEBATE (TUESDAY BEFORE THE 

STUDY WEEK-April 13th 2010) 

Title: 

Topic 1: Scientific activities and not Natural Phenomenon is 

the Chief Cause of Global Warming 

Topic 2: Solar Power is Key in Reducing Emissions and 

Hence Reducing Global Warming 

Each program can nominate 2 

debaters but debaters with the 

highest normalized ranking will 

represent their programs 

Winners include best team, best speaker from each team and best speaker for the 

debate will receive a trophy and plaques. All debaters will be given certificate of 

participation and a plaque. Committee members will receive certificate of appreciation. 

Final term paper is due APRIL 17th, 2010. LATE 

SUBMISSIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED 


Page 7 of 10 

13/05/2011


15 

Title: Create Your Own Title Based on the description below. 

You have been identified by members of your community as a science literate university 

graduate and has been appointed to represent the views of the community. Your main 

role is to write an article to be submitted to the Ministry of Science, Technology & 

Environment. The issue is about the pros and cons of having a nuclear-power plant built 

near your community. 

Introduce your paper by stating the problems the community is trying to address. You 

must base your discussion based on the observations your community had cited in your 

meetings with them. 

The body of your essay will then focus on arguments to address the problems cited by 

your community. In order to be fair to both your community and the future direction of 

the country's energy needs, the body of your essay must include at least FOUR 

advantages and FOUR disadvantages of using nuclear energy as an alternative energy 

source. 

Each of your point in support or in rejecting the proposed nuclear plant MUST be 

supported by scientific data and inferences from local, national, regional and 

global research. 

You can conclude by asserting your community's agreement or disagreement and your 

own personal stand on the proposed nuclear plant built near your community. 

1. Length: Body of text (does not include the references) must be no less 

than 3,000 words. 

2. Font: Arial size 11. Paragraph spacing 1.5. (The body of the text minus the 

front page and bibliography will be approximately FIVE pages long (3,000 

words). 

3. Margins: Body of text is 1-inch all around on A4 paper. It must contain an 

Introduction. Use the usual APA or science format when citing your 

sources in the body of the text. 

4. First page must contain the title, your name, KP UiTM, your picture, 

program, group, handphone number (MUST HAVE) & email address. 

5. You MUST have the references (bibliography) page at the end of your 

document. 

Websites for you to consider visiting to find guides on effective journal writing 

and samples of term papers.. 

1. APA Research Style Crib Sheet 

2. http://dbem.ws/WritingArticle.pdf 

3. How to Write Guide- Introduction to Journal-Style Scientific Writing 

4. Few examples of term papers. Dr.JJ's Page 

5. Examples of articles written in the APA, MLA and Chicago styles 

Hard copies are due in my box (both boxes anchored on the wall are for me), 

outside room 516, level 5, Block A, FSG, no later than 12midnite, April 17th, 2010. 

You may send a digital copy at any earlier dates. 

Email your word file to fsg500@gmail.com with a message title 'your group' & 

'your full name' FSG500 FTP date (example of your message title: FTP ASB2IP- 

Nurul Izza Saim 170410). Save your word file with 'your group' & 'your name'-FTPdate 

(example of filename that you attach: ASB2IP-Nurul Izza Saim-FTP- 

170410.doc) 

YOU MUST SEND BOTH HARD & SOFT COPIES. 

YOU MUST upload your word file to the FINAL TERM PAPER 

assignment on TURNITIN which will then inform you of your originality 

index. 

NOTE THAT PROVE OF SENT IS NOT PROVE OF RECEIPT (I MAY NOT RECEIVE 

IT, SO ALWAYS CC A COPY TO YOURSELF) 

� Your article will be graded dichotomously (binary 1 or 0) according to the 

following category: 

� C1: Submission (whether I receive your article or not) 

� C2: Content: 

a. Introduction 

b. Arguments (minimum of 4 pros & cons) 


Page 8 of 10 

13/05/2011


16 

Assessment 

NOTES: Public Holidays: 

Textbook & References 

� C3: Research 

with examples and supporting 

evidences. 

c. Citation of Supporting Sources. 

d. Formatting & Organisation (Labeling of 

Introduction section, Argument section 

& Conclusion section) and 

e. Word Count (minimum 2,900 words or 6 

pages of text) 

� C4: Bibliography (Bibliography using either American Psychological 

(APA) or the Science Format.) 

� C5: Originality in your writing (write using your own words) 

Similarity index reported by TURNITIN MUST be BELOW 40%. 

(You will fail the paper if you fail category C1, C5 and if 

the sum of C2 through C5 is less than 6). 

"What "What "What "What we we we we have have have have to to to to learn learn learn learn to to to to do, do, do, do, we we we we learn learn learn learn by by by by doing." doing." doing." doing." ----Aristotle Aristotle Aristotle Aristotle 



You must pass ALL the criteria below to pass the course 

ASSESSMENT 

INSTRUMENT: 

PERFORMANCE CRITERIA 

End-of-class 5-minute 

reflections: 

Minimum of 6 

Mid Term Paper: Minimum of 50% 

Attendance: Minimum of 80% 

Dialogues (In-class 

engagement): 

Minimum of 2 

Oral Presentation/Public 

Speaking/Debate: 

Minimum of 50% 

Final Term Paper 

Minimum of 50% AND 

originality index >60% 

**You will pass the course if you satisfy the minimum performance criteria listed above. 


Textbook: "Understanding Philosophy of Science" by James Ladyman 


1. Rosenberg, A. (2000). Philosophy of Science : A Contemporary Introduction, Routledge, London. 

2. Schick Jr, T. (2000). Readings in the Philosophy of Science: From Positivism to Postmodernism, Mayfield Publishing Company. 


Page 9 of 10 

13/05/2011


3. Losee, J., (1993). A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, 3 rd Edition, Oxford. 

4. Teichman, J. and Evans, K.C., (1995). Philosophy, A Beginner’s Guide, 2 nd Edition, Blackwell, Oxford, 

5. Al-Attas S.M.N., (1999). The Concept of Education In Islam, A Framework for An Islamic Philosophy of Education, ISTAC, Kuala Lumpur. 

6. Engel, S. M., (1982). With Good Reason, An Introduction to Informal Fallacies, 2 nd Edition, St. Martin’s Press, New York. 

7. Edwards P. A ., (1973). Modern Introduction to Philosophy, The Free Press, New York. 

8. Ginsburg, H.P. & Opper, S. Piaget's Theory of Intellectual Development, 3rd. ed. 

Thank you for visiting this homepage. Call or email me for more information. 



Page 10 of 10 

13/05/2011

Nama Fakulti / Pusat Pengajian: Fakulti Sains Gunaan Tahun: 2009 

Nama Program: Ijazah Sarjana Muda Sains (Kepujian) Teknologi Bahan 

© Hak Cipta Universiti Teknologi MARA 

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA 

COURSE INFORMATION 

Confidential 

Code : FSG500 

Course : Philosophy of Science 

Level : Degree 

Credit Unit : 2 

Contact Hour : Lecture (2hrs/week) 

Part : 

Course Status : Core (Faculty) 

Prerequisite : None 

Course Outcomes : Upon completion of this course, students will be able to: 

1. Identify their learning preferences, attitudes towards 

science and conceptual understanding in their field of 

study. 

2. Define truth, beliefs and knowledge and justify their own 

belief about science knowledge in chemistry or physics 

through conceptual inventories. 

3. Apply the philosophical approach in analyzing and 

justifying the scientific methods, principles, laws and 

theories about the natural world. 

4. Identify their science reasoning skills. 

5. Argue and justify their opinion on issues in philosophy of 

science 

6. Critically write an original 3000 words position paper in 

favor or against issues on science that concern ethics and 

morality. 

Course Description : Philosophy of science will focus on epistemology through the 

concepts of knowledge, beliefs, truth, logic, followed by 

metaphysics, the nature of scientific explanations, critical and 

science skills as well as moral and ethical issues in science. 

FSG-1




Students will occasionally listen to but will mostly participate 

and actively engage via dialogues during the 2-hour lecture 

session. In addition, they will be reading, researching and 

philosophically analyzing content of selected articles on 

science propositions and methods and will communicate their 

arguments and reasoning through class engagement, debate 

and term papers. It is hoped that students will develop or 

enhance their thinking and science reasoning skills and use it 

in making sound arguments and decisions in their career and 

in their daily living. 

Syllabus Content 1.0 Course Introduction: Diagnostics 

1.1 Science Attitudes Survey (VASS) 

1.2 Learning Preferences Inventory (ILS). 

1.3 In-class composition: self introduction, vision, 

mission & reasoning skills 

2.0 Introduction to Philosophy 

2.1 The concept of philosophy, epistemology, 

metaphysics, logic and ethics in philosophy 

2.2 Definition of Knowledge: beliefs, truth, knowing and 

conditions for knowledge (Justified True Belief, 

Evidence, Skepticism) 

2.3 Diagnosing knowledge & understanding using 

conceptual inventories. (Examples include CSEM, 

FCI, FMCE, WCI, CCI) 

3.0 The Methods of Modern Science 

3.1 From Observation to Conclusion (Theories, Laws, 

Principles, Predictions, Methods, 

Instruments, Experimentation, Variables, Tables, 

Graphs, Analysis of results & Conclusion) 

3.2 Philosophy of science 

4.0 The Nature of Scientific Inference 

4.1 Reasoning: Deductive vs. Inductive (Arguments, 

Propositions, Premises, Fallacies & Conclusions) 

4.2 The problem of Induction 

4.3 Hypothetico-deductive method 

5.0 Critical and Science Reasoning Skills in Philosophy of 

FSG-2

Teaching Methodology 




: 

Science 

5.1 Categories of Critical Thinking Skills. 

5.2 Philosophy of Science and critical thinking skills. 

5.3 Critical and Science Reasoning Skills. 

5.4 Improving Your Science Reasoning/Critical Thinking 

Skills Through Philosophy of Science. 

6.0 Communicating and reasoning in philosophy of science: 

Verbal & Written 

6.1 Effective Oral Communication: Traits of Effective 

Oral Communication based on Reasoning 

Techniques 

6.2 Planning Your Effective Oral Communication 

Session. 

6.3 Planning Your Effective Written Articles: Outlining 

and Writing. 

7.0 Ethics & Morality in Science 

7.1 The moral society and the principles of morals 

7.2 Science and Ethics in Science Reporting. 

i. Active Engagement Lecture 

ii. Debate 

iii. Scientific investigation via term papers 

Assessment : Pass or Fail based on criterion 

assessment. Must pass all 

criteria. 

Attendance 

Class Engagement 

Mid-tem Paper 

Debate 

Final-term paper 

Recommended Text (if 

any) 

FSG-3 

80% and above 

Minimum of 2 

Minimum of 50% 

Minimum of 50 % 

Minimum of 50 % 

: "Understanding Philosophy of Science" by James Ladyman 

References : 1. Rosenberg, A. (2000). Philosophy of Science : A 

Contemporary Introduction, Routledge, London. 

2. Schick Jr, T. (2000). Readings in the Philosophy of 

Science: From Positivism to Postmodernism, Mayfield 

Publishing Company. 

3. Losee, J., (1993). A Historical Introduction to the




Philosophy of Science, 3 rd Edition, Oxford. 

4. Teichman, J. and Evans, K.C., (1995). Philosophy, A 

Beginner’s Guide, 2 nd Edition, Blackwell, Oxford, 

5. Al-Attas S.M.N., (1999). The Concept of Education In 

Islam, A Framework for An Islamic Philosophy of 

Education, ISTAC, Kuala Lumpur. 

6. Engel, S. M., (1982). With Good Reason, An Introduction 

to Informal Fallacies, 2 nd Edition, St. Martin’s Press, New 

York. 

7. Edwards P. A ., (1973). Modern Introduction to 

Philosophy, The Free Press, New York. 

8. Ginsburg, H.P. & Opper, S. Piaget's Theory of Intellectual 

Development, 3rd. ed. 

FSG-4

COURSE CODE FSG500 

Nama Fakulti / Pusat 

Pengajian: 

Fakulti Sains Gunaan Tahun: 2009 

Nama Program: Ijazah Sarjana Muda (Kepujian) Teknologi Bahan 


COURSE OUTCOMES. 

CENTRE OF 

STUDY 

1 

FACULTY OF APPLIED SCIENCES 

COURSE NAME PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE PREPARED BY ASSOC .PROF. DR. JAAFAR JANTAN 

CREDIT HOURS 2 DATE 4 th APRIL 2009 

COURSE OUTCOMES 

1. Identify their learning 

preferences, attitudes 

towards science and 

conceptual 

understanding in their 

field of study. 

2. Define truth, beliefs 

and knowledge and 

justify their own belief 

about science 

knowledge in 

PO1 PO 

2 

PROGRAMME OUTCOMES INSTRUCTIONAL 

METHODS 

PO 

3 

PO 

4 

PO 

5 

PO 

6 

PO 

7 

3 3 � Direct method 

(Lecture) 

3 � Independent 

Learning (preclass 

reading 

� Lecturediscussion 

PO 

8 

PO 

9 

ASSESSMENT 

� Formative using the 

Inventory of Learning 

Preferences (by Felder) , 

Views of Scientific Survey (by 

Halloun), The Force Concept 

Inventory (by Hestenes) & 

The Chemical Concept 

Inventory (by ) 

� Class Engagement 

� End of Class Composition


chemistry or physics 

through conceptual 

inventories. 

3. Apply the philosophical 

approach in analyzing 

and justifying the 

scientific methods, 

principles, laws and 

theories about the 

natural world. 

4. Identify their science 

reasoning skills. 

5. Argue and justify their 

opinion on issues in 

philosophy of science. 


Pengajian: 

PO1 PO 

2 





METHODS 

PO 

3 

PO 

4 

PO 

5 

PO 

6 

PO 

7 

2 

PO 

8 

PO 

9 

3 � Independent 


reading 

� Lecturediscussion 

3 � Lecturediscussion 

3 3 � Independent 


reading 

� Lecture 

ASSESSMENT 


� Mid-term Paper 

� Formative assessment using 

Lawson’s Thinking and 

Scientific Reasoning Skills 

(by Lawson) 


� Debate


6. Critically write an 

original 3000 words 

position paper in favor 

or against issues on 

science that concern 

ethics and morality. 


Pengajian: 

PO1 PO 

2 





METHODS 

PO 

3 

PO 

4 

Rating of CO addressing PO: 

1 - Compliance Not Measurable (Slightly) 

2 – Compliance without assessment (Moderately) 

3 – Compliance and measurable (Substantially) 

Program Outcomes: 

PO 

5 

PO 

6 

PO 

7 

3 

PO 

8 

PO 

9 

Discussion 

3 3 � Independent 

Learning 

ASSESSMENT 

� Final Term Paper 

PO1 Knowledge in Specific Area PO6 Values, Ethics and professionalism (A) 

PO2 Practical Skills (P) PO7 Information Management and Life Long Learning (A) 

PO3 Thinking and Scientific Skills (C) PO8 Management and Entrepreneurship (A) 

PO4 Communication Skills (A) PO9 Leadership Skills (A) 

PO5 Social skills, teamwork and responsibilities (A)

student Rating 

& 

student testimonial

iLearn - SuFO - Analysis Report :: [i-learn] :: 

Laporan 

Penilaian 

Pensyarah 

Lecturers 

Evaluation 

Online Jumlah 

Respon (Total 

Kod Kursus (Course Code) : FSG500 JAAFAR BIN JANTAN (DR) 

Kumpulan (Group) : ASB3F1 

No. Item Penilaian 

Bahagian A: Persepsi saya tentang kursus ini 

Part A : My Perception on this course 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Saya berminat dengan kursus ini. 

I am interested in this course. 

Saya sentiasa hadir ke sesi 

syarahan/makmal/studio/klinikal/kerja lapangan untuk 

kursus ini. 

I am always present during all 

lecture/tutorial/studio/clinical/fieldwork sessions for this 

course. 

Saya sentiasa bersedia untuk setiap sesi 


kursus ini. 

I am always prepared for all 


course. 

Saya menjangka untuk mendapat gred A bagi kursus ini. 

I expect to get an A grade for this course. 

Respondents) 

: 

21 

July - 

Nov 

2009 

Sangat 

Sangat 

Agak 

Agak Tidak Tidak Tidak Purata 

Purata 

Setuju Setuju Setuju Setuju Setuju Setuju 

Mata 

(6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) 

4 9 7 1 0 0 79.33 4.76 

13 7 1 0 0 0 92.83 5.57 

5 13 3 0 0 0 85 5.1 

9 9 2 1 0 0 87.33 5.24 

JUMLAH PURATA: 86.12 5.17 

Bahagian B: Tentang pensyarah kursus ini 

Part B : About the lecturer of this course 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

Pensyarah menerangkan dengan jelas tentang hasil kursus 

dan hasil pembelajaran kepada pelajar. 

The lecturer provide a clear expalanation about the course 

outcomes as well the learning outcomes to the students. 

Pensyarah menerangkan cara penilaian kursus dengan jelas 

kepada pelajar. 

The lectuer clearly explains to the students the evaluation 

procedure for this course. 

Pensyarah memaklumkan perancangan pengajaran kepada 

pelajar. 

The lectuer informs the students about the teaching plan for 

this course. 

Pensyarah mengendalikan sesi 

syarahan/tutorial/makmal/studio/kerja lapangan mengikut 

perancangan pengajaran. 

The lectuer conducts 

lecture/tutorial/laboratory/studio/fieldwork sessions based on 

the teaching plan for this course. 

Pensyarah mematuhi waktu pengajaran yang dijadualkan. 

The lectuer observes the scheduled teaching hours for this 

course. 

Pensyarah menggantikan setiap sesi 

syarahan/tutorial/makmal/studio/kerja lapangan yang 

ditangguhkan. 

The lectuer replaces every 

lecture/tutorial/laboratory/studio/field work sessions which 

has been postponed. 

Pensyarah mengambil beat tentang kehadiran pelajar. 

The lectuer is concerned about students' attendance. 

Pensyarah menggunakan Bahasa Inggeris sebagai bahasa 

Page 1 of 3 

6 12 3 0 0 0 85.67 5.14 

8 11 2 0 0 0 88.17 5.29 

6 14 1 0 0 0 87.33 5.24 

8 11 2 0 0 0 88.17 5.29 

12 7 2 0 0 0 91.33 5.48 

13 7 1 0 0 0 92.83 5.57 

14 7 0 0 0 0 94.5 5.67 

http://i-learn.uitm.edu.my/leo/2009/print_analysis0209.php?ttype=course&cid=FSG5... 

18/05/2011


12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

pengantar semasa kuliah (jika berkaitan). 

The lectuer uses English language during lectures (where 

applicable). 

Pensyarah sentiasa bersedia untuk setiap sesi 

pertemuan/pengajaan. 

The lectuer is always prepared for every meeting/lecture. 

Pensyarah berusaha untuk membantu pelajar memahami 

pelajaran. 

The lectuer makes an effort to help students understand the 

lessons. 

Pensyarah menggunakan/mencadangkan bahan 

pengajaran/pembelajaran/rujukan yang sesuai. 

The lectuer uses/suggests suitable teaching aids/references. 

Pensyarah menggunakan kaedah penyampaian yang sesuai 

dan berkesan. 

The lectuer uses effective and appropriate teaching 

techniques. 

Pensyarah menggalakkan pelajar mengemukakan pendapat 

dan bertanyakan soalan. 

The lectuer encourages the students to give opinions and ask 

questions. 

Pensyarah bersedia memberi bimbingan akademik di luar 

sesi rasmi pertemuan. 

The lectuer is prepared to provide academic guidance outside 

class hours. 

Pensyarah memberi ujian/penilaian/tugasan yang sesuai 

dengan hasil pembelajaran dan hasil kursus. 

The lectuer gives tests/evaluation/assignment in line with the 

learning and course outcomes. 

Pensyarah memaklumkan setiap hasil penilaian kepada 

pelajar. 

The lectuer informs every assessment result to the students. 

Pensyarah berpakaian kemas dan sopan. 

The lectuer is appriately attired. 

Pensyarah membincangkan isu-isu yang relevan dengan 

bidang semasa sesi pertemuan rasmi. 

The lectuer discusses relevant issues pertaining to the course 

during lectures. 

Pensyarah mudah dihubungi untuk perbincangan. 

The lectuer is easily contactable for discussions. 

Pensyarah berinteraksi dengan pelajar di dalam dan di luar 

sesi pertemuan rasmi dengan baik. 

The lectuer interacts well with the students at all times. 

Pensyarah memberi motivasi kepada pelajar. 

The lectuer motivates the students. 

Secara keseluruhannya, saya berpuas hati dengan 

pengajaran pensyarah ini. 

In general, I am satisfied with the lecturer's teaching. 

14 7 0 0 0 0 94.5 5.67 

12 9 0 0 0 0 92.83 5.57 

11 9 1 0 0 0 91.33 5.48 

7 10 4 0 0 0 85.67 5.14 

10 9 2 0 0 0 89.67 5.38 

12 7 2 0 0 0 91.33 5.48 

8 9 4 0 0 0 86.5 5.19 

9 9 2 1 0 0 87.33 5.24 

11 8 1 1 0 0 89.67 5.38 

13 8 0 0 0 0 93.67 5.62 

11 8 2 0 0 0 90.5 5.43 

10 9 2 0 0 0 89.67 5.38 

8 12 1 0 0 0 88.83 5.33 

9 9 3 0 0 0 88.17 5.29 

7 12 2 0 0 0 87.33 5.24 


Bahagian C: Tentang prasarana kursus ini 

(Part C : About the infrastructure of this course) 

27 

28 

29 

30 

Kelengkapan ruang kondusif untuk pembelajaran dan 

pengajaran. 

The space is condusive for teaching and learning. 

Kelengkapan dan peralatan pengajaran bagi kursus ini 

mencukupi dan berfungsi. 

The teaching and learning equipment for the course is 

sufficient and functional. 

Kemudahan dan kelengkapan makmal/bengkel/studio/kerja 

lapangan bagi kursus ini mencukupi dan berfungsi (jika 

berkaitan). 

The facilities and laboratory/workshop/studio fieldwork 

equipment for this course are sufficient and functional (if 

applicable). 

Secara keseluruhannya, saya berpuas hati dengan kualiti 

ruang pengajaran dan pembelajaran yang disediakan. 

In general, I am satisfied with the quality of the teaching and 

learning space provided. 

Page 2 of 3 

6 13 2 0 0 0 86.5 5.19 

8 10 3 0 0 0 87.33 5.24 

7 12 2 0 0 0 87.33 5.24 

8 12 1 0 0 0 88.83 5.33 


18/05/2011


JUMLAH PURATA : 87.5 5.25 

JUMLAH PURATA KESELURUHAN : 87.82 5.27 

Date: Wednesday 18 May 2011 


Page 3 of 3 

18/05/2011


Laporan 

Penilaian 

Pensyarah 

Lecturers 

Evaluation 

Online Jumlah 

Respon (Total 


Kumpulan (Group) : ASB3F2 




1 

2 

3 

4 





kursus ini. 



course. 



kursus ini. 



course. 



Respondents) 

: 

24 

July - 

Nov 

2009 

Sangat 

Sangat 

Agak 


Purata 


Mata 

(6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) 

7 7 8 1 0 1 78.5 4.71 

14 9 0 0 0 1 90.33 5.42 

9 10 4 0 0 1 84 5.04 

10 13 0 0 0 1 87.5 5.25 




5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 










pelajar. 


this course. 









course. 



ditangguhkan. 







Page 1 of 3 

11 11 0 0 0 1 88.33 5.3 

13 9 0 0 0 1 89.83 5.39 

11 10 1 0 0 1 87.67 5.26 

12 9 1 0 0 1 88.33 5.3 

13 9 0 0 0 1 89.83 5.39 

13 8 1 0 0 1 89.17 5.35 

16 6 0 0 0 1 92 5.52 


18/05/2011


12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 



applicable). 





pelajaran. 


lessons. 





dan berkesan. 


techniques. 




questions. 




class hours. 






pelajar. 


















16 6 0 0 0 1 92 5.52 

14 8 0 0 0 1 90.5 5.43 

12 10 0 0 0 1 89.17 5.35 

11 11 0 0 0 1 88.33 5.3 

12 10 0 0 0 1 89.17 5.35 

15 6 1 0 0 1 90.5 5.43 

10 11 1 0 0 1 87 5.22 

12 10 0 0 0 1 89.17 5.35 

11 11 0 0 0 1 88.33 5.3 

15 7 0 0 0 1 91.33 5.48 

13 9 0 0 0 1 89.83 5.39 

10 10 2 0 0 1 86.17 5.17 

10 11 1 0 0 1 87 5.22 

13 9 0 0 0 1 89.83 5.39 

10 12 0 0 0 1 87.67 5.26 




27 

28 

29 

30 


pengajaran. 








berkaitan). 



applicable). 





Page 2 of 3 

11 8 1 2 0 1 84.83 5.09 

9 11 2 0 0 1 85.5 5.13 

11 9 0 1 0 1 87.17 5.23 

11 9 2 0 0 1 87 5.22 


18/05/2011






Page 3 of 3 

18/05/2011


Laporan 

Penilaian 

Pensyarah 

Student 

Feedback 

Online Jumlah 

Respon (Total 


Kumpulan (Group) : ASB4PN 




1 

2 

3 

4 





kursus ini. 



course. 



kursus ini. 



course. 



Respondents) 

: 

19 

DIS - 

APRIL 

2010 

Sangat 

Sangat 

Agak 


Purata 


Mata 

(6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) 

5 7 4 2 1 0 78 4.68 

6 10 2 0 1 0 84.17 5.05 

6 6 5 1 1 0 79.83 4.79 

6 8 2 2 0 0 83.33 5 




5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 










pelajar. 


this course. 









course. 



ditangguhkan. 







Page 1 of 3 

10 7 1 1 0 0 89.5 5.37 

11 6 1 0 1 0 89.5 5.37 

10 7 1 1 0 0 89.5 5.37 

8 9 1 1 0 0 87.67 5.26 

9 7 2 1 0 0 87.67 5.26 

8 10 0 1 0 0 88.67 5.32 

11 7 0 1 0 0 91.17 5.47 


18/05/2011


12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 



applicable). 





pelajaran. 


lessons. 





dan berkesan. 


techniques. 




questions. 




class hours. 






pelajar. 


















11 7 0 1 0 0 91.17 5.47 

10 8 1 0 0 0 91.17 5.47 

8 9 2 0 0 0 88.67 5.32 

8 9 1 1 0 0 87.67 5.26 

11 6 1 1 0 0 90.33 5.42 

10 6 3 0 0 0 89.5 5.37 

8 8 2 1 0 0 86.83 5.21 

9 8 1 1 0 0 88.67 5.32 

9 8 1 1 0 0 88.67 5.32 

9 8 2 0 0 0 89.5 5.37 

10 7 2 0 0 0 90.33 5.42 

9 8 1 1 0 0 88.67 5.32 

10 7 1 0 0 0 91.67 5.5 

10 7 1 0 0 0 91.67 5.5 

9 8 1 1 0 0 88.67 5.32 




27 

28 

29 

30 


pengajaran. 








berkaitan). 



applicable). 





Page 2 of 3 

7 9 2 1 0 0 86 5.16 

6 10 2 1 0 0 85.17 5.11 

7 9 2 0 0 0 88 5.28 

6 10 2 0 0 0 87 5.22 


18/05/2011






Page 3 of 3 

18/05/2011


Laporan 

Penilaian 

Pensyarah 

Student 

Feedback 

Online Jumlah 

Respon (Total 


Kumpulan (Group) : ASB4TN 




1 

2 

3 

4 





kursus ini. 



course. 



kursus ini. 



course. 



Respondents) 

: 

23 

DIS - 

APRIL 

2010 

Sangat 

Sangat 

Agak 


Purata 


Mata 

(6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) 

5 14 2 1 1 0 81.83 4.91 

7 13 2 0 1 0 84.83 5.09 

3 15 3 1 1 0 79.67 4.78 

9 12 2 0 0 0 88.33 5.3 




5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 










pelajar. 


this course. 









course. 



ditangguhkan. 







Page 1 of 3 

6 13 4 0 0 0 84.83 5.09 

6 14 3 0 0 0 85.5 5.13 

6 12 5 0 0 0 84 5.04 

6 12 4 1 0 0 83.33 5 

6 13 4 0 0 0 84.83 5.09 

6 12 5 0 0 0 84 5.04 

10 10 3 0 0 0 88.33 5.3 


18/05/2011


12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 



applicable). 





pelajaran. 


lessons. 





dan berkesan. 


techniques. 




questions. 




class hours. 






pelajar. 


















10 10 3 0 0 0 88.33 5.3 

8 12 3 0 0 0 87 5.22 

9 11 3 0 0 0 87.67 5.26 

8 10 3 1 0 0 85.67 5.14 

7 12 2 1 0 0 85.67 5.14 

10 8 4 0 0 0 87.83 5.27 

10 9 3 0 0 0 88.67 5.32 

9 10 2 1 0 0 87.17 5.23 

7 12 2 1 0 0 85.67 5.14 

8 10 4 0 0 0 86.33 5.18 

9 9 4 0 0 0 87.17 5.23 

9 8 5 0 0 0 86.33 5.18 

9 8 4 0 0 0 87.33 5.24 

8 8 3 1 0 0 85.83 5.15 

9 8 4 0 0 0 87.33 5.24 




27 

28 

29 

30 


pengajaran. 








berkaitan). 



applicable). 





Page 2 of 3 

3 14 4 0 0 0 82.5 4.95 

3 13 4 1 0 0 81 4.86 

2 12 6 1 0 0 78.5 4.71 

3 11 5 1 0 0 80 4.8 


18/05/2011






Page 3 of 3 

18/05/2011


Laporan 

Penilaian 

Pensyarah 

Student 

Feedback 

Online Jumlah 

Respon (Total 


Kumpulan (Group) : ASB5X 




1 

2 

3 

4 





kursus ini. 



course. 



kursus ini. 



course. 



Respondents) 

: 

13 

DIS - 

APRIL 

2010 

Sangat 

Sangat 

Agak 


Purata 


Mata 

(6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) 

7 3 2 1 0 0 87.17 5.23 

6 4 3 0 0 0 87.17 5.23 

6 4 2 1 0 0 85.83 5.15 

6 4 2 0 0 0 88.83 5.33 




5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 










pelajar. 


this course. 









course. 



ditangguhkan. 







Page 1 of 3 

7 3 2 1 0 0 87.17 5.23 

6 4 2 1 0 0 85.83 5.15 

8 2 2 1 0 0 88.5 5.31 

7 3 2 1 0 0 87.17 5.23 

6 4 2 1 0 0 85.83 5.15 

5 5 2 1 0 0 84.67 5.08 

8 2 2 1 0 0 88.5 5.31 


18/05/2011


12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 



applicable). 





pelajaran. 


lessons. 





dan berkesan. 


techniques. 




questions. 




class hours. 






pelajar. 


















7 3 2 1 0 0 87.17 5.23 

7 3 2 1 0 0 87.17 5.23 

6 4 2 1 0 0 85.83 5.15 

7 3 2 1 0 0 87.17 5.23 

7 3 2 1 0 0 87.17 5.23 

8 2 2 1 0 0 88.5 5.31 

7 3 2 1 0 0 87.17 5.23 

7 3 2 1 0 0 87.17 5.23 

7 3 2 1 0 0 87.17 5.23 

8 3 1 1 0 0 89.67 5.38 

6 5 1 1 0 0 87.17 5.23 

8 2 2 1 0 0 88.5 5.31 

6 5 0 1 0 0 88.83 5.33 

7 4 0 1 0 0 90.33 5.42 

6 5 0 2 0 0 85.83 5.15 




27 

28 

29 

30 


pengajaran. 








berkaitan). 



applicable). 





Page 2 of 3 

7 4 0 2 0 0 87.17 5.23 

6 5 0 2 0 0 85.83 5.15 

8 2 1 1 0 0 90.33 5.42 

6 5 0 1 0 0 88.83 5.33 


18/05/2011






Page 3 of 3 

18/05/2011

http://drjj.uitm.edu.my Anugerah Akademik Negara 2010-DrJJ 

Student Name: Nurul Jannah bt Mohd Noor. Program: BSc Hons in Physics . Semester 6. 

Course Taken: Philosophy of Science. Semester: Jan-May 2010. 

Email: Nurul Jannah Cell: +6012-3143496 

My Testimonial of Associate Professor Dr Jaafar Jantan’s Teaching. 15 th January 2010 

He has always been a man of vision. The moment he started off speaking during the first class I had with 

him, everyone was stunned at how confident and convincing he is. He never failed to put a smile on his 

students’ faces with his warm presence, friendly gestures and funny jokes. I still remembered how he 

used his laser pointer to point to his student who didn’t engage much in class in order to request the 

person to speak his mind. I was always relaxed in his class due to his style of teaching. Sometimes, it felt 

like we were one big family in the class of almost 70 people. It was from him that I learnt about software 

such as “turnitin” that will check the content of assignments and essays to see whether or not students 

committed plagiarism. He would post assignments on his website and it forced everyone, including 

those who were not familiar with ICT. 

I am now a teacher in an international school and God knows how much he had influenced me in my 

teaching. I tend to see him as a motivator and a role model in order to take teachings one notch ahead. 

I’m always inspired to make my class as interesting, creative and innovative as his. He is one of a lecturer 

that a person can never forget. I remember he told me that he rarely sleeps at night so that he can be 

prepared for his next lesson. I admire his dedication and will always look up to him to be better person 

in the future. 

Name: Nurul Jannah bt Mohd Noor 

Course: AS203 –Bsc Hons in Physics 

Class – FSG500 

Year - 2009 

Page 4 of 9


Student Name: Ahmad Qamar Md Razali. Program: Material Technology. Semester 4. 

Course Taken: Philosophy of Science. Semester: Jan-April 2010. 

Email: ahmad qamar viewtifool_bug@yahoo.com . Handphone #: +60132199948 


Towards the era of which IT was the most appropriate medium of teaching there have been many things 

that have been happen in order to put down the new medium to a stop. Much of these things was 

happen due to preserve the traditional ways of teaching and makes the learning become as it is when 

the IT was not the medium that anyone knows. Eventually that I have taken the course that was taught 

by Dr. Jaafar Jantan; He introduce us to one method that was extremely very rare and also much more 

different from the other course that we are taking in order to complete the courses. At first, he 

introduce us the engagement between the students during the class and we was not been able to even 

try to participate but after sometime each students was no more afraid of to stand their own opinion 

which make the students a lot more courage and have their own self-motivation towards each one. 

Incredibly said that the method was successfully make the students to even practically doing the 

engagement not only during the class but also during group study. They was no more kept the opinion 

by themselves but more likely to share with each of the group members. 

Moreover he also using one kind of new way of assessment which one of it was by using the Turnitin 

software to accumulate the marks and also the originality of the assignment that we sent to him. By 

using this type of software we just not learn how the operation of the software but we also learn how 

the e-mail was functionalize, as we may know that maybe some students who don’t even try to used the 

e-mail applications but after they attend the course they have to used it and it make sense the ways he 

taught us may take us to make useful of IT when were complete and graduate. 

Even it was hard at first but later on we all was very enjoying the method where he taught us using 

different type of teaching which make us more comfortable to learn even sometimes the learning took a 

longer time but still he was very good on taking the attention of the students. Maybe this opportunity 

that other lecturers or even teachers have to take in order to make the studies is a lot more fun and 

enjoyable. 

Page 5 of 9


Name: Muhammad Fakhrurazi B Daud . KP-UiTM 2009307747. Program: Polymer. Semester 3. 


Email: Muhammad Fakhrurazi Bin Daud Handphone #: +60133051420 


Asalamualaikum and greetings. 

In my view and opinion about the teaching techniques used by the doctor I sincerely praise the 

approach taken by the doctor. Doctor used many technical, creative and forthright, coupled with 

encouragement for free thinking and their opinions. I for example in the core subjects of Philosophy of 

Science, doctor introduced intellectual debate and logic. This can help students master public speaking 

skills and boost self-confidence among students. Doctors are also encouraging students to participate in 

class in terms of producing ideas without rejecting the idea that though sometimes the idea seems 

funny and absurd and out of the ordinary. 

Yet I also see a bit lacking in the teaching and learning techniques used by doctors. Doctors rarely use 

the Islamic approach, particularly that found in the Qur'an and Sunnah to complement and enhance any 

opinions, ideas, knowledge and the knowledge is discussed in class. For example I can remember, in 

discussing the creation of Earth Doctor still adopt the idea of Stephen Hawkings is not used and discuss 

why the statement in the Quran. 

In general, I conclude that I once again stated that the technical methods and approach taken by the 

doctor to teach is something unique and creative, and I really enjoyed the class doctors. I hope all the 

weaknesses that have to be further improved. Nothing is perfect but we can strive to reach perfection. 

Thank you very much Doctor JJ. 

Page 6 of 9


Name: Muhamad Amran bin Romli, KP UiTM-2009233944. Program: Industrial Physics. Semester 1. 


Email: Muhamad Amran bin Romli Handphone #: +0134258781 


The teaching methodology of Dr Jantan Jaafar, or we commonly call him Dr JJ, is always different 

compared to other lecturers. His method of teachings is quite new and unconventional, from my point 

of view. First of all, Dr JJ emphasized and encouraged students to converse during the class. Different 

ideas, different opinions, arguments, are voiced out by most of the students. Students in the class are 

from many programs under the Faculty of Applied Sciences. Therefore, from this conversation and 

discussion, we managed to share our thoughts and to see topics from many different point of view. 

Besides that, by discussing and conversing publicly during the class, we managed to learn how to speak 

in public. Many students are good in study, but most of them lack the skill to talk in public. By asking and 

encouraging us to speak freely in public, Dr JJ has taught us to have more self confidence and the ability 

to voice out our opinions. 

Besides that, during the class, there are sessions for debate, which all the students must participate. This 

is where I found no other lecturer to do the same. Students are divided into groups, and a pair of group 

must compete in the debate session. This debate session does teach us the value of teamwork and as 

above, on how to voice out our opinion. 

As conclusion, I strongly think that Dr JJ teaching methodology is very new and this method should be 

adapted in order to make students thinks more and to improve student's human skill. 

Page 7 of 9


Course Taken: Philosophy of Science an Basic Physics II. Semester: 2009- 2010. 

16 January 2011 


I have known Associate Professor Dr. Jaafar Jantan for 1 year as lecturers of physic 

II and philosophy of science courses. At all times I have found him to be an 

innovative lecturer based on his presentation and his interactive class engagement. 

He also is the person who is reliable, hard-working, conscientious and caring to his 

student. He makes me changed a lot and gives all his philosophy of science 

student’s opportunities to take a challenge in a debate session for the first time. 

Furthermore increase our communication skills. 

- Mohd Razali bin Sohot , PHY 407(2010), FSG 500(2010). Cell: +60173706927 

Associate Professor Dr. Jaafar Jantan is the person who is very creative. He used a 

variety of technologies that are currently available to deliver education. That 

technologies include the use of the Internet based for online lecture notes, 

newsgroups for collaborative discussions and class announcements, e-mail 

correspondence between students and him, interactive simulation over the Internet 

for remote participation in classes and discussions, and virtual reality for exploring 

three dimensional scenes. 

- Muhammad Syazuan bin Nor, PHY 407(2010). Cell: +0193451833 

Associate Professor Dr. Jaafar Jantan makes me become a critical thinker. I have 

changed a lot after taking of his two courses. Basically I have improved my 

communication skills where else in a philosophy of science classes, the student 

encourage to communicate to him for at least three times a week. By 

communicate to him intelligently is a great way to form a new vocabulary or to 

improve upon my own speaking skills. Besides that, I have also improved my 

online based skills. He used many online resources such as virtual simulation as 

his teaching system. He is the best lecturer and I can say he is also a good 

counselor that makes me and the whole class changes a lot to become very active 

in the class. 

-Mohd Taufik bin Mamat PHY 407(2010), FSG 500(2010). Cell: +60177664940 

Page 8 of 9

leaRning outcomes 

evidences

internet 

& 

turnitin Originality index

PHILOSOPHY of SCIENCE-FSG500. TLA used is APPIE 

E-LEARNING AS A TOOL TO EXCHANGE INFORMATION AND TO DO ASSESSMENT: EMAIL & 

TURNITIN 

Philosophy of Science is a course which aims to help students to be in love with wisdom and achieve 

the ability to become a wiser person. Wisdom was measured by their ability to use the scientific 

thinking to analyze information and use their knowledge and understanding in providing arguments 

both verbally and in writing. While in class, students were persuaded by me to interactively engage 

with their peers from the same program and peers from a different program. This course utilized the 

Assisted Peer-Persuasion Interactive Engagement in addressing issues raised after a 10 to 15 minutes 

lecture by me or after watching a video or sections of a video. 

The teaching & learning activities provided the learners with learning experiences involving the 

concept of plagiarism. After the first meeting, students wrote their biodata in terms of knowing me 

knowing you and submitted to me via email. The midterm and the final term essays were also sent to 

me via email to fsg500@gmail.com. The screen capture below shows a sample of the email sent to 

me. 

In addition to sending me the essays via email, learners were also required to register with TURNITIN 

and submit their essays to the Philosophy of Science TUTNITIN account, a website that will assess the 

originality index of the essays submitted. The software produced a name-list along with the students’ 

email. All the essays will be scored in terms of its originality by comparing the content of each 

submission against sources on the internet, papers that was submitted to TURNITIN in previous 

semesters and papers for the same course but has been submitted by another student at an earlier 

date. It will generate a report by listing out which part of the essays were copied from which digital 

sources. The samples that follow are samples of the output generated by TURNITIN. The biodata and

the midterm essays were scored and evaluated formatively so that the students had the learning 

experience and so that they can act on improving their essays in the event that they plagiarized.

The similarity index shown in the screen capture below is 55% and that means an originality index of 

only 45%. If the criterion for passing the course was followed closely, the students would fail the 

course. But the purpose of using TURNITIN is to help students recognize that plagiarizing other 

people’s work without acknowledging and requesting permission or putting the phrase in quotes is 

not an acceptable action. Hence, I tracked down the students and encouraged them to rewrite their 

essays within 48 hours. Their task is to focus on the parts that were plagiarized. The cutoff for the 

similarity index is 40% and so anything more than 40% will cause the students to fail the course. All 

students in the same dilemma chose to rewrite the plagiarized parts by using their own words and 

after rewriting the essay, all of them passed this portion of the course. None of the final term papers 

have similiarity index higher than 40%.

Turnitin Originality Report 


ASB3F2 VIVA MARIZ MOHAMED FTP 041109 by VIVA Mariz MOHAMED 

From Final Term Paper (Philosophy of Science) 

Processed on 11-03-09 10:58 AM PST 

ID: 112587549 

Word Count: 3643 

sources: 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Similarity Index 

77% 

Similarity by Source 

Internet Sources: 74% 

Publications: 3% 

Student Papers: 59% 

12% match (Internet from 10/09/08) 

(10-9-08) http://timeforchange.org/pros-cons-nuclear-power-global-warming-solution 


(11-3-09) http://grasspg.blogspot.com/2009/08/article-benefits-of-nuclear-energy.html 


(4-4-09) http://timeforchange.org/co2-emission-nuclear-power-stations-electricity 


(8-15-07) http://gvctemp18.virtualclassroom.org/Nenergy/adva.htm 

5% match (student papers from 11/01/09) 

5 

Class: Philosophy of Science 

Assignment: 

Paper ID: 112342125 

6 

7 


(9-30-08) http://www.islamonline.net/discussione/message.jspa?messageID=26630 


(9-27-09) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power 


8 


Assignment: 

Paper ID: 112515345 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 


(3-19-09) http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power-and-sustainability 


(11-22-08) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy 


Submitted to Turner Fenton Secondary School on 2007-05-16 


(10-16-09) http://chedet.co.cc/chedetblog/2009/05/nuclear-power.html 


(8-12-09) http://www.nst.com.my/articles/06nuc/Article/index_html 


14 


Assignment: 

Paper ID: 112538664 


15 

(8-3-09) 

http://www.leaderpost.com/technology/Saskatchewan+residents+feel+uninformed+when+comes+nuclear+reactor+Sigma+Analytics+p 

16 


Page 1 of 13


17 

18 

19 

(10-2-09) http://sanhati.com/articles/904/ 


(5-4-08) http://timeforchange.org/nuclear-power-station-causing-cancer-leukemia 


Submitted to Oldham County High School on 2008-10-08 


Submitted to Jupiter High School on 2008-11-17 


20 


Assignment: 

Paper ID: 112536366 

21 

22 

23 


Submitted to Mount Notre Dame High School on 2007-04-27 


(2-7-08) http://timeforchange.org/nuclear-power-station-causing-cancer-leukemia 


(10-31-09) http://thestar.com.my/lifestyle/story.asp?file=/2009/8/16/lifefocus/4524795&s 


24 


Assignment: 

Paper ID: 112517040 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 


(6-6-09) http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/business/index.php/malaysia/27738dr-m-rethink-risky-nuclear-energy-plants 

< 1% match (student papers from 06/01/09) 

Submitted to Valley Regional High School on 2009-06-01 


Submitted to DeVry University on 2009-04-20 


Submitted to University of Auckland on 2008-08-19 


Submitted to Park Vista Community High School on 2009-04-25 


30 


Assignment: 

Paper ID: 112496839 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 


Submitted to University of Newcastle on 2009-04-08 


Submitted to Presbyterian Ladies' College on 2009-09-18 


Submitted to University of Auckland on 2008-08-19 


Submitted to The Academic Collge Group on 2006-11-09 

< 1% match (publications) 

Amy Myers Jaffe. "Energy Security, Climate and Your Car: US Energy Policy and Beyond", 

Reducing Climate Impacts in the Transportation Sector, 2009 

Page 2 of 13


36 

37 

38 


Submitted to Black Hills State University on 2007-03-16 


Submitted to International Education Services on 2008-06-12 


Submitted to Northwest High School on 2009-02-25 


39 


Assignment: 

Paper ID: 112536819 

40 

< 1% match (publications) 

"2025 target for nuclear energy use.", New Straits Times, July 22 2009 Issue 


41 


Assignment: 

Paper ID: 112496569 

paper text: 

NUCLEAR ENERGY AS AN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCE TO 

MALAYSIA – IS IT MORE ETHICAL TO USE IT OR TO BAN IT 

INTRODUCTION 

Nuclear power generally refers to electrical power from controlled 7 

and non-explosive nuclear reactions. Commercial plants in use to 

date use nuclear fission reactions. Electric utility reactors heat water 

to produce steam which is then used to generate electricity. In 2007, 

14% of the world's electricity came from nuclear power despite 

concerns about safety and radioactive waste management. More than 

150 naval vessels using nuclear propulsion have been built. Nuclear 

fusion reactions are widely believed to be safer than fission and 

appear potentially viable though technically quite difficult. Fusion 

power has been under intense theoretical and experimental 

investigation for many years. Both fission and fusion appear 

promising for some space propulsion applications in the middle to 

distant future using low thrust for long durations to achieve high 

mission velocities. Radioactive decay has been used on a relatively 

small (few kW) scale mostly to power space missions and 

experiments. 

Nuclear energy is released by the splitting (fission) or merging 10 

together (fusion) of the nuclei of atoms. The conversion of 

nuclear mass to energy is consistent with the mass-energy 

equivalence formula ∆E = ∆m.c², in which ∆E = energy release, ∆m = 

mass defect, and c = the speed of light in a vacuum (a physical 

constant). Nuclear energy was first discovered by French physicist 

Henri Becquerel in 1896, when he found out that photographic plates 

stored in the dark near uranium were blackened like X-ray plates, 

which had been just recently discovered in 1895. 

As a result of the current discussion in the world on 

20 

8 

Page 3 of 13


how further global warming could be prevented or at least 

9 

mitigated, the revival of nuclear power seems to be in 

everybody's or at least in many politicians’ mind. It is interesting to see 

that in many suggestions to mitigate global warming, the focus is put 

on the advantages of nuclear power generation whereas its 

disadvantages are rarely mentioned. Hopefully, the following summary 

of arguments for and against nuclear power can fill this gap 

and give a better understanding of the community decision to the Ministry of Science, Technology 

and Environment. 

ADVANTAGES Nuclear energy tackles some of the greatest 

problems humanity has encountered in its struggle to get energy. 

Therefore, it does provide some of the solutions to the problems that we are facing in the world today. 

The first 

Nuclear energy 

little. 

In spite of that, 

Nuclear power is also praised as a solution to global warming by 

politicians like George W. Bush and Tony Blair. 

advantage of nuclear energy is nuclear energy generation does 

emit relatively low amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2). 

is a cleaner alternative than burning fossil fuels because it 

produces fewer greenhouse gases. The 

emissions of greenhouse gases are therefore, low and thus, the 

contribution of nuclear power plants to global warming is 

relatively 

A small quantity of carbon dioxide is emitted in the fuel cycle 14 

which consists of the mining of Uranium, refining, fuel enrichment 

and fabrication, transportation, decommissioning, and waste disposal. 

only a minor percentage of that emitted by burning fossil fuels 

such as coal, oil and gas to obtain the same amount of energy. 

Even the production of electricity by renewable resources like 

solar power, water, wind, or biomass does release some CO2. 

Nuclear energy is used to generate electrical power and therefore, 1 

it is only possible to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide if 

nuclear power plants are used instead of other carbon dioxide emitting 

technologies. This is in particular the case for electrical generation 

plants fuelled by coal, oil or gas. The carbon dioxide emission can 

indeed be reduced if electrical power plants driven by fossil fuels are 

4 

1 

29 

6 

8 

2 

3 

Page 4 of 13


being replaced by nuclear power plants. 

It also does not cause pollution and pollute the environment. Furthermore, 

the International Energy Agency (IEA) records the energy 

1 

consumption of worldwide and produces a forecast for the next 25 

years. In their last energy outlook published in autumn of 2006, IEA 

predicts a strong increase of the carbon dioxide emissions by the year 

2030 as a consequence of the increasing demand for energy worldwide. 

Additionally, IEA investigated to which extent the above mentioned 

emissions of carbon dioxide could be prevented if politics applied 

rigorous measures. One of the many measures investigated was 

massive facilitations and incentives for building additional nuclear 

power plants. From all measures proposed, nuclear energy was found 

to have the smallest effect which is only 10% 

compared to increase renewable which is 

12%, power sector efficiency which is 13%, electricity and end-use 

efficiency 

which is 29% and fossil fuels end-use efficiency which is 36%. 

Thus, 

This result is even more remarkable facing the fact that IEA is 

known for having no reservations whatsoever against nuclear 

energy. 

only 10% of the desired effects are due to furthering nuclear 

energy. 

The absence of carbon dioxide emissions from nuclear power plants 

are a strong reason to support nuclear power as it slows down the 

trend of global warming. 

Second, nuclear energy has a very low production cost factor which is similar to coal burning. 

According to 

at the same time 

the Deputy Science, Technology and Innovation Minister of 

Malaysia, Datuk Fadillah Yusof 

on the comparative cost of building nuclear power plants and 13 

coal-fired plants, although the initial costs may be twice the 

amount at US$1 billion to US$3 billion (RM3.5 billion to RM10.5 billion) 

for a 1000 megawatt capacity, it would still be cheaper over the long 

run. Over time, nuclear energy is the cheapest source of energy and 

environmentally friendly with no pollutants produced except for 

hydrogen 

gas which can be later used. Besides that, 

35 

1 

1 

2 

20 

40 

Page 5 of 13


nuclear energy eliminates the uses of coal burning which is the 

cause of air pollution, fog and health hazards among humans. It also reduces the uses of fossil fuel 

independently. Third, 

nuclear energy is by far the most concentrated form of energy 

available which produces high level 

It is estimated 

According to 

Fourth, 

are 

of energy needed. It is possible to generate a high amount of 

electrical energy in one single plant. 

Unlike oil and gas deposits which are likely to be exhausted in the 

next few decades, Uranium supply is abundant. 

that 1 gram of Uranium produces the same energy as one tone of 

oil. 

Berol Robinson, President of the American Branch of 

Environmentalist for Nuclear Energy (EFN), with the 

present primitive nuclear technology, it uses less than 1% of the 2 

energy in the Uranium and the rest is now considered nuclear 

waste which is stored away safely and permanently. In the near future, 

they will build advanced power plants which can better use the energy 

locked up in Uranium. Then, Uranium reserves will be automatically 

expanded 30 or 50 times, depending on the technology. Furthermore, 

there is also Thorium, another nuclear fuel that is three or four times 

more abundant than Uranium which is already used as a nuclear fuel in 

India. 

renewable energy such as solar power, wind power thermo power 

and hydro power 

not enough to power the industrial needs of modern civilization 

today. 

They are also limited and purchasing power from neighbouring countries cannot help ensure power 

security. Therefore, the push for nuclear energy is an increasingly popular solution to address the 

issues of energy security, need and supply of power and climate change in Asia. Indonesia, Malaysia, 

the Philippines, Vietnam and Thailand are implementing plans to turn to nuclear energy to curb their 

dependence on conventional fossil fuels. 

Nuclear has been developed to an industrial level for instance, it 

provides 20% of the electricity supply in the United States of 

America and 75% of that in France. 

38 

4 

27 

2 

2 

14 

14 

2 

2 

Page 6 of 13


If one were to reduce energy requirements via improved 

efficiency or other economies, growing demand will eventually 

overtake supply. Fifth, nuclear 

power plants do not require a lot of space and 

area. In as little as five years, the advantages of nuclear power could be available for remote 

locations with the development of the commercialization of a small mobile modular reactor, a new 

alternative to current forms of distributed generation. According to 

(EFN), 

Bruno Comby, Founder of the American Branch of 

Environmentalist for Nuclear Energy 

if a nuclear reactor is well constructed and well designed, bad 

accidents will not happen even if it was poorly maintained. For 

example, Three Mile Island mistakes were made, which lead to an 

accident. However, no one was hurt. 

Sixth, nuclear energy 

nuclear 

Plus, 

Lastly, 

technology is readily available and it need not have to be 

developed first. According to 

Berol Robinson, President of the American Branch of 

Environmentalist for Nuclear Energy (EFN), 

there is no industry in the world in which more attention is paid to 

the safety. The 

technology has vastly improved now and the safety margin is 

much higher. 

the least violation of safety rules is investigated, evaluated and 

reported to the public but largely ignored by the media. 

nuclear energy is already competitive with fossil fuel energy. The 2 

cost of nuclear fuel is only a small part of the price of a kilowatthour 

and will remain so while fuel is the major cost of fossil fuel 

energy and threatens to grow worse with the impending scarcity of gas 

and oil. People criticize the investment of public funds in nuclear but 

then fossil fuels enjoy comparable advantages. 

. DISADVANTAGES Even though nuclear energy provides some advantages, at the same time it also 

has its consequences which contribute to disadvantages. The main 

disadvantage of using nuclear energy is nuclear energy is a high 

2 

34 

32 

2 

31 

2 

2 

6 

23 

30 

Page 7 of 13


risk energy and 

nuclear power plants disaster or nuclear reactor disaster may happen. This is better 

known as a meltdown. In a meltdown, the fission reaction of an 

atom goes out of control and this leads to a nuclear explosion which 

releases great amounts of radiation. 

Despite a generally high security standard, accidents can still 11 

happen. It is technically impossible to build a plant with 100% 

security. A small probability of failure will always last. The 

consequences of an accident would be absolutely devastating both for 

human being as for the nature. The more nuclear power plants and 

nuclear waste storage shelters are built, the higher is the probability of 

a disastrous failure somewhere in the world. 

Here are some examples of meltdowns that have happened 

4 

throughout history. In 1979, at the Three Mile Island near 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the cooling system of a nuclear reactor 

failed. When radiation escaped, it forces tens of thousands of people to 

run away. Fortunately the problem was solved minutes before a total 

meltdown would have occurred and luckily, there were no deaths 

involved. Next, in 1986 a much worse disaster hit Russia's Chernobyl 

nuclear power plant. In this incident, a large amount of radiation 

escaped from the reactor which causes hundreds of thousands of people 

to be exposed to the radiation. Several dozen died within a few days. In 

the upcoming years, thousands more may die of cancers induced by 

the radiation. Second, nuclear 

energy plants will produce 

waste products which emit dangerous radiation that could kill 

people who touch them. 

The problem of the radioactive nuclear waste is still an unsolved 18 

one. The waste from nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and 

it has to be carefully looked after for ten thousand years, according to 

United States Environmental Protection Agency standards. Nuclear 

waste products cannot be thrown away like ordinary garbage and 

nowadays, many nuclear wastes are stored in a special cooling 

pool at the nuclear plants. 

According to Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, the former Prime Minister of Malaysia who opposed the 

idea of building a nuclear power plant in Malaysia, 

the waste cannot be disposed of anywhere, not by burial in the 12 

ground nor dumping in the sea. It can be reprocessed by certain 

countries only and this requires the dangerous material to be 

transported in special lead containers and carried by special ships. 

Most ports in the world do not allow such ships to be berthed at their 

facilities. On the 

4 

4 

24 

39 

Page 8 of 13


other hand, some countries such as the 

United States of America for example, plan to move all of its nuclear 

waste products to an isolated underground dump by the year 2010. 

There are also disasters involving nuclear wastes which prove the grave danger that surrounds 

nuclear energy from beginning till the end. 

In 1957, nuclear wastes buried at a dump site in Russia’s Ural 

Mountains near Moscow mysteriously exploded. This unfortunately 

caused the death of dozens of people. 

Despite thousands of tonnes of concrete being poured into the 

site, the power plant is still emitting dangerous radiation. 

There are potentials of radioactive contamination either by accident or sabotage. Moreover, 

terrorist attack 

nuclear power plants as well as nuclear waste storage shelters 

could be preferred targets for terrorist attacks. No atomic energy 

plant in the world could withstand an attack similar to the 9/11 

in New York. Such a terrorist act would have catastrophic effects 

for the whole entire world. In addition, the radioactive nuclear waste 

produced can be used for the production of nuclear weapons. The 

same know-how used to design nuclear power plants can also to a 

certain extent be used to build nuclear weapons 

which in term known as nuclear proliferation. Third, 

nuclear energy is neither green nor sustainable. This is because, 8 

both the nuclear wastes as well as the retired nuclear power plants 

are a life threatening legacy for hundreds of the future generations. It 

flagrantly contradicts with the thoughts of sustainability if future 

generations have to deal with the dangerous waste generated from 

preceding generations. Apart from that, Uranium, the source of energy 

for nuclear power is available on earth only in limited quantities. 

Uranium is being consumed and converted during the operation of the 

nuclear power plant so it would not be available anymore for future 

generations. This is again contradicts with the principle of 

sustainability. Fourth, nuclear energy 

explosion produces radiation and 

this radiation harms the cells in the body which can make humans 

sick or worse even cause death. Illness can appear or strike 

people years after they were exposed to nuclear radiation. 

An official study from the German government shows that the 17 

risk of getting cancer is increasing for children growing up in the 

neighborhood of a nuclear power plant. This is in particular is true for 

leukemia, a special case of cancer. The 

result showed a significantly higher risk to get cancer if the 

28 

4 

25 

21 

15 

4 

22 

Page 9 of 13


Fifth, 

children lived within a circle of less than 5 km around a nuclear 

power plant. 

nuclear energy is not a renewable energy because nuclear energy 

uses Uranium as fuel which is a scarce resource. 

The energy source for nuclear energy which is Uranium is currently 19 

decreasing and depleting. Since Uranium is a scarce resource, its 

supply is estimated to last only for the next 30 to 60 years depending 

on the actual demand. Therefore, nuclear 

energy is not a renewable energy. Lastly, 

power plant 

the time frame needed for formalities, planning and building of a 16 

new nuclear power generation plant is in the range of 20 to 30 

years in the western democracies. In other words, it is an illusion to 

build new nuclear power plants in a short period of time. On the contrary, 

nuclear 

can only last for about forty to fifty years. 

CONCLUSION From the above mentioned pros and cons of 

nuclear power plants, it should be evident that nuclear energy 

cannot be a solution to any problem 

and thus, I completely disagree with the 

building 

usage of nuclear energy and the 

of nuclear power plant as an alternative energy source in this 

community and 

in our country, Malaysia. 

ban it. 

Even worse, it is the source of many further problems and so, we 

must 

We must not any longer shut our eyes to the consequences of our 5 

being on earth. Besides moral, ethical and spiritual reasons, at 

least for the pure will to survive we should consequently strive for a 

sustainable living and realize it in our personal life. It is time for us to 

change. It is unquestionably and without a doubt that not to go ahead with nuclear energy is the most 

viable, feasible and practicable option for us. 

Responsible and conservative energy use could very well be 

accomplished and successful without nuclear energy which 

26 

36 

9 

41 

37 

9 

6 

Page 10 of 13


causes 

more critical and life- threatening consequences rather than accomplishments. Everything has its own 

dangers and its benefits and thus, 

we need to weigh them out and decide the best course of action. 

Surely nuclear energy is an option but it should not be the main 

focus or direction 

of the time being. For instance and reference, 

a team of scientists have built a car in the past that ran on a 

6 

combination of water and solar energy. They managed to get this 

car to drive at a speed of approximately 100 miles per hour. This 

achievement was more then a decade ago. It is perfectly possible to put 

wind and solar energy into mass production tomorrow and to have all 

cars on the planet run on that energy within the next 10 years. 

This evidence truly supports one of the factors on why we should ban nuclear energy. Furthermore, 

nuclear energy could contribute only little to reduce the cause of 1 

global warming. Moreover, it can only be a serious option if we 

shut the eyes to the many cons of nuclear power. Besides that, our 

energy consumption has increased year by year. Politics and industry 

made sure that the demand of energy was always fulfilled. Supply 

followed demand. Sustainability was rarely looked at. Thus, we will now 

have to change our behaviour. We can only afford to use as much 

energy as we are able to produce in a sustainable way. Demand has to 

follow supply and not vice- versa any more. If we do so, pretended 

solutions like nuclear power are automatically out of discussion. 

A Life Cycle Analyses (LCA) carried out by Jan Willem Storm van 

Leeuwen and Philip Smith came to the following result: Electricity 

from atomic energy emits 90 to 140 g CO2 per kWh of electricity 

produced. 

To calculate the amount of CO2 being released, the whole life 3 

cycle of a plant as well as the production of the raw energy has to 

be looked at. For a nuclear power plant, this includes construction, 

operation, maintenance, refurbishments, decommissioning and 

dismantling of the reactor. Of the same importance is the nuclear fuel 

where the recovery of Uranium from the earth's crust, extraction of 

uranium from ores, enrichment, chemical treatment and transportation 

as well as disposing of used fuel 

are taken into account. 

This leads to an interesting issue. The worldwide reserves for 

3 

Uranium are a very limited resource. It is estimated to last for 

about 50 to 70 years with the current demand. If additional nuclear 

reactors are built, the supply will last correspondingly shorter. The 

higher the demand for Uranium, the more poor ores will have to be 

processed. This however will lead to a CO2 balance for atomic power, 

which gets worse and worse over time. Storm and Smith in the above 

6 

6 

3 

Page 11 of 13


mentioned Life Cycle Analysis came to the conclusion that between 

the years 2050 if additional nuclear power plants are built and 2075 if no 

additional nuclear 

power plants are built, 

which is 

the CO2 emissions of electricity from atomic energy will be higher 3 

as the same electricity produced by a gas burning plant. Thus, 

nuclear energy can definitely not be the solution to mitigate the effects 

of global warming. 

Generally speaking, the electrical energy industry is aware of the 5 

substantial drawbacks of nuclear power generation. Nevertheless, 

this industry is now spending an incredible amount of money and time 

lobbying for the revival of nuclear energy. The main interest of the 

owners of existing nuclear power plants is however to prolong the lifespan 

for existing nuclear power plants because the existing plants will 

be amortized at the end of their originally planned life time. Huge 

financial profits can be realized for any day longer which these plants 

can be kept in operation and this is much more lucrative than building 

new nuclear plants. However, to operate nuclear power plants longer 

than originally planned can be quite dangerous since any plant or 

technical appliance usually gets more troublesome towards the end of 

its planned life expectancy. If the 

focus is put only to avoid the emission of carbon dioxide and if all 1 

other side effects are neglected, then nuclear energy can indeed 

contribute to the solution. However, the problem of climate change 

should be solved and discussed in a much wider context. It is 

important to limit our consumption of resources to such an amount 

which does not curtail future generations or other beings on Earth. We 

finally must learn to live a sustainable living. In this context, nuclear 

power plants are not a solution at all. On the contrary, it would mean to 

shift from one problem 

carbon dioxide emission to other bigger and greater problems such 

as nuclear waste, risk of nuclear 

catastrophes, limited resource of Uranium and nuclear 

proliferation. Consequences of nuclear energy 

will be devastating and could endanger the entire 

life on the planet. BIBLIOGRAPHY ✓ http://www.thebulletin.org/index.htm ✓ 

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/ ✓ http://english.vietnamnet.vn/biz/200910/Nuclear-power-plant-The- 

cheapest-does-not-always-mean-the-best-873987/ ✓ http://www.officialwire.com/main.php? 

action=posted_news&rid=32856&catid=32 0 ✓ http://www.capegazette.com/zdocuments/carperclimate102509.html 

✓ http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclear- 

reaction/2009/08/the_benefit_of_nuclear_hindsig. html ✓ 

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/newswires/2002_11_19.html ✓ 

http://www.ehow.com/about_4741367_advantages-disadvantages-nuclear- technology.html ✓ 

http://gvctemp18.virtualclassroom.org/Nenergy/adva.htm ✓ http://ezinearticles.com/?Advantagesand-Disadvantages-of-Nuclear- 

Power&id=1494512 ✓ 

http://www.bukisa.com/articles/31724_advantages-and-disadvantages-of- nuclear-power ✓ 

http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Michael_Ashcroft ✓ http://www.howtopowertheworld.com ✓ 

33 

1 

6 

Page 12 of 13

Wisdom requires the knowledge, understanding and be able to use that knowledge and 

understanding in their arguments. Class assisted peer persuasion interactive engagement gave the 

students the learning experience to listen to claims made by their peers, assess the worth of the 

claim from the evidences provided and then support the claim by providing more evidences or 

countered the arguments with their own opposing views. This experience was further utilized in the 

debate sessions held towards the end of the semester. Each student was grouped in groups of four 

or five and debated on contemporary issue regarding science and the environment. The screen 

captures below show the debate matrix, the assessment rubrics, the judges and the grade they 

received for the debating task.

sample assessment 

task

Title: ASB6HDB-NURUL JANNAH MOHD NOOR 

Group: ASB6HDB 

Program: AS 203 (BSc. Hons Physics) 

Semester: 6 

Name: Nurul Jannah bt Mohd Noor 

Commercial Name: Jen 

Student ID: 2007124367 

This is supposed to be an introduction between the lecturer and the student in the class. I personally 

think this assignment is meant to help the lecturer familiar with the student and in this case, the student 

happens to be myself, Nurul Jannah binti Mohd Noor who has a vision of becoming a successful scientist 

contributing to the world of science in my own way. My mission is to do anything I could in order to 

educate people the importance of knowledge, not just basically academic knowledge, but also 

knowledge in life and I will also do this in my own way, even if it seems insignificant but still, I will try. I 

came from a conservative family. My family members are the most important people in my life. For me, 

if they are around, love is all around. I’m so lucky to have such a loving and caring family. My current 

CGPA is 2.89 and I’m still struggling to improve it. There’s no one else to blame but myself. I took my 

studies for granted at times. I am involved in a lot of other activities and I have failed to manage my time 

well but I will make an effective time schedule this semester and I hope it’ll work. So, let’s get down to 

physics. In my field of study, the subject I learnt most is PHY575 or astrology and least is MST642 or 

semiconductor technology. This is because I found the study of stars open your mind into a whole new 

scope. It is interesting to know the lifecycle of something so extraordinary yet seems insignificant to 

majority of the world’s population. 

I learnt semiconductor technology least because of the study materials we had for the subject. I found 

that referring to a book with too many words became a major turned off. It is because those words, 

being complicated and alienated to me, are hard to be understood. They only made me sleepy every 

time I tried reading them. If I were to teach these classes, I would present more pictures or diagrams or 

perhaps even multimedia presentation to make the subject becomes more interesting. I personally think 

that a combination of audio and visual enhance the ability of student to store lectures into their memory. 

My expectation for this course is that it will sharpen my ideas and change the way I think into a 

productive manner. I hope I could learn theories or any knowledge that will help me relate to my 

everyday life and situation.

FSG 500 

MID-TERM PAPER ASSIGNMENT 

TITLE: I Can Be a Scientist Five Years After I Get My Degree from UiTM 

NAME: NURUL JANNAH BINTI MOHD NOOR 

MATRIC NO.: 2007124367 

GROUP: ASB6HDB 

PROGRAMME: AS203 

H/P NUMBER: 012-3143496 

EMAIL: z00_eche0s@yahoo.com

A scientist can be defined as someone or a person that uses scientific method in order to gain 

knowledge or proves a theory. There is a wide range of field where scientists are related to. 

They range from archeology to biology, chemistry, philosophy, mathematics, social, 

management etc. Among the famous scientists is firstly, Albert Einstein, the famous theoretical 

physicist of the 20 th century. He founded the relativistic cosmology, came up with general and 

special theories of relativity, photon and wave-particle duality and a lot more. Einstein was 

awarded with the Nobel Prize in Physics for his discovery of the Photoelectric Effect law. Ludwig 

Boltzmann on the other hand is another example of a scientist. He was specialized in atomic 

physics and interpreted the laws of thermodynamics suggesting the statistical law of entropy 

increase. Other than that, Stephen Hawking is another scientist to look at. He is the theoretical 

physicist who contributed in the field of cosmology and quantum gravity. The development of 

science and technology depends greatly on the contribution of scientist whether theoretically or 

by experimental procedures. General public, however, often had mistaken engineers for 

scientists and so as otherwise. Most of these laymen did not notice the difference between 

scientists and engineers. Scientists are the people that used their curiosity in nature to develop 

theories and understanding as to how things will work. Engineers, on the other hand, are the 

people who made these theories applicable. In short, scientist planned the frame work and 

engineer designed them. Without scientists, there will be no development in technology and 

engineers, too will be jobless. I had always wanted to be a part of something big and I believe I 

can be a scientist in order to contribute to the world of science and technology. Throughout my 

degree course and a whole academic life of learning Physics, I found that most of the physics’ 

students do not even know the definition of Physics. I believe that personal efforts in catering to 

an individual’s curiosity are more important than merely educational lectures. Physics or the 

study of nature requires a deep understanding in every topic taught in the syllabus of the degree 

program. The program will only be helpful to student if the student possesses a need to know. 

Without the desire to know about nature, students will end up studying, memorizing and reading 

in order to excel in examination, not in life. If students desire to know about what they are 

learning, they will be able to understand and remember what were taught until the end of their 

life. Therefore, in order to be a scientist, I realize that I need to be ready not only academically, 

but also psychologically and physically. The degree program will only help me academically but 

I have to work on my own to help myself psychologically and physically. It is important that while 

being a student, I consciously aware of the kind of mindset that will help me move forward. This 

is because, there two types of mindsets owned by a person. The first type is the fixed mindset 

and the second is the growth mindset. People of the fixed mindset are people that believe

intelligence is a fixed trait that cannot be changed much and therefore they will not pump in 

much effort in order to change themselves. In contrary, people of the growth mindset believe 

that intelligence depend on the effort a person had and can always be improved. Thus, people 

with growth mindset will not be afraid to face challenges, be criticized and try out new things 

because they see everything as a learning process. This is the kind of mindset that will help me 

thrive psychologically. I also cannot be a scientist if I am not healthy because research and 

study in nature will take you places to explore the world. This is why I also need to be ready 

physically. Sports will help me boost my stamina and determination so I am engaged in a lot of 

activities to achieve that. As for the future, in five years after I had graduated, I planned to 

continue all the efforts I had since I was studying because success will greet those that put on 

effort continuously. Experience that I have in five years will also be a crutch to make me a 

prominent scientist. With all this being sufficient, I am confident that I can be a scientist. 

REFERENCES: 

1) Mindset: The New Psychology of Success; Dweck Carol S. (2006). 

2) Scientist. Retrieved from the web February 7, 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist 

3) Albert Einstein. Retrieved from the web February 7, 2010. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

FSG 500 

FINAL TERM PAPER ASSIGNMENT 

TITLE: Nuclear Power; Choose Them or Lose Them? 

NAME: NURUL JANNAH BINTI MOHD NOOR 

MATRIC NO.: 2007124367 

GROUP: ASB6HDB 

PROGRAMME: AS203 

H/P NUMBER: 012-3143496 

EMAIL: z00_eche0s@yahoo.com

The Nuclear Security Summit took place in Washington DC on March 13, 2010 aiming to secure 

all nuclear materials around the globe within four years to avoid any terrorists’ threat. During the 

47-nation summit, Malaysian Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Najib Abdul Razak was given a pat on 

the back by Barack Obama for his noble intentions to develop nuclear power for peaceful 

purposes. The global community has agreed that any nations have the right to develop nuclear 

energy for electricity so long as they do not develop nuclear weapon. Nuclear reactor 

technology is just the same as many conventional thermal power stations that generate 

electricity by harnessing the thermal energy released from burning fossil fuels, but in this case, 

nuclear power plants convert the energy released from the nucleus of an atom, typically via 

nuclear fission. Fission of the atom occurs when a relatively large fissile atomic nucleus either 

uranium-235 or plutonium-239 absorbs a neutron. Fission is the process atom splits into two or 

more smaller nuclei with kinetic while releasing gamma radiation and free neutrons. A portion of 

these neutrons may later be absorbed by other fissile atoms therefore creating more fission 

processes, which release more neutrons, and so on. The nuclear chain reaction can be 

controlled by using neutron poisons and neutron moderators so that the portion of neutrons that 

will go on to cause more fission can be changed. Nuclear reactors generally have automatic and 

manual systems to shut the fission reaction down if threats are detected. A cooling system is 

available in order to remove heat from the reactor core and transports it to another area of the 

plant, where the thermal energy can be harnessed to produce electricity or to do other useful 

work. For example, in Westinghouse’s new AP1000 nuclear reactor’s model, a system called 

“passive safety” enables pressurized tank to deliver water to the core if the rector loses pressure 

because of the coolant. There are many different reactor designs differing in the type of fuels 

and coolants and incorporating different control schemes as well. Some designs are engineered 

to meet a specific need. For example, reactors for nuclear submarines and large naval ships 

use highly enriched uranium as fuel. The choice on fuel increases the reactor's power density 

and extends the usable life of the nuclear fuel load, but is more expensive and a greater risk to 

nuclear proliferation than other nuclear fuels. In status quo, the attitudes to nuclear power are 

shifting in response to climate change and fears over security of the supply of fossil fuels. 

Around the world, more than 31 reactors are under construction and many more are in the 

planning stages. In ASEAN region, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam had announced their 

intention in nuclear power programs. Indonesia, which according to a United Nations agency is 

home to most of the world's earthquakes and at least 155 centers of volcanic activity, wants to 

get involve in nuclear power industry. An official announced quietly in Jakarta at a recent 

meeting of the country's Nuclear Energy Regulatory Agency that the government intends to

uild its way into energy independence through nuclear energy for peaceful purpose. In the 

societal aspect, people’s perception towards nuclear energy is still unclear. Majority of people in 

Malaysia still thinks that nuclear energy is hazardous and that explosion and radioactive waste 

can cost a lot of damages towards the ecological system in the country. People’s perception is a 

very important factor in determining the success of a certain sector in a country. However, the 

trend had proven that nuclear technology is no longer dangerous and that Chernobyl and Three 

Miles Island incident are very unlikely to happen again. “Passive Safety” system can shuts down 

a reactor in case meltdown happen whilst radioactive waste can be burn in “fast” reactor or 

recycled to obtained uranium and plutonium again. On the national aspect, Malaysia is still a 

developing country and there are worries that is probably not the right time to acquire nuclear 

technology as there are fears that the capacity are not enough and they are lacking expertise to 

develop such a sophisticated technology. The problem here is awareness. This is because 

many are not aware of the existence of Malaysian Nuclear Society (MNS) that had been 

operating since 1988. Nuclear power program development requires between 200-1000 skilled 

workers for operation and maintenance of the power plant. This factor needs careful planning 

and lead time of at least 5 years. The post-independence of nuclear scientists, engineers and 

technicians are fast retiring at the age of 58 in the next 3-5years. Thus training of manpower 

starting from now is very critical and can be achieved considering the experience Malaysia had 

had in nuclear field. In terms of regional aspects, it can be argued that nuclear powered South 

East Asian region will trigger arms race among neighboring countries. There are examples 

where Russia and United State of America had been in a cold war in terms of racing towards 

developing nuclear weapon ever since the era of Soviet Union. Other than that, another 

example is Pakistan and India that had been enemies in terms of nuclear power since a very 

long time ago and never resolved up until now. In a different point of view, nuclear revival could 

be a good thing. This is due to the fact that the revival enables new technology to be developed 

and therefore empower the science and technological advancement of nuclear technology. 

Lastly, in terms of global perspective, the major concern by the global community is the security 

of radioactive materials since it possesses threat if it falls into the hand of terrorists. Obama had 

called the 47-nation summit to focus world attention on the threat of nuclear terrorism, a peril he 

termed the greatest threat facing all nations and a "cruel irony of history" after mankind had 

survived the Cold War and decades of fear stoked by a U.S.-Soviet arms race. A terrorist group 

in possession of plutonium no bigger than an apple could detonate a device capable of inflicting 

hundreds of thousands of casualties, he said. "Terrorist networks such as al-Qaida have tried to 

acquire the material for a nuclear weapon, and if they ever succeeded, they would surely use it,"

debate matrix, criteria 

& 

scOring

FSG500 Philosophy of Science Debate Format 

Debate Format: Adopted from DiMaruo, San Diego State Univ 

Debate follows a structured format. For our purposes, the following format will be observed: 

Action Person Time 

1 Affirmative side states its position on the resolution Captain 5 mins 

2 Negative side states its position on the resolution. Captain 5 mins 

1st Team members 

3 Affirmative side presents first and/or 2 nd argument in support of its position. 1st speaker 5 mins 

4 Negative side rebuts Affirmative side's first and/or 2 nd argument. 1st speaker 2 mins 

5 Negative side presents its first and/or 2 nd argument in support of its position. 1st speaker 5 mins 

6 Affirmative side rebuts Negative side's first and/or 2 nd argument. 1st speaker 2 mins 

2nd Team members 

7 Affirmative side presents second and/or 3 rd argument in support of its position. 2nd speaker 5 mins 

8 Negative side rebuts Affirmative side's second and/or 3 rd argument. 2nd speaker 2 mins 

9 Negative side presents its second and/or 3 rd argument in support of its position. 2nd speaker 5 mins 

10 Affirmative side rebuts Negative side's second and/or 3 rd argument. 2nd speaker 2 mins 

3rd Team members 

11 Affirmative side presents third and/or 4 th argument in support of its position. 3rd speaker 5 mins 

12 Negative side rebuts Affirmative side's third and/or 4 th argument. 3rd speaker 2 mins 

13 Negative side presents its third and/or 4 th argument in support of its position. 3rd speaker 5 mins 

14 Affirmative side rebuts Negative side's third and/or 4 th argument. 3rd speaker 2 mins 

4th team member 

15 Affirmative side presents fourth and/or 5 th argument in support of its position. 4th speaker 5 mins 

16 Negative side rebuts Affirmative side's fourth and/or 5 th argument. 4th speaker 2 mins 

17 Negative side presents its fourth and/or 5 th argument in support of its position. 4th speaker 5 mins 

18 Affirmative side rebuts Negative side's fourth and/or 5 th argument. 4th speaker 2 mins 

19 Affirmative side makes its overall rebuttal closing statement on the resolution. Captain 3mins 

20 Negative side makes its overall rebuttal and closing statement on the resolution. Captain 3 mins 

Role of Coordinators Who are in the Audience 

1 Set up the chairs & tables. 

2 

Appoint a time keeper. For the affirmative, ring the bell once at minute 4, twice at minute 5 (end argument). Then 3x 

at end of rebuttal. For opposition, ring once at end of minute 2 (end of rebuttal), twice at minute 6 and 3x at minute 7. 

In the case where there are only 4 members in the opposition, then the Captain of the opposition will be given 5 mins 

instead of 3 mins to present an argument and to do an overall rebuttal and closing. 

3 Return the chairs & tables to its original state. 

4 Ensure that your group members' attendance are taken in the room they are registered and they stay throughout the 

debate. 

5 You are allowed and encouraged to record the debate. 

Semester Jan10 - Apr10 

http://drjj.uitm.edu.my; +60193551621 

jjnita@salam.uitm.edu.my; drjjlanita@hotmail.com Compiled by Assoc. Prof. Dr. Jaafar Jantan aka Dr JJ, FSG, UiTM Shah Alam 29/03/2010

Appearance and 

Dress Code 

FSG500 Philosophy of Science Debate Rubrics 

Semester Jan 10 - Apr10 

FSG500 Philosophy of Science DEBATE RUBRIC. Developed by Dr JJ, FSG, UiTM, with partial adoption from Tony DiMauro, San Diego State Univ & 

from Global Interdependence © 2002 The Galileo Educational Network Association GENA 

Criteria 

Opening Statement 

and Arguments (10 

points) 

Science Content (10 

points) 

Presentation 

Style/Rhetoric (10 

points) 

Rebuttal (Closing 

Statement) (10 

points) 

Teamwork (5 points) 


jjnita@salam.uitm.edu.my; drjjlanita@hotmail.com 

Excellent (6-10) Proficient (4-5) Adequate (3) Fair (1-2) Weak (0) 

Very Neatly Attired for 

the occasion (5) 

Engages the audience. 

Multiple, interesting 

arguments (statements) 

Details are interesting, 

accurate, and complete. 

Research evidence 

demonstrates a 

thorough understanding. 

Strong evidence for 

arguments 

Neatly dressed for the 

Occasion (4) 

Clearly aware of intended 

audience. More than one 

clear, relevant argument 

(statement) 

Some evidence for 

arguments. Details are 

accurate and generally 

complete. Research evidence 

demonstrates a good 

understanding. 

Delivery is smooth with Delivery is generally smooth 

excellent and varied with varied intonation, good 

intonation, excellent pacing, clear and good 

pacing, clear and pronounciation and volume, 

excellent pronounciation maintaining good eye 

and volume, maintaining contact, good humor and 

eye contact at all times, flair. Good speech in all 

great humor and flair. regards. 

Very outstanding speech 

in all regards 

devastating rebuttals 

(conclusions) or new 

arguments 

seamless presentation, 

balance of styles (5) 

clear rebuttals to all 

arguments (statements) 

teammates share in full 

development of arguments 

(4) 

Presentably dressed for 


Aware of intended 

audience. One clear, 

relevant argument 

together with muddled 

thinking 

Quality & Marks 

Science content for key 

premise in all arguments. 

Details are generally 

accurate and fairly 

complete. Research 

evidence demonstrates a 

general understanding. 

Delivery falters on 

occasion with occasional 

varied intonation, 

acceptable pacing, 

acceptable pronounciation 

and volume, maintaining 

occasional eye contact. 

Acceptable speech in all 

regards. 

no missed arguments 

(statements), one clear 

rebuttal (statement) 

Acceptable dressed for the 

occasion (1-2) 

Rarely takes audience into 

consideration. Few arguments 

(statements), marginal 

relevancy, unclear 

Partial science content. Few 

details. Some evidence of 

research. Unsatisfactory 

understanding demonstrated. 

Delivery is halting and 

uneven, monotonous, pace is 

too fast, pronounciation 

needs improvement, volume 

is too soft and only occasional 

eye contact. Speech requires 

improvement. 

some missed arguments 

(statements), unclear 

rebuttals (statements) 

teammates share in some occasional set-up or follow- 

development of arguments through for teammates 

(3) 

argument (1-2) 

Very Inappropriate (0) 

Unaware of audience. No 

arguments, (no opening 

statement) 

Little or no science content 

detail. Little evidence of 

research or understanding 

demonstrated 

Delivery impedes 

communication, poorly 

organized, hesitations, flat, 

distracting mannerisms 

no counter arguments 

(statements) 

no set-up or follow-through for 

teammates argument (0) 

Developed and Compiled by Assoc. Prof. Dr. Jaafar Jantan aka Dr JJ 

FSG, UiTM, Shah Alam 29/03/2010

Affirmative Team Name 

Team Member 

FSG500 Philosophy of Science Debate Evaluation Form - Affirmative 

Affirmative 

Time 

Start: 

Time 

End: 

Time 

Difference 

Dress 

Code (5 

points) 

Opening 

Statement 

OR 

Arguments 

(10 points) 

Science 

Content (10 

points) 

Affirmative 

Affirmative 

Presentation 

Style/Rhetoric 

(10 points) 

Rebuttal 

(Closing 

Statement) 

(10 points) 

Teamwork 

(5 points) 


FSG500 Philosophy of Science DEBATE RUBRIC. Developed by Dr JJ, FSG, UiTM, with partial adoption from Tony DiMauro, San Diego State Univ. 

Debate Topic #: 

Captain's Name: 

Notes on the Captain's Speech: 

1 st speaker's name: 

Notes on the 1 st speaker's Speech: 

2 nd speaker's name: 

Notes on the 2 nd speaker's Speech: 

3 rd speaker's name: 

Notes on the 3 rd speaker's Speech: 

4 th speaker's name: 

Notes on the 4 th speaker's Speech: 



Adjudicator's Name: 

TOTAL (50 

points) 



Opposition's Team Name 

Team Member 

FSG500 Philosophy of Science Debate Evaluation Form - Against Against 

Time 

Start: 

Time 

End: 

Time 

Difference 

Dress 

Code (5 

points) 

Opening 

Statement 

OR 

Arguments 

(10 points) 

Science 

Content (10 

points) 

Against Against 

Presentation 


(10 points) 

Rebuttal 

(Closing 

Statement) 

(10 points) 


FSG500 Philosophy of Science DEBATE RUBRIC. Developed by Dr JJ, FSG, UiTM, with partial adoption from Tony DiMauro, San Diego State Univ. 

Debate Topic #: 

Captain's Name: 


1 st speaker's name: 


2 nd speaker's name: 


3 rd speaker's name: 


4 th speaker's name: 





Teamwork 

(5 points) 

TOTAL (50 

points) 



31/03/2010 

FSG500 Philosophy of Science Debate Master List Semester Jan10-Apr10 

FSG500 Debate- Semester Jan 10-Apr 10 Master List 

Topic 1: Scientific activities and not Natural Phenomenon is the Chief Cause of Global Warming 

Topic 2: Solar Power is Key in Reducing Emissions and Hence Reducing Global Warming 

When you are not debating, you will be an audience in the assigned room . Your attendance is taken in that assigned room . Each name that appears first on 

the list for the Affirmative (for example M Fakhurazi, Noor Ayunie and Nur Shahida) and Against (for example Amirah, Abu Bakar and Ros Azida) will act as the 

group's coordinator. The First Speaker will be responsible to define terms in the Title and Introduce to the audience about their team's point of view. The other 

speakers will support the view by giving supporting arguments and they will also be allowed to rebut points made by their opposition. All members will 

arrange to meet with their coordinator to discuss on who is the first, second, third speaker & so on and to decide which premises each speaker will address 

or argue (meet up during the weekend March 20 th -21 st ) to avoid redundancy and to ensure continuity of arguments. Request to change dates of presentation 

or grouping will only be allowed if there is mutual agreement between individuals with prior consent from me. (Due to the complexity and difficulty in 

arranging for your date and groups, I highly discourage any change.) 

Contact: DrJJ: 0193551621: Starting time for each session is 8:15pm. Each debater is given only 7 minutes 

Bil 

Week Group Topic 

Bil No Pelajar Nama Program Group Part HP # Position Date/ day Venue Judges 

1 1 1 1 1 2007280162 Amirah Binti Hashifudin AS203 ASBHMA 6 0132308301 

2 1 1 1 2 2007280202 Mohd Azerie Bin Sabir AS203 ASBHMA 6 0138419704 

3 1 1 1 3 2007280168 Mohd Hafeez Bin Kasman AS203 ASBHMA 6 0139947474 Against 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

2007280156 Mohd Ikhwan Bin Adzam 

2007280148 Muhamad Zaki Bin Abdul Khalik 

2009307747 Muhammad Fakhrurazi Bin Daud 

2009276526 Abdul Khabir Bin Khamis 

2009893372 Anis Nazurah Bt Muhd Nazak @ Mohd Nasir 

2009677208 Asmahani Binti Abdullah 

AS203 

AS203 

AS223 

AS223 

AS223 

AS223 

ASBHMA 

ASBHMA 

ASB4PN 

ASB4PN 

ASB4PN 

ASB4PN 

6 

6 0127697834 

3 0133051420 

4 0126220308 

4 0195066386 

4 

Affirmative 

Tue Mar30th 2009 

(Confirm) 

Che Mohamad 

Som Said 

(AS223) & Mrs. 

Zety Sharizat 

10 

11 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

5 

6 

2009815306 Faizah Bt Zabidi 

2007280184 Noor Ayunie Bt Nasir 

AS223 

AS203 

ASB4PN 

ASBHMA 

4 

6 0133155517 

B306 

Hamidi (AS203) 

12 2 1 2 7 2007280176 Noor Najia Binti Lodz AS203 ASBHMA 6 

13 2 1 2 8 2007280178 Nor Adiza Binti Mohd Nawi AS203 ASBHMA 6 0123200646 Affirmative 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

9 

10 

1 

2 

3 

4 

2007280154 Nur Amira Bt Suid 

2007280166 Nur Hamizah Bt Mohd Zaki 

2008401458 Abu Bakar Bin Mahamad Dom 

2008401464 Engku Dayana Athirah Engku Mohd Suhaimi 

2009697976 Fatin Fakhira Binti Anuar 

2009810584 Madihah Bt Mohammad Sayuti 

AS203 

AS203 

AS228 

AS228 

AS228 

AS228 

ASBHMA 

ASBHMA 

ASB4TN 

ASB4TN 

ASB4TN 

ASB4TN 

6 

6 

4 0123565829 

4 0126568314 

4 0174179795 

4 

Against 

Tue Apr 6th 2009 

(Confirm) 

Sulaiman Shaari 

(Dr. PM AS203) 

& En. 

Rosmamuhamad 

ani Ramli 

20 2 1 2 5 2009802822 Mohammad Hazim Bin Hamzah AS228 ASB4TN 4 

(AS230) 

Prepared by Assoc. Prof. Dr.JJ. 

http://drjj.uitm.edu.my 1

31/03/2010 














Bil 



21 1 2 2 11 2007280204 Nur Shahida Bt Azib AS203 ASBHMA 6 0179716976 

22 1 2 2 12 2007280222 Nur Syuhada Bt Mohd Shahril AS203 ASBHMA 6 0132006490 

23 1 2 2 13 2007280172 Nurkhairunnisa Binti Nasir AS203 ASBHMA 6 0133914351 Affirmative 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

14 

1 

41 

31 

26 

2007280198 Nurul Hasma Binti Hassim 

2009843772 Arda Mila Binti Aripin 

2008561005 Ros Azida Awang 

2009848312 Yusmazili Binti Md Yusoff 

2007128563 Yusriatie Farahanie Binti Roslan 

AS203 

AS231 

AS223 

AS228 

AS230 

ASBHMA 

ASB2IP 

ASB4PN 

ASB4TN 

ASB5X 

6 

2 0176457929 

4 0129816034 

4 0145054648 

5 0142923566 


Tue Mar 30th 2009 

(Confirm) 

En. Ahmad Faiza 

Mohd (AS223) & 

Norlida 

Kamarulzaman 

29 

30 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

27 

16 

2008533865 Yuzaida Binti Hair Zaki 

2007280212 Siti Nor Hafiza Bt Mohd Yusoff 

AS230 

AS203 

ASB5X 

ASBHMA 

5 0194304187 

6 0123184419 

B312 

(Dr. PM - AS203) 

31 

32 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

17 

18 

2007280164 Zaidatul Salwa Binti Mahmud 

2007280206 Nur Shazlinda Bt muhammad Hanif 

AS203 

AS203 

ASBHMA 

ASBHMA 

6 

6 


34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

6 

7 

8 

9 

2009267266 Husna Binti Ahmad Tarmizi 

2009639236 Farah Nordyana Binti Azizul Rahman 

2008401218 Fatimah Binti Zuber 

2008401202 Hamizah Bt Mohamed Isman 

2009869304 Mohamad Saifudin Bin Md Yusoff 

AS231 

AS223 

AS223 

AS223 

AS223 

ASB2IP 

ASB4PN 

ASB4PN 

ASB4PN 

ASB4PN 

2 0194586488 

4 0194244722 

4 

4 

4 

Affirmative 


(Confirm) 

Mohd Kamil Abd 

Rahman (Dr. 

PM. - AS203) & 

Azemi Shamsuri 

39 2 2 1 10 2009895878 Mohd Farhan Bin Ab Aziz AS223 ASB4PN 4 

(Dr., PM. AS223) 



31/03/2010 














Bil 



41 1 3 1 22 2007280186 Ahmad Afif Safwan Bin Mohd Radzi AS203 ASBHMA 6 0173936746 

42 1 3 1 23 2007280192 Mohd Khusairi Bin Tajuddin AS203 ASBHMA 6 

43 1 3 1 24 2007280188 Muhammad Salleh Bin Shamsudin AS203 ASBHMA 6 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

6 

7 

8 

9 

2009688388 Munirah Binti Mostapa Kamal 

2009492392 Mohd Taufik B Abd Latib 

2008401472 Muhammad Asyraf B Md Ridzuan 

2009474744 Muhammad Firdaus Bin Asbullah 

2009802654 Muna Mumtaz Binti Abdul Muid 

AS231 

AS228 

AS228 

AS228 

AS228 

ASB2IP 

ASB4TN 

ASB4TN 

ASB4TN 

ASB4TN 

2 0194526295 

4 0172987004 

4 0132669317 

4 

4 

Affirmative 


(Confirm) 

Ms. Atiyyah Hj 

Musa (AS 228) & 

Abu Hassan 

Hussin (PM. - 

49 1 3 1 10 2009238838 Noor Alholbisiah Binti Abu Bakar AS228 ASB4TN 4 0173077382 

AS203) 

50 2 3 2 4 2007124391 Khairul Helmy Bin Kamalul Arifin AS203 ASBHDB 6 0193778980 

B314 

51 2 3 2 2 2008288042 Nur Syahida Binti Sahli AS203 ASBHDB 4 0134044906 

52 2 3 2 3 2007135881 Fariah Binti Isthnain AS203 ASBHDB 6 

Affirmative 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

5 

11 

12 

13 

14 

2008410478 Nordiana Nabilla Binti Ramly 

2007127507 Nordiana Binti Hashim 

2009468996 Mohd Hanif Bin Md Kasa@ Abdul Ghani 

2009807528 Mohd Nurazzi Bin Norizan 

2009829074 Noor Marhawa Binti Muhammad 

2008401194 Noor Nadiah Bt Hassan 

AS203 

AS203 

AS223 

AS223 

AS223 

AS223 

ASBHDB 

ASBHDB 

ASB4PN 

ASB4PN 

ASB4PN 

ASB4PN 

4 0133714797 

6 0133315989 

4 0195584947 

4 0134160832 

4 0176598054 

4 0176941135 



(Confirm) 

Norzaini Ikrom 

Zakaria (Dr PM - 

AS203) & Ms. 

Hairani Tahir 

59 2 3 2 15 2008401186 Noor Nazurah Bt Mohammad Yatim AS223 ASB4PN 4 

(AS223) 



31/03/2010 

Bil Week Group Topic 















60 1 4 2 4 2009873698 Noor Liaza Binti Jaafar AS231 ASB2IP 2 0144601692 

61 1 4 2 5 2009863444 Norshamshimah Binti Mohd Saad AS231 ASB2IP 2 

62 1 4 2 8 2007127505 Siti Nurulaien Binti Abd Samat AS203 ASBHDB 6 

63 1 4 2 9 2007124395 Nurul Nadia Bt Muhamad AS203 ASBHDB 6 0149245779 

64 1 4 2 10 2007127501 Nurzilah Bt Bokhri AS203 ASBHDB 6 0122614204 

65 1 4 2 16 2009821554 Noor Syahida Binti Mohd Adam AS223 ASB4PN 4 0149299529 

66 1 4 2 17 2009688362 Noorasilah Binti Humumiri AS223 ASB4PN 4 0126469490 

67 1 4 2 18 2009217154 Noorul Huda Asyikin Binti Mohd Fauzi AS223 ASB4PN 4 

68 1 4 2 19 2009459688 Nor Azirah Binti Wan Zain AS223 ASB4PN 4 0197254770 

69 1 4 2 20 2009861602 Nor Sahariafiza Binti Amri AS223 ASB4PN 4 

70 2 4 1 11 2007124387 Azlinda Bt Abdul Aziz AS203 ASBHDB 6 0129501742 

71 2 4 1 12 2007275552 Nur Shuhada Binti Hilal AS203 ASBHDB 6 

72 2 4 1 13 2007124359 Maryam Mohammad AS203 ASBHDB 6 

73 2 4 1 14 2007127503 Surul Huda Binti Din AS203 ASBHDB 6 0176382318 

74 2 4 1 15 2007124385 Noor Zarina Baderisham AS203 ASBHDB 6 

75 2 4 1 21 2008401222 Norzahida Bt M Salih AS223 ASB4PN 4 0177872782 

76 2 4 1 22 2009206702 Nur Amirah Binti Dzulkifli AS223 ASB4PN 4 0134059664 

77 2 4 1 23 2008401212 Nur Farahiya Bte Omar AS223 ASB4PN 4 

78 2 4 1 24 2008401226 Nur Sakinah Binti Saini AS223 ASB4PN 4 

79 2 4 1 25 2008401232 Nurul Ayunie Binti Mohd Zaki AS223 ASB4PN 4 0176673032 


Affirmative 

Affirmative 



(Confirm) 


(Confirm) 

B322 

Dr. Rozana 

Mohd Dahan (AS 

223) & Mohd 

Salleh Mohd 

Deni (Dr., PM. - 

AS203) 

Syed Yusainee 

Syed Yahya (Dr. - 

AS203) & 

Dzaraini 

Kamarun (Dr. 

PM - AS223) 



31/03/2010 














Bil 



80 1 5 1 16 2007124371 Mohammed Yusri B. Sharudin AS203 ASBHDB 6 0172772276 

81 1 5 1 17 2007124399 Mohd. Rozieman B. Razali AS203 ASBHDB 6 

82 1 5 1 18 2007124363 Mohd. Arif B. Mohd Ghani AS203 ASBHDB 6 


83 

84 

85 

86 

87 

88 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

20 

6 

36 

37 

38 

39 

2007124383 Muhamad Hafiz Bin Najib 

2009402216 Nur Atiqah Binti Abdullah 

2008401184 Wan Siti Hafizah Binti Wan Mohd Azmi 

2009671572 Yasirah Binti Yahya 

2008588243 Nur baitina Azmi 

2008535979 Noorshaferatul Nadia Binti Norhanapiah 

AS203 

AS231 

AS223 

AS223 

AS223 

AS223 

ASBHDB 

ASB2IP 

ASB4PN 

ASB4PN 

ASB4PN 

ASB4PN 

6 

2 0135950726 

4 0148459018 

4 

4 0179627114 

4 

Affirmative 


(Confirm) 

Ms. Radin Siti 

Fazlina Hirzin 

(AS223) & 

Ahmad Abdul 

Hamid (PM - 

89 

90 

1 

2 

5 

5 

1 

2 

40 

6 

2008593923 Wan Nadia Bt Wan Kaffi 

2007124367 Nurul Jannah Binti Mohd Noor 

AS223 

AS203 

ASB4PN 

ASBHDB 

4 0199687375 

6 0123143496 

B426 

AS203) 

91 2 5 2 25 2007280182 Mohd. Aizad Safwan B Abd Majid AS203 ASBHMA 6 0136290970 

92 2 5 2 7 2009443208 Nur Fatin Farhanah Binti Nazarudin AS231 ASB2IP 2 0194518503 Affirmative 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

2009879476 Nur Sakinah Binti Naini 

2009289274 Nurdalila Binti Mohd Nazeri 

2008401454 Noor Hidayah Binti Abu Hayam 

2009677508 Noorlela Binti Mohd Isa 

2009896152 Nor Azhmira Binti Zainal Alam 

2008401478 Noraini Binti Yahya 

AS231 

AS231 

AS228 

AS228 

AS228 

AS228 

ASB2IP 

ASB2IP 

ASB4TN 

ASB4TN 

ASB4TN 

ASB4TN 

2 0177862610 

2 0179099075 

4 0179582602 

4 

4 

4 



(Confirm) 

Ri Hanum 

Yahaya Subban 

(Dr. PM. - 

AS203)Siti 

Marsinah Tumin 

99 2 5 2 15 2009649216 Norzakiah Bt Lasim AS228 ASB4TN 4 

(PM. - AS228) 



31/03/2010 














Bil 



100 1 6 2 7 2007124361 Rompen Anak Bajing AS203 ASBHDB 6 0176862511 

101 1 6 2 15 2007280214 Siti Hafizah Bt Abdul Rauf AS203 ASBHMA 6 

102 1 6 2 3 2009858348 Sabrani Bin Harman AS231 ASB2IPD 2 0138852086 Against 

103 

104 

105 

106 

107 

108 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

4 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

2009661934 Saiful Azlan Bin Ahmad Shahimi 

2009225624 Nurul Atikah Binti Baharin 

2008321767 Noor Adilah Binti Mohamad Shawari 

2008413194 Nor Sinarsuria Binti Mohd Natar 

2008288572 Noranizah Binti Awang 

2008324393 Nur Damia Binti Mohd Ismail 

AS231 

AS231 

AS230 

AS230 

AS230 

AS230 

ASB2IPD 

ASB2IP 

ASB5X 

ASB5X 

ASB5X 

ASB5X 

2 0134922316 

2 0135025257 

5 0175279475 

4 

4 0137019462 

4 

Affirmative 


(Confirm) 

Mahesh Kumar 

Thalari (Dr.- 

AS230) & Ms. 

Najua Tulos 

109 

110 

1 

2 

6 

6 

2 

1 

15 

2 

2007280666 Nur Huda Bt Shamsuddin 

2009233944 Muhamad Amran Bin Romli 

AS230 

AS231 

ASB5X 

ASB2IPD 

6 0193763104 

2 0134258781 

B428 

(AS228) 

111 2 6 1 1 2009415016 Mohd Redza Bin Sazali AS231 ASB2IPD 2 0132094840 

112 2 6 1 11 2009848006 Nurul Najwa Binti Radzi AS231 ASB2IP 2 0174118921 Affirmative 

113 

114 

115 

116 

117 

118 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

12 

13 

26 

27 

28 

29 

2009800054 Tuan Syarifah Nurul Hanani 

2009805748 Zulaiha Binti Mohamad Zain 

2009812444 Shuhada Binti Manap 

2009438016 Syafiqah Salwa Binti Basir 

2008401456 Tg Muna Shaheera Bt Tn Zainal Abidin 

2009270106 Wan Nur Sharienie Binti Wan Zainon 

AS231 

AS231 

AS228 

AS228 

AS228 

AS228 

ASB2IP 

ASB2IP 

ASB4TN 

ASB4TN 

ASB4TN 

ASB4TN 

2 0136312538 

2 0132389046 

4 0179198756 

4 0176563587 

4 

4 



(Confirm) 

Mrs. Aniszawati 

Azis (AS203) & 

Mohd Rozi 

Ahmad (Dr. - 

119 2 6 1 30 2009279488 Yanti Suzana Binti Ahmad Tarmidi AS228 ASB4TN 4 

AS228) 



31/03/2010 














Bil 



120 1 7 1 1 2007280662 Abu Suffian Bin Abd Rahman AS230 ASB5X 5 0127974861 

121 1 7 1 2 2008798857 Afzalleh Bin Jilleh AS230 ASB5X 5 0138331566 

122 1 7 1 3 2008402614 Ahmad Qamar Bin Md Razali AS230 ASB5X 4 0132199948 Against 

123 

124 

1 

1 

7 

7 

1 

1 

4 

5 

2008734259 Farah Dina Binti Abdullah 

2008746149 Mohamad Fauzi Hamdi Bin Ramli 

AS230 

AS230 

ASB5X 

ASB5X 

5 

5 


125 

126 

127 

128 

1 

1 

1 

1 

7 

7 

7 

7 

1 

1 

1 

1 

26 

27 

28 

29 

2009634798 Nurul Syafinaz Binti Abd Rashid 

2008401208 Nurulaini Binti Borhan 

2008401192 Nurulnajwa Bt Md Aris 

2008401198 Raden Siti Amirah Binti Hambali 

AS223 

AS223 

AS223 

AS223 

ASB4PN 

ASB4PN 

ASB4PN 

ASB4PN 

4 0127424755 

4 

4 0133154815 

4 0192341319 

Affirmative 

(Confirm) 

Ms. Eryna Nasir 

(AS228)& Mrs. 

Suzana Ratim 

129 

130 

1 

2 

7 

7 

1 

2 

30 

16 

2009829278 Rose Elyza Binti Mohd Sallehudin 

2009202682 Nur Hafizah Binti Ghazali 

AS223 

AS228 

ASB4PN 

ASB4TN 

4 

4 0122447033 

B429 

(AS230) 

131 2 7 2 17 2009476004 Nur Hafizatul Bt Abd Halim AS228 ASB4TN 4 

132 2 7 2 18 2009647368 Nur Izzaiti Binti Zahari AS228 ASB4TN 4 

Affirmative 

133 

134 

135 

136 

137 

138 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

19 

20 

16 

17 

18 

19 

2009278884 Nur Suriani Binti Azaman 

2009847166 Nurnazifah Binti Kosnan 

2008288552 Nur Sabrina Binti Abdullah 

2008332831 Nurliyana Murni Binti Haji Johan 

2008356413 Nurul Ain Binti Mohd Nor 

2008412394 Nurul Ayuna Binti Mohd Adnan 

AS228 

AS228 

AS230 

AS230 

AS230 

AS230 

ASB4TN 

ASB4TN 

ASB5X 

ASB5X 

ASB5X 

ASB5X 

4 0142312040 

4 

6 0124004344 

5 0136322414 

5 

4 



(Confirm) 

Salmiah Mohd 

Nor (PM. - 

AS228) & Lee 

Pat Moi (Dr. Prof 

139 2 7 2 20 2008385835 Nurul Husna Binti Mohamad Nasir AS230 ASB5X 5 

- AS230) 



31/03/2010 













157 


Bil 



140 1 8 2 31 2009643896 Sabariah Binti Abd Rahman AS223 ASB4PN 4 0195973862 

141 1 8 2 32 2008401206 Siti Aisyah Binti Jarkasi AS223 ASB4PN 4 01391106733 

142 1 8 2 33 2008401228 Siti Nabilah Huda Binti Rosli AS223 ASB4PN 4 


143 

144 

145 

146 

147 

148 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

34 

35 

21 

22 

23 

24 

2008401196 Siti Nurai'syah Bte Umar Shaifudin 

2009843082 Wan Nur Bahirah Binti Wan Hassan 

2008749447 Nurul Shakirah Shuhaimen 

2008742553 Siti Jasmiza Binti Jamil 

2008288562 Siti Zulaikha Binti Suhaili 

2007128567 Tunku Mohd Hafiz Bin Tunku Kamaruzaman 

AS223 

AS223 

AS230 

AS230 

AS230 

AS230 

ASB4PN 

ASB4PN 

ASB5X 

ASB5X 

ASB5X 

ASB5X 

4 

4 

5 0133078673 

5 

4 0129320427 

5 

Affirmative 


(Confirm) 

Mr. Muzammir 

Mahat (AS230) & 

Rahmah 

Mohamed (Dr. 

149 

150 

1 

2 

8 

8 

2 

1 

25 

6 

2008288568 Unaizah Binti Muslini 

2008512993 Mohamad Shahril Bin Mohamad Ariffin 

AS230 

AS230 

ASB5X 

ASB5X 

4 

5 0139895998 

B432 PM - AS223) 

151 2 8 1 7 2008330707 Mohd Noorasyraf Bin Che Saadon AS230 ASB5X 5 

152 2 8 1 8 2007280676 Mohd Nor Fitri Bin Jasman AS230 ASB5X 6 0179180796 Affirmative 

153 

154 

155 

156 

157 

158 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

9 

10 

21 

22 

23 

24 

2008400374 Mohd Razali Bin Sohot 

2008400378 Mohd Taufik Bin Mamat 

2009487352 Nuruldalilah Binti Roslan 

2009470964 Puteri Norafiah Binti Sulaiman 

2009652532 Rabiatul Adawiyah Binti Abdul Ghani 

2009638342 Raiha Bt Mohd Mindakon 

AS230 

AS230 

AS228 

AS228 

AS228 

AS228 

ASB5X 

ASB5X 

ASB4TN 

ASB4TN 

ASB4TN 

ASB4TN 

4 0173706927 

4 

4 0173773367 

4 0123598159 

4 

4 0136771267 



(Confirm) 

Khadijah Omar 

(Dr. PM - AS228) 

& Umi Sarah 

Jais (Dr. PM - 

159 2 8 1 25 2009621174 Rosemenati Binti Mokhtar AS228 ASB4TN 4 

AS230) 



FSG500 Philosophy of Science Marks for Your Debate. 

Failures need to meet me THURS, Apr 15th, 3pm, Room 509. 

FSG500 Debate marks Failures need to meet me THURS, Apr 15th, 3pm, Room 509. 


Week Group 

Bil No Pelajar Program Group Part HP # Venue Attendance Attendance 

Mar 30th Apr 6th MEAN Status 

1 1 1 2007280162 AS203 ASBHMA 6 0132308301 1 1 35.3 Pass 

1 1 2 2007280202 AS203 ASBHMA 6 0138419704 1 1 38.8 Pass 

1 1 3 2007280168 AS203 ASBHMA 6 0139947474 1 1 34.5 Pass 

1 1 4 2007280156 AS203 ASBHMA 6 1 1 35.5 Pass 

1 1 5 2007280148 AS203 ASBHMA 6 0127697834 1 1 33.5 Pass 

1 1 1 2009307747 AS223 ASB4PN 3 0133051420 1 1 38.0 Pass 

1 1 2 2009276526 AS223 ASB4PN 4 0126220308 1 1 37.3 Pass 

1 1 3 2009893372 AS223 ASB4PN 4 0195066386 1 1 34.0 Pass 

1 1 4 2009677208 AS223 ASB4PN 4 1 1 34.3 Pass 

1 

2 

1 

1 

5 

6 

2009815306 AS223 

2007280184 AS203 

ASB4PN 

ASBHMA 

4 

6 0133155517 

B306 

1 

1 

1 

1 

40.8 Pass 

33.0 Pass 

2 1 7 2007280176 AS203 ASBHMA 6 1 1 29.5 Pass 

2 1 8 2007280178 AS203 ASBHMA 6 0123200646 1 1 31.0 Pass 

2 1 9 2007280154 AS203 ASBHMA 6 1 1 30.0 Pass 

2 1 10 2007280166 AS203 ASBHMA 6 1 1 33.0 Pass 

2 1 1 2008401458 AS228 ASB4TN 4 0123565829 1 1 27.0 Pass 

2 1 2 2008401464 AS228 ASB4TN 4 0126568314 1 1 33.5 Pass 

2 1 3 2009697976 AS228 ASB4TN 4 0174179795 1 1 24.5 Pass 

2 1 4 2009810584 AS228 ASB4TN 4 1 1 31.5 Pass 

2 1 5 2009802822 AS228 ASB4TN 4 1 1 32.0 Pass 

http://drjj.uitm.edu.my; HP: 0193551621 Associate Professor Dr Jaafar Jantan aka Dr JJ 07/04/2010 Page 1 of 8




Week Group 



1 2 11 2007280204 AS203 ASBHMA 6 0179716976 1 1 38.8 Pass 

1 2 12 2007280222 AS203 ASBHMA 6 0132006490 1 1 38.3 Pass 

1 2 13 2007280172 AS203 ASBHMA 6 0133914351 1 1 39.0 Pass 

1 2 14 2007280198 AS203 ASBHMA 6 1 1 37.3 Pass 

1 2 1 2009843772 AS231 ASB2IP 2 0176457929 1 1 37.3 Pass 

1 2 41 2008561005 AS223 ASB4PN 4 0129816034 1 1 33.0 Pass 

1 2 31 2009848312 AS228 ASB4TN 4 0145054648 1 1 34.3 Pass 

1 2 26 2007128563 AS230 ASB5X 5 0142923566 1 1 36.5 Pass 

1 

2 

2 

2 

27 

16 

2008533865 AS230 

2007280212 AS203 

ASB5X 

ASBHMA 

5 0194304187 

6 0123184419 

B312 

1 

1 

1 

1 

35.3 Pass 

36.5 Pass 

2 2 17 2007280164 AS203 ASBHMA 6 1 1 36.5 Pass 

2 2 18 2007280206 AS203 ASBHMA 6 1 1 38.0 Pass 

2 2 2 2009267266 AS231 ASB2IP 2 0194586488 1 1 34.0 Pass 

2 2 6 2009639236 AS223 ASB4PN 4 0194244722 1 1 37.0 Pass 

2 2 7 2008401218 AS223 ASB4PN 4 1 1 38.0 Pass 

2 2 8 2008401202 AS223 ASB4PN 4 1 1 39.5 Pass 

2 2 9 2009869304 AS223 ASB4PN 4 1 1 34.5 Pass 

2 2 10 2009895878 AS223 ASB4PN 4 1 1 38.5 Pass 





Week Group 



1 3 22 2007280186 AS203 ASBHMA 6 0173936746 1 1 25.0 Pass 

1 3 23 2007280192 AS203 ASBHMA 6 1 1 27.0 Pass 

1 3 24 2007280188 AS203 ASBHMA 6 1 1 22.0 FAIL 

1 3 3 2009688388 AS231 ASB2IP 2 0194526295 1 1 32.0 Pass 

1 3 6 2009492392 AS228 ASB4TN 4 0172987004 1 1 26.0 Pass 

1 3 7 2008401472 AS228 ASB4TN 4 0132669317 1 1 26.0 Pass 

1 3 8 2009474744 AS228 ASB4TN 4 1 1 29.0 Pass 

1 3 9 2009802654 AS228 ASB4TN 4 1 1 28.0 Pass 

1 3 10 2009238838 AS228 ASB4TN 4 0173077382 1 1 26.0 Pass 

2 3 4 2007124391 AS203 ASBHDB 6 0193778980 B314 1 1 38.0 Pass 

2 3 2 2008288042 AS203 ASBHDB 4 0134044906 1 1 36.0 Pass 

2 3 3 2007135881 AS203 ASBHDB 6 1 1 36.5 Pass 

2 3 1 2008410478 AS203 ASBHDB 4 0133714797 1 1 36.5 Pass 

2 3 5 2007127507 AS203 ASBHDB 6 0133315989 1 1 36.5 Pass 

2 3 11 2009468996 AS223 ASB4PN 4 0195584947 1 1 36.0 Pass 

2 3 12 2009807528 AS223 ASB4PN 4 0134160832 1 1 36.0 Pass 

2 3 13 2009829074 AS223 ASB4PN 4 0176598054 1 1 35.0 Pass 

2 3 14 2008401194 AS223 ASB4PN 4 0176941135 1 1 35.5 Pass 

2 3 15 2008401186 AS223 ASB4PN 4 1 1 35.5 Pass 





Week Group 



1 4 4 2009873698 AS231 ASB2IP 2 0144601692 1 1 28.0 Pass 

1 4 5 2009863444 AS231 ASB2IP 2 1 1 30.5 Pass 

1 4 8 2007127505 AS203 ASBHDB 6 1 1 31.8 Pass 

1 4 9 2007124395 AS203 ASBHDB 6 0149245779 1 1 26.8 Pass 

1 4 10 2007127501 AS203 ASBHDB 6 0122614204 1 1 29.3 Pass 

1 4 16 2009821554 AS223 ASB4PN 4 0149299529 1 1 31.3 Pass 

1 4 17 2009688362 AS223 ASB4PN 4 0126469490 1 1 32.8 Pass 

1 4 18 2009217154 AS223 ASB4PN 4 1 1 36.5 Pass 

1 4 19 2009459688 AS223 ASB4PN 4 0197254770 1 1 37.8 Pass 

1 

2 

4 

4 

20 

11 

2009861602 AS223 

2007124387 AS203 

ASB4PN 

ASBHDB 

4 

6 0129501742 

B322 

1 

1 

1 

1 

32.0 Pass 

34.5 Pass 

2 4 12 2007275552 AS203 ASBHDB 6 1 1 24.0 FAIL 

2 4 13 2007124359 AS203 ASBHDB 6 1 1 26.5 Pass 

2 4 14 2007127503 AS203 ASBHDB 6 0176382318 1 1 35.5 Pass 

2 4 15 2007124385 AS203 ASBHDB 6 1 1 28.0 Pass 

2 4 21 2008401222 AS223 ASB4PN 4 0177872782 1 1 33.0 Pass 

2 4 22 2009206702 AS223 ASB4PN 4 0134059664 1 1 22.5 FAIL 

2 4 23 2008401212 AS223 ASB4PN 4 1 1 20.0 FAIL 

2 4 24 2008401226 AS223 ASB4PN 4 1 1 35.0 Pass 

2 4 25 2008401232 AS223 ASB4PN 4 0176673032 1 1 29.0 Pass 





Week Group 



1 5 16 2007124371 AS203 ASBHDB 6 0172772276 1 1 34.5 Pass 

1 5 17 2007124399 AS203 ASBHDB 6 1 1 31.0 Pass 

1 5 18 2007124363 AS203 ASBHDB 6 1 1 32.5 Pass 

1 5 20 2007124383 AS203 ASBHDB 6 1 1 34.0 Pass 

1 5 6 2009402216 AS231 ASB2IP 2 0135950726 1 1 37.5 Pass 

1 5 36 2008401184 AS223 ASB4PN 4 0148459018 1 1 36.0 Pass 

1 5 37 2009671572 AS223 ASB4PN 4 1 1 31.5 Pass 

1 5 38 2008588243 AS223 ASB4PN 4 0179627114 1 1 35.5 Pass 

1 5 39 2008535979 AS223 ASB4PN 4 1 1 34.5 Pass 

1 

2 

5 

5 

40 

6 

2008593923 AS223 

2007124367 AS203 

ASB4PN 

ASBHDB 

4 0199687375 

6 0123143496 

B426 

1 

1 

1 

1 

33.0 Pass 

36.0 Pass 

2 5 25 2007280182 AS203 ASBHMA 6 0136290970 1 1 20.5 FAIL 

2 5 7 2009443208 AS231 ASB2IP 2 0194518503 1 1 30.0 Pass 

2 5 8 2009879476 AS231 ASB2IP 2 0177862610 1 1 26.0 Pass 

2 5 9 2009289274 AS231 ASB2IP 2 0179099075 1 1 32.0 Pass 

2 5 11 2008401454 AS228 ASB4TN 4 0179582602 1 1 26.0 Pass 

2 5 12 2009677508 AS228 ASB4TN 4 1 1 31.0 Pass 

2 5 13 2009896152 AS228 ASB4TN 4 1 1 33.0 Pass 

2 5 14 2008401478 AS228 ASB4TN 4 1 1 24.0 FAIL 

2 5 15 2009649216 AS228 ASB4TN 4 1 1 26.0 Pass 





Week Group 



1 6 7 2007124361 AS203 ASBHDB 6 0176862511 1 1 43.8 Pass 

1 6 15 2007280214 AS203 ASBHMA 6 1 1 41.3 Pass 

1 6 3 2009858348 AS231 ASB2IPD 2 0138852086 1 1 37.8 Pass 

1 6 4 2009661934 AS231 ASB2IPD 2 0134922316 1 1 40.8 Pass 

1 6 10 2009225624 AS231 ASB2IP 2 0135025257 1 1 40.3 Pass 

1 6 11 2008321767 AS230 ASB5X 5 0175279475 1 1 39.3 Pass 

1 6 12 2008413194 AS230 ASB5X 4 1 1 39.8 Pass 

1 6 13 2008288572 AS230 ASB5X 4 0137019462 1 1 37.8 Pass 

1 6 14 2008324393 AS230 ASB5X 4 1 1 42.2 Pass 

1 

2 

6 

6 

15 

2 

2007280666 AS230 

2009233944 AS231 

ASB5X 

ASB2IPD 

6 0193763104 

2 0134258781 

B428 

1 

1 

1 

1 

41.3 Pass 

33.0 Pass 

2 6 1 2009415016 AS231 ASB2IPD 2 0132094840 1 1 41.0 Pass 

2 6 11 2009848006 AS231 ASB2IP 2 0174118921 1 1 39.5 Pass 

2 6 12 2009800054 AS231 ASB2IP 2 0136312538 1 1 40.0 Pass 

2 6 13 2009805748 AS231 ASB2IP 2 0132389046 1 1 36.5 Pass 

2 6 26 2009812444 AS228 ASB4TN 4 0179198756 1 1 38.0 Pass 

2 6 27 2009438016 AS228 ASB4TN 4 0176563587 1 1 39.0 Pass 

2 6 28 2008401456 AS228 ASB4TN 4 1 1 39.0 Pass 

2 6 29 2009270106 AS228 ASB4TN 4 1 1 36.5 Pass 

2 6 30 2009279488 AS228 ASB4TN 4 1 1 35.5 Pass 





Week Group 



1 7 1 2007280662 AS230 ASB5X 5 0127974861 1 1 31.8 Pass 

1 7 2 2008798857 AS230 ASB5X 5 0138331566 1 1 38.0 Pass 

1 7 3 2008402614 AS230 ASB5X 4 0132199948 1 1 36.0 Pass 

1 7 4 2008734259 AS230 ASB5X 5 1 1 39.3 Pass 

1 7 5 2008746149 AS230 ASB5X 5 1 1 35.8 Pass 

1 7 26 2009634798 AS223 ASB4PN 4 0127424755 1 1 37.5 Pass 

1 7 27 2008401208 AS223 ASB4PN 4 1 1 40.5 Pass 

1 7 28 2008401192 AS223 ASB4PN 4 0133154815 1 1 39.5 Pass 

1 7 29 2008401198 AS223 ASB4PN 4 0192341319 1 1 39.0 Pass 

1 

2 

7 

7 

30 

16 

2009829278 AS223 

2009202682 AS228 

ASB4PN 

ASB4TN 

4 

4 0122447033 

B429 

1 

1 

1 

1 

35.8 Pass 

26.8 Pass 

2 7 17 2009476004 AS228 ASB4TN 4 1 1 28.8 Pass 

2 7 18 2009647368 AS228 ASB4TN 4 1 1 24.5 Pass 

2 7 19 2009278884 AS228 ASB4TN 4 0142312040 1 1 19.0 FAIL 

2 7 20 2009847166 AS228 ASB4TN 4 1 1 26.8 Pass 

2 7 16 2008288552 AS230 ASB5X 6 0124004344 1 1 29.9 Pass 

2 7 17 2008332831 AS230 ASB5X 5 0136322414 1 1 33.8 Pass 

2 7 18 2008356413 AS230 ASB5X 5 1 1 29.3 Pass 

2 7 19 2008412394 AS230 ASB5X 4 1 1 25.5 Pass 

2 7 20 2008385835 AS230 ASB5X 5 1 1 27.9 Pass 





Week Group 



1 8 31 2009643896 AS223 ASB4PN 4 0195973862 1 1 43.3 Pass 

1 8 32 2008401206 AS223 ASB4PN 4 01391106733 1 1 41.8 Pass 

1 8 33 2008401228 AS223 ASB4PN 4 1 1 40.0 Pass 

1 8 34 2008401196 AS223 ASB4PN 4 0122511873 1 1 40.0 Pass 

1 8 35 2009843082 AS223 ASB4PN 4 1 1 42.3 Pass 

1 8 21 2008749447 AS230 ASB5X 5 0133078673 1 1 39.8 Pass 

1 8 22 2008742553 AS230 ASB5X 5 1 1 40.3 Pass 

1 8 23 2008288562 AS230 ASB5X 4 0129320427 1 1 43.8 Pass 

1 8 24 2007128567 AS230 ASB5X 5 1 1 39.3 Pass 

1 

2 

8 

8 

25 

6 

2008288568 AS230 

2008512993 AS230 

ASB5X 

ASB5X 

4 

5 0139895998 

B432 

1 

1 

1 

1 

40.3 Pass 

31.8 Pass 

2 8 7 2008330707 AS230 ASB5X 5 1 1 34.1 Pass 

2 8 8 2007280676 AS230 ASB5X 6 0179180796 1 1 34.9 Pass 

2 8 9 2008400374 AS230 ASB5X 4 0173706927 1 1 36.2 Pass 

2 8 10 2008400378 AS230 ASB5X 4 1 1 29.5 Pass 

2 8 21 2009487352 AS228 ASB4TN 4 0173773367 1 1 33.5 Pass 

2 8 22 2009470964 AS228 ASB4TN 4 0123598159 1 1 33.7 Pass 

2 8 23 2009652532 AS228 ASB4TN 4 1 1 35.2 Pass 

2 8 24 2009638342 AS228 ASB4TN 4 0136771267 1 1 30.8 Pass 

2 8 25 2009621174 AS228 ASB4TN 4 1 1 31.6 Pass 


FS G 5 00 —Philo sophy o f Science 

COURSE OBJECTIVE 

Philosophy of science will focus on epistemology through the 

concepts of knowledge, beliefs, truth and logic, followed by 

the domain of metaphysics, the nature of scientific explanations, 

critical and science skills as well as moral and ethical 

issues in science. Students will occasionally listen to but 

mostly will participate and actively engage via dialogues during 

the 2-hour lecture session. In addition, they will be reading, 

researching and philosophically analyze content of selected 

articles on science propositions and methods and will 

communicate their arguments and reasoning both verbally 

and in writing. It is hoped that students will develop or enhance 

their science reasoning and critical skills, always able 

to find ways to provide evidence through the scientific method 

in justifying their claims. It is also hoped that students will be 

able to enhance and use their declarative and procedural 

knowledge in science to help them become a knowledgeable 

citizen, able to identify problems, provide scientific arguments 

and solutions verbally and in written form to assist, counter or 

balance the decision-making process by themselves, their 

family, their workplace but most importantly the country and 

the Islamic brotherhood worldwide. 

Course Outcomes 

On completion of this course, students will be able to: 

1) Identify their learning preferences, attitudes towards sciences 

and conceptual understanding in their field of study. 

2) Define truth, belief and knowledge and justify their own 

belief about sciences knowledge in chemistry, physics or 

biology through conceptual inventories. 

3) Apply the philosophy approach in analyzing and justifying 

the scientific methods, principles, laws and theories about 

the natural world . 

4) Identify their sciences reasoning skills. 

5) Verbally Argue and justify their opinion on 

issues of science. 

6) Critically write an original 3000 words position paper in 

favor or against issues on sciences that concern ethnic 

and morality. 

TENTATIVE 

TIME PROGRAM 

7.45 

8.00 

8.20 

8.30 

8.45 

10.00 

10.15 

10.25 

10.40 

11.00 

11.15 

Arrival of lecturers and students 

Arrival of VVIP’s 

MC announces arrival of VVIP into the hall 

(MC Female: Zaidatul Salwa Binti Mahmud & 

MC Male: Rompen Anak Bajing ) 

-Doa recital by Abu Bakar Mohd Dom from the Textile 

Tech program 

Program begins by a briefing from Assoc. Prof. Dr. JJ 

A brief historical perspective on the Premiere Debate, 

introduce the Premiere Debaters, explain the 

assessment criteria and the rubrics used for evaluation, 

describe the debate format and formally introduce 

and welcome the Honorable Adjudicators 

Debate session starts 

(Moderator: Noor Nazurah Bt Mohammad Yatim 

Timekeeper: Norzahida Bt M Salih ) 

Intermission followed by Closing statements by the 

two captains 

A brief comment and words of encouragement from 

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ahmad Ridhuan Abdul Rahman, 

Assistant Vice Chancellor, Comm. & Corporate 

(representing Dato’ Paduka Prof. Dr. Mustafa Mohamed 

Zain, Dep. VC. Acad. & Internationalisation) 

A brief comment and words of encouragement from 

Tan Sri Dato’ Dr. Wan Mohd Zahid Mohd Noordin 

Chairman, UiTM Board of Directors 

Certificates and prize giving to Judges, and representatives 

of the working committee and to Captains of 

Best Debate Teams in the first round. 

Announcement of Best Teams and Best Speakers 

followed by Prize Giving to the winners. & Awarding 

of Token of Appreciation to the Adjudicators. 

Closing speech followed by supper. 

Dismiss 

Dr. Jaafar Jantan aka Dr. J.J. 

Associate Professor of Physics 

& Lecturer, Philosophy of Science 

Faculty of Applied Sciences, 

UiTM Shah Alam. 

http://drjj.uitm.edu.my 

The Premiere Debate is an activity under the course Philosophy 

of Science at Faculty of Applied Sciences. It is 

held upon completion of a 2 weeks, 8 parallel sessions 

first round debate that students of the course went 

through. They were adjudicated by 32 dedicated FSG 

lecturers representing the Polymer Technology, Textile 

Technology, Material Technology, and Physics degree 

programs at FSG. After the first round, the best 12 debaters 

are chosen to be Premiere Debaters to argue, justify, 

reason and convince the audience on the motion “Should 

Malaysia Go Nuclear” in conjunction with the Nuclear 

Safety Summit held in Washington D.C. Debate is a required 

learning activity in the course as part of assessing 

students’ critical thinking, verbal communication and 

teamwork skills. It was first introduced by Associate Professor 

Dr. Jaafar Jantan aka Dr. J.J. since 2007 and is 

now a main activity for the course and is fully supported 

by the faculty. 

TIME: 8.00 PM-11.15 PM 

DATE: 13 APRIL 2010 

VENUE: DEWAN SRI BUDIMAN

AFFIRMATIVE JUDGES AGAINST 

NAME: NURUL JANNAH BT MOHD NOOR (AS203) 

BACKGROUND: 

-Perak 

-Third child from six siblings. 

JUSTIFICATION: 

-To increase my confident level in confronting someone and be 

more firm and able to make a decent conversation with someone. 

NAME: NUR DAMIA BT MOHD ISMAIL (AS230) 

BACKGROUND: 

-Sixth child from eight siblings 


-English has improved a lot more and now I have more confident 

to speak in public. 

NAME: SITI ZULAIKHA BT SUHAILI (AS230) 

BACKGROUND: 

-Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan 

-Eldest from four siblings 


-To explore material technology world deeper while improving my 

current CGPA. 

-To be part of the society by contributing in science and technology. 

NAME: SURUL HUDA BT DIN (AS203) 

BACKGROUND: 

-Alor Star, Kedah 

-Eldest child from five siblings 


-The FSG 500 will make me become more confident to speak in 

front of people and what I see is I need to give full of commitment 

for this course. 

NAME: MOHD RAZALI BIN SOHOT (AS203) 

BACKGROUND: 

Eleven from twelve sibling. 


-Fsg 500 subject had change me a lot. The main learning I get is 

how to strengthened the critical thinking and communication skill. 

Lastly, this subject give me the opportunity to involve in class and 

out the class such as debate. 

NAME: NURULAINI BTE BORHAN (AS223) 

BACKGROUND: 

-Bachang,Melaka 

-Third child from four sibling 


-This subject quite interesting to learn. It give me opportunity to 

engage with all member in the class and can give any opinion. 

Besides that, it train me to improve my soft skills which in communication 

to speak English and improve my vocabulary in writing. 

Y.BHG. TAN SRI DATO’ DR WAN 

MOHD ZAHID MOHD NOORDIN 

CHAIRMAN 

UiTM Board of Directors 

Y.BHG DATO’ PADUKA PROF 

DR.MUSTAFFA MOHAMED ZAIN 

Dep. Vice Chancellor 

Academic & Internationalisation 

PROF.DR. AZNI ZAIN AHMED 

Assistant Vice Chancellor 

Puncak Alam & Puncak Perdana 

Campuses 

PROF. DR. NORHADIANI ISMAIL 

Professor 

Faculty of Applied Sciences 

NAME: KHAIRUL HELMY B KAMALUL ARIFIN (AS203) 

BACKGROUND: 

-Bukit Beruntung, Selangor 

-First child three siblings 


-In this course, FSG 500 , I am aiming to build up my confident 

level in giving opinion and able to analyze facts with current 

matters. 

NAME: NURKHAIRUNNISA BT NASIR (AS203) 

BACKGROUND: 

-Johor Bharu 


-I am expected FSG500 may bring to the highest level in speaking 

and make me the best speaker. To accomplish that expectation, 

I want my self to be exit from my weak character. I want 

to bring out my words that already in my mind to other people 

and share something new. 

NAME: RABIATUL ADAWIYAH BT ABDUL GHANI (AS228) 

BACKGROUND: 

-Terengganu 

-Thirteen from fourteen siblings 


-To be a scientist in textile field. 

NAME: NORDIANA NABILA BT RAMLY (AS203) 

BACKGROUND: 

-Klang, Selangor 

-Youngest from three siblings 


-To be a Quranic scientist 

-To complete my degree on time with CGPA 3 and above. 

NAME: ENGKU DAYANA ATHIRAH BT 

ENGKU MOHD SUHAIMI (AS228) 

BACKGROUND: 

-From Serdang Selangor 

-Second child from six siblings 


-To increase my confident level in confronting someone and be 

more firm and able to make a decent conversation with someone. 

NAME: SABARIAH BTE ABD RAHMAN (AS223) 

BACKGROUND: 

-From Bandar Seri Bandi,Kemaman Terengganu 

-Second child from three siblings 


-To be excellent in academic with graduate higher point and 

gained a lot of knowledge and skill to make myself be a successful 

person.

FSG500 Philosophy of Science Debate Format 


Debate Format: Adopted from DiMaruo, San Diego State Univ 

Action Person Time 

1 Affirmative side states its position on the resolution Captain (A) 5 mins 

2 Negative side states its position on the resolution. Captain (-) 5 mins 

1st Team members 

3 Affirmative side presents first and/or 2 nd argument in support of its position. 1st speaker (A) 5 mins 

4 Negative side rebuts Affirmative side's first and/or 2 nd argument. 1st speaker (-) 2 mins 

5 Negative side presents its first and/or 2 nd argument in support of its position. 1st speaker (-) 5 mins 

6 Affirmative side rebuts Negative side's first and/or 2 nd argument. 1st speaker (A) 2 mins 

2nd Team members 

7 Affirmative side presents second and/or 3 rd argument in support of its position. 2nd speaker (A) 5 mins 

8 Negative side rebuts Affirmative side's second and/or 3 rd argument. 2nd speaker (-) 2 mins 

9 Negative side presents its second and/or 3 rd argument in support of its position. 2nd speaker (-) 5 mins 

10 Affirmative side rebuts Negative side's second and/or 3 rd argument. 2nd speaker (A) 2 mins 

3rd Team members 

11 Affirmative side presents third and/or 4 th argument in support of its position. 3rd speaker (A) 5 mins 

12 Negative side rebuts Affirmative side's third and/or 4 th argument. 3rd speaker (-) 2 mins 

13 Negative side presents its third and/or 4 th argument in support of its position. 3rd speaker (-) 5 mins 

14 Affirmative side rebuts Negative side's third and/or 4 th argument. 3rd speaker (A) 2 mins 

4th team member 

15 Affirmative side presents fourth and/or 5 th argument in support of its position. 4th speaker (A) 5 mins 

16 Negative side rebuts Affirmative side's fourth and/or 5 th argument. 4th speaker (-) 2 mins 

17 Negative side presents its fourth and/or 5 th argument in support of its position. 4th speaker (-) 5 mins 

18 Affirmative side rebuts Negative side's fourth and/or 5 th argument. 

FIVE MINUTES INTERMISSION 

4th speaker (A) 2 mins 

19 Affirmative side makes its overall rebuttal closing statement on the resolution. Captain (A) 5 mins 

20 Negative side makes its overall rebuttal and closing statement on the resolution. Captain (-) 5 mins 


jjnita@salam.uitm.edu.my; drjjlanita@hotmail.com Compiled by Assoc. Prof. Dr. Jaafar Jantan aka Dr JJ, FSG, UiTM Shah Alam 12/04/2010

Criteria 

Appearance and Dress 

Code (5 points) 

FSG500 Philosophy of Science Debate Rubrics 

Opening Statement (Captains) 

and Arguments (10 points) 

Science Content (10 points) 

Presentation Style/Rhetoric 

(10 points) 

Rebuttal (or Closing Statement - 

Captains) (10 points) 


FSG500 Philosophy of Science DEBATE RUBRIC. Developed by Dr JJ, FSG, UiTM, with partial adoption from Tony DiMauro, San Diego State Univ & from Global Interdependence © 2002 The 

Galileo Educational Network Association GENA 

Quality & Marks 

Excellent (6-10) 

Proficient (4-5) 

Adequate (3) 

Fair (1-2) 

Very Neatly Attired for 


Neatly dressed for the 

Occasion (4) 

Presentably dressed 

for the occasion (3) 

Acceptable dressed for 

the occasion (1-2) 

Weak (0) Very Inappropriate (0) 



Engages the audience. Multiple, 

interesting arguments 

(statements) 

Clearly aware of intended 

audience. More than one clear, 

relevant argument (statement) 

Aware of intended audience. One 

clear, relevant argument together 

with muddled thinking 

Rarely takes audience into 

consideration. Few arguments 

(statements), marginal 

relevancy, unclear 

Unaware of audience. No 

arguments, (no opening 

statement) 

Details are interesting, 

accurate, and complete. 

Research evidence 

demonstrates a thorough 

understanding. Strong 

evidence for arguments 

Some evidence for 

arguments. Details are 

accurate and generally 

complete. Research evidence 

demonstrates a good 


Science content for key 

premise in all arguments. 

Details are generally accurate 

and fairly complete. Research 

evidence demonstrates a 

general understanding. 

Partial science content. Few 

details. Some evidence of 

research. Unsatisfactory 

understanding demonstrated. 

Little or no science content 

detail. Little evidence of 

research or understanding 

demonstrated 


FSG, UiTM, Shah Alam 

Delivery is smooth and 

coherent with excellent and 

varied intonation, excellent 

pacing, clear and excellent 

pronounciation and volume, 

maintaining eye contact at all 

times, great humor and flair. 

Very passioante and 

outstanding speech in all 

regards 

Excellent & devastating rebuttals 

(or conclusions) or new 

arguments 

Delivery is generally smooth 

and coherent with varied 

intonation, good pacing, clear 

and good pronounciation and clear rebuttals to all arguments 

volume, maintaining good eye (or statements) 

contact, good humor and flair. 

Good and passionate speech in 

all regards. 

Delivery falters on occasion 

with occasional varied 

intonation, acceptable pacing, 

acceptable coherence, 

acceptable pronounciation and 

volume, maintaining 

occasional eye contact. 

Acceptable passion and speech 

in all regards. 

Delivery is halting and uneven, 

monotonous, pace is too fast, 

lack of coherence, 

pronounciation needs 

improvement, volume is too 

low and only occasional eye 

contact. Speech requires 

improvement. 

Delivery impedes 

communication, poorly 

organized, hesitations, flat, 

distracting mannerisms 

no missed arguments (or 

statements), one clear rebuttal 

(or statement) 

Teamwork (5 points) 

seamless presentation, 

balance of styles (5) 

teammates share in full 

development of 

arguments (4) 

teammates share in 

some development of 

arguments (3) 

occasional set-up or 

some missed arguments (or 

follow-through for 

statements), unclear rebuttals (or 

teammates argument (1statements) 

2) 

no counter arguments (or 

statements) 

no set-up or followthrough 

for teammates 

argument (0) 

12/04/2010

FSG500 Philosophy of Science Debate Evaluation Form - Affirmative 

Affirmative 

Affirmative 

Affirmative 

FSG500 Philosophy of Science PREMIERE DEBATE RUBRIC. Developed by Dr JJ, FSG, UiTM, with partial adoption from Tony DiMauro, San 

Diego State Univ. 

Affirmative Team Name 

Team Member 

Captain's Name: Nurul Jannah Mohd Noor 


1 st speaker's name:Nur Damia Mohd Ismail 


2 nd speaker's name: Siti Zulaikha Suhaili 


3 rd speaker's name: Surul Huda Din 


4 th speaker's name: Mohd Razali Sohot 




Debate Topic #: Should Malaysia Go Nuclear 


Dress 

Code (5 

points) 

Opening 

Statement 

OR 

Arguments 

(10 points) 

Science 

Content (10 

points) 

Presentation 


(10 points) 

Rebuttal 

(Closing 

Statement) 

(10 points) 

Teamwork 

(5 points) 


TOTAL (50 

points) 



FSG500 Philosophy of Science Debate Evaluation Form - Against Against 

Against Against 

FSG500 Philosophy of Science PREMIERE DEBATE RUBRIC. Developed by Dr JJ, FSG, UiTM, with partial adoption from Tony DiMauro, San 

Diego State Univ. 

Opposition's Team Name 

Team Member 

Captain's Name: Khairul Helmy Kamalul Arifin 


1 st speaker's name: Nurkhairunnisa Nasir 


2 nd speaker's name: Rabiatul Adawiyah Abdul Ghani 


3 rd speaker's name: Nordiana Nabilla Ramly 


4 th speaker's name: Engku Dayana Athirah Engku Mohd 

Suhaimi 




Debate Topic #: Should Malaysia Go Nuclear 


Dress 

Code (5 

points) 

Opening 

Statement 

OR 

Arguments 

(10 points) 

Science 

Content (10 

points) 

Presentation 


(10 points) 

Rebuttal 

(Closing 

Statement) 

(10 points) 

Teamwork 

(5 points) 

TOTAL (50 

points) 




FSG500-Philosophy of Science Class Attendance and Engagement Semester Jan 2010 - Apr 2010 

Engagement 

BIL NO PELAJAR Prog Eng-0202 Attendance MTP FTP Similar % Grade 

1 2007280186 AS203 017-3936749 2 64% 1 1 0.94 Fail 

2 2007280162 AS203 013-2308301 1 82% 1 1 Pass 

3 2007280202 AS203 013-8419704 2 91% 1 1 Pass 

4 2007280168 AS203 013-9947474 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

5 2007280156 AS203 019-6148566 1 91% 1 1 0.7 Fail 

6 2007280192 AS203 4 64% 1 1 Pass 

7 2007280182 AS203 013-6290970 2 82% 1 1 Pass 

8 2007280148 AS203 012-7697834 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

9 2007280188 AS203 013-3914276 2 91% 1 1 0.56 Fail 

10 2007280184 AS203 013-3155517 1 73% 1 1 Pass 

11 2007280176 AS203 1 82% 1 1 Pass 

12 2007280178 AS203 012-3200646 1 82% 1 1 Pass 

13 2007280154 AS203 013-2569947 1 82% 1 1 Pass 

14 2007280166 AS203 013-2360647 1 82% 1 1 Pass 

15 2007280204 AS203 017-9716976 1 82% 1 1 Pass 

16 2007280206 AS203 1 82% 1 1 Pass 

17 2007280222 AS203 013-2006490 1 82% 1 1 Pass 

18 2007280172 AS203 013-3914351 2 91% 1 1 Pass 

19 2007280198 AS203 013-2506701 1 73% 1 1 Pass 

20 2007280214 AS203 013-2846348 1 82% 1 1 Pass 

21 2007280212 AS203 012-3184419 1 82% 1 1 Pass 

22 2007280164 AS203 019-6457800 1 82% 1 1 Pass 

100% 100% 100% 

http://drjj.uitm.edu.my; +60193551621 Lecturer: Assoc. Prof. Dr. J.J. 22/01/2011 Page 1 of 6

marks 

& 

grades



1 2007124387 AS203 012-9501742 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

2 2007135881 AS203 1 82% 1 1 Pass 

3 2007124391 AS203 019-3778980 2 91% 1 1 Pass 

4 2007124359 AS203 017-2675711 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

5 2007124371 AS203 017-2772276 4 82% 1 1 Pass 

6 2007124363 AS203 1 73% 1 1 Pass 

7 2007124399 AS203 017-9003549 1 82% 1 1 Pass 

8 2007124383 AS203 012-4519292 4 55% 1 1 Pass 

9 2007124385 AS203 017-3473097 1 82% 1 1 Pass 

10 2007127507 AS203 013-3315989 1 82% 1 1 Pass 

11 2008410478 AS203 013-3714797 2 91% 1 1 Pass 

12 2007275552 AS203 017-5987716 1 91% 1 1 0.55 Fail 

13 2008288042 AS203 013-4044906 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

14 2007124367 AS203 012-3143496 2 91% 1 1 Pass 

15 2007124395 AS203 014-9245779 1 82% 1 1 Pass 

16 2007127501 AS203 012-2614204 1 82% 1 1 Pass 

17 2007124361 AS203 017-6862511 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

18 2007127505 AS203 1 82% 1 1 Pass 

19 2007127503 AS203 017-6382318 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

100% 100% 100% 




1 2009276526 AS223 012-6220308 2 82% 1 1 Pass 

2 2009893372 AS223 019-5066386 1 73% 1 1 Pass 

3 2009677208 AS223 017-4546459 1 82% 1 1 Pass 

4 2009815306 AS223 017-5194394 1 73% 1 1 Pass 

5 2009639236 AS223 019-4244722 1 73% 1 1 Pass 

6 2008401218 AS223 017-3963206 1 82% 1 1 Pass 

7 2008401202 AS223 013-3526369 1 82% 1 1 Pass 

8 2009869304 AS223 013-9760068 1 73% 1 1 Pass 

9 2009895878 AS223 013-4059681 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

10 2009468996 AS223 019-5584947 1 64% 1 1 Pass 

11 2009807528 AS223 013-4160832 2 82% 1 1 Pass 

12 2009307747 AS223 013-3051420 1 64% 1 1 Pass 

13 2009829074 AS223 017-6598054 1 73% 1 1 Pass 

14 2008401194 AS223 017-6941135 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

15 2008401186 AS223 1 73% 1 1 Pass 

16 2009821554 AS223 014-9299529 1 73% 1 1 Pass 

17 2009688362 AS223 012-6469490 1 82% 1 1 Pass 

18 2008535979 AS223 012-3914220 1 55% 1 1 Pass 

19 2009217154 AS223 017-5613988 1 82% 1 1 Pass 

20 2009459688 AS223 019-7254770 1 73% 1 1 Pass 

21 2009861602 AS223 017-3329232 1 73% 1 1 Pass 

22 2008401222 AS223 017-7872782 1 73% 1 1 Pass 

23 2009206702 AS223 013-4059664 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

24 2008588243 AS223 017-9627114 1 55% 1 1 Pass 

25 2008401212 AS223 175677157 82% 1 1 Pass 

26 2008401226 AS223 132831361 1 82% 1 1 Pass 

27 2008401232 AS223 017-6673032 1 82% 1 1 Pass 

28 2009634798 AS223 012-7424755 1 73% 1 1 Pass 

29 2008401208 AS223 013-3089430 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

30 2008401192 AS223 013-3154815 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

31 2008401198 AS223 019-2341319 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

32 2008561005 AS223 012-9816034 1 64% 1 1 Pass 

33 2009829278 AS223 017-5726796 1 73% 1 1 Pass 

34 2009643896 AS223 019-5973862 1 73% 1 1 Pass 

35 2008401206 AS223 013-9106733 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

36 2008401228 AS223 017-3374592 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

37 2008401196 AS223 012-2511873 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

38 2008593923 AS223 019-9687375 1 45% 1 1 Pass 

39 2009843082 AS223 017-9751504 1 73% 1 1 Pass 

40 2008401184 AS223 014-8459018 1 82% 1 1 Pass 

41 2009671572 AS223 173559781 1 64% 1 1 Pass 

98% 100% 100% 




1 2008401458 AS228 012-3565829 1 100% 1 1 Pass 

2 2008401464 AS228 012-6568314 1 73% 1 1 Pass 

3 2009697976 AS228 017-4179795 1 100% 1 1 Pass 

4 2009810584 AS228 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

5 2009802822 AS228 017-2987004 1 82% 1 1 Pass 

6 2009492392 AS228 017-2987004 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

7 2008401472 AS228 013-2669317 1 73% 1 1 Pass 

8 2009474744 AS228 013-6398659 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

9 2009802654 AS228 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

10 2009238838 AS228 017-3097382 1 100% 1 1 Pass 

11 2008401454 AS228 017-9582602 1 100% 1 1 Pass 

12 2009677508 AS228 177447658 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

13 2009896152 AS228 012-6424123 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

14 2008401478 AS228 013-2310096 2 100% 1 1 Pass 

15 2009649216 AS228 017-2217394 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

16 2009202682 AS228 012-2447033 1 82% 1 1 Pass 

17 2009476004 AS228 017-9461513 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

18 2009647368 AS228 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

19 2009278884 AS228 014-2312040 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

20 2009847166 AS228 176956604 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

21 2009487352 AS228 017-3773367 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

22 2009470964 AS228 012-3598159 2 82% 1 1 Pass 

23 2009652532 AS228 2 91% 1 1 Pass 

24 2009638342 AS228 013-6771267 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

1 2009621174 AS228 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

26 2009812444 AS228 1 100% 1 1 Pass 

27 2009438016 AS228 017-6563587 2 91% 1 1 Pass 

28 2008401456 AS228 017-9373044 1 100% 1 1 Pass 

29 2009270106 AS228 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

30 2009279488 AS228 2 82% 1 1 Pass 

31 2009848312 AS228 1 55% 1 1 Pass 

100% 100% 100% 




1 2007280662 AS230 012-7974861 1 73% 1 1 Pass 

2 2008798857 AS230 013-8831566 1 100% 1 1 Pass 

3 2008402614 AS230 013-2199948 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

4 2008734259 AS230 123704716 1 82% 1 1 Pass 

5 2008746149 AS230 013-3787062 2 100% 1 1 Pass 

6 2008512993 AS230 013-9895998 1 100% 1 1 0.6 Fail 

7 2008330707 AS230 1 100% 1 1 Pass 

8 2007280676 AS230 017-9180796 1 100% 1 1 Pass 

9 2008400374 AS230 017-3706927 1 100% 1 1 Pass 

10 2008400378 AS230 017-7664940 1 73% 1 1 Pass 

11 2008321767 AS230 017-5279475 1 100% 1 1 Pass 

12 2008413194 AS230 019-3929098 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

13 2008288572 AS230 013-7019462 1 100% 1 1 Pass 

14 2008324393 AS230 1 73% 1 1 Pass 

15 2007280666 AS230 019-3763104 91% 1 Fail 

16 2008288552 AS230 012-4004344 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

17 2008332831 AS230 013-6322414 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

18 2008356413 AS230 013-3641733 1 100% 1 1 Pass 

19 2008412394 AS230 1399134840 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

20 2008385835 AS230 017-5127167 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

21 2008749447 AS230 013-3078673 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

22 2008742553 AS230 019-4542696 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

23 2008288562 AS230 012-9320427 1 100% 1 1 Pass 

24 2007128567 AS230 1 73% 1 1 0.66 Fail 

25 2008288568 AS230 012-4467920 1 100% 1 1 Pass 

26 2007128563 AS230 014-9293566 1 82% 1 1 Pass 

27 2008533865 AS230 019-4304187 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

96% 100% 96% 




1 2009843772 AS231 017-6457929 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

2 2009267266 AS231 019-4586488 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

3 2009688388 AS231 019-4526295 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

4 2009873698 AS231 019-4601692 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

5 2009863444 AS231 013-3298368 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

6 2009402216 AS231 013-5950726 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

7 2009443208 AS231 019-4518503 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

8 2009879476 AS231 017-7862610 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

9 2009289274 AS231 017-9099075 2 91% 1 1 Pass 

10 2009225624 AS231 013-5025257 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

11 2009848006 AS231 017-4118921 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

12 2009800054 AS231 013-6312538 1 91% 1 1 Pass 

13 2009805748 AS231 013-2389046 1 82% 1 1 Pass 

100% 


1 2009415016 AS231 013-2094840 1 70% 1 1 Pass 

2 2009233944 AS231 013-4258781 1 80% 1 1 Pass 

3 2009858348 AS231 013-8852086 1 80% 1 1 Pass 

4 2009661934 AS231 013-4922316 1 70% 1 1 Pass 

100% 100% 100% 


samples of 

poWeRpoint 

teaching and 

leaRning mateRials

Howard 

Gardner 

Edward 

De Bono 

Copyrights DRJJ, UiTM 2006 

FSG500 

Philosophy of Science 

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Jaafar Jantan aka DR. JJ 

Applied Science Education Research 

Applied Science, UiTM, Shah Alam 

Philosophy 

Philosophy 

Philosophy 

Philosophy 

the the 

the 

the ‘love love love love of of of of wisdom' 

wisdom' 

wisdom' 

wisdom' 

…concerned with rational inquiry into issues of knowledge (What is it to know?), 

being (What is?), and conduct (What is right?). 

Phil of Science concerns with assumptions, foundations and implications of 

science 

Voice: 019-455 019 455-1621 1621 email: fsg500@gmail.com; drjjlanita@hotmail.com; 

jjnita@salam.uitm.edu.my; Website: http://drjj.uitm.edu.my/ 

Background picture: The Death of Socrates as ordered by the court cour 

FSG500-Philosophy FSG500 Philosophy of Science 

Know Knowledge Facts Belief Truth 

To KNOW means to: (source: The SAGE) 

1. Be familiar or acquainted with a person or an object 

2. Be able to distinguish, recognize as being different. 

3. Be cognizant or aware of a fact or a specific piece of 

information; possess knowledge or information 

about. 

4. Be aware of the truth of something; have a belief or 

faith in something; regard as true beyond any doubt. 

5. Know how to do or perform something. 

6. Have firsthand knowledge of states, situations, 

emotions, or sensations. 



Background picture: The Death of Socrates as ordered by the court cour




How do you KNOW about……. 

�the World around you 

�animals 

�food 

�people 







INQUIRE- find out 

What?? How?? Where?? 

When?? WHY?? 



Background picture: The Death of Socrates as ordered by the court cour





Methods of inquiry (source: Rae, 2010 © Associated Content) 

• Tenacity-prior belief or superstition; believing without 

question 

• Authority-takes the word of another person (usually a 

reputable figure) without question 

• Intuition-based on feeling (ESP??) 

• Scientific-from questioning, observing, hypothesizing, 

experimenting, theorizing (empirical, objective & without 

bias via evidence) 





• The INCA Civilization & Engineering Wonders 

• The PARTHENON-jigsaw puzzles 

• DOLPHINS Feeding Behaviour 

• BRAIN structures 



Background picture: The Death of Socrates as ordered by the court 

cour



Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from 

matter. ... Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are 

spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its 

meaning. ... The particle can only appear as a limited region in space 

in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high. 

...” –Einstein summarizing theory of general relativity 

“Science is but an image of the truth”-Francis Bacon 

If a theory corresponds to the facts but does not cohere with some 

earlier knowledge, then this earlier knowledge should be discarded. 

(Popper, 1975) 





Karl Popper contended that 

• central question in the philosophy of science was distinguishing 

science from non-science 

• claimed that the central feature of science was that science aims at 

falsifiable claims (i.e. claims that can be proven false, at least in 

principle) 

• Is human the result of intelligent design or a result of evolution? 

Are scientific theories the truth? 

Copernicus Heliocentric Sun-centered Theory 

Greece’s Aristotle theory on gravity: all bodies had 'a natural 

tendency' to move to their 'natural place' (water, air, fire, earth???) 

widely accepted though entirely unproven explanation of gravity 



Background picture: The Death of Socrates as ordered by the court 

cour


Knowing You Knowing Me 

END of Class Composition 

Please write Group registered in FSG500, Program, Name, 

Commercial Name, Student ID; Hand-phone #, Semester 

Write about the following claim: 

I know that I am made of very small particles 

made up of electrons and protons … 

�� ENSURE THAT YOUR HANDWRITING CAN BE READ 

�� SUBMIT BY END OF CLASS 

�� VISIT MY WEBSITE FOR UPDATED INFORMATION 

Copyright DRJJ, ASERG, FSG, UiTM, 2006 9 

Knowing You Knowing Me 

Essay writing: Biography 

Write an essay containing the following: 

� Group registered in FSG500, Program, , Semester, Name, 

Commercial Name, Student ID; 

� Your vision, mission, your family background, your 

current academic standing (CGPA) 

�� your justification on the course (name the course in the 

field you are in, for example, phy430 if you are in physics) 

you learn most and the course you learn least so far. 

Explain, how you would change the teaching & learning 

methods if you were to teach the class. 

�� Write also your expectations for this course, FSG500 and 

explain how you are going to accomplish that expectation 

�� ENSURE THAT YOUR HANDWRITING CAN BE READ 

�� SUBMIT BY END OF CLASS 

�� VISIT MY WEBSITE FOR UPDATED INFORMATION 

Copyright DRJJ, ASERG, FSG, UiTM, 2006 10


As future scientists, What are 

your views on science??-VASS 

science?? VASS 

What is your 

preference in 

receiving, 

perceive, 

processing and 

understanding 

new information 

before it becomes 

knowledge? - ILS 

Copyright DRJJ, ASERG, FSG, UiTM, 2006 11

Philosophy of Science: Knowing & 

Knowledge 

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Jaafar Jantan aka DR. JJ 

Applied Science Education Research 

Applied Science, UiTM, Shah Alam 

Voice: 019-355 019 355-1621 1621 email: drjjlanita@hotmail.com; fsg500@gmail.com 

Website: http://dr.uitm.edu.my 

http:// dr.uitm.edu.my 

1/21/2011 

Copyrights DRJJ, UiTM 2006 1

Quotes 

�BERTRAND RUSSELL: Science is what you 

know. Philosophy is what you don't know. 

Aristotle: 

“If you ought to philosophize you ought to philosophize; 

and if you ought not to philosophize you ought to 

philosophize: therefore, in any case you ought to 

philosophize. For if philosophy exists, we certainly ought 

to philosophize, since it exists; and if it does not exist, in 

that case too we ought to inquire why philosophy does 

not exist -- and by inquiring we philosophize; for inquiry is 

the cause of philosophy." Contribution by AIZATUL AIDA 

BINTI KHAIROL ANNUAR ’ ASB3F2 


Philosophy 

Philosophy has been defined as the love of wisdom, the 

search for truth through reasoning, the quest for the 

reasons for our basic beliefs, as well as a discipline which 

comprises metaphysics, logic, ethics, epistemology, and 

aesthetics. 

Such definitions have their uses, of course, what philosophy really 

is only discovered by studying and doing it. As a first 

approximation, however, it may be said that philosophy is the 

critical examination of our most fundamental ideas about 

ourselves and the world. world It asks questions such as the following: 

1/21/2011 


What is the nature and purpose of human life? 

How should we treat each other? 

What kind of society is best? 

What is our relation to nature? 

As individuals and as a culture, we have beliefs about these 

questions even if we do not always talk about them. 

Our beliefs influence the way we live, personally and socially. 

Philosophy tries to make these beliefs evident and open to 

examination, hoping thereby to improve human life. 

Philosophy 

WHAT IS 

• TRUTH? 

• BELIEFS? 

• FACTS? 

• INFORMATION 

• KNOWLEDGE? 

• EPISTEMOLOGY? 

Philosophy 

WHAT IS 

• METAPHYSICS? 

• LOGIC? 

• ETHICS 

• PROPOSITIONS? 

• ARGUMENTS? 

• PREMISES? 

• FALLACIES 

1/21/2011 


Philosophy - Truth 

"Truth is whatever you believe.” believe. 

"There is no absolute truth." 

"If there were such a thing as absolute 

truth, how could we know what it is?" 


1/21/2011 




1/21/2011 



READ THE COLOUR 


1/21/2011 




1/21/2011 



TRUTH is out there?? 

The X-FILES X FILES 

1/21/2011 



"Truth is that which conforms to reality, fact, or 

actuality." 

What is reality? What is fact? What is actuality? How 

does perception effect truth? 




1/21/2011 





Relativism -“All truth is relative.”Ultimately, 

relativism is self-defeating –it cannot stand up to 

its own truth claim. 


1/21/2011 


truth 




Consider the following statement: 

"Something cannot bring itself into 

existence." 

Argue on the statement above 

In order for something to bring itself into existence, it would 

have to exist in order to be able to perform an action. But if 

it already existed, then it isn't possible to bring itself into 

existence since it already exists. Likewise, if it does not 

exist then it has no ability to perform any creative action 

since it doesn't exist in the first place. Therefore, 

"Something cannot bring itself into existence" is an 

absolute truth. 


1/21/2011 


Philosophy – Beliefs 


1/21/2011 


Instrument: CSEM – Q7 



(a) 9%, After:7% 

(b) 18%, After:17% 

(c) 21%, After:17% 

(d) 41%, After:37% 

(e) 12%, After:23% 


CRI=2,3 

Bef:61%, Aft:37% 

Bef:9%, Aft:10% 

Bef:15%, Aft:23% 

Bef:9%, Aft:13% 

Bef:6%, Aft:17% 

CRI=1,3 

1/21/2011 


•Young Researchers CAS 2006, Selangor, 13 

Example 

(Phase Change Question) 

th -14th June, 2006 

• CCI Item #10 

Two ice cubes are floating in water: 

After the ice melts, will the water level be: 

(A) higher? 

(B) lower? 

(C) the same? 

Commonsense belief is A: 65%. N=1235 

Scientific Belief is C: 27%. N=1235 

Copyright DRJJ, ASERG, FSG, UiTM, 2006Young Researchers CAS 2006- Zaza & DrJJ, 

ASERG, FSG UiTM, June 2006 

1/21/2011 

Copyrights DRJJ, UiTM 2006 14 

Ice 

Water 

28


Example 

(Conservation Question) 


CCI Item #12 

Iodine solid 

A 1.0-gram sample of solid iodine is placed in a tube and the 

tube is sealed after all of the air is removed. The tube and the 

solid iodine together weigh 27.0 grams. 

The tube is then heated until all of the iodine evaporates and 

the tube is filled with iodine gas. Will the weight after heating be 

(A) less than 26.0 grams (B) 26.0 grams 

(C) 27.0 grams (D) 28.0 grams 

(E) more than 28.0 grams 




Example 

(Solutions Question) 


CCI Item #20 

Salt is added to water and the 

mixture is stirred until no more salt 

dissolves. The salt that does not 

dissolve is allowed to settle out. 

What happens to the 

concentration of salt in solution if 

water evaporates until the volume 

of the solution is half the original 

volume? (Assume temperature 

remains constant.) 



CS; A: 44%. N=1238 

Sc; C: 32%. N=1238 

Solution Solution 

Half of 

the 

water 

evaporates 

1/21/2011 


Solid 

Salt 

(A) increases? 

(B) decreases? 

(C) stays the same? 

CS; A: 60%. N=1238 

Sc; C: 29%. N=1238 

29 

30

Philosophy–Beliefs 

Philosophy Beliefs-Thaipusam Thaipusam 

Birthday of Lord Subramaniam, son of Siva 

Piercing is a way of asking favors from 

god 


Belief is defined as mental acceptance of a premise, 

image, or thought as being true or real without 

evidence, in spite of contrary evidence, or after 

repeated failure. Belief, in this limited definition, is 

purely a function of the human mind. It enables 

humans to know what is demonstrably false, not 

knowable, and what is not known by anyone else. 

Two sources of beliefs are environment (primary 

source which includes parents & upbringing) and 

imagination 


1/21/2011 



“People have slaughtered each other in wars, 

inquisitions, and political actions for centuries and still 

kill each other over beliefs in religions, political 

ideologies, and philosophies. These belief-systems, 

when stated as propositions, may appear mystical, and 

genuine to the naive, but when confronted with a 

testable bases from reason and experiment, they fail 

miserably. I maintain that beliefs create more social 

problems than they solve and that beliefs, and 

especially those elevated to faith, produce the most 

destructive potential to the future of humankind.” Jim 

Walker 


Philosophy – knowledge 


1/21/2011 


Let us start with the Greek philosophers. In Plato's view 

knowledge is merely an awareness of absolute, universal 

Ideas or Forms, Forms, 

existing independent of any subject 

trying to apprehend to them. them Though Aristotle puts more 

emphasis on logical and empirical methods for gathering 

knowledge, he still accepts the view that such knowledge is 

an apprehension of necessary and universal principles. 

Following the Renaissance, two main epistemological 

positions dominated philosophy: empiricism, which sees 

knowledge as the product of sensory perception, and 

rationalism which sees it as the product of rational reflection 

Copyright DrJJ, ASERG, FSG UiTM, June 2009 35 


1/21/2011 



One of the most important goals of a university is to 

develop individuals who have advanced 

literacy skills in their discipline: discipline people who can 

participate effectively by critiquing information and ideas and 

by contributing with rigour and creativity to new insights and 

knowledge, who are self-aware as learners, and who are 

rhetorically versatile, confident communicators able to adapt 

and contribute to the demands of employment and life in a 

changing society and wider world. 


1/21/2011 


Can explain: explain provide thorough, supported, and justifiable 

accounts of phenomena, facts, and data. 

Can interpret: interpret tell meaningful stories; offer apt translations; 

provide a revealing historical or personal dimension to ideas 

and events; make it personal or accessible through images, 

anecdotes, analogies, and models. 

Can apply: apply effectively use and adapt what we know in 

diverse contexts. 

Have perspective: perspective see and hear points of view through 

critical eyes and ears; see the big picture. 

Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe. Understanding by Design; Chap 4. 


Can empathize: empathize find value in what others might find odd, 

alien, or implausible; perceive sensitively on the basis of prior 

direct experience. 

Have self-knowledge 

self knowledge: perceive the personal style, 

prejudices, projections, and habits of mind that both shape 

and impede our own understanding; we are aware of what 

we do not understand and why understanding is so hard 



1/21/2011 


Data is raw. It simply exists and has no significance beyond its 

existence (in and of itself). It can exist in any form, usable or not. It 

does not have meaning of itself. It represents a fact or statement of 

event without relation to other things. Ex: It is raining. 

Information is data that are processed to be useful; provides 

answers to "who", "what", "where", and "when" questions. It is data 

that has been given meaning by way of relational connection. This 

"meaning" can be useful, but does not have to be. Information 

embodies the understanding of a relationship of some sort, possibly 

cause and effect. Ex: The temperature dropped 15 degrees and 

then it started raining. 

Source: Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom by Gene Bellinger, Durval Castro, 

Anthony Mills 


Knowledge is the application of data and information; answers 

"how" questions. It is the appropriate collection of information, such 

that it's intent is to be useful. Knowledge is a deterministic process. 

When someone "memorizes" information (as less-aspiring testbound 

students often do), then they have amassed knowledge. 

Knowledge represents a pattern that connects and generally 

provides a high level of predictability as to what is described or what 

will happen next. 

Ex: If the humidity is very high and the temperature drops 

substantially the atmospheres is often unlikely to be able to hold the 

moisture so it rains. 


Anthony Mills 


1/21/2011 


"Knowledge consists of facts, truths, and beliefs, perspectives and 

concepts, judgments and expectations, methodologies and know-how. 

Knowledge is accumulated and integrated and held over time to 

handle specific situations and challenges. 

Depth of Knowledge: Factual, Conceptual, Procedural & Metacognitive 

Classified using Bloom Taxonomy 

Information consists of facts and data organized to describe a 

particular situation or condition 


Research on Knowledge 

Knowledge = Justified True Belief 


1/21/2011 


Understanding is the appreciation of "why“. 

It is an interpolative and probabilistic process. It is cognitive and 

analytical. It is the process by which I can take knowledge and 

synthesize new knowledge from the previously held knowledge. The 

difference between understanding and knowledge is the difference 

between "learning" and "memorizing". People who have 

understanding can undertake useful actions because they can 

synthesize new knowledge, or in some cases, at least new 

information, from what is previously known (and understood). That 

is, understanding can build upon currently held information, 

knowledge and understanding itself. 


Anthony Mills 


Wisdom is an extrapolative and non-deterministic, nonprobabilistic 

process. It calls upon all the previous levels of 

consciousness, and specifically upon special types of human 

programming (moral, ethical codes, etc.). It beckons to give us 

understanding about which there has previously been no 

understanding, and in doing so, goes far beyond understanding 

itself. It is the essence of philosophical probing. Unlike the previous 

four levels, it asks questions to which there is no (easilyachievable) 

answer, and in some cases, to which there can be no 

humanly-known answer period. Wisdom is therefore, the process 

by which we also discern, or judge, between right and wrong, good 

and bad. 


Anthony Mills 


1/21/2011 


Wisdom embodies more of an understanding of fundamental 

principles embodied within the knowledge that are essentially the 

basis for the knowledge being what it is. 

Wisdom is essentially systemic. 

Ex: It rains because it rains. And this encompasses an 

understanding of all the interactions that happen between raining, 

evaporation, air currents, temperature gradients, changes, and 

raining. 


Anthony Mills 


1/21/2011 


1/21/2011 


1/21/2011 


1/21/2011 



1/21/2011 


Philosophy - Epistemology 

Epistemology is the study of our method of acquiring 

knowledge. It answers the question, "How do we know?" It 

encompasses the nature of concepts, the constructing of 

concepts, the validity of the senses, logical reasoning, as well 

as thoughts, ideas, memories, emotions, and all things 

mental. It is concerned with how our minds are related to 

reality, and whether these relationships are valid or invalid 

Epistemology is the explanation of how we think. It is required 

in order to be able to determine the true from the false, by 

determining a proper method of evaluation. It is needed in 

order to use and obtain knowledge of the world around us. 


1. Our senses are valid, and the only way to gain information 

about the world. 

2. Reason is our method of gaining knowledge, and acquiring 


3. Logic is our method of maintaining consistency within our 

set of knowledge. 

4. Objectivity is our means of associating knowledge with 

reality to determine its validity. 

5. Concepts are abstracts of specific details of reality, or of 

other abstractions. A proper epistemology is a rational 

epistemology 

1/21/2011 



Reason to 

know & 

understand 

How do we know?? 

Gain info or Experience 

through our senses 

Use logic for 

consistency 


Epistemology: Study on Knowledge 

Old theory (static) 

K is absolute & permanent 

Intermediate 

K is relative & situation dependence 

Continuously developing & evolve 

Now (adaptive & active) 

K actively interfere with world, 

Objects & subjects 


1/21/2011 


Philosophy – Knowing 

vs Beliefs 

It is not necessary for every human to re-prove that 

Newton's motion formulas are accurate in macro 

physics, that the earth is not the center of the solar 

system, or that the city of Tokyo exists. The truth 

and accuracy of those premises have been 

proven and established in the body of recorded 

human knowledge. While most humans do not 

know these things are true based on personal 

experience, these things are knowable and known by 

others. It leads to faith in experts, authorities, and 

gurus. 


Philosophy 

Philosophy has been defined as the love of wisdom, the 

search for truth through reasoning, the quest for the 

reasons for our basic beliefs, as well as a discipline which 

comprises metaphysics, logic, ethics, epistemology, and 

aesthetics. 

Such definitions have their uses, of course, what philosophy really 

is only discovered by studying and doing it. As a first 

approximation, however, it may be said that philosophy is the 

critical examination of our most fundamental ideas about 

ourselves and the world. It asks questions such as the following: 

1/21/2011 


Philosophy – knowledge 


1/21/2011 


Let us start with the Greek philosophers. In Plato's view 

knowledge is merely an awareness of absolute, universal 

Ideas or Forms, Forms, 

existing independent of any subject 

trying to apprehend to them. them Though Aristotle puts more 

emphasis on logical and empirical methods for gathering 

knowledge, he still accepts the view that such knowledge is 

an apprehension of necessary and universal principles. 

Following the Renaissance, two main epistemological 

positions dominated philosophy: empiricism, which sees 

knowledge as the product of sensory perception, and 

rationalism which sees it as the product of rational reflection 



1/21/2011 



One of the most important goals of a university is to 

develop individuals who have advanced 

literacy skills in their discipline: discipline people who can 

participate effectively by critiquing information and ideas and 

by contributing with rigour and creativity to new insights and 

knowledge, who are self-aware as learners, and who are 

rhetorically versatile, confident communicators able to adapt 

and contribute to the demands of employment and life in a 

changing society and wider world. 


1/21/2011 


Can explain: explain provide thorough, supported, and justifiable 

accounts of phenomena, facts, and data. 

Can interpret: interpret tell meaningful stories; offer apt translations; 

provide a revealing historical or personal dimension to ideas 

and events; make it personal or accessible through images, 

anecdotes, analogies, and models. 

Can apply: apply effectively use and adapt what we know in 

diverse contexts. 

Have perspective: perspective see and hear points of view through 

critical eyes and ears; see the big picture. 



Can empathize: empathize find value in what others might find odd, 

alien, or implausible; perceive sensitively on the basis of prior 

direct experience. 

Have self-knowledge 

self knowledge: perceive the personal style, 

prejudices, projections, and habits of mind that both shape 

and impede our own understanding; we are aware of what 

we do not understand and why understanding is so hard 



1/21/2011 


Data is raw. It simply exists and has no significance beyond its 

existence (in and of itself). It can exist in any form, usable or not. It 

does not have meaning of itself. It represents a fact or statement of 

event without relation to other things. Ex: It is raining. 

Information is data that are processed to be useful; provides 

answers to "who", "what", "where", and "when" questions. It is data 

that has been given meaning by way of relational connection. This 

"meaning" can be useful, but does not have to be. Information 

embodies the understanding of a relationship of some sort, possibly 

cause and effect. Ex: The temperature dropped 15 degrees and 

then it started raining. 


Anthony Mills 


Knowledge is the application of data and information; answers 

"how" questions. It is the appropriate collection of information, such 

that it's intent is to be useful. Knowledge is a deterministic process. 

When someone "memorizes" information (as less-aspiring testbound 

students often do), then they have amassed knowledge. 

Knowledge represents a pattern that connects and generally 

provides a high level of predictability as to what is described or what 

will happen next. 

Ex: If the humidity is very high and the temperature drops 

substantially the atmospheres is often unlikely to be able to hold the 

moisture so it rains. 


Anthony Mills 


1/21/2011 


"Knowledge consists of facts, truths, and beliefs, perspectives and 

concepts, judgments and expectations, methodologies and know-how. 

Knowledge is accumulated and integrated and held over time to 

handle specific situations and challenges. 

Depth of Knowledge: Factual, Conceptual, Procedural & Metacognitive 

Classified using Bloom Taxonomy 

Information consists of facts and data organized to describe a 

particular situation or condition 





1/21/2011 


Understanding is the appreciation of "why“. 

It is an interpolative and probabilistic process. It is cognitive and 

analytical. It is the process by which I can take knowledge and 

synthesize new knowledge from the previously held knowledge. The 

difference between understanding and knowledge is the difference 

between "learning" and "memorizing". People who have 

understanding can undertake useful actions because they can 

synthesize new knowledge, or in some cases, at least new 

information, from what is previously known (and understood). That 

is, understanding can build upon currently held information, 

knowledge and understanding itself. 


Anthony Mills 


Wisdom is an extrapolative and non-deterministic, nonprobabilistic 

process. It calls upon all the previous levels of 

consciousness, and specifically upon special types of human 

programming (moral, ethical codes, etc.). It beckons to give us 

understanding about which there has previously been no 

understanding, and in doing so, goes far beyond understanding 

itself. It is the essence of philosophical probing. Unlike the previous 

four levels, it asks questions to which there is no (easilyachievable) 

answer, and in some cases, to which there can be no 

humanly-known answer period. Wisdom is therefore, the process 

by which we also discern, or judge, between right and wrong, good 

and bad. 


Anthony Mills 


1/21/2011 


Wisdom embodies more of an understanding of fundamental 

principles embodied within the knowledge that are essentially the 

basis for the knowledge being what it is. 

Wisdom is essentially systemic. 

Ex: It rains because it rains. And this encompasses an 

understanding of all the interactions that happen between raining, 

evaporation, air currents, temperature gradients, changes, and 

raining. 


Anthony Mills 



Knowledge: 

� Webster’s Definition: “Fact or condition of 

knowing something with familiarity gained 

through experience or association” 

� Something that is believed, true & reliable 

� Is Knowledge = Information?? 

� Information = data arranged in meaningful 

pattern 


1/21/2011 


Knowledge 

Knowledge is What is known by perceptual 

experience and reasoning. 

For example, 1234567.89 is data (fact); 

"Your bank balance has jumped 8087% to 

$1234567.89" is information; 

"Nobody owes me that much money" is knowledge; 

"I'd better talk to the bank before I spend it 

because of what has happened to other people" is 

wisdom. 




� Justified True Belief (JTB) 

1. P is true (p is proposition) 

2. S believes that p 

3. S is justified in believing P 


1/21/2011 





Philosophy 


Propositional Knowledge: Plato’s Plato s 

conviction 

� Knowledge ≠ Sense Perception 

� If I know something then it is something that I believe 

� What I know I must believe, & must be true 

� Knowledge = True Belief 

� Justified True Belief (JTB) 

1/21/2011 


“Universities Universities are full of knowledge, 

the freshmen bring 

a little in and the 

seniors take 

none away, and 

knowledge 

accumulates.” 

accumulates. 

Abbott Lowell 


1/21/2011 


1/21/2011 


1/21/2011 


1/21/2011 





(a) 9%, After:7% 

(b) 18%, After:17% 

(c) 21%, After:17% 

(d) 41%, After:37% 

(e) 12%, After:23% 


CRI=2,3 

Bef:61%, Aft:37% 

Bef:9%, Aft:10% 

Bef:15%, Aft:23% 

Bef:9%, Aft:13% 

Bef:6%, Aft:17% 

CRI=1,3 

1/21/2011 



Example 

(Phase Change Question) 


• CCI Item #10 

Two ice cubes are floating in water: 

After the ice melts, will the water level be: 

(A) higher? 

(B) lower? 

(C) the same? 

Commonsense belief is A: 65%. N=1235 

Scientific Belief is C: 27%. N=1235 



1/21/2011 


Ice 

Water 

94


Example 

(Conservation Question) 


CCI Item #12 

Iodine solid 

A 1.0-gram sample of solid iodine is placed in a tube and the 

tube is sealed after all of the air is removed. The tube and the 

solid iodine together weigh 27.0 grams. 

The tube is then heated until all of the iodine evaporates and 

the tube is filled with iodine gas. Will the weight after heating be 

(A) less than 26.0 grams (B) 26.0 grams 

(C) 27.0 grams (D) 28.0 grams 

(E) more than 28.0 grams 




Example 

(Solutions Question) 


CCI Item #20 

Salt is added to water and the 

mixture is stirred until no more salt 

dissolves. The salt that does not 

dissolve is allowed to settle out. 

What happens to the 

concentration of salt in solution if 

water evaporates until the volume 

of the solution is half the original 

volume? (Assume temperature 

remains constant.) 



CS; A: 44%. N=1238 

Sc; C: 32%. N=1238 

Solution Solution 

Half of 

the 

water 

evaporates 

1/21/2011 


Solid 

Salt 

(A) increases? 

(B) decreases? 

(C) stays the same? 

CS; A: 60%. N=1238 

Sc; C: 29%. N=1238 

95 

96

Wien’s Wien s 

Displacement Law 

But what is Knowledge?? 

Planck;s Law of blackbody radiation 

Total Power emitted by a black body 

Total Power emitted by a 

black body 

. 

Human body shielded by clothing: 

Tbody body = 301K, Tsurr surr = 305K,emissivity 

=1, Area = 2 m 2 

P = P − P 

Pnet = 95W 


1/21/2011 


net 

Reflection 

I( 

ν ) 

net 


2hν 

= 2 hν 

c 

kT 

emit 

absorb 

4 4 

( T T ) 

P = Aσε 

− 

body 

3 

e 

1 

−1 

surr

Philosophy - Metaphysics 

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy responsible for the 

study of existence. It is the foundation of a worldview. It 

answers the question "What is?" 

It encompasses everything that exists, as well as the nature 

of existence itself. It says whether the world is real, or merely 

an illusion. It is a fundamental view of the world around us 


Metaphysics is the foundation of philosophy. Without an 

explanation or an interpretation of the world around us, 

we would be helpless to deal with reality. We could not 

feed ourselves, or act to preserve our lives. The degree to 

which our metaphysical worldview is correct is the 

degree to which we are able to comprehend the world, 

and act accordingly. Without this firm foundation, all 

knowledge becomes suspect. Any flaw in our view of 

reality will make it more difficult to live 

1/21/2011 



Reality is absolute. It has a specific nature independent 

of our thoughts or feelings. The world around us is real. It 

has a specific nature and it must be consistent to that 

nature. A proper metaphysical worldview must aim to 

understand reality correctly. 

The physical world exists, and every entity has a specific 

nature. nature It acts according to that nature. When different 

entities interact, they do so according to the nature of 

both. Every action has a cause and an effect. Causality is 

the means by which change occurs, but the change 

occurs via a specific nature. 

ILS 

Composition 

On a sheet of paper, write the 

following: 

To me knowledge is…………………… 

is……………………. 


1/21/2011 


ILS 

ILS 

Midterm paper 

Title:“ Title: I believe that science is the only way to know the 

truth about why and how natural events are happening. “ 

•Length: Length: Body of text must be no less that 500 words 

& not to exceed 550 words. 

•Font: Font: Arial size 11. Paragraph spacing 1.5. 

•Margins: Margins: Body of text is 1-inch 1 inch all around on A4 

paper. It must contain an Introduction. The body of 

the text must have at least 4 arguments followed by a 

conclusion. Use the usual APA or science format 

when citing your sources in the body of the text. 


Midterm paper 

• First page must contain the title, your name, KP UiTM, 

your picture, Program, group, handphone number & 

email address. 

• The references (bibliography) page must be attached at 

the end as appendix 1. 

• Hard copies are due in my box, room 516, no later than 

September 4 th 2008. To send a digital copy, email your 

word file to fsg500@gmail.com with a message title 

FSG500 midterm “your your name” name & “your your group” group (example 

FSG500 midterm Asmah Saim ASB3F2). 

DO NOT ASK A FRIEND TO SEND IT FOR YOU!!! 

*Note that proof of sent is NOT proof of receipt. 

Date for Debate have been moved to after Hari Raya break 


1/21/2011 


End 

Closing Quotes 

Knowledge is power 

True Knowledge is an instrument for survival 

1/21/2011 


intrOductiOn Of knOwing me 

knOwing yOu

AAN 2010 (Pengajaran) Nomination. DR JJ, FSG, UiTM 

PERSONAL PERSONAL DETAILS DETAILS ABOUT 

ABOUT 

MYSELF 

MYSELF 

NAME NAME 

: AIZATUL AIZATUL AIDA BINTI BINTI KHAIROL ANNUAR ANNUAR 

ADDRESS ADDRESS 

: BLOCK 06 06-01 06 

01 01-02, 01 02, SRI SRI LANGKAWI LANGKAWI SATU, SATU, GOMBAK 

GOMBAK 

53100 KUALA LUMPUR 

AGE AGE 

: : 22 22 YEARS OLD OLD 

SEX SEX SEX 

: FEMALE 

MARITAL MARITAL STATUS STATUS : SINGLE 

NRIC NRIC 

: : 870128 870128-56 870128 

56 56-5254 56 5254 

MATRIC MATRIC MATRIC NO. NO. 

: 2009657 2009657428 

2009657 

428 

P.O.B P.O.B 

: Kuala Lumpur HOSPITAL 

D.O.B D.O.B 

: 28 28 TH JANUARY JANUARY 1987 1987 

1987 

NO.OF NO.OF SIBLINGS SIBLINGS : : 5 SIBLINGS. 1 1 SISTER AND 3 3 BROTHERS 

BROTHERS 

FATHER’S FATHER’S NAME NAME : : KHAIROL ANNUAR ANNUAR BIN HASSAN HASSAN 

MOTHER’S MOTHER’S NAME NAME : : AISAH BINTI KADIR 

Email: jjnita@salam.uitm.edu.my; HP: +60193551621 http://drjj.uitm.edu.my Page 1 of 6

MISSION MISSION & VISION VISION : 

: 


Becoming a scientist who specialize in food technologies or dietitian in 5 

years of time, where I can manage to handle things and solve the problem 

based on the scientific ways and facts. 

Miscellaneous: 

Miscellaneous: 

Physics and mathematics are both of the subjects that I like the most. The 

reason why I purposely preferred these subjects is simply because they both 

include a lot of calculations and formulas. By solving the problems that 

includes calculations and formulas, my mind keep thinking and active on 

the logical in order to find the correct answer for it. 

Biology is one example of the subject that I hard to handle. It is because this 

subject required much of readings and concentrations. 

Teaching Teaching methods methods if if I I teach teach in in in class: 

class: 

First, I will give more reading materials to all of my students. So, student 

easy to understands. 

Second, I will give more explanation and ask the student about the 

viewpoint in mixed languages. Sometimes, not student will understand 

every word that we talk to them. 

Listening Listening method method if if I I teach teach in in in class: 

class: 

I will talk laud & clear in order to attract the student to listen and 

concentrate while teaching still in progress. 

Eventually, by combining this method it will become a good teaching and 

listening method in the class and student will keep their focus & 

momentum on this subject. 



My expectation on this subject is I will get more information about 

philosophy of science like by Aristotle “If you ought to philosophize you 

ought to philosophize; and if you ought not to philosophize you ought to 

philosophize: therefore, in any case you ought to philosophize. For if 

philosophy exists, we certainly ought to philosophize, since it exists; and if it 

does not exist, in that case too we ought to inquire why philosophy does not 

exist -- and by inquiring we philosophize; for inquiry is the cause of 

philosophy." and by William Thomas etc. Besides, to get A’s in this subject 

and directly will increase our GPA. So, to get A’s in this subject I will 

attempt and done everything by myself. 



The name given is Farah ‘Alia bt. Mohd Suhaimi. For this FSG500 course, I have 

been registered under ASB3F1 group. I am in the Bachelor of Science in Food 

Technology and I am currently in Semester 3. You can call me Farah and my student ID 

is 2008401432. 

I had a vision which is to be a successful food technologist in the future and my 

mission is to struggle and achieve the best results in every course that I take. My current 

CGPA is 3.36. 

My hometown is in Ipoh. My father’s name is Mohd Suhaimi b. Mohd Hashim 

and he is a headmaster while Salmiah bt. Hj. Shafie is my mother working as a teacher. 

I have four siblings consist of two girls and two boys and I am the eldest daughter. 

The course that I learnt most is General Microbiology (MIC455) because there is 

a lot of things to be memorized while the course that I learnt least so far is Islamic and 

Malay Civilizations (CTU) because I think this course is quite boring. If I were given a 

chance to teach this subject, I will try to use different sources and ways of teaching to 

make sure that my students really understand and interested to learn more about the 

course. 

For this course, FSG500, of course I expect to pass with flying colours and I will 

try my best to take part in class and give full commitment towards it. 



PERSONAL DETAILS 

Mohd Nazri was born in a beautiful place called Felda Keratong 6 in Pahang. The 

fifth child of Abdul Hamed Bin Aini and Salmiah Binti Awang show excellence toward 

life survival during young age, due to life struggling of settler in felda during that time. 

So he shows really good survival skill of hunting, fishing and some other sort of being a 

settler’s boy. He had 8 siblings, 4 guys and 4 ladies. His first sister is married and 

working as a good teacher at Kuantan. His second sister who is working as a nurse in 

Melaka also married. His first brother is working as driver at Majlis Bandaraya Shah 

Alam, and married also. His second brother still study at UNIKL Bangi in Air 

Conditoner field. 

Being ‘Felda Boy’ doesn’t mean that his parent neglect his education, so at 1994, 

Mohd Nazri entered Tadika Felda Keratong as his parent’s choose it to be his 

preliminary school. Being a student, experience him to be more educated and well 

managed kid. He then further his primary education at Sekolah Kebangsaan Felda 

Keratong 6 in 1995 until 2000. Surviving there leads him to secondary school, known 

as Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Chanis. During his PMR exam in 2003, he score 

(3as 5bs) and further study as science student at standard 4 until he finish his SPM 

exam in 2005 with (4as 5bs 1cs), better result than never. 

As a foundation to do Degree in University, he were chosen to further study in 

physics science stream in Pahang Matriculation College for 1 year scheme. Right after 

finishing his study in matriculation, here in Universiti Teknologi Mara, he stood still as 

an Material Science Pre Graduate Successor. To be ‘safe’ in UITM, he join ROTU 

NAVY which provide the hostel until he finish his study, and the most important point, 

the allowance to survive in UITM. 



My name is Nik Kamarudin Ibrahim.My commercial name is “Nik X” which is 

in AS 230 (Bachelor of Science.Hons Materials Technology) in semester 5.My student 

ID is 2008288576 

I have my own vision and mission. My mission is to be an excellent student in 

every subject that I have taken, while my vision is to be a good person as a khalifah in 

this world. I am from intermediate family background. My father work as a farmer but 

my mother work as a full time housewife. Actually my CGPA now is 3.18. So far, I am 

trying to get dean list for this semester. 

In UiTM under Applied Sciences Faculty (FSG) I have taken AS 230. The course 

that I learnt more is physic but in the other side chemistry as a learnt least. For the 

justification why learning most and least because of technologist today need to more in 

application of physic especially when we are using any material in order to build any 

plan for building such as metal and alloy, concrete, polymers, ceramics and composites. 

If I am given an opportunity to teach the class, the method that I would like to use 

is discussion method with participated by all student in that class related to the any with 

important topic. From here we can push our intellectual to think about the issue. 

For FSG 500 subject, my expectation for this course is I would like to understand 

better about the concept of philosophy and how to relate with the evidence that 

happened in everyday life. As a result, we know how to adapt with our environment. 

When we are asked how to accomplish that expectation, I think I should take part in 

every discussion session in the class with guided by experience lecturer like Associate 

Professor Dr. Jaafar Jantan a.k.a. Dr. J.J.Thanks.. 


samples Of 10-minutes 

end-Of-class essay

leaRning gains 

& teaching 

effectiveness. 

standaRdized 

pRobing instRument

lawsOn reasOning test 

translated by drjj

16 

Disediakan oleh Dr. J.J. 

Applied Sciences Education Research 

Group, UiTM, Shah Alam 

Call: 03-55444593; H/P:019-355-1621 

Email: drjjlanita@hotmail.com 

Web:http://www2.uitm.edu.my/drjj/ 

UJIAN KEMAHIRAN PEMIKIRAN & 

PENTAAKULAN SAINS (LAWSON) 

(LAWSON’S SCIENTIFIC REASONING & 

THINKING SKILLS TEST) 

JANGAN MENJAWAB ATAU MENCONTENG 

PADA BUKU SOALAN INI 

JAWAB PADA KERTAS JAWAPAN 

MASA: 45 MINIT 

Dihasikan oleh: 

Anton E. Lawson, Ari- zona State University 

Revised Edition: August 2000. 

Terjemahan kontekstual dan susunan oleh: 

Prof. Madya Dr. Jaafar Jantan aka 

Dr. J.J. 

Applied Science Education Research Group (ASERG) 

Fakulti Sains Gunaan 

Universiti Teknologi MARA 


http://www2.uitm.edu.my/drjj/ 



Group, FSG, UiTM, Shah Alam 

Call: 03-55444593; H/P:019-355-1621 


Web:http://www2.uitm.edu.my/drjj/

2 

UJIAN KEMAHIRAN PEMIKIRAN & PENTA- 

AKULAN SAINS (LAWSON) 

SOALAN PELBAGAI PILIHAN 

Arahan Kepada Pelajar: 

Ujian ini bertujuan untuk mengenalpasti kemahiran anda untuk 

mentaakul dan berfikir secara saintifik dan matematik 

untuk menganalisis sesuatu situasi bagi tujuan membuat 

ramalan atau dalam penyelesaian masalah. Pada kertas 

jawapan yang disediakan, hitamkan dengan jelas jawapan 

yang paling sesuai yang anda pilih untuk setiap soalan. Hitamkan 

juga kotak yang bertanda CRI (Indeks Kepastian 

Respons) untuk setiap jawapan yang anda pilih. Sekiranya 

ada soalan yang tidak jelas anda bolehlah meminta penjelasan 

daripada pegawai yang bertugas di dalam bilik peperiksaan. 

JANGAN BUKA KERTAS SOALAN SEHINGGA ANDA 

DIARAHKAN BERBUAT DEMIKIAN 

Revised Edition: August 2000 by Anton E. Lawson, Arizona State University. 

Based on: Lawson, A.E. 1978. Development and validation of the classroom 

test of formal reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15 

(1): 11-24. 




Call: 03-55444593; H/P:019-355-1621 



15 




Call: 03-55444593; H/P:019-355-1621 



14 

Dua sebab mungkin mengakibatkan sel-sel darah menjadi lebih kecil: 

(i) Ion-ion garam (Na + dan Cl - ) menekan membran sel-sel darah dan 

membuatkan sel-sel darah nampak lebih kecil. 

(ii) Molekul-molekul air dalam sel-sel darah tertarik ke arah ion-ion 

garam lalu molekul-molekul air keluar daripada sel-sel darah 

sehingga menyebabkan sel-sel darah menjadi lebih kecil. 

Bagi menguji penjelasan-penjelasan ini, pelajar telah menggunakan 

sedikit air garam, satu alat penimbang yang sangat tepat dan beberapa 

kepingan beg plastik yang berisi air. Andaikan beg-beg plastik berisi 

air tersebut berkelakuan seperti membran sel-sel darah merah. Ujikaji 

yang dijalankan melibatkan menimbang beg plastik berisi air dengan 

amat teliti, merendam beg plastik tersebut ke dalam larutan garam 

selama sepuluh minit dan kemudian timbang semula beg plastik itu. 

Keputusan ujikaji manakah yang menunjukkan dengan jelas bahawa 

penjelasan (i) mungkin salah? 

a. Berat beg telah berkurang. 

b. Berat beg tidak berubah. 

c. Beg kelihatan lebih kecil. 

24. Keputusan ujikaji manakah yang menunjukkan dengan jelas bahawa 

penjelasan (ii) mungkin salah? 

a. Berat beg telah berkurang. 

b. Berat beg tidak berubah. 

c. Beg kelihatan lebih kecil. 

TAMAT 




Call: 03-55444593; H/P:019-355-1621 



1. Anda diberi dua biji bebola tanah liat yang mempunyai saiz dan bentuk 

yang serupa. Berat kedua-dua bebola tanah liat tersebut adalah sama. 

Salah satu daripada bebola tadi ditekan menjadi kepingan leper seperti 

roti canai. Manakah di antara pernyataan-pernyataan di bawah adalah 

benar? 

3 

a. Kepingan berbentuk leper seperti roti canai adalah lebih berat 

daripada yang berbentuk bola. 

b. Kedua-duanya sama berat. 

c. Bentuk bebola adalah lebih berat daripada kepingan lyang 

dileperkan 

2. Jawapan di atas dipilih kerana 

a. Kepingan yang ditekan memenuhi ruang yang lebih luas. 

b. Bebola memberi tekanan lebih banyak ke atas sesuatu kawasan 

atau ruang. 

c. Tanah liat tidak ditambah atau dikurangkan. 

d. Apabila sesuatu objek di leperkan beratnya akan bertambah. 

3. Gambar dalam Rajah 1 mewakili dua silinder yang mempunyai bentuk 

dan saiz yang sama. Kedua-dua silinder tersebut mengandungi jumlah 

Rajah 1 




Call: 03-55444593; H/P:019-355-1621 



4 

air yang sama banyaknya. Apabila sebiji guli kaca di jatuhkan dan di 

biarkan tenggelam di dalam Silinder 1, paras air dalam silinder 1 

meningkat hingga ke aras-6 silinder tersebut. 

Sekiranya sebiji bebola besi yang sama saiz tetapi lebih berat dari 

bebola kaca dijatuhkan ke dalam silinder 2, air dalam silinder tersebut 

akan naik 

a. ke aras yang sama dengan Silinder 1. 

b. ke aras yang lebih tinggi daripada Silinder 1. 

c. ke aras yang lebih rendah daripada Silinder 1. 


a Guli besi akan tenggelam lebih cepat. 

b. Guli-guli tersebut diperbuat daripada bahan-bahan berlainan. 

c. Guli besi lebih berat daripada guli kaca. 

d. Guli kaca menghasilkan tekanan lebih rendah. 

e. Kedua-dua guli bersaiz sama. 

5. Rajah 2a menunjukkan sebuah 

silinder lebar dan sebuah silinder 

tirus. Kedua-dua silinder tersebut 

mempunyai senggatan yang sama 

jarak (jarak antara setiap tanda 

adalah sama). Apabila air dituang 

ke dalam silinder yang lebar ianya 

naik sehingga ke aras-4. Apabila air 

dari silinder lebar tadi dituangkan 

pula ke dalam silinder tirus, air 

dalam silinder tirus naik sehingga ke 

aras-6 seperti yang ditunjukkan dalam 

Rajah 2b. Kedua-dua silinder kemudiannya 

dikosongkan (tidak ditunjukkan). 

Aktiviti yang dijelaskan tadi di ulang semula 

tetapi kali ini apabila air dituangkan ke 

dalam silinder lebar, air naik sehingga ke 

aras-6. Pada aras manakah air ini akan 

naik sekiranya ia dituangkan ke dalam 

silinder tirus yang kosong? 

a. Aras-8 

b. Aras-9 

c. Aras-10 

d. Aras-12 

e. Tiada satu pun jawapan yang betul. 




Rajah 2a 

Rajah 2b 

Call: 03-55444593; H/P:019-355-1621 



22. Keputusan ujian yang manakah (sebagaimana yang dinyatakan dalam 

item 21 ) akan menunjukkan penjelasan anda mungkin salah? 

13 

a Paras air naik ke aras yang sama seperti sebelumnya. 

b. Paras air naik ke aras yang lebih rendah daripada yang 

sebelumnya. 

c. Belon mengembang. 

d. Belon mengecut. 

23. Seorang pelajar menitiskan setitis darah ke atas slaid mikroskop dan 

memerhatikan darah tersebut di bawah mikroskop. Sebagaimana 

yang anda dapat perhatikan dalam Rajah 10a, sel darah merah yang 

dilihat melalui mikroskop nampak seperti bebola kecil. Selepas 

menitiskan beberapa titis air garam ke atas darah tersebut, pelajar 

tadi mendapati sel-sel darah merah kelihatan menjadi lebih kecil 

seperti yang ditunjukkan dalam Rajah 10b. 

Sel-sel darah merah 

Ujikaji ini menimbulkan satu persoalan yang menarik: Mengapakah selsel 

darah merah kelihatan lebih kecil? 




Sel-sel darah merah selepas dititiskan 

dengan air garam 

Rajah 10a Rajah 10b 

Call: 03-55444593; H/P:019-355-1621 



21. Rajah 9a menunjukkan sebiji gelas minuman dan sebatang lilin 

menyala yang dipacak di atas gumpalan tanah liat di dalam sebuah 

bekas berisi air. Apabila gelas minuman tersebut ditelangkupkan 

menutupi lilin di dalam bekas air, lilin yang sedang menyala terus 

padam dengan cepatnya sementara air pula naik dengan pantas ke 

dalam gelas seperti yang ditunjukkan dalam Rajah 9b. 

12 

Rajah 9a Rajah 9b 

Pemerhatian ini menimbulkan satu persoalan yang menarik: 

Mengapakah air naik dengan begitu pantas di dalam gelas? 

Penjelasan berikut mungkin boleh menjawab persoalan yang 

ditimbulkan: Pembakaran menukarkan oksigen kepada karbon 

dioksida. Oleh kerana oksigen tidak larut dengan cepat di dalam air 

sementara karbon dioksida pula larut dengan cepat maka karbon 

dioksida yang baru terbentuk itu larut dengan cepat di dalam air dan 

menyebabkan tekanan air dalam gelas menjadi rendah. 

Seandainya anda mempunyai bahan-bahan seperti di atas bersamasama 

dengan mancis dan beberapa ketulan ais kering (ais kering 

adalah karbon dioksida beku), bagaimanakah anda dapat menguji 

kesahihan penjelasan ini dengan hanya menggunakan semua bahanbahan 

yang diberikan? 

a. Tepu-kan air dengan karbon dioksida dan lakukan semula 

eksperimen dengan memerhatikan jumlah air yang naik ke dalam 

gelas minuman. 

b. Air naik kerana oksigen di dalam gelas telah digunakan. Maka 

lakukan semula eksperimen dengan cara yang serupa bagi 

menunjukkan air naik disebabkan oleh kehilangan oksigen. 

c. Jalankan satu eksperimen terkawal dengan hanya menambah 

bilangan lilin yang digunakan dan perhatikan jika penambahan ini 

menghasilkan keputusan yang berbeza. 

d Air naik disebabkan oleh proses sedutan. Oleh itu letakkan sebiji 

belon pada hujung sebelah atas satu silinder yang terbuka dan 

letakkan silinder tersebut di atas lilin yang sedang menyala. 

e. Ulang semula eskperimen tetapi pastikan semua pembolehubah 

bebas ditetapkan nilainya sebelum mengukur jumlah air yang naik 

ke dalam gelas minuman. 




Call: 03-55444593; H/P:019-355-1621 




5 

a. jawapan tidak dapat ditentukan berdasarkan maklumat yang 

diberi. 

b. air meningkat 2 aras dalam aktiviti sebelumnya, maka ia akan 

meningkat 2 aras lagi. 

c. air meningkat 3 aras dalam silinder tirus bagi setiap peningkatan 

2 aras dalam silinder lebar. 

d. silinder kedua lebih sempit. 

e. kita perlu menuang air tersebut dan memerhatikannya untuk 

mengetahuinya. 

7. Jika air yang dituang ke dalam silinder tirus naik sehingga ke aras-11, 

berapakah tinggi aras air sekiranya air daripada silinder tirus tadi 

dituangkan ke dalam silinder lebar yang kosong? 

a. Aras-9 

b. Aras-8 

c. Aras-7½ 

d. Aras-7⅓ 

e. Semua jawapan di atas adalah salah 


a. nisbahnya mestilah kekal sama. 

b. kita perlu tuang air tersebut dan memerhatikannya bagi mendapat 

jawapan. 

c. jawapan tidak dapat ditentukan berdasarkan maklumat yang 

diberi. 

d. ia kurang sebanyak 2 aras dalam aktiviti sebelumnya maka 

semestinyalah ia akan kurang 2 aras sekali lagi. 

e. anda mengurangkan 2 aras daripada silinder lebar bagi setiap 

pengurangan 3 aras daripada silinder tirus. 




Call: 03-55444593; H/P:019-355-1621 



9. Rajah 3 menunjukkan tiga utas 

tali yang digantung dari 

sebatang besi. Panjang Tali 1 

dan Tali 3 adalah sama 

sementara Tali 2 pula lebih 

pendek daripada Tali I dan Tali 

3. Penghujung Tali 1 dan Tali 2 

d i i k a t k a n d e n g a n s a t u 

pemberat 10-unit masingm 

a s i n g n y a s e m e n t a r a 

penghujung Tali 3 pula 

diikatkan dengan pemberat 5unit. 

Ketiga -tiga sistem 

pemberat-tali boleh diayun ke 

depan dan ke belakang dan 

masa yang diambil untuk 

membuat satu ayunan lengkap boleh ditentukan. 

a 

6 

Seandainya anda hendak mengetahui samada panjang tali memberi 

kesan ke atas masa yang diambil untuk ia berayun ke depan dan ke 

belakang, tali manakah yang akan anda gunakan untuk mencari 

jawapannya? 

a. Hanya satu tali. d. Tali 1 dan Tali 3. 

b. Ketiga-tiga tali. e. Tali 1 dan Tali 2. 

c. Tali 2 dan Tali 3. 





Rajah 3 

a. anda mestilah menggunakan tali yang paling panjang. 

b. anda mestilah membandingkan tali-tali yang diikatkan kepada 

pemberat yang ringan dan pemberat yang berat. 

c. hanya panjangnya sahaja yang berbeza. 

d. semua perbandingan yang mungkin perlulah dilakukan. 

e. beratnya berbeza. 

11. Dua puluh ekor lalat buah-buahan (lalat-lalat kecil yang biasa 

menghurung buah-buahan) diletakkan ke dalam setiap tiub kaca yang 

ditunjukkan dalam Rajah 4. Kesemua tiub-tiub tersebut ditutup rapat 

supaya tiada lalat yang boleh keluar atau memasuki tiub-tiub. Tiub I 

dan Tiub II dibalut separuh dengan kertas berwarna hitam sementara 

Tiub III dan Tiub IV tidak dibalut. Tiub-tiub tersebut diletakkan dalam 

kedudukan sebagaimana yang ditunjukkan dalam Rajah 4 dan 

kemudian didedahkan kepada sinaran berwarna merah selama lima 

minit. Bilangan lalat pada bahagian tiub yang tidak dibalut bagi setiap 

tiub adalah seperti yang ditunjukkan dalam Rajah 4. 

Call: 03-55444593; H/P:019-355-1621 



19. Encik Jantan ialah seorang petani yang membuat pemerhatian ke atas 

tikus-tikus yang ada di ladangnya. Dia mendapati tikus-tikus tersebut 

ada yang gemuk dan ada juga yang kurus. Tikus- tikus tersebut juga 

ada yang berekor hitam dan ada yang berekor putih. Ini 

membuatkannya beliau tertanya-tanya sama ada terdapat perkaitan 

diantara saiz tikus dan warna ekor tikus-tikus tersebut. Oleh itu dia 

telah menangkap kesemua tikus-tikus yang berada di salah satu 

kawasan di ladangnya dan membuat pemerhatian terhadap tikus-tikus 

tersebut. Rajah 8 menunjukkan tikus-tikus yang ditangkapnya. 

11 

Pada pendapat anda, adakah terdapat perkaitan diantara saiz tikus 

dan warna ekor mereka? 

a. Ada menampakkan perkaitan. 

b. Tiada menampakkanperkaitan. 

c. Tidak dapat membuat tekaan yang munasabah. 


Rajah 8 

a. ada beberapa ekor tikus bagi setiap jenis tikus. 

b. mungkin terdapat perkaitan genetik antara saiz tikus dan warna 

ekor. 

c. tikus-tikus yang ditangkap tidak mencukupi. 

d. kebanyakan tikus gemuk mempunyai ekor berwarna hitam 

manakala kebanyakan tikus kurus pula mempunyai ekor berwarna 

putih. 

e. apabila tikus bertambah gemuk warna ekornya semakin gelap. 




Call: 03-55444593; H/P:019-355-1621 



17. Rajah 7 menunjukkan tiga kepingan kayu segi empat tepat berwarna 

merah (R), empat kepingan segi empat tepat berwarna kuning (Y) dan 

lima kepingan segi empat tepat berwarna biru (B) yang dimasukkan ke 

dalam sebuah beg kain. Rajah 7 juga menunjukkan empat kepingan 

kayu bulat berwarna merah (R), dua kepingan kayu bulat berwarna 

kuning (Y), dan tiga kepingan kayu bulat berwarna biru (B) yang 

dimasukkan ke dalam beg yang sama. Kesemua kepingan-kepingan 

tersebut dicampuradukkan. Seandainya seseorang menyeluk ke dalam 

beg (tanpa melihat atau merasa bentuk sesebuah kepingan) dan 

mengeluarkan satu kepingan, apakah kebarangkalian kepingan yang 

dikeluarkan itu kepingan kayu bulat berwarna merah atau kepingan 

kayu bulat berwarna biru? 

10 

a. tidak dapat ditentukan 

b. 1 daripada 3 

c. 1 daripada 21 

d 15 daripada 21 

e. 1 daripada 2 


Rajah 7 

a. 1 daripada 2 kepingan berbentuk bulat. 

b. 15 daripada 21 kepingan berwarna biru. 

c. tidak ada cara yang dapat memberitahu kita kepingan manakah 

yang akan dipilih. 

d. hanya 1 daripada 21 kepingan dikeluarkan daripada beg. 

e. 1 bagi setiap 3 kepingan adalah kepingan bulat merah atau 

kepingan bulat biru. 




Call: 03-55444593; H/P:019-355-1621 



7 

Eksperimen ini menunjukkan bahawa lalat bertindakbalas 

(bertindakbalas bermakna menjauhi atau mendekati): 

a. kepada sinaran berwarna merah dan bukannya kepada graviti. 

b. kepada graviti dan bukannya kepada sinaran berwarna merah. 

c. kepada sinaran berwarna merah dan juga kepada graviti. 

d. bukan kepada sinaran berwarna merah dan tidak juga kepada 

graviti. 


Sinaran berwarna merah 

a. kebanyakan lalat berada pada bahagian atas Tiub III tetapi sama 

bilangannya pada kedua-dua bahagian dalam Tiub II. 

b kebanyakan lalat tidak pergi ke bahagian bawah dalam Tiub I dan 

dalam Tiub III. 

c. lalat perlu melihat cahaya dan mesti terbang melawan graviti. 

d. kebanyakan lalat berada pada bahagian atas dan pada bahagian 

tiub yang menerima cahaya. 

e. sesetengah lalat berada pada kedua-dua bahagian setiap tiub. 




Sinaran berwarna merah 

Rajah 4 

Call: 03-55444593; H/P:019-355-1621 



13. Dalam eksperimen kedua, lalat yang berlainan jenis dan sinaran 

berwarna biru pula digunakan. Keputusannya ditunjukkan dalam Rajah 

5: 

8 

Data ini menunjukkan bahawa lalat bertindakbalas (bertindakbalas 

bermakna menjauhi atau mendekati): 

a. kepada sinaran berwarna biru dan bukannya kepada graviti. 

b. kepada graviti dan bukannya kepada sinaran berwarna biru. 

c. kepada sinaran berwarna biru dan juga kepada graviti. 

d. bukan kepada sinaran berwarna biru dan tidak juga kepada 

graviti. 


a. kebanyakan lalat berada pada kedua-dua hujung dalam setiap 

tiub. 

b. lalat perlu melihat cahaya dan mesti terbang melawan graviti. 

c. bilangan lalat terbahagi sama rata dalam Tiub IV dan pada 

bahagian atas Tiub III. 

d. kebanyakan lalat berada pada bahagian bercahaya Tiub II tetapi 

tidak turun ke bawah dalam Tiub I dan Tiub III. 

e. kebanyakan lalat berada pada bahagian atas Tiub I dan bahagian 

bercahaya Tiub II. 




Sinaran berwarna biru 

Sinaran berwarna biru 

Rajah 5 

Call: 03-55444593; H/P:019-355-1621 



15. Enam kepingan kayu berbentuk segi empat 

tepat dilmasukkan ke dalam sebuah beg kain 

dan dicampurkan seperrti dalam Rajah 6. 

Kesemua kepingan kayu tersebut 

mempunyai bentuk dan saiz yang sama 

tetapi tiga daripada kepingan kayu berwarna merah 

(R) dan tiga lagi berwarna kuning (Y) Seandainya 

Rajah 6 

seseorang menyeluk ke dalam beg dan mengambil (tanpa melihat) 

satu kepingan dari dalam beg tersebut apakah kebarangkalian 

kepingan yang dikeluarkan itu berwarna merah? 

9 

a. 1 daripada 8. 

b. 1 daripada 3. 

c. 1 daripada 2. 

d. 1 daripada 1. 

e. tidak dapat ditentukan. 


a. 3 daripada 6 kepingan dalam beg tersebut berwarna merah. 

b. tidak ada cara untuk mengetahui kepingan manakah yang akan 

dipilih. 

c. hanya 1 sahaja daripada 6 kepingan dalam beg yang boleh dipilih. 

d. kesemua enam kepingan sama saiz dan bentuknya. 

e. hanya satu kepingan merah sahaja yang boleh dipilih daripada 3 

kepingan merah. 




Call: 03-55444593; H/P:019-355-1621 



KERTAS JAWAPAN OBJEKTIF 

KEMAHIRAN PEMIKIRAN dan PENTAAKULAN SAINS (LAWSON) 

Hitamkan jawapan anda dengan menggunakan pensil 2B. 

Pastikan hanya SATU jawapan sahaja ditandakan untuk setiap soalan. 

Pada kotak sebelah kanan, isikan dengan nilai antara 1-5 jika jawapan anda 

berdasarkan kepada pengetahuan anda atau pun nilai 0 jika anda langsung tak 

tahu. 5=Sangat Pasti; 4=Pasti; 3=Hampir pasti; 2=Tak Pasti; 1=Agak-agak sahaja; 

0=Langsung Tak Tahu 

KEMAHIRAN PEMIKIRAN & PENTAAKULAN SAINS (LAWSON) 

1 = A = = B = = C = 

2 = A = = B = = C = = D = = E = 

3 = A = = B = = C = 

4 = A = = B = = C = = D = = E = 

5 = A = = B = = C = = D = = E = 

6 = A = = B = = C = = D = = E = 

7 = A = = B = = C = = D = = E = 

8 = A = = B = = C = = D = = E = 

9 = A = = B = = C = = D = = E = 

10 = A = = B = = C = = D = = E = 

11 = A = = B = = C = = D = 

12 = A = = B = = C = = D = = E = 

13 = A = = B = = C = = D = 

14 = A = = B = = C = = D = = E = 

15 = A = = B = = C = = D = = E = 

16 = A = = B = = C = = D = = E = 

17 = A = = B = = C = = D = = E = 

18 = A = = B = = C = = D = = E = 

19 = A = = B = = C = 

20 = A = = B = = C = = D = = E = 

21 = A = = B = = C = = D = = E = 

22 = A = = B = = C = = D = 

23 = A = = B = = C = 

24 = A = = B = = C = 

Disediakan oleh Prof Madya Dr. J.J. 

Applied Sciences Education Research Group, FSG, UiTM, Shah Alam 

CRI 

Call: 03-5544-4593; H/P: 019-355-1621 

email: jjnita@salam.uitm.edu.my 

http://drjj.uitm.edu.my

lawsOn reasOning test (Original) 

& 

its article

16 

QUOTES 

"Education, we see, is not merely gaining knowledge 

or skills helpful toward productive work, though 

certainly that is a part of it. Rather it is a replenishment 

and an expansion of the natural thirst of the 

mind and soul. Learning is a gradual process of 

growth, each step building upon the other. It is a 

process whereby the learner organizes and integrates 

not only facts but attitudes and values. The Lord has 

told us that we must open our minds and our hearts 

to learn. There is a Chinese proverb: Wisdom is as 

the moon rises, perceptible not in progress but in 

result. As our knowledge is converted to wisdom, 

the door to opportunity is unlocked." 

Barbara W. Winder 

“It is not what we see and touch or that which others 

do for us which makes us happy; it is that which 

we think and feel and do, first for the other fellow 

and then for ourselves. “ 

Helen Keller 1880 

Prepared by Dr. J.J. 



Call: 03-55444593; H/P:019-355-1621 



(LAWSON’S SCIENTIFIC 

REASONING & THINKING SKILLS 

TEST) 

DO NOT MAKE ANY MARKS ON 

THIS QUESTION BOOKLET 

ANSWER ON THE ASNWER SHEET PROVIDED 

TIME: 45 MINUTES 

Developed by: 

Anton E. Lawson, Arizona State University 

Revised Edition: August 2000. 

Typesetting & graphics re-labeling by: 

Associate Professor Dr. Jaafar Jantan 

aka Dr. J.J. 

Applied Science Education Research Group (ASERG) 

Faculty of Applied Sciences 

Universiti Teknologi MARA 


http://www2.uitm.edu.my/drjj/ 




Call: 03-55444593; H/P:019-355-1621 



2 

LAWSON’S CLASSROOM TEST OF 

SCIENTIFIC REASONING & THINKING SKILLS 

Multiple Choice Version 

Directions to Students: 

This is a test of your ability to apply aspects of scientific 

and mathematical reasoning to analyze a situation to 

make a prediction or solve a problem. Indicate, on the 

answer sheet the best answer you choose for each 

question by making ONLY ONE dark mark. In addition, 

mark also the CRI (Certainty Response Index) for each 

response you give to indicate your certainty in the answer 

you give for each question. If you do not fully understand 

what is being asked in an item, please ask the 

test administrator for clarification. 

DO NOT OPEN THIS BOOKLET UNTIL YOU ARE 

TOLD TO DO SO 

Revised Edition: August 2000 by Anton E. Lawson, Arizona State University. 

Based on: Lawson, A.E. 1978. Development and validation of the classroom 

test of formal reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15 

(1): 11-24. 




Call: 03-55444593; H/P:019-355-1621 



15 

This observation raises an interesting question: Why do 

the red blood cells appear smaller? 

Here are two possible explanations: 

(i) The salt ions (Na + and Cl - ) push on the cell membranes 

and make the cells appear smaller. 

(ii) Water molecules are attracted to the salt ions so the 

water molecules move out of the cells hence causing 

the cells to become smaller. 

In order to test these explanations, the student used 

some salt water, a very accurate weighing device, and 

some water-filled plastic bags. Assume that the plastic 

behaves just like red-blood-cell membranes. The experiment 

involved carefully weighing a water-filled bag, placing 

it in a salt solution for ten minutes, and then reweighing 

the bag. 

What result of the experiment would best show that explanation 

(i) is probably wrong? 

a. The bag loses weight. 

b. The bag weighs the same. 

c. The bag appears smaller. 

24. What result of the experiment would best show that explanation 

(ii) is probably wrong? 

a. The bag loses weight. 

b. The bag weighs the same. 

c. The bag appears smaller. 

THE END 




Call: 03-55444593; H/P:019-355-1621 



14 

a. Saturate the water with carbon dioxide and re-do the 

experiment noting the amount of water rise. 

b. The water rises because oxygen is consumed, so redo 

the experiment in exactly the same way to show 

water rise is due to oxygen loss. 

c. Conduct a controlled experiment varying only the 

number of candles to see if that makes a difference. 

d. Suction is responsible for the water rise, so put a 

balloon over the top of an open-ended cylinder and 

place the cylinder over the burning candle. 

e. Re-do the experiment, but make sure it is controlled 

by holding all independent variables constant; then 

measure the amount of water rise. 

22. What result of your test (mentioned in #21) would show 

that your explanation is probably wrong? 

a. The water rises to the same level as it did before. 

b. The water rises less than it did before. 

c. The balloon expands out. 

d. The balloon is sucked in. 

23. A student put a drop of blood on a microscope slide and 

then looked at the blood under a microscope. As you 

can see in the Figure 10a, the magnified red blood cells 

look like little round balls. After adding a few drops of 

salt water to the drop of blood, the student noticed that 

the cells appeared to become smaller as shown in Figure 

10b. 

Magnified red blood 




Magnified red blood cells 

after adding salt water 

Figure 10a Figure 10b 

Call: 03-55444593; H/P:019-355-1621 



1. Suppose you are given two clay balls of equal size and 

shape. The two clay balls also weigh the same. One 

ball is flattened into a pancake-shaped piece. Which of 

these statements is correct? 

3 

a. The pancake-shaped piece weighs more than the 

ball. 

b. The two pieces still weigh the same. 

c. The ball weighs more than the pancake-shaped 

piece. 

2. This is because 

a. the flattened piece covers a larger area. 

b. the ball pushes down more on one spot. 

c. when something is flattened it loses weight. 

d. clay has not been added or taken away. 

e. when something is flattened it gains weight. 

3. Figure 1 shows a 

drawing of two cylinders 

filled to the 

same level, with 

water. The cylinders 

are identical in 

size and shape. 




Glass marble Steel marble 

6 

Cylinder 1 Cylinder 2 

Figure 1 

Call: 03-55444593; H/P:019-355-1621 



4 

Also shown in Figure 1 are two marbles, one glass and 

one steel. The marbles are the same size but the steel 

one is much heavier than the glass one. 

When the glass marble is put into Cylinder 1 it sinks to the 

bottom and the water level rises to the 6 th mark. If we put 

the steel marble into Cylinder 2, the water will rise 

a. to the same level as it did in Cylinder 1. 

b. to a higher level than it did in Cylinder 1. 

c. to a lower level than it did in Cylinder 1. 


a. the steel marble will sink faster. 

b. the marbles are made of different materials. 

c. the steel marble is heavier than the glass marble. 

d. the glass marble creates less pressure.. 

e. the marbles are the same size. 

5. Figure 2a shows a drawing of a wide and a narrow cylinder. 

The cylinders have equally spaced marks on them. 

Water is poured into the wide cylinder up to the 4 th mark. 

When water from the wide cylinder is poured into the narrow 

cylinder, the water rises to the 6 th mark as shown in 

Figure 2b. 





Call: 03-55444593; H/P:019-355-1621 



21. Figure 9a shows a drinking glass and a burning birthday 

candle stuck in a small piece of clay standing in a pan of 

water. When the glass is turned upside down, put over 

the candle, and placed in the water, the candle quickly 

goes out and water rushes up into the glass as shown in 

Figure 9b. 

13 


This observation raises an interesting question: Why 

does the water rush up into the glass? 

Here is a possible explanation: 

The flame converts oxygen into carbon dioxide. Since 

oxygen does not dissolve rapidly into water but carbon 

dioxide does, the newly formed carbon dioxide dissolves 

rapidly into the water and lowers the air pressure inside 

the glass. 

Suppose you have the materials mentioned above plus 

some matches and some dry ice (dry ice is frozen carbon 

dioxide). Using some or all of the materials, how 

could you test this possible explanation? 




Call: 03-55444593; H/P:019-355-1621 



12 

This made him wonder if there might be a link between 

the size of the mice and the color of their tails. So he 

captured all of the mice in one part of his field and observed 

them. Figure 8 shows the mice that he captured. 

Do you think there is a link between the size of the mice 

and the color of their tails? 

a. Appears to be a link. 

b. Appears not to be a link. 

c. Cannot make a reasonable guess. 


Figure 8 

a. there are some of each kind of mouse. 

b. there may be a genetic link between mouse size and 

tail color. 

c. there were not enough mice captured. 

d. most of the fat mice have black tails while most of 

the thin mice have white tails. 

e. as the mice grew fatter, their tails became darker. 




Call: 03-55444593; H/P:019-355-1621 



5 

Both cylinders are emptied (not shown) and water is 

poured into the wide cylinder up to the 6 th mark. How 

high would this water rise if it was poured into the empty 

narrow cylinder? 

a. to the 8 th mark. 

b. to the 9 th mark. 

c. to the 10 th mark. 

d. to the 12 th mark. 

e. none of these answers is correct. 


a. the answer cannot be determined with the information 

given. 

b. it went up 2 more before, so it will go up 2 more 

again. 

c. it goes up 3 in the narrow for every 2 in the wide. 

d. the second cylinder is narrower. 

e. one must actually pour the water and observe to find 

out. 

7. Water is now poured into the narrow cylinder (described 

in Item 5 above) up to the 11 th mark. How high would 

this water rise if it were poured into the empty wide cylinder? 

a. to the 9 th mark. 

b. to the 8 th mark. 

c. to the 7½ mark. 

d. to the 7⅓ mark. 

e. none of these answers is correct. 




Call: 03-55444593; H/P:019-355-1621 




6 

a. the ratios must stay the same. 

b. one must actually pour the water and observe to find 

out. 

c. the answer cannot be determined with the information 

given. 

d. it was 2 less before so it will be 2 less again. 

e. you subtract 2 from the wide for every 3 from the 

narrow. 

9. Figure 3 shows a drawing of three strings hanging from a 

bar. The three strings have metal weights attached to 

their ends. String 1 and String 3 are the same length. 

String 2 is shorter. A 10-unit weight is attached to the 

end of String 1. A 10-unit weight is also attached to the 

end of String 2. A 5-unit weight is attached to the end of 

String 3. The strings (and attached weights) can be 

swung back and forth and the time it takes to make a 

swing can be timed. 

Suppose you want to find out whether the length of the 

string has an effect on the time it takes to swing back and 

forth. Which strings would you use to find out? 

a. Only one string. 

b. All three strings. 

c. 2 and 3. 

d. 1 and 3. 

e. 1 and 2. 




Call: 03-55444593; H/P:019-355-1621 



17. Three red square pieces of wood, four yellow square 

pieces, and five blue square pieces are put into a cloth 

bag. Four red round pieces, two yellow round pieces, 

and three blue round pieces are also put into the bag. 

All the pieces are then mixed about. Suppose someone 

reaches into the bag (without looking and without feeling 

for a particular shape piece) and pulls out one piece. 

11 

What are the chances that the piece is a red round or a 

blue round piece? 

a. Cannot be determined. 

b. 1 chance out of 3. 

c. 1 chance out of 21. 

d. 15 chances out of 21. 

e. 1 chance out of 2. 


a. 1 of the 2 shapes is round. 

b. 15 of the 21 pieces are red or blue. 

c. there is no way to tell which piece will be picked. 

d. only 1 of the 21 pieces is picked out of the bag. 

e. 1 of every 3 pieces is a red or blue round piece. 

19. Farmer Brown was observing the mice that live in his 

field. He discovered that all of the mice were either fat or 

thin. Also, all of them had either black tails or white tails. 




Figure 7 

Call: 03-55444593; H/P:019-355-1621 



15. Six square pieces of wood as shown in Figure 6 are put 

into a cloth bag and mixed about. The six pieces are 

identical in size and shape. However, three pieces are 

red and three are yellow. Suppose someone reaches 

into the bag (without looking) and pulls out one piece. 

10 

What are the chances that the piece is red? 

a. 1 chance out of 6. 

b. 1 chance out of 3. 

c. 1 chance out of 2. 

d. 1 chance out of 1. 

e. cannot be determined. 


Figure 6 

a. 3 out of 6 pieces are red. 

b. there is no way to tell which piece will be picked. 

c. only 1 piece out of the 6 in the bag is picked. 

d. all 6 pieces are identical in size and shape. 

e. only 1 red piece can be picked out of the 3 red 

pieces. 




Call: 03-55444593; H/P:019-355-1621 




7 

Figure 3 

a. you must use the longest strings. 

b. you must compare strings with both light and heavy 

weights. 

c. only the lengths differ. 

d. to make all possible comparisons. 

e. the weights differ. 

11. Twenty fruit flies are placed in each of four glass tubes. 

The tubes are sealed. Tubes I and II are partially covered 

with black paper while Tubes III and IV are not covered. 

The tubes are placed as shown in Figure 4. All the tubes 

are exposed to red light for five minutes. The number of 

flies in the uncovered part of each tube is shown in Figure 

4. 




Call: 03-55444593; H/P:019-355-1621 



8 

Red Light 

This experiment shows that flies respond to (respond 

means move to or away from): 

a. red light but not gravity. 

b. gravity but not red light. 

c. both red light and gravity. 

d. neither red light nor gravity. 


a. most flies are in the upper end of Tube III but spread 

about evenly in Tube II. 

b. most flies did not go to the bottom of Tubes I and III. 

c. the flies need light to see and must fly against gravity. 

d. the majority of flies are in the upper ends and in the 

lighted ends of the tubes. 

e. some flies are in both ends of each tube. 




Red Light 

Figure 4 

Call: 03-55444593; H/P:019-355-1621 



13. In a second experiment, a different kind of fly and blue 

light was used instead of the red light. The results are 

shown in Figure 5. 

9 

These data show that the flies respond to (respond 

means move to or away from): 

a. blue light but not gravity. 

b. gravity but not blue light. 

c. both blue light and gravity. 

d. neither blue light nor gravity. 


Blue light 

a. some flies are in both ends of each tube. 

b. the flies need light to see and must fly against gravity. 

c. the flies are spread about evenly in Tube IV and in 

the upper end of Tube III. 

d. most flies are in the lighted end of Tube II but do not 

go down in Tubes I and III. 

e. most flies are in the upper end of Tube I and the 

lighted end of Tube II. 




Blue light 

Figure 5 

Call: 03-55444593; H/P:019-355-1621 



MULITPLE-CHOICE ANSWER SHEET 

LAWSON'S SCIENTIFIC THINKING and REASONING SKILLS 

Ensure that you DARKEN ONLY ONE choice for each question by using a 2B pencil. 

On the box to the far right in the CRI column, fill-in the numbers corresponding to how 

certain your answer is for each question. Use the following scale to indicate certainty. 

5=Very certain; 4=Certain; 3=Almost Certain; 2=Not Certain; 1=Guessing only; 

0=No idea at all. 

LAWSON SCIENCE REASONING & THINKING SKILLS 

1 = A = = B = = C = 

2 = A = = B = = C = = D = = E = 

3 = A = = B = = C = 

4 = A = = B = = C = = D = = E = 

5 = A = = B = = C = = D = = E = 

6 = A = = B = = C = = D = = E = 

7 = A = = B = = C = = D = = E = 

8 = A = = B = = C = = D = = E = 

9 = A = = B = = C = = D = = E = 

10 = A = = B = = C = = D = = E = 

11 = A = = B = = C = = D = 

12 = A = = B = = C = = D = = E = 

13 = A = = B = = C = = D = 

14 = A = = B = = C = = D = = E = 

15 = A = = B = = C = = D = = E = 

16 = A = = B = = C = = D = = E = 

17 = A = = B = = C = = D = = E = 

18 = A = = B = = C = = D = = E = 

19 = A = = B = = C = 

20 = A = = B = = C = = D = = E = 

21 = A = = B = = C = = D = = E = 

22 = A = = B = = C = = D = 

23 = A = = B = = C = 

24 = A = = B = = C = 

Lawson Answersheet 120109.XLS 

Prepared by Assoc. Prof. Dr. J.J. 

Applied Sciences Education 

Research Group, FSG, UiTM, Shah Alam 

CRI 

Call: 03-5544-4593; H/P: 019-355-1621 

email: jjnita@salam.uitm.edu.my 

http://drjj.uitm.edu.my

ANTONE E. LAWSON 

THE NATURE AND DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENTIFIC REASONING: 

A SYNTHETIC VIEW 

ABSTRACT. This paper presents a synthesis of what is currently known about the nature 

and development of scientific reasoning and why it plays a central role in acquiring scientific 

literacy. Science is viewed as a hypothetico-deductive (HD) enterprise engaging in the 

generation and test of alternative explanations. Explanation generation and test requires 

the use of several key reasoning patterns and sub-patterns. Reasoning at the highest level 

is complicated by the fact that scientific explanations generally involve the postulation of 

non-perceptible entities, thus arguments used in their test require sub-arguments to link the 

postulate under test with its deduced consequence. Science is HD in nature because this 

is how the brain spontaneously processes information whether it basic visual recognition, 

every-day descriptive and causal hypothesis testing, or advanced theory testing. The key 

point in terms of complex HD arguments is that if sufficient chunking of concepts and/or 

reasoning sub-patterns have not occurred, then one’s attempt to construct and maintain such 

arguments in working memory and use them to draw conclusions and construct concepts 

will “fall apart.” Thus, the conclusions and concepts will be “lost.” Consequently, teachers 

must know what students bring with them in terms of their stages of intellectual development 

(i.e., preoperational, concrete, formal, or post-formal) and subject-specific declarative 

knowledge. Effective instruction mirrors the practice of science where students confront 

puzzling observations and then personally participate in the explanation generation and 

testing process – a process in which some of their ideas are contradicted by the evidence 

and by the arguments of others. 

KEY WORDS: brain functioning, intellectual development, instruction, reasoning, scientific 

literacy 

In some countries, the development of the ability to reason scientifically 

has long been a central goal of education in general and of science and 

mathematics education in particular. In the United States, for example, the 

Educational Policies Commission (1961) advanced the proposition that 

the central goal of American education is the development of students’ 

rational powers, which in their words constitute “the essence of the ability 

to think” (p. 5). In a subsequent document (Educational Policies Commission, 

1966), the commission identified science and mathematics education 

as key vehicles to advance that central goal. Again in their words: “What is 

being advocated here is not the production of more physicists, biologists, 

or mathematicians, but rather the development of persons whose approach 

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education (2004) 2: 307–338 

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2004

308 A.E. LAWSON 

to life as a whole is that of a person who thinks – a rational person” 

(p. 16). As reviewed by Hand, Prain and Yore (2001) current international 

reform documents echo the same theme and argue that scientific reasoning 

abilities and habits of mind lie at the heart of scientific literacy, which 

involves: (1) the abilities and habits of mind to construct understanding, 

(2) understanding the central concepts and unifying theories of science, 

and (3) the ability to communicate to inform and persuade others to take 

action related to those concepts and theories. 

What do we now know about the nature and development of rational 

(i.e., scientific) reasoning abilities? Have we learned enough to better instruct 

students in ways that will help them become better reasoners in 

a general sense and become scientifically literate? This paper will argue 

that the answer is yes. The argument will be developed in steps. We begin 

by explicating the nature of scientific reasoning through a case study. We 

then discuss the neurological basis of such reasoning, trace its course and 

causes of development during childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood, 

identify its relationship to the acquisition of science concepts and to 

students’ awareness of the nature of science, and conclude by discussing 

instructional methods that have been found to promote the development of 

scientific reasoning abilities and scientific literacy. 

A Few Key Definitions and Clarifications 

Before introducing the case study, a few definitions and clarifications are in 

order. A reasoning pattern is defined as a mental strategy, plan, or rule used 

to process information and derive conclusions that go beyond direct experience. 

As such, reasoning patterns are part of one’s procedural or operative 

knowledge – one’s “how to” knowledge – as opposed to one’s figurative 

or declarative knowledge – one’s “that is” knowledge (e.g., Piaget, 1970; 

Anderson, 1980). Procedural knowledge, which is expressed through performance, 

is often implicit in the sense that we may not be conscious that 

we have it or precisely when or how it was acquired. The word “development” 

is often used in conjunction with the acquisition of procedural 

knowledge. On the other hand, declarative knowledge is explicit – that is 

we often know that we have it and when and how it was acquired. The word 

“learning” is often used in conjunction with the acquisition of declarative 

knowledge. As will be argued, scientific reasoning consists of an overall 

pattern of reasoning, which can be characterized as hypothetico-deductive, 

as well as several sub-patterns. Inhelder and Piaget (1958) referred to 

these sub-patterns as formal operational schemata (e.g., combinatorials, 

proportions, correlations). Logicians often refer to them as “methods,” or 

“forms” of argumentation such as argument by analogy, method of differ-

SCIENTIFIC REASONING 309 

ence, method of agreement, and concomitant variation (e.g., Tidman & Kahane, 

2003; Warnick & Inch, 1989). Recent neurological research indicates 

that the procedural knowledge patterns, once acquired, reside in neural networks 

that are hierarchical in nature. The hierarchical networks culminate 

in single neurons (see later discussion of chunking) located in the brain’s 

prefrontal cortex (Wallis, Anderson & Miller, 2001). Alternatively, declarative 

knowledge resides in associative memory, which is located primarily 

in the hippocampus, the limbic thalamus and the basal forebrain (Kosslyn 

& Koenig, 1995). Further, it appears that the conscious recollection of 

procedural knowledge is independent of the medial temporal lobe, thus 

depends on other brain systems such as the neo-striatum while the storage 

and recollection of declarative knowledge depends on the functional 

integrity of the medial temporal lobe (Squire & Zola-Morgan, 1991). 

Importantly, there appears to be two ways to acquire both procedural 

and declarative knowledge – to get new information into long-term memory. 

One way is through shear repetition and/or via emotionally charged 

contexts. Repetition and emotion can “burn” new input into one’s synapses 

essentially by boosting pre-synaptic activity to a high enough level to create 

new functional synaptic connections (e.g., Grossberg, 1982). Students 

can memorize their multiplication tables and the positions of letters on 

a keyboard in this “rote” way. They can also learn to solve proportions 

problems in a rote way by use of a “cross-multiplication” algorithm (e.g., 

4/6 = 6/X, (4)(X) = (6)(6), (4)(X) = 36, X = 36/4, X = 9). Unfortunately, 

in spite of the fact that students can cross multiply and “solve” such 

problems, they typically have no idea why the algorithm works or how to 

solve “real” problems involving proportional relationships. For example, 

most 12 year olds in the United States can easily tell you that X equals 

nine in the previous equation, but when given the “Cylinders” problem 

shown in Figure 1, they incorrectly predict that water will rise to the 8th 

mark “... because it rose two more before, from 4 to 6, so it will rise 2 

more again, from 6 to 8.” 

Fortunately, there is a second way to get information into long-term 

memory. That way is to form new functional synaptic connections by linking 

new input with prior ideas (Grossberg, 1982). When neural activity is 

simultaneously boosted by new input and by prior ideas, the resulting preand 

post-synaptic activities combine to create new functional connections. 

This connectionist (or constructivist) way of learning has several advantages, 

not the least of which is that learning is not rote in the sense that it is 

connected to what you already know, thus becomes much more useful in 

reasoning and problem solving. In the case of proportions this means that 

students not only know how to solve for X, they also know when to use a


To the right are drawings of a wide and 

a narrow cylinder. The cylinders have 

equally spaced marks on them. Water is 

poured into the wide cylinder up to the 

4th mark (see A). This water rises to the 

6th mark when poured into the narrow 

cylinder (see B). Both cylinders are emptied, 

and water is poured into the wide 

cylinder up to the 6th mark. How high 

will this water rise when poured into the 

empty narrow cylinder? 

Figure 1. The cylinders problem. 

proportions strategy and when not to, i.e., they know when other strategies, 

such as addition and subtraction, should be used instead. The point is that 

if we want students to become good problem solvers and good scientific 

thinkers, we cannot teach in ways that lead to rote learning. Instead, we 

need to become connectionist teachers. With this in mind, let’s turn to the 

case study of scientific reasoning. 

ACASE STUDY: INDENTIFYING SCIENTIFIC REASONING PATTERNS 

Silver salmon are born in the cool, quiet headwaters of freshwater streams 

in the Pacific Northwest. Young salmon swim downstream to the Pacific 

Ocean where they grow and mature sexually. They then return to the freshwater 

streams and swim upstream to ultimately lay eggs or deposit sperm 

in the headwaters before dying. By tagging young salmon, biologists discovered 

that mature salmon actually return to reproduce in precisely the 

same headwaters where they were born some years earlier. This discovery 

raised a very interesting causal question: how do returning salmon find 

their home stream? In other words, what causes them to end up in their 

home stream? 

During the 1960s, biologist A.D. Hasler proposed a number of alternative 

explanations – alternative causal hypotheses. For instance, people 

often navigate by sight. Perhaps salmon do as well. Returning salmon 

may recall objects, such as large rocks, they saw while swimming downstream 

on their way to the ocean. Studies of migratory animals suggested 

alternative explanations. For example, biologists knew that migratory eels 

are enormously sensitive to dissolved chemicals in water. Perhaps salmon 

are as well. Biologists also knew that homing pigeons navigate using the


Earth’s magnetic field. Perhaps salmon are also sensitive to the magnetic 

field and use it to find their home stream. Thus, by borrowing explanations 

from other possibly similar contexts as tentative explanations in the 

present context – by using analogies – Hasler generated three alternative 

hypotheses for salmon navigation: (1) salmon use sight; (2) salmon smell 

chemicals specific to their home stream; and (3) salmon use the Earth’s 

magnetic field. 

The use of analogies in this way, sometimes called abduction, analogical 

transfer or analogical reasoning, to generate possible explanations 

(causal hypotheses) is a very general and creative process (e.g., Biela, 

1993; Coll & Treagust, 2002; Dreistadt, 1968; Finke, Ward & Smith, 1992; 

Gentner, 1989; Hestenes, 1992; Hoffman, 1980; Hofstadter, 1981; 

Holland, Holyoak, Nisbett & Thagard, 1986; Johnson, 1987; Koestler, 

1964). In the words of philosopher Charles Peirce (as quoted in Hanson, 

1958, p. 85), “All ideas of science come to it by way of Abduction.” 

By abduction Peirce means that scientists generate new explanations by 

abducting/stealing explanations from old contexts (based on contextual 

similarities) and attempt to use them as possible explanations in new contexts. 

This means that one’s store of declarative knowledge is the source 

of hypotheses. Of course in addition to the three explanations listed above, 

other possibilities remain. Indeed none of the three may be correct. Or 

perhaps salmon use two of the three methods, or perhaps all three. By 

generating all possible combinations of explanations (i.e., by using combinatorial 

reasoning – the reasoning pattern used to systematically generate 

all possible combinations of real or imagined objects, events, or situations) 

we obtain these possibilities: 

1. None of the three hypotheses is correct. 

2. The sight hypothesis is correct. 

3. The smell hypothesis is correct. 

4. The magnetic-field hypothesis is correct. 

5. Both the sight and the smell hypotheses are correct. 

6. Both the sight and the magnetic-field hypotheses are correct. 

7. Both the smell and the magnetic-field hypotheses are correct. 

8. All three hypotheses are correct. 

9. Some other hypothesis is correct. 

10. Some combination of other hypotheses is correct. 

Having generated all possible combinations of likely hypotheses, the 

next task is to test them. Hasler tested the sight hypothesis first. To do 

so, he captured salmon that had just returned to two freshwater streams 

near Seattle, Washington – the Issaquah and East Fork. He then tagged the 

captured fish identifying which stream they had come from. Next, he ran-


domly split the tagged Issaquah fish into two groups and blindfolded each 

fish in one group. He then repeated the procedure for the tagged East Fork 

fish. The blindfolded Issaquah and East Fork fish became the experimental 

group. Hasler then released the experimental fish along with some nonblindfolded 

fish (the control group) from both streams about three quarters 

of a mile below the junction where the streams join. Finally, the tagged 

fish were recaptured in traps about a mile above the junction as they swam 

back upstream. The following argument summarizes Hasler’s reasoning: 

If ...salmon find their home stream by sight (sight hypothesis), 

and ...a group of non-blindfolded salmon and a group of blindfolded 

salmon from the Issaquah and East Fork streams are released below 

the fork where the two streams join (planned test), 

then ... the non-blindfolded salmon should be recaptured in their 

home stream more frequently than the blindfolded salmon (prediction). 

Logicians refer to this If/and/then reasoning pattern as deduction (e.g., 

Tidman & Kahane, 2003). Importantly, in this case the conclusion of the 

reasoning (the prediction or expectation) follows only when the planned 

test is controlled. In other words, to establish a link between the planned 

test’s independent variable (i.e., the salmon’s ability to see) and its dependent 

variable (i.e., where they are recaptured), all the other ways that the 

two groups of fish differ (all other possible independent variables) must be 

held constant. The reasoning sub-pattern, or sub-argument, that guides the 

construction of such “controlled” experiments is often referred to as the 

identification and control of variables (cf. Inhelder & Piaget, 1958). 

Suppose having conducted this controlled experiment, we discover that 

the sighted salmon are better at returning home than the blindfolded salmon. 

Because this is the predicted result based on the sight hypothesis, the 

sight hypothesis would be supported, i.e.: 

If ...the sight hypothesis is correct (sight hypothesis), 

and ...the experiment is conducted as planned (planned test), 

then ...the sighted salmon should be recaptured in their home stream 

more frequently than the blindfolded salmon (prediction). 

And ... the sighted salmon were recaptured in their home stream 

more frequently than the blindfolded salmon (result). 

Therefore ...the sight hypothesis is supported (conclusion). 

However, as mentioned, one needs to be careful. Perhaps during the 

experiment, the blindfolded salmon were hindered in returning, not by lack 

of sight, but by their inability to swim with blindfolds. Or perhaps simply 

blindfolding the fish shocked them and disrupted their swimming ability.


Therefore, because one can never be certain that all such problems (i.e., 

all alternative explanations) have been eliminated all experimental results 

must be interpreted with caution. 

On the other hand, suppose we find that the non-blindfolded and blindfolded 

salmon are equally successful at returning home. In this case, the 

sight hypothesis would not be supported. However, again one needs to be 

cautious. Overlooked independent variables might be operating. For example, 

perhaps the blindfolded salmon could see under their blindfolds. Or 

perhaps the blindfolds were too thin to block out all the light. Or perhaps 

the blindfolds were effective and the salmon do use sight when they can, 

but when they cannot, they use some other sense to navigate, such as smell. 

In short, the reasoning involved in experimentally testing hypotheses utilizes 

an If/and/then/And/Therefore pattern when results match predictions 

and an If/and/then/But/Therefore pattern when they do not. Because the 

point of both arguments is to test hypotheses via the deduction of predictions, 

the overall argument is referred to as hypothetico-deductive (HD) 

or sometimes hypothetico-predictive (cf. Cohen & Nagel, 1934; Popper, 

1959, 1965; Platt, 1964; Chamberlain, 1965; Hempel, 1966; Medawar, 

1969; Lawson, 2000; Lewis, 1988; Moore, 1993). The reasoning also involves 

identifying and attempting to control independent variables. However, 

because one can never be certain that all independent variables have 

been controlled, conclusions must remain somewhat tentative. Therefore, 

HD arguments and evidence can be convincing beyond a reasonable doubt; 

but they cannot be convincing beyond all possible doubt. In short, proof 

and/or disproof of any particular hypothesis are not possible. 

As it turned out, when Hasler conducted the experiment, he found that 

the blindfolded salmon were as successful as the non-blindfolded salmon 

at finding their home streams. Therefore, the sight hypothesis was not 

supported. So Hasler moved on to test the smell hypothesis. To do so he 

again captured and tagged salmon from the two streams and randomly 

divided the Issaquah fish into two groups. He inserted cotton plugs coated 

with petroleum jelly in the noses of the experimental group fish to block 

their smelling ability and he left the noses of the control group unplugged. 

Hasler then randomly split the East Fork fish into two groups and plugged 

the noses of one group as he had done with the Issaquah fish. Finally, he 

released all the fish at the release point. As the fish returned upstream, 

they were recaptured in traps above the streams’ junction. Of course, if the 

smell hypothesis is correct, then the smellers should end up in their home 

streams. Some non-smellers may get lucky and end up in their home stream 

as well. In fact, because there are only two streams, the use of probabilistic 

reasoning (i.e., the reasoning pattern used to identify and solve problems


involving quantitative probabilistic relationships) suggests that half of the 

non-smellers will swim into their home stream by chance alone. So based 

on the smell hypothesis and probabilistic reasoning Hasler predicted that 

all of the smellers and half the non-smellers would be recaptured in their 

home streams. 

During this experiment, 46 Issaquah control group fish were recaptured 

in the Issaquah and none were recaptured in the East Fork. Eight East Fork 

control group fish were recaptured in the Issaquah and 19 in the East Fork. 

In other words, 46 + 19 = 65 of the 73 smellers returned to their home 

streams. Using proportional reasoning (i.e., the reasoning pattern used to 

identify and solve problems involving quantitative proportional relationships) 

we find that this ratio of 65/73 equals an 89% success rate. How does 

this success rate compare to the non-smellers? Among the experimental 

group, 39 of 51 Issaquah fish were recaptured in their home stream, as were 

3 of 19 of the East Fork fish. So a total of 39 + 3 = 42 of the 72 smellers 

ended up in their home streams. Again using proportional reasoning we 

find that this ratio of 42/72 represents a 60% success rate. 

The predicted percentages based upon the smell hypothesis were 100% 

for the smellers and 50% for non-smellers. So the observed percentages 

of 89% versus 60% are not exactly as predicted. However, suppose smell 

contributes nothing to stream-finding ability. If so, then the percentage for 

the smellers and the non-smellers should be the same. So the question 

we need to ask is this: is the 89% success rate of the smellers significantly 

higher than the 60% success rate of the non-smellers? Although a statistical 

analysis would be helpful, you might sense that, given the relatively large 

number of fish involved, and given the use of correlational reasoning, (i.e., 

the reasoning pattern used to identify and determine the extent to which 

two variables within a sample co-vary) the 89% appears to be substantially 

higher than 60%. In other words, the difference between the smellers’ 

and the non-smellers’ success rates is probably caused by the difference 

in smelling ability, rather than by chance. Therefore, we conclude that 

the smell hypothesis has been supported. Let’s leave discussion of the 

magnetic-field hypothesis for another time. 

Summary of Key Reasoning Patterns 

The Hasler case study paints scientific inquiry and scientific reasoning as 

a process that seeks causes for puzzling observations. The process is a 

creative one that consists of identifiable components. First is the identification 

of the puzzling observation. Next is the use of analogical reasoning 

(abduction) to generate one or more hypotheses. Combinatorial reasoning 

may then be used to generate a list of all possible combinations of hypothe-


ses. Typically, hypotheses are tested in order of most to least plausible by 

deducing one or more specific predictions based on the hypothesis under 

test (i.e., the “working” hypothesis) and its planned test. In general, the 

scientist’s goal is to find evidence in support of one or more of the hypotheses 

and evidence against the others. In other words, although each 

planned test must, in theory, render the working hypothesis “falsifiable” 

in the sense that contradictory evidence must be possible (Popper, 1959) 

scientists do not set out with the goal of rejecting their favored hypotheses 

(Woodward & Goodstein, 1996). In experimental contexts, the generation 

of planned tests requires another reasoning pattern referred to as the identification 

and control of variables. Finally, planned tests are conducted 

and data are collected and analyzed. Data analysis typically requires use 

of additional reasoning patterns such as probabilistic, proportional, and 

correlational reasoning. 

Of course not all hypotheses are tested with experimental evidence. 

Circumstantial evidence can be used (e.g., why does this skull have pointed 

teeth? If the teeth are pointed because the animal is a predatory carnivore, 

and we look at its eye sockets, then they should be directed forward – 

to afford good depth perception needed to capture prey.). And correlational 

evidence can test hypotheses (e.g., why do some women with breast 

implants also have connective tissue disease? If having breast implants 

causes connective tissue disease, and we compare disease incidence among 

matched samples of women with and without implants, then the incidence 

of disease should be significantly higher in the implant sample than in the 

non-implant sample.). 

Scientific reasoning can be further complicated the fact that much of 

science deals with the generation and test of theories that are more complex, 

more general, and more abstract than the hypotheses tested by Hasler. 

Theory testing requires a similar HD reasoning pattern but is often complicated 

by the fact that theories typically include the postulation of nonperceptible 

entities, thus require an additional argument, sometimes called 

a theoretical rationale (Lawson, 2003a), or warrant (Toulmin, 1958; 

Toulman, Rieke & Janik, 1984), to link the postulate under test with its 

deduced consequence. For example, to pit spontaneous generation theory, 

with its imagined vital force, against biogenesis theory in the 1700s, 

Lazaaro Spallanzani added seeds and water to several bottles and then 

heated their contents (De Kruif, 1953). He heated some for only a few 

minutes and boiled some for an hour. He then sealed their necks with a 

flame. For a control, he repeated the procedure with another set of bottles 

that he only corked. The reasoning plus the theoretical rationales, guiding 

Spallanzani’s experiment can be summarized like this:


If ... a vital force enters nonliving matter to bring it to life (spontaneous 

generation theory), 

and ...the experiment is conducted as planned (planned test), 

then ...after several days, microbes should be found in all the bottles 

(prediction). All of the bottles should contain microbes because the 

vital force should be able to enter them regardless of length of heating 

or method of sealing (theoretical rationale). 

Alternatively, 

if ...the vital force does not exist (biogenesis theory), 

then ...microbes should be found in all the corked bottles and in the 

sealed bottles that were heated for only a few minutes, but not in the 

sealed bottles that were boiled for an hour (alternative prediction). 

This alternative prediction follows because, according to biogenesis 

theory, microbes can enter a bottle through or around a cork, but not 

through a sealed neck. Further, living microbes can survive a short 

period of heating but not an hour of boiling (theoretical rationale). 

As you can see, the independent variable in Spallanzani’s experiment 

was the presence or absence of corks, while the theoretical entity tested 

was the existence or non-existence of an imagined vital force. Thus, as 

this example shows, theory testing is seldom, if ever carried out by the 

direct manipulation of the postulated entity. Instead, theory testing involves 

indirect tests and requires the addition of one or more theoretical rationales 

to link manipulated experimental variables with theoretical postulates. The 

next section will consider the roles played by different brain regions during 

scientific reasoning and discovery. 

THE NEUROLOGICAL BASIS OF REASONING 

Let’s take a brief look at the neurological basis of reasoning by considering 

how the brain processes visual input as this is the most well researched 

and understood area of neural functioning (discussion based in part on 

(Lawson, 2003b, Chapter 2)). We will then consider the nature of working 

memory and lastly turn to another case study of scientific reasoning to see 

how the identified brain regions may be involved. 

Visual Recognition 

Most people would guess that the brain processes visual input primarily 

in an inductive way – that is we look and we look again, and perhaps look 

still again, until we eventually induce an idea about what we are looking at. 

But this is not how the brain works. Instead, based on the initial look, the


Figure 2. Kosslyn and Koenig’s (1995) model of the visual system consists of six major 

subsystems. The order in which information passes from one subsystem to the next is 

shown. The subsystems generate and test hypotheses about what is seen in the visual field. 

brain spontaneously and subconsciously generates a hypothesis of what 

might be out there and then uses subsequent looks to test its initial hypothesis. 

As summarized by Kosslyn and Koenig (1995), the ability to visually 

recognize objects requires participation of the six major brain regions (subsystems) 

shown in Figure 2. First, sensory input from the eyes produces a 

pattern of electrical activity in a region referred to as the visual buffer 

located in the occipital lobe at the back of the brain. This activity pattern 

produces a spatially organized “image” within the visual buffer. Next, 

a smaller region within the visual buffer, called the attention window, performs 

detailed processing. The activity pattern in the attention window is 

then simultaneously sent along two pathways on either side of the brain, 

one that runs down to the lower temporal lobe, and one that runs up to 

the parietal lobe. The lower temporal lobe, or ventral subsystem, analyses 

object properties, such as shape, color and texture, while the upper parietal 

lobe, or dorsal subsystem, analyses spatial properties, such as size and 

location. 

Outputs from the ventral and dorsal subsystems come together in associative 

memory, which, as mentioned, is located primarily in the hippocampus, 

the limbic thalamus and the basal forebrain. The ventral and 

dorsal subsystem outputs are matched to patterns stored in associative 

memory. If a good match is obtained between inputs and stored conceptions, 

then the observer knows the object’s name, categories to which it


belongs, sounds it makes and so on. If not, the object remains unrecognized 

and additional sensory input must be obtained. 

Importantly, the search for additional input is not random. Rather, stored 

patterns are used to make a second hypothesis about what is being observed, 

and this hypothesis leads to new observations and to further encoding. 

According to Kosslyn and Koenig (1995), “One actively seeks new 

information that will bear on the hypothesis. The first step in this process is 

to look up relevant information in associative memory.” (p. 57) The information 

search involves activity in the prefrontal lobes in a region referred 

to as working memory. Activating working memory causes an attention 

shift of the eyes to a location where an informative component should be 

located. Once attention is shifted, the new visual input is processed in turn. 

The new input is then matched to shape and spatial patterns stored in the 

ventral and dorsal subsystems and kept active in working memory. 

The key point with respect to reasoning is that visual recognition is a 

process in which the brain spontaneously generates and tests visual hypotheses 

in an HD or “top–down” manner. For example, suppose Joe, who 

is extremely myopic, is rooting around the bathroom and spots the end of 

an object that appears to be a shampoo tube. In other words, the nature 

of the object’s end and its location prompt the spontaneous generation 

of a shampoo-tube hypothesis. In psychological terms, the visual input 

has been assimilated by Joe’s shampoo-tube mental “structure” or mental 

“model” (cf. Grossberg, 1982; Johnson-Laird, 1983; Johnson-Laird, 2003; 

Piaget, 1985). Based on this initial hypothesis, as well as knowledge of 

shampoo tubes stored in associative memory (i.e., his shampoo-tube mental 

model), when Joe looks at the other end of the object, he expects to find 

a cap: If ... it really is a shampoo tube, and ... I look at the other end, 

then ...I should see a cap. Thus Joe shifts his gaze to the other end. And 

... upon seeing the expected cap, he concludes that the object is in fact 

a shampoo tube. Importantly, other brain systems such as those involved 

in word recognition process information in a similar HD manner (see, for 

example, Kosslyn & Koenig, 1995, Chapter 6). 

Everyday Hypothesis Testing 

Simple “everyday” hypotheses appear to be tested in the same way. For example, 

consider the following question and response from a novice golfer: 

Question: Suppose length of a particular golf hole is listed at 156 yards. That length 

is measured from the beginning to what point on the green? 

Novice golfer: It’s measured to the hole. No, that can’t be right because they change the 

hole location each day. So I guess the length is measured to the center of 

the green.


Why do you suppose the novice golfer changed her mind? In other 

words, why did she reject her to-the-hole hypothesis so quickly after generating 

and stating it? Perhaps she subconsciously and instantaneously 

generated the following HD argument: 

If ...the length is measured from the beginning to the hole location 

(to-the-hole descriptive hypothesis), 

and ... they change the hole location each day (fact recalled from 

associative memory), 

then ...the listed length would have to change each day (prediction). 

But ... the listed length does not change each day (another fact recalled 

from associative memory). 

Therefore ... the to-the-hole hypothesis is probably wrong and I’ll 

need to generate another hypothesis (conclusion). Perhaps the length 

is measured to the center of the green! 

Granted, we have no way of knowing for sure if she really did reason in 

this way. Nevertheless when subsequently shown this argument, the novice 

golfer thought that it made sense and that as far as she could tell, it was an 

accurate reconstruction of her reasoning. 

Compare the previous golfer’s response to that of a second novice 

golfer. When asked the same question, the second golfer simply guessed 

that the length is measured to the hole location and left it at that. When 

next asked if she knew that hole locations are changed each day she said 

no. So it appears that lacking this knowledge, she could not construct the 

HD argument that would have led her to reject her initial hypothesis and 

generate another one. Her failure to use HD reasoning is informative as 

it further clarifies the role of declarative knowledge in reasoning. Without 

knowing that hole locations change each day, the second golfer lacked key 

knowledge that could have been linked to the initial hypothesis and could 

then have led deductively to a contradiction. Hence, she did not make the 

deduction, did not discover the contradiction, and did not reject her initial 

hypothesis. We next turn to Galileo Galilei’s discovery of Jupiter’s moons 

in 1610 and attempt to identify the reasoning patterns involved as well as 

the roles played by the previously identified brain regions. 

Galileo’s Discovery of Jupiter’s Moons 

Lawson (2002) identified several cycles of HD reasoning that may have 

guided Galileo Galilei’s discovery of Jupiter’s moons in January of 1610. 

For example, when Galileo made his initial observation of three bright 

lights near Jupiter on the evening of January 7th, he immediately thought 

he was seeing three stars that were presumably embedded in the “fixed”


celestial sphere behind Jupiter. However, his continued thinking led to 

doubt as revealed by the following remark: 

...and although I believed them to belong to the number of the fixed stars, yet they made 

me somewhat wonder, because they seemed to be arranged exactly in a straight line, parallel 

to the ecliptic, and to be brighter than the rest of the stars, equal to them in magnitude. 

((Galilei, 1610), as translated and reprinted by Shapley, Rapport and Wright in 1954.) 

Why would this observation lead Galileo to “somewhat wonder”? Of 

course we cannot know for certain, but he may have been reasoning along 

these lines (as suggested in Lawson, 2002): If the three bright lights are 

fixed stars, and their sizes, brightness and positions are compared to each 

other and to other nearby stars, then variations in size, brightness and position 

should be random, as is the case for other fixed stars. But “they seem 

to be arranged exactly in a straight line, parallel to the ecliptic, and to be 

brighter than the rest of the stars.” Therefore the fixed-stars hypothesis is 

not supported. Or as Galileo put it, “yet they made me somewhat wonder.” 

Subsequently, Galileo rejected his fixed-stars hypothesis and presumably 

used other cycles of HD reasoning to also reject an astronomersmade-a-mistake 

hypothesis and then find support for the hypothesis that 

the bright lights were moons orbiting Jupiter, i.e.: if the three bright lights 

are orbiting moons, and I observe them over several nights, then some 

nights they should appear to the east of Jupiter and some nights they should 

appear to the west. Further, they should always appear along a straight line 

on either side of Jupiter. And this is precisely how they appeared. Therefore 

the moons hypothesis is supported. 

The Role and Limits of Working Memory 

Presumably Galileo’s cycles of HD reasoning took place in his working 

memory. Although research indicates that working memory is seated in 

the lateral prefrontal cortex, its location cannot be pinned down to a single 

prefrontal region. Rather its location appears to depend in part on the type 

of information being processed. With its many projections to other brain 

areas (including projections to those prefrontal neurons that store procedural 

rules such the controlling variable “rule”), working memory plays 

a crucial role in keeping representations active while coordinating mental 

activity. 

Following Baddeley (1995), working memory, at least in adults, consists 

of three components – a visuo-spatial scratchpad, a central executive, 

and a phonological loop. In Baddeley’s theory, the visuo-spatial 

scratch pad activates representations of objects and their properties, while 

the phonological loop does the same for linguistic representations. Thus 

working memory becomes a temporary network to sustain information


Figure 3. The contents of Galileo’s working memory as he tests the moons hypothesis 

(from Lawson, 2002). Note how previously generated hypotheses stored in associative 

memory need to be inhibited (the dashed arrows) during the time the moons hypothesis, its 

predicted consequences, and the relevant evidence are active in working memory (the bold 

arrow). 

while being processed. During reasoning, one must not only pay attention 

to task-relevant information but must also inhibit task-irrelevant information. 

Consequently, sustaining an argument in working memory involves 

allocating attention to and temporarily keeping track of information relevant 

to one’s goals and actively inhibiting irrelevant information. 

In terms of Galileo’s reasoning and the Kosslyn/Koenig model, Figure 

3 shows the possible contents of Galileo’s working memory while 

testing the moons hypothesis. In order to draw a conclusion from the depicted 

argument, Galileo presumably must not only allocate attention to 

the hypothesis, to its planned test, to its predicted result, and to its observed 

result, he also must inhibit his previously generated fixed-stars and 

astronomers-made-a-mistake hypotheses. In short, he must keep a lot of 

relevant ideas in mind at the same time while suppressing potentially distracting 

ideas. 

Importantly, it is now well known that working memory capacity is 

limited in terms of the independent “units” of data or thoughts that can be 

maintained at any one time. Miller’s “magical” number 7, plus or minus 

2, refers to the fact that it is almost universally true that people can recall 

only seven unrelated pieces of data (e.g., random letters or digits), if 

they do not resort to various memory tricks or aids (Miller, 1956; Pascual- 

Leone, 1970; Pascual-Leone & Ijaz, 1989). Clearly, however, we all form


concepts that contain far more information than seven “units.” Thus, a 

mental process must occur in which previously unrelated units of input 

are grouped or “chunked” together to produce higher-order chunks (units 

of thought/concepts/rules). This implied process is known as chunking 

(Simon, 1974). 

With respect to declarative knowledge, consider, for example, the ecosystem 

concept. An ecosystem is defined as a biological community plus 

its abiotic (non-living) environmental components. In turn, a biological 

community consists of producers, consumers, and decomposers; while the 

abiotic components consist of factors such precipitation, temperature, substrate 

type, and so on. Each of these subcomponents can in turn be further 

subdivided. Producers, for example, might include grasses, bushes, and 

pine trees. Thus, the ecosystem concept subsumes a far greater number 

of discrete units or chunks than seven. Thus, for those who have “constructed/chunked” 

the concept, it occupies but one unit or chunk in associative 

memory, and like procedural rules and peoples’ faces, it is likely 

“stored” in a single neuron. The result of chunking (i.e., of higher-order 

concept construction) is extremely important. Chunking reduces the load 

on mental capacity and simultaneously opens up additional capacity that 

can then be occupied by additional concepts. This in turn allows one to 

construct still more complex and inclusive concepts. Presumably, chunking 

also occurs during the construction of reasoning patterns (Wallis et al., 

2001). 

The key point in terms of complex cycles of HD reasoning is that 

sufficient chunking of concepts and/or reasoning sub-patterns needs to 

have occurred prior to one’s attempt to construct and maintain such complex 

arguments in working memory and use them to draw conclusions. 

If sufficient chunking has not occurred, then the reasoning (i.e., the HD 

argument) will “fall apart” and the conclusion will be “lost.” Importantly, 

this also means that such arguments and conclusions will also be lost 

on students who have not yet chunked the prerequisite concepts and/or 

reasoning sub-patterns such as those used by Hasler (e.g., control of variables, 

proportional reasoning, and correlational reasoning). This is why 

it is imperative that teachers know what their students bring with them 

to the classroom in terms of not only their levels of intellectual development 

but also their background of subject specific declarative knowledge. 

With these points in mind, we next turn to a brief look at the course of 

intellectual development with the intent of identifying the similarities and 

differences in reasoning patterns during childhood, adolescence and early 

adulthood.


THE COURSE OF INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT 

Children appear capable of a rudimentary form of HD reasoning virtually 

at birth. We can be fairly certain of this because the pattern can be 

found in non-humans. For example, Hauser (2000) conducted a revealing 

experiment with rhesus monkeys. First, a monkey was shown an eggplant – 

a favorite food item. In full view, the eggplant was then placed behind a 

screen. A second eggplant was then placed behind the screen. Then when 

the screen was lifted, the length of time the monkey looked at the two 

revealed eggplants was measured, which turned out to be about one second. 

Next the conditions were changed. In the initial changed condition, 

one eggplant was placed behind the screen followed by a second eggplant. 

Then without the monkey knowing it, the second eggplant was removed. 

Now when the screen was lifted, the monkey looked at the unexpected 

single remaining eggplant for about three to four seconds. The same increase 

in looking time occurred when a third eggplant was secretly added 

and then revealed. Thus, the monkey had a clear expectation of seeing two 

eggplants and when either one or three eggplants unexpectedly showed up, 

the monkey was puzzled as evidenced by the increase in looking time. In 

the first unexpected condition the monkey’s “reasoning” can be summarized 

like this: if one eggplant is placed behind the screen, and another is 

added, then there should be two eggplants behind the screen. But there is 

only one eggplant. Therefore I am puzzled and need to look at the puzzling 

situation longer. 

If we assume that this pattern of HD reasoning in humans is present 

at birth, then intellectual development involves a growing awareness (i.e., 

consciousness) of one’s reasoning patterns and one’s reflectivity as well 

increases in the contexts to which the patterns can be applied. Let’s see 

how this might work in terms of Piaget’s well-known concrete and formal 

operational stages of intellectual development (e.g., Inhelder & Piaget, 

1958; Piaget & Inhelder, 1969) as well as a possible “post-formal” stage 

(Lawson, Clark, Cramer-Meldrum, Falconer, Kwon & Sequist, 2000a; 

Lawson, Drake, Johnson, Kwon & Scarpone, 2000b). Note that use of the 

Piagetian stage labels does not imply acceptance of his theory concerning 

their underlying operations (e.g., combinatorial system and INRC group). 

The Concrete Operational Stage (7 Years to Early Adolescence) 

Beginning at age seven, the prior acquisition of language to name objects, 

events and situations during the preoperational stage presumably allows 

the child to apply HD reasoning to a new level, the level of ordering and 

classifying, i.e., creating variables and higher-order classes/categories of


Figure 4. The Mellinarks (Elementary Science Study, 1974). 

objects, events and situations. The observable and named objects such as 

tables and chairs of the preoperational stage become the classes/categories, 

such as furniture, of the concrete stage. For example, to test the hypothesis 

that concrete operational individuals are capable of constructing HD 

arguments to test descriptive hypotheses, a series of classification tasks, 

including the Mellinark Task (see Figure 4) were administered to children 

ranging in age from 6 to 14 years (Lawson, 1993). Brief one-on-one instruction 

was then used to teach them how to discover the relevant features 

using HD arguments, e.g.: if tiny spots make a creature a Mellinark (descriptive 

hypothesis), and I look at all of non-Mellinarks in row 2, then 

none of them should have tiny spots. But some do have tiny spots. Therefore 

tiny spots are not the key feature – or at least not the only key feature. 

Interestingly, none of the six-year-olds could generate and/or comprehend 

this sort of argument, whereas half of the seven-year-olds could, as 

could virtually all of the eight to 14 year olds. Therefore, results supported 

the hypothesis that the concrete stage, which begins rather abruptly at 

seven years of age (most likely related to a growth spurt of the frontal 

lobes), involves the ability to use HD reasoning to serial order and to 

categorize the objects, events, and situations in the child’s environment


– all mediated by language. That is, at the concrete stage, descriptive hypotheses 

are tested by comparing predictions with prior, preoperational, 

verbally-labelled constructions such as “spots,” “tails,” and “curvy sides.” 

The Formal Operational Stage (Early to Late Adolescence) 

Following a comprehensive review of the psychological literature, Moshman 

(1998) concluded: “In fact, there is surprisingly strong support for 

Piaget’s 1924 proposal that formal or hypothetico-deductive reasoning – 

deliberate deduction from propositions consciously recognized as hypothetical 

– plays an important role in the thinking of adolescents and adults 

but is rarely seen much before the age of 11 or 12” (p. 972). By hypothetical 

Moshman is referring to causal, as opposed to descriptive, hypotheses. 

For example, consider the question: what causes differences in the rates 

at which pendulums swing? To answer this causal question, one uses HD 

reasoning to generate and test alternative causal hypotheses (cf. Inhelder 

& Piaget, 1958, Chapter 4). For example: if changes in swing rates are 

caused by the amount of weight hanging on the end (causal weight hypothesis), 

and the weights are varied while holding other possible causes 

constant, then rate of pendulum swing should vary. But the rates do not 

vary. Therefore the weight hypothesis is not supported. 

Clearly the reasoning pattern is the same as that used to test descriptive 

hypotheses during the prior concrete stage. Thus, the difference between 

formal reasoning and concrete reasoning is not the HD pattern. Again, the 

difference appears to be the context in which the pattern can be applied. 

Concrete reasoning is about testing descriptive hypotheses whereas formal 

reasoning is about testing causal hypotheses. The pendulum test involves 

an experiment in which the values of one possible cause are directly varied. 

Note also that the test involves use of the very important control of 

variables reasoning sub-pattern. 

The Post-Formal or “Theoretical” Stage (Late Adolescence and Early 

Adulthood) 

Consider once again Spallanzani’s test of spontaneous generation and biogenesis 

theories. As you may recall, the HD argument summarizing his 

test went like this: if a vital force enters nonliving matter to bring it to life, 

and the experiment is conducted as planned, then after several days, microbes 

should be found in all the bottles. All of the bottles should contain 

microbes because the vital force should be able to enter them regardless 

of length of heating or method of sealing. Alternatively, if the vital force 

does not exist, then microbes should be found in all the corked bottles and 

in the sealed bottles that were heated for only a few minutes, but not in


the sealed bottles that were boiled for an hour. This alternative prediction 

follows because, according to biogenesis theory, microbes can enter a bottle 

through or around a cork, but not through a sealed neck. Further, living 

microbes can survive a short period of heating but not an hour of boiling. 

Although once again identical to prior reasoning in form, this argument 

differs from formal stage causal arguments in at least two important ways. 

As mentioned previously, here the proposed cause is unseen (i.e., theoretical) 

whereas at the formal stage, the proposed cause was observable. And 

unlike formal stage reasoning where a proposed cause and the independent 

variable of an experiment designed to test it were one and the same, this is 

no longer the case. In Spallanzani’s experiment, the independent variable 

is the presence or absence of corks, while the proposed cause is an unseen 

vital force or unseen microbes. Also as mentioned, because the proposed 

cause and the independent variable are not the same, a warrant, or theoretical 

rationale, is needed to link the two so that a reasonable test can 

be conducted. For these reasons, such reasoning is considered post-formal 

or theoretical, is more difficult than formal reasoning (e.g., Lawson et al., 

2000a, 2000b), and is presumably not achieved until late adolescence after 

the final brain growth spurt at age 18 (Thatcher, Walker & Giudice, 1987; 

Thatcher, 1991), if at all. 

Why is Intellectual Development Stage-Like? 

Based on the previous arguments and evidence, we can understand why 

intellectual development is stage-like. In addition to probable maturational 

constraints, individuals construct something new during each stage that 

can be constructed only following the previous stage because the products 

of the previous stage are used in testing the possible constructions (i.e., the 

hypotheses) of the subsequent stage. For example, suppose we generate 

the theory that matter consists of tiny invisible and indivisible particles 

called atoms. Like John Dalton in the early 1800s, we can use post-formal 

reasoning to test this aspect of atomic theory, i.e.: if matter consists of 

invisible/indivisible particles that have specific weights and combine with 

one another in specific ways, and molecules are decomposed into their 

parts, then the ratios of weights of those parts should be in simple whole 

number ratios. And the ratios of weights of those parts are in simple whole 

number ratios. Therefore atomic theory is supported. Dalton’s testing of 

atomic theory in this way required him to compare predicted and observed 

weight ratios of decomposed molecules. Comparing ratios involves proportional 

reasoning, a formal stage construction. Thus, Dalton’s reasoning 

and eventual support for atomic theory could not have occurred without 

his prior construction of a proportional reasoning scheme.


Similarly, testing formal stage hypotheses requires use of prior concrete 

stage constructions. Consider Inhelder and Piaget’s bending rods task 

(Inhelder & Piaget, 1958, Chapter 3). To test the causal hypothesis that 

variation in rod thickness causes variation in amount of rod bend (i.e., 

thinner rods bend more than thicker rods), one can reason like this: if differences 

in rod bending is caused by rod thickness, and equal weights are 

hung on two rods that vary only in thickness, then the thinner rod should 

bend more. And the thinner rod does bend more. Therefore the thickness 

hypothesis is supported. 

Thus, to test the causal thickness hypothesis (one can directly observe/ 

sense thickness differences), we must determine which of the two rods 

bends more and which bends less. In other words, we need to have already 

constructed a concrete stage “distance” variable, which we can label as 

“distance of bending.” So to test a formal stage causal hypothesis, we use 

a prior stage construction (i.e., conservation of distance/length). Likewise, 

testing concrete stage descriptive hypotheses requires use of preoperational 

stage object-word constructs. And lastly, testing preoperational linguistic 

hypotheses requires use of sensory motor stage object constructs. 

HOW DOES INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT OCCUR? 

How does procedural knowledge develop? We can answer this question 

in a general way by agreeing with Piaget that intellectual development 

occurs through self-regulation, i.e., by engaging in reasoning and by “internalizing” 

the products of that process and by internalizing (i.e., chunking) 

its procedures as well. According to Piaget (1976) a process he calls 

reflective abstraction provokes this internalization. Reflective abstraction 

progresses from the use of spontaneous actions to the use of explicit, verbally 

mediated rules to guide behavior. Reflective abstraction occurs when 

individuals are prompted by contradictory feedback (i.e., If/and/then/But) 

and the resulting state of mental “disequilibrium,” to reflect first on their 

actions and later on arguments with others. Thus, the cause of reflective 

abstraction is contradiction by the physical environment and verbally by 

other people. The result of reflective abstraction is that the individual gains 

declarative knowledge and also becomes more aware of, more conscious 

of, more reflective, and more skilled in use of the procedures used in gaining 

that knowledge (i.e., declarative knowledge gets chunked and so does 

procedural knowledge). 

This view of intellectual development helps clarify why “stage retardation” 

occurs, i.e., why some students fail to develop formal and post-formal 

reasoning patterns. Suppose, for example, years ago two isolated islands


existed, each ruled by an all-powerful king. When questions arose, the 

islanders asked the king for answers – answers that were accepted as true. 

One day a foreign ship arrived at one of the islands. Over time, trading 

relationships were established between the island and several foreign 

countries. Importantly, not only did the ships bring new goods, the sailors 

also brought new ideas. The ideas spread throughout the island, some of 

which contradicted the “truths” previously handed down by the king. So 

the islanders began wondering which ideas were true, and more importantly, 

how they could tell. Eventually, an upheaval took place in which 

the king was overthrown and replaced by a government run by the people. 

Decades later, an anthropologist arrived on the island to study its culture. 

As part of her study, she administered a reasoning test to the island’s adults. 

Soon after, she discovered the other island. She was the first “outsider” to 

discover the island, which was still controlled by an all-powerful king. 

She administered the reasoning test to the adults on this island as well. 

Which population of islanders do you think did better on the reasoning 

test? Clearly, the adults on the first island should be better. Piaget pointed 

out the reason as early as 1928 when he stated that the development of 

reasoning occurs as a consequence of “the shock of our thoughts coming 

into contact with others, which produces doubt and the desire to prove” 

(Piaget, 1962). Piaget went on to state: 

The social need to share the thought of others and to communicate our own with success is 

at the root of our need for verification. ...argument is therefore, the backbone of verification. 

Logical reasoning is an argument which we have with ourselves, and which produces 

internally the features of a real argument. (p. 204) 

In other words, the growing awareness of and ability to use internalized 

arguments to guide one’s reasoning and decision making occurs as a consequence 

of attempting to engage in arguments of the same sort with others 

in which alternative hypotheses are put forward and accepted or rejected 

as the basis of evidence and reason as opposed to authority or emotion. 

If alternative ideas do not exist, then no external arguments ensue, and no 

internalization of patterns of argumentation results. 

HOW CAN TEACHERS ENCOURAGE INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT? 

Given that several studies have found that many secondary school and 

college students have yet to develop formal and/or post-formal reasoning 

patterns and that their reasoning deficiencies lead to difficulties in problem 

solving, in understanding theoretical concepts, in rejecting misconceptions, 

and also to rejecting misconceptions about the nature of science and 

mathematics (as reviewed by Lawson, 2003b), more emphasis on teaching


students to reason effectively is urged. Because effective reasoning lies 

at the very heart of scientific literacy, the key pedagogical question is 

this: How can we help more students develop formal and then post-formal 

reasoning patterns? 

Teaching a Specific Scientific Procedure 

To understanding of how instruction can provoke development of a specific 

formal reasoning sub-pattern, a specific procedure, consider controlled experimentation. 

Young children know when a previous test is “fair” or “not 

fair” when the variables are familiar; however they lack a general plan 

to set up “fair” tests ahead of time and in unfamiliar contexts (Wollman, 

1977). For example, suppose two children run a race. The loser understands 

that the test was “unfair” if she was wearing heavy boots while 

the winner was wearing running shoes. Let’s discuss in some detail how 

this intuition can be transformed into an internally mediated procedure 

in 9 and 13-year-old children who were initially unable to control variables. 

Following four half-hour individual training sessions, these same 

children were clearly able to demonstrate skill in controlling variables 

systematically and, in most cases, unhesitatingly. Further, as evidence of 

general skill in using this procedure, their skill transferred to new tasks, 

both manipulative and pencil-paper (Lawson & Wollman, 1976, 2003). 

Session 1. Session one began by introducing each subject (S) to the intent 

and format of the instruction. Ss were told that materials would be used to 

teach them how to perform “fair tests.” The materials were familiar: rubber 

balls, cardboard, foam rubber, a table. Ss were told that the first problem 

was to see which ball was the bounciest. To find out, they would instruct 

the experimenter what to do. Ss began by telling the experimenter to drop 

two balls to see which bounced higher. The experimenter would then drop 

two balls, but drop them from different heights. Ss would then respond by 

saying: “That isn’t fair. Drop them from the same height.” On the next trial 

the height would be equalized, however, one ball was dropped so that it 

hit the tabletop while the other hit the floor. This procedure was followed 

by continually intervening with new uncontrolled variables (spin one ball, 

push one ball, let one ball hit cardboard or foam rubber). Ss were then 

given a verbal rule – a test is “fair” if all the factors that might make a 

difference were the same for both balls. And tests in which these factors 

differed were called “unfair.” The intent was to allow each S to generate 

a testing procedure, which was then contradicted. Presumably the contradictions 

forced Ss to reflect on the inadequacies of their self-generated 

procedures.


Session 2. Metal rods of varying size, shape, and material were placed 

on the table and each S was asked to classify them in as many ways as 

possible to insure that differences were noted. The rods were then placed 

into a stationary block of wood and factors that might affect the amount of 

bending were discussed. Ss were then asked to perform “fair tests” to find 

out if the identified factors did in fact affect the amount of bending (cf. 

Inhelder & Piaget, 1958). Whenever Ss performed a test, they were asked: 

Is it a fair test? Why is it fair? Questions were used to focus attention on the 

relevant variables, to recognize ambiguous experiments, and to understand 

the need for a procedure that keeps “all factors the same” except the one 

being tested. A number of examples and counter-examples were discussed 

at length. 

Session 3. Ss were asked to experiment with an apparatus that consisted 

of a base that holds a post and an arm that attaches to the post. When 

pushed or propelled by a wound rubber band, the arm spins around like 

the rotor on a helicopter. Metal weights can be placed at various positions 

along the arm. Ss were briefly shown how the apparatus works and asked 

to discover factors that affect the time the arm spins before coming to rest. 

Following exploration, Ss were asked to perform “fair tests” to show that 

the factors mentioned do actually make a difference. Again, whenever a 

test was performed, Ss were asked questions that forced them to reflect 

on their procedures (e.g., Was it a fair test? Why was it fair?). The general 

intent of this session was similar to that of the second session as well as the 

fourth and final session. The strategies underlying the questions were identical 

in all sessions. The symbolic notation (the language used) remained 

invariant, while transformations in imagery were gained by first using familiar 

materials, and then by using unfamiliar materials. Ss were given a 

variety of tasks and were allowed to choose their own procedures. When 

mistakes were made, they were encouraged to reflect on their procedures 

and challenged to correct them. 

Session 4. Two written problems (one of which appears in Figure 5) 

were used. The problems represented an additional step away from the 

physical and towards the verbal. Again probing questions relative to Ss’ 

understanding were asked. Thus, learning by doing was replaced solely by 

language. 

Results. The four sessions clearly resulted in children who had internalized 

the meaning of the “fair test” rule. Importantly, they were capable 

of using the rule to design and conduct controlled experiments in novel 

contexts. Therefore, the results support the hypothesis that for intuitions


An experimenter wanted to test mealworms’ response to differences in light and moisture. 

To do so he set up four boxes. He used lamps for light and placed watered pieces of paper 

in the boxes for moisture. In the middle of each box he placed 20 mealworms. One day 

later he counted the mealworms that had crawled to the ends of the boxes (see below). 

Results show that mealworms respond (respond means move to or away from) to: (a) light 

but not moisture; (b) moisture but not light; (c) both light and moisture; (d) neither light 

nor moisture. 

Figure 5. A written problem requiring the identification and control of variables. 

to manifest themselves in the form of useful procedural rules, children 

need: (1) a variety of problems requiring a specific procedure for solution, 

(2) contradictions to their proposed procedures that force them to more 

closely attend to what they are doing or not doing, and (3) terms/phrases 

that remain invariant across transformations in materials – in this instance 

the key terms/phrases were “fair test” and “unfair test.” 

Hypothesis and Theory Testing in the Classroom 

Although attempts at teaching formal and post-formal reasoning patterns 

in the classroom do not achieve the same degree of success as one-onone 

sessions such as those just described, students do show marked improvements 

as a consequence of the right sort of classroom instruction 

(e.g., Cavallo, 1996; Germann, 1994; Harrison, Grayson & Treagust, 1999; 

Johnson & Lawson, 1998; Lawson, 1992, 1999; Lawson et al., 2000a, 

2000b; Noh & Scharmann, 1997; Shayer & Adey, 1993; Shymansky, 1984; 

Shymansky, Kyle & Alport, 1983, 2003; Westbrook & Rogers, 1994; 

Wong, 1993; Zohar, Weinberger & Tamir, 1994). In general successful 

classroom instruction begins with explorations in which students encounter 

puzzling observations. For example, Lawson (1999) described a hypothesis-testing 

lesson that begins with a burning candle held upright in a


pan of water using a small piece of clay. Shortly after a cylinder is inverted 

over the burning candle and placed in the water, the candle flame goes 

out and water rises in the cylinder. These puzzling observations raise two 

major causal questions: Why did the flame go out? And why did the water 

rise? The generally accepted answer to the first question is that the flame 

converted the oxygen in the cylinder to carbon dioxide such that too little 

oxygen remained to sustain combustion, thus the flame died. The generally 

accepted answer to the second question is that the flame transfers kinetic 

energy (motion) to the cylinder’s gas molecules. The greater kinetic energy 

causes the gas to expand, which results in some escaping out the bottom. 

When the flame goes out, the remaining molecules transfer some of their 

kinetic energy to the cylinder walls and then to the surrounding air and 

water. This causes a loss of average velocity, fewer collisions, and less gas 

pressure. Water then rises into the cylinder until the total of the water and 

air pressure inside the cylinder is equal to the total of the atmospheric and 

water pressure outside the cylinder. 

This lesson is a particularly good way to reinforce the idea that science 

is an alternative explanation generation and testing enterprise as the initial 

ideas students generate to explain why the water rises are experimentally 

contradicted, hence mental disequilibrium results along with the need for 

self-regulation. In other words, their ideas need to be replaced. A common 

student explanation centers on the idea that oxygen is “used up,” thus a 

partial vacuum is created, which “sucks” water into the cylinder. Typically, 

students fail to realize that when oxygen “burns” it combines with 

carbon producing CO2 gas of equal volume (hence no partial vacuum is 

created). Students also often fail to realize that a vacuum cannot “suck” 

anything. Rather the force causing the water to rise is a push from the 

relatively greater number of air molecules hitting the water surface outside 

the cylinder. Student experiments and discussions provide an opportunity 

to modify these misconceptions by introducing and testing a more satisfactory 

explanation of combustion and air pressure. An opportunity also exists 

to portray science as an intellectually stimulating and challenging way of 

using theories, in this case kinetic-molecular theory, to explain nature. 

Although the present advocacy of such a hypothetico-deductive mode 

of instruction is not new (e.g., Heiss, Obourn & Hoffman, 1950; Van Deventer, 

1958; Washton, 1967; Karplus & Thier, 1967; Lawson, Abraham & 

Renner, 1989), too few science curricular materials exist in which students 

openly generate and test hypotheses and theories. Of course, some lessons 

exist in which students are asked to test hypotheses. But in most of these 

cases, students are first told which hypothesis is correct and precisely how 

to test it. Such lessons probably do more harm than good as they teach


little or nothing about how science is done, they encourage a reliance on 

authority, they lower motivation, and they encourage data fabrication (e.g., 

Lawson, Lewis & Birk, 1999). Therefore, what researchers and curriculum 

developers need to do is to design, evaluate, and disseminate more 

lessons in which students confront puzzling observations and are then 

challenged to generate and test alternative explanations. Importantly, the 

lessons must be accompanied by detailed teachers’ guides that include 

not only lists of the hypotheses that have been generated, but also the 

hypothetico-deductive arguments and evidence used in their test. 

CONCLUSION 

In conclusion, the present paper paints successful human reasoning and 

scientific discovery in terms of cycles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning 

– reasoning in which working memory accesses and sustains hypotheses 

from associative memory to be tested and then actively seeks predictions 

and evidence that follow. In most instances, for most people, these reasoning 

cycles occur without conscious awareness. And unlike the streamlined 

arguments presented in this paper, the cycles often occur with many 

fits and starts. Nevertheless, successful reasoning follows the hypotheticodeductive 

pattern because the brain is “hard-wired” to process information 

in this way. But due to a variety of conditions, including lack of maturation 

of the frontal lobes, frontal lobe damage, or lack of relevant physical 

and social experience, reasoning abilities do not always develop to their 

full potential. Thus, failures may occur as evidenced by a lack of fruitful 

hypotheses to test, or more often, a premature acceptance of a pet hypothesis, 

often with little or no evidence in its favor. This leads to a failure 

to consider alternatives and potentially relevant evidence (e.g., Gabriel et 

al., 1994), or in terms of problem solving, a failure to consider and test 

alternative solution strategies – a condition often referred to as functional 

fixedness (e.g., Dominowski & Dallob, 1995). 

The fact that not everyone develops formal and post-formal reasoning 

abilities carries important educational implications because higherorder 

reasoning is needed not only for decision making and for advanced 

problem-solving, but also to understand complex concepts and theories, 

to reject scientific misconceptions, and to understand the nature of science 

and mathematics – in other words for scientific literacy. The central 

implication is that if teachers hope to have their students become scientifically 

literate, they must teach in ways that allow students to develop 

the necessary reasoning abilities. In short, instruction must not only “fit” 

students’ current developmental levels, but it must also provoke students


to progress to higher levels. The evidence is clear that the best way to do 

this is to teach science in the way science is practiced. In other words, we 

should teach science as a process of critical inquiry where ideas are freely 

generated and rigorously tested. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 

This material is based upon research partially supported by the National 

Science Foundation under grant No. DUE 9453610. Any opinions, findings, 

and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication 

are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National 

Science Foundation. Thanks are due to James Shymansky and Larry 

Yore for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. 

REFERENCES 

Anderson, J.R. (1980). Cognitive psychology and its implications. San Francisco: Freeman. 

Baddeley, A. (1995). Working memory. In M.S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences. 

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

Biela, A. (1993). Psychology of analogical inference. Stuttgart, Germany: Hirzel Verlag. 

Cavallo, A.M.L. (1996). Meaningful learning, reasoning ability, and students’ understanding 

and problem solving of topics in genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 

33, 625–656. 

Cohen, M.R. & Nagel, E. (1934). An introduction to logic and scientific method. London: 

Routledge and Kegan Paul. 

Coll, R. & Treagust, D.F. (2002). Learners’ use of analogy and alternative conceptions for 

chemical bonding: A cross age study. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 48, 24–32. 

Chamberlain, T.C. (1965). The method of multiple working hypotheses. Science, 148, 754– 

759. (First published in 1897.) 

De Kruif, P. (1953). Microbe hunters. New York: Harcourt Brace & World. (First published 

in 1926.) 

Dominowski, R.L. & Dallob, P. (1995). Insight and problem solving. In R.J. Sternberg & 

J.E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

Dreistadt, R. (1968). An analysis of the use of analogies and metaphors in science. Journal 

of Psychology, 68, 97–116. 

Educational Policies Commission (1961). The central purpose of American education. 

Washington, DC: National Education Association. 

Educational Policies Commission (1966). Education and the spirit of science. Washington, 

DC: National Education Association. 

Elementary Science Study (1974). Attribute games and problems: Teachers’ guide. New 

York: McGraw-Hill. 

Finke, R.A., Ward, T.B. & Smith, S.M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research and 

applications. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.


Gabriel, S.E., O’Fallon, W.M., Kurland, L.T., Beard, C.M., Woods, J.E. & Melton, I.I. 

(1994). Risk of connective-tissue disease and other disorders after breast implantation. 

New England Journal of Medicine, 330, 1697–1702. 

Galilei, G. (1610). The sidereal messenger. In H. Shapley, S. Rapport & H. Wright (Eds.) 

(1954). A treasury of science. New York: Harper & Brothers. 

Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony 

(Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University 

Press. 

Germann, P.J. (1994). Testing a model of science process skills acquisition: An interaction 

with parents’ education, preferred language, gender, science attitude, cognitive 

development, academic ability, and biology knowledge. Journal of Research in Science 

Teaching, 31, 749–783. 

Grossberg, S. (1982). Studies of mind and brain. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel. 

Hand, B.M., Prain, V. & Yore, L.D. (2001). Sequential writing tasks’ influence on science 

learning. In P. Tynjala, L. Mason & K. Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning 

tool: Integrating theory and practice. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic 

Publishers. 

Hanson, N.R. (1958). Patterns of discovery: An inquiry into the conceptual foundations of 

science. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 

Harrison, A.G., Grayson, D.J. & Treagust, D.F. (1999). Investigating a Grade 11 student’s 

evolving conceptions of heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 

36, 55–87. 

Hauser, M.D. (2000). What do animals think about numbers? American Scientist, 88, 144– 

151. 

Hempel, C. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 

Heiss, E.D., Obourn, E.S. & Hoffman, C.W. (1950). Modern science teaching. NewYork: 

MacMillan. 

Hestenes, D. (1992). Modeling games in a Newtonian world. American Journal of Physics, 

55, 440–454. 

Hoffman, R.R. (1980). Metaphor in science. In P.R. Honeck & R.R. Hoffman (Eds.), The 

psycholinguistics of figurative language. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. 

Hofstadter, D.R. (1981). Metamagical themas: How might analogy, the core of human 

thinking, be understood by computers? Scientific American, 249, 18–29. 

Holland, J.H., Holyoak, K.J., Nisbett, R.E. & Thagard, P.R. (1986). Induction: Processes 

of inference, learning, and discovery. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. (See especially 

Chapter 11.) 

Inhelder, B. & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to 

adolescence. New York: Basic Books. 

Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Johnson, M.A. & Lawson, A.E. (1998). What are the relative effects of reasoning ability 

and prior knowledge on biology achievement in expository and inquiry classes? Journal 

of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 89–103. 

Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, 

inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Johnson-Laird, P.N. (2003). Mental models and reasoning. In J.P. Leighton & R.J. Sternberg 

(Eds.), The nature of reasoning. New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Karplus, R. & Thier, H.D. (1967). A new look at elementary school science. Chicago: Rand 

McNally. 

Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. London: Hutchinson.


Kosslyn, S.M. & Koenig, O. (1995). Wet mind: The new cognitive neuroscience.NewYork: 

TheFreePress. 

Lawson, A.E. (1992). The development of reasoning among college biology students. 

Journal of College Science Teaching, 21, 338–344. 

Lawson, A.E. (1993). Deductive reasoning, brain maturation, and science concept acquisition: 

Are they linked? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1029–1052. 

Lawson, A.E. (1999). What should students learn about the nature of science and how 

should we teach it? Journal of College Science Teaching, 28, 401–411. 

Lawson, A.E. (2000). How do humans acquire knowledge? And what does that imply about 

the nature of knowledge? Science and Education, 9, 577–598. 

Lawson, A.E. (2002). What does Galileo’s discovery of Jupiter’s moons tell us about the 

process of scientific discovery? Science and Education, 11, 1–14. 

Lawson, A.E. (2003a). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation 

with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 

25, 1387–1408. 

Lawson, A.E. (2003b). The neurological basis of learning, development and discovery: 

Implications for teaching science and mathematics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer 

Academic Publishers. 

Lawson, A.E., Abraham, M.R. & Renner, J.W. (1989). A theory of instruction: Using 

the learning cycle to teach science concepts and thinking skills. Cincinnati: National 

Association for Research in Science Teaching. 

Lawson, A.E., Clark, B., Cramer-Meldrum, E., Falconer, K.A., Kwon, Y.J. & Sequist, J.M. 

(2000a). The development of reasoning skills in college biology: Do two levels of general 

hypothesis-testing skills exist? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 81–101. 

Lawson, A.E., Drake, N., Johnson, J., Kwon, Y.J. & Scarpone, C. (2000b). How good are 

students at testing alternative explanations of unseen entities? The American Biology 

Teacher, 62, 249–255. 

Lawson, A.E., Lewis, C.M. Jr. & Birk, J.P. (1999). Why do students “cook” lab data? 

A case study of the tenacity of misconceptions. The Journal of College Science Teaching, 

29, 191–198. 

Lawson, A.E. & Wollman, W.T. (1976). Encouraging the transition from concrete to formal 

cognitive functioning – an experiment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 13, 

413–430; also (2003). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, S33–S50. 

Lewis, R.W. (1988). Biology: A hypothetico-deductive science. The American Biology 

Teacher, 50, 362–367. 

Medawar, P.B. (1969). Induction and intuition in scientific thought. Philadelphia: American 

Philosophical Society. 

Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two. Psychological Review, 

63, 81–97. 

Moore, J.A. (1993). Science as a way of knowing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 

Press. 

Moshman, D. (1998). Cognitive development beyond childhood. In D. Kuhn & R.S. Siegler 

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, and language, 5th 

edn. New York: Wiley. 

Nauta, W.J.H. (1971). The problem of the frontal lobe: A reinterpretation. Journal of 

Psychiatric Research, 8, 167–187. 

Noh, T. & Scharmann, L.C. (1997). Instructional influence of a molecular-level pictorial 

presentation of matter on students’ conceptions and problem-solving ability. Journal of 

Research in Science Teaching, 34, 199–217.


Pascual-Leone, J. (1970). A mathematical model for the transition rule in Piaget’s 

developmental stages. Acta Psychologica, 32, 301–345. 

Pascual-Leone, J. & Ijaz, H. (1989). Mental capacity testing as a form of intellectual development. 

In R.J. Samuda, S.L. Kong, J. Cummins, J. Lewis & J. Pascual-Leone (Eds.), 

Assessment and placement of minority students (pp. 143–171). Toronto: C.J. Hogrefe. 

Paulesu, E., Frith, D.D. & Frackowiak, R.S.J. (1993). The neural correlates of the verbal 

component of working memory. Nature, 362, 342–345. 

Piaget, J. (1962). Judgment and reasoning in the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 

(First published in 1928.) 

Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. New York: Norton. 

Piaget, J. (1971). Problems of equilibration. In C.F. Nodine, J.M. Gallagher & 

R.D. Humphreys (Eds.), Piaget and Inhelder on equilibration. Philadelphia, PA: The 

Jean Piaget Society. 

Piaget, J. (1976). Piaget’s theory. In B. Inhelder & H.H. Chipman (Eds.), Piaget and his 

school. New York: Springer. 

Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of 

intellectual development. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. 

Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books. 

Platt, J.R. (1964). Strong inference. Science, 146, 347–353. 

Popper, K.R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Basic Books. 

Popper, K.R. (1965). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge.New 

York: Basic Books. 

Shayer, M. & Adey, P.S. (1993). Accelerating the development of formal thinking in middle 

and high school students IV: Three years after a two-year intervention. Journal of 

Research in Science Teaching, 30, 351–366. 

Shymansky, J.A. (1984). BSCS programs: Just how effective were they? The American 

Biology Teacher, 46, 54–57. 

Shymansky, J.A., Kyle, W.C. & Alport, J.M. (1983). The effects of new science curricula 

on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 387–404; also 

(2003). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, S68–S87. 

Simon, H.A. (1974). How big is a chunk? Science, 183, 482–488. 

Squire, L.R. & Zola-Morgan, S. (1991). The medial temporal lobe memory system. 

Science, 253, 1380–1386. 

Thatcher, R.W. (1991). Maturation of the human frontal lobes: Physiological basis of 

staging. Developmental Neuropsychology, 7, 397–419. 

Thatcher, R.W., Walker, R.A. & Giudice, S. (1987). Human cerebral hemispheres develop 

at different rates and ages. Science, 236, 1110–1113. 

Tidman, P. & Kahane, H. (2003). Logic and philosophy, 9th edn. Belmont, CA: 

Wadsworth/Thomson. 

Toulmin, S.E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University 

Press. 

Toulman, S.E., Rieke, R. & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning, 2nd edn. New 

York: Macmillan. 

Van Deventer, W.C. (1958). A simplified approach to the problem of scientific methodology. 

School Science and Mathematics, 58, 99. 

Wallis, J.D., Anderson, K.C. & Miller, E.K. (2001). Single neurons in prefrontal cortex 

encode abstract rules. Nature, 411, 953–956. 

Warnick, B. & Inch, E.S. (1989). Critical thinking and communication: The use of reason 

in argument. New York: Macmillan.


Washton, N.S. (1967). Teaching science creatively in the secondary schools. Philadelphia: 

Saunders. 

Westbrook, S.L. & Rogers, L.N. (1994). Examining the development of scientific reasoning 

in ninth-grade physical science students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 

65–76. 

Wollman, W. (1977). Controlling variables: Assessing levels of understanding. Science 

Education, 61, 371–383. 

Wong, E.D. (1993). Self-generated analogies as a tool for constructing and evaluating 

explanations of scientific phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 

367–380. 

Woodward, J. & Goodstein, D. (1996). Conduct, misconduct and the structure of science. 

American Scientist, 84, 479–490. 

Zohar, A., Weinberger, Y. & Tamir, P. (1994). The effect of biology critical thinking project 

on the development of critical thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 

183–196. 

School of Life Sciences, 

Arizona State University, 

Tempe, AZ 85287-4501, 

U.S.A. 

E-mail: anton.lawson@asu.edu

science literacy test 

& 

its article

drjjlanita@hotmail.com 


The Internet Infidels Test of Scientific Literacy 

Answer each question with 'true' (T) if what the sentence most normally means is typically 

true and 'false' (F) if it is typically false. 

Answer 

T/F 

1. Scientists usually expect an experiment to turn out a certain way. 

2. Science only produces tentative conclusions that can change. 

3. Science has one uniform way of conducting research called “the scientific 

method.” 

4. Scientific theories are explanations and not facts. 

5. When being scientific one must have faith only in what is justified by empirical 

evidence. 

6. Science is just about the facts, not human interpretations of them. 

7. To be scientific one must conduct experiments. 

8. Scientific theories only change when new information becomes available. 

9. Scientists manipulate their experiments to produce particular results. 

10. Science proves facts true in a way that is definitive and final. 

11. An experiment can prove a theory true. 

12. Science is partly based on beliefs, assumptions, and the nonobservable. 

13. Imagination and creativity are used in all stages of scientific investigations. 

14. Scientific theories are just ideas about how something works. 

15. A scientific law is a theory that has been extensively and thoroughly confirmed. 

16. Scientists’ education, background, opinions, disciplinary focus, and basic guiding 

assumptions and philosophies influence their perception and interpretation of the 

available data. 

17. A scientific law will not change because it has been proven true. 

18. An accepted scientific theory is an hypothesis that has been confirmed by 

considerable evidence and has endured all attempts to disprove it. 

19. A scientific law describes relationships among observable phenomena but does 

not explain them. 

20. Science relies on deduction (x entails y) more than induction (x implies y). 

21. Scientists invent explanations, models or theoretical entities. 

22. Scientists construct theories to guide further research. 

23. Scientists accept the existence of theoretical entities that have never been directly 

observed. 

24. Scientific laws are absolute or certain. 

Source: 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/SciLit.html 

HP: +60193551621



The Internet Infidels Test of Scientific Literacy 

Answer each question with 'true' (T) if what the sentence most normally means is typically 

true and 'false' (F) if it is typically false. 

Answer 

T/F 

1. T Scientists usually expect an experiment to turn out a certain way. 

2. T Science only produces tentative conclusions that can change. 

3. F Science has one uniform way of conducting research called “the scientific 

method.” 

4. T Scientific theories are explanations and not facts. 

5. T When being scientific one must have faith only in what is justified by empirical 

evidence. 

6. F Science is just about the facts, not human interpretations of them. 

7. F To be scientific one must conduct experiments. 

8. F Scientific theories only change when new information becomes available. 

9. T Scientists manipulate their experiments to produce particular results. 

10. F Science proves facts true in a way that is definitive and final. 

11. F An experiment can prove a theory true. 

12. T Science is partly based on beliefs, assumptions, and the nonobservable. 

13. T Imagination and creativity are used in all stages of scientific investigations. 

14. F Scientific theories are just ideas about how something works. 

15. F A scientific law is a theory that has been extensively and thoroughly confirmed. 

16. T Scientists’ education, background, opinions, disciplinary focus, and basic guiding 

assumptions and philosophies influence their perception and interpretation of the 

available data. 

17. F A scientific law will not change because it has been proven true. 

18. T An accepted scientific theory is an hypothesis that has been confirmed by 

considerable evidence and has endured all attempts to disprove it. 

19. T A scientific law describes relationships among observable phenomena but does 

not explain them. 

20. F Science relies on deduction (x entails y) more than induction (x implies y). 

21. T Scientists invent explanations, models or theoretical entities. 

22. T Scientists construct theories to guide further research. 

23. T Scientists accept the existence of theoretical entities that have never been directly 

observed. 

24. F Scientific laws are absolute or certain. 

Source: 


HP: +60193551621



1. T (#4) 9. T (#4) 17. F (#6) 0 wrong = A+ 

2. T (#1) 10. F (#1) 18. T (#5) 1 wrong = A 

3. F (#3) 11. F (#4) 19. T (#6) 2 wrong = A- 

4. T (#5) 12. T (#2) 20. F (#7) 3 wrong = B+ 

5. T (#2) 13. T (#7) 21. T (#7) 4 wrong = B 

6. F (#2) 14. F (#5) 22. T (#5) 5 wrong = B- 

7. F (#4) 15. F (#6) 23. T (#7) 6 wrong = C 

8. F (#5) 16. T (#2) 24. F (#6) 7 wrong = D 

Source: 


8 or more wrong = F 

HP: +60193551621

Test Your Scientific Literacy! (2001) 

Richard Carrier 

Do you think you know what science is? You may be surprised. Scientific literacy is hard to 

acquire and is not widespread. Science is, after all, a very complex and nuanced affair that can 

only be truly understood with wide experience and deep thought. It took the whole of human 

civilization thousands of years to hit upon it, and thousands more to master it. Recent books 

have explored the unnatural, counter-intuitive, and difficult nature of science, refuting the 

naive Enlightenment view that science is nothing more than disciplined common sense.[1] We 

freethinkers and secularists should be keen above all to become fully literate in the nature of 

science and to encourage the spread of this literacy throughout the general public. Indeed, 

ignorance of science is a leading cause of support for superstitions, cults, and those religions 

that shackle the mind, or foster bigotry or worse. 

A recent study of the effect of “history of science” courses on improving a student’s 

understanding of the nature of science sets the groundwork for a simple test of scientific 

literacy which I have created here.[2] Though there were several flaws in the study that make 

its conclusions somewhat questionable, the researchers had the right idea, and their results 

suggested an astonishingly poor understanding of science even among high school science 

teachers. By “scientific literacy” in this study, and in the following test, what is meant is the 

nature of science, not its content. People are awash with scientific content. Many scientific 

facts are common knowledge: the average person on the street knows more scientific facts 

than the most educated men of antiquity. “Scientific literacy” in the more prosaic sense of 

simply knowing what scientists have concluded on any given subject is a secondary concern. 

It does no good to know all the products of science and yet not understand science itself. For 

it is the nature of science that sets it apart from all other sources of authority, and which is 

most helpful in instructing our own lives and our own personal pursuit of the truth. To the 

scientific illiterate, scientific facts can be little more than the oracular pronouncements of a 

priestly caste of prophets whom we call “scientists,” an analogy I have heard sincerely 

trumpeted by the religious right more than once (betraying their ignorance of the nature and 

history of science). We can know all sorts of facts about geology or astronomy or biology, but 

if we don’t understand how those facts were ascertained and demonstrated, our minds will 

remain linked with those of our primitive ancestors who let themselves be led by common 

sense into all manner of errors and superstitions. Scientific literacy is the key to 

enlightenment. 

The Sixteen Features of the Nature of Science 

Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman defined the nature of science as comprised primarily of sixteen 

particular features. These were expanded from seven more basic features that they believed 

were “noncontroversial” and sufficiently general that they could be taught to all students 

during a K-12 course of education, whether focussed on a future in science or not. The seven 

basic elements of scientic knowledge are that it is (a) tentative (subject to change); (b) 



Source: 


HP: +60193551621

empirically-based (based on and/or derived from observations of the natural world); (c) 

subjective (theory-laden)[3]; (d) partially based on human imagination, creativity, and 

inference (i.e. inductive vs. deductive reasoning); and (e) socially and culturally embedded. 

In addition, they added “two additional important aspects: the distinction between observation 

and inference, and the functions of, and relationship between scientific theories and laws.,” 

These seven factors will become clearer in their meaning as we examine the sixteen more 

specific features derived from them. I now turn to seven aspects of the nature of science that, 

together, explain (without exactly corresponding to) the seven factors defined by Abd-El- 

Khalick and Lederman above. 

1. Science is a Tentative Enterprise 

Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman classified many statements made by their test subjects as 

denying the tentative nature of science that we might suspect as not suggesting such a 

conclusion. For instance, one subject responded that “What makes science different from 

other disciplines of inquiry is the fact that it holds universal truths rather than a view of the 

truth according to certain individuals.” In a sense, this statement is correct, but it was ruled 

incorrect because it overstates the case. First, science is the product of the judgements of 

individuals, a fact that must never be forgotten: the special virtue of science is not that its 

results are decisive, superior to all others by some fiat, but that it requires individuals to 

defend their conclusions by extensive appeals to evidence and reason. There is commonly a 

confusion between the terms “universal” and “objective,” as well as about what it means for 

something to be “objectively true.” The reality is that objectivity entails arriving at 

conclusions based on premises whose truth can at least in principle be agreed upon by all 

parties, rather than importing premises which are only ever true for individuals (such as 

intuitions and emotional truths), and an "objective" truth is one that can be agreed upon by all 

fully-informed observers. Second, the truths of science are only universal in the sense of being 

applicable to everyone, but they are not absolutes. They could be in error, and are thus subject 

to refinement and alteration. As one respondent put it, “one thing that is certain about science 

is that it will always change.” 

This is one element of science that most people have a hard time appreciating. Common sense 

tells us that we need absolute truths independent of individual judgement, because tentative 

truths are risky, not worth the effort, somehow “not really true,” and individuals are biased, 

fallible and limited in their abilities. Indeed, many conclude that if there are no absolute 

truths, then there is no knowledge, that if we can’t know something for certain, we don’t 

know it at all. Indeed, some critics of science have outright said that science is to be disgarded 

because it is always changing. Others even say that since all truth comes from individuals, all 

truth is subjective and therefore equivalent in merit. But these are absurd conclusions. History 

has shown that tentative knowledge is extremely useful if it turns out correct with a very high 

frequency. That frequency does not have to be 100% for it to be useful or “correct” in a 

practical sense. A gambler doesn’t need a sure thing to see a really good bet. 

In fact, the tentativeness of science is counter-intuitively one of its greatest virtues: for 

progress toward truth and away from error would never be possible without change, and 

change would never be possible without perpetual doubt and skepticism (as I note in my essay 

Do Religious Life and Critical Thought Need Each Other?). But science does not simply 

undergo any arbitrary change, as religious ideology or clothing fashions do. When science 

changes its conclusions, it always does so as a result of further inquiry, and not just any 

inquiry, but rational, observational, or experimental investigations. And thus, science changes 



Source: 


HP: +60193551621

in response to those kinds of discoveries that are more likely to advance us toward truths 

about the world. Moreover, science’s dependence on individuals is not the handicap that such 

dependence is in other endeavors, since it requires individuals to persuade others with sound 

evidence and reasoning, and only when an overwhelming majority of those expert in a field 

are convinced does science declare something “true.” This truth is not definitive or final, but it 

is the most reliable bet around. No other means of inquiry is as successful or as trustworthy, 

as history has shown. Science sets the highest bar, requiring the highest standards of 

verification, employing the most experienced and well-trained judges, and that is what makes 

it scientific (and superior to all other endeavors that claim to produce knowledge). Moreover, 

science does not conceal its evidence or rest its case on mysteries or private revelations, but 

makes everything public, so that all experts, and even the layman, can examine and weigh the 

claims and arguments of scientists to an extent not possible in any other field, creating the 

most effective check against individual bias that humans can devise. 

2. Science is an Empirical “Faith” 

Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman regarded as naive the claim that science uses facts to prove the 

truth of scientific claims. Intuitively, we might object to that classification, for surely that is 

what science does. Here I think they may have interpreted the words of their subjects too 

literally, for we can certainly say this without meaning, for example, “prove” in a 

mathematical or deductive sense. But this is just the sort of qualification that we should 

immediately understand and always express, or at least have in mind, when thinking about or 

discussing science. Scientific “proofs” are not the same things as logical proofs. Science relies 

on induction and inference far too much for its results to be equated with those of deductive 

logic, and scientists are perfectly comfortable with that, as discussed in point #1 above. 

But the researchers here wanted to make sure that people understood that other factors besides 

plain observation determine scientific results. First, science encompasses many unobservables 

like magnetic fields, which are only observable indirectly, and many basic assumptions that 

are founded only on general experience (such as that the basic rules of induction lead to useful 

approximations to the truth). Thus, theoretical entities and background assumptions are an 

essential feature of science. Second, social or cultural factors can influence science in terms of 

directing what it studies and how, and can adversely affect it by supporting invalid biases or 

assumptions, and it can also beneficially affect it by inspiring new, more successful ideas. 

Since science is fundamentally an interpretive activity, and not merely a collection and 

presentation of facts, science is never immune to such tainting factors as culture or desire and 

therefore a constant vigilance against their influence upon any final analysis is an essential 

component of the nature of science. This is a fact we must never forget, and yet we can easily 

forget it if we think even for a moment that science is all about “just the facts” without human 

interpretation. 

This is another counter-intuitive feature of science: it is thoroughly empirical, as in based on 

observation and evidence, yet “empiricism” is not observation and evidence alone, but a view 

of things that is constructed from observed facts. On the one hand science requires faith, a 

faith “that certain principles or certain bodies of knowledge are in fact true.” On the other 

hand, this faith is not blind, for, as one subject put it, “you are going to have to back it up with 

some empirical evidence.” This is a seeming contradiction that trips up many people. Science 

builds up faith in its concepts, principles, and conclusions through repeated practice or testing, 

and when its faith is challenged it returns again to examine the facts and see if its faith is 

justified by them. This is what makes science an empirical enterprise, the fact that it 



Source: 


HP: +60193551621

ultimately grounds and justifies its faith by appeal to observable evidence. The idea of an 

empirically-based faith is hard for many people to grasp, especially if they have been raised or 

indoctrinated into believing that “faith” is only a reason for believing something when you 

don’t have evidence. The term “faith” does have both connotations, meaning “belief” but also 

“reason to believe.” Science has no use for the latter, but it is not true that a scientist “has no 

faith” in science: he has faith in it, but a faith that is grounded in empirical evidence and 

reasoning. By confusing the two notions of faith, common sense creates a false dichotomy 

between faith and empirical justification. Science unites them.[4] 

3. Science is Not a Single Method 

Many people assume there is such a thing as a singular “scientific method” that can be talked 

about as if it were a set of known and established procedures that all the sciences follow. It is 

in some sense true that science by definition follows a certain process of identifying a 

problem, gathering relevant data, formulating a hypothesis, and testing the predictions 

entailed by that hypothesis, or in another formulation “adduction, deduction, induction”: we 

adduce a hypothesis from some collection of data and questions about that data, then deduce 

what new facts that hypothesis must entail if it were true, and then employ any of a variety of 

inductive methods to test that hypothesis by seeing if these new predictions hold up. However, 

this procedure does not automatically produce “science,” for the devil is in the details: the 

specific possibilities are endless, and some particular methods are good and others bad. 

Science seeks those methods that work well, and progressively abandons those that don’t, 

especially those that are found to produce misleading results. But the methods that work well 

will vary according to what is being studied, and so “the scientific method” ends up a 

multifarious hodge podge of “methods,” some shared across fields, some specific to certain 

subjects of study, and these methods are themselves always subject to scrutiny and change 

over time, as their efficacy, or lack thereof, is discovered, and as new effective methods are 

found out. The exact same problem can even be explored using several different methods, and 

in fact scientists often seek to use several, as there is even greater certainty in the results if 

those same results are arrived at by completely different means. 

Thus, those who talk about “the scientific method” are often unwittingly expressing a naive 

view of the nature of science. It seems unintuitive to say that there is no scientific method 

when we know there is a common general process in deploying the methods of science for 

getting at the truth. We talk about “the scientific method” all the time without stopping to 

consider just what it means, or even if it is what we should be saying, because we naturally 

assume there is a single method shared by all scientists that makes what they do so successful 

at producing reliable and confirmable results. What most scientific authors, including me, 

mean by the phrase is the whole gamut of means and methods employed in science, not a 

single uniform methodology, but many people don't know that. Thus, apart from the reality of 

a tacit “metamethod” that has inspired a search for an endless variety of particular methods in 

science, “the scientific method” can be as much a misnomer as “the artistic method,” for 

though one can say a painter typically begins with an inspiration, then a tracing, then paints 

the background, then the details, then applies the finish, there is in fact no one way to paint a 

picture, and knowing these obvious steps tells us nothing about how any actual painting was 

done, or how we could paint a picture ourselves. Likewise, knowing the steps adductiondeduction-induction 

does not make us a scientist, for we still don’t know what actual methods 

to follow if we want to carry out these three steps successfully for any given problem. This is 

why it is often difficult for a scientist to cross fields. A biochemist’s methods do not resemble 

a psychologist’s methods anywhere near enough for one to guess just how the other should 



Source: 


HP: +60193551621

est pursue his research, unless they each had some prior acquaintance with the other’s field. 

Even some common concepts, like the use of control groups or double-blind experiments, 

cannot be applied to all scientific problems, so that we cannot define the scientific as that 

which is discovered through the use of control groups or double-blind experiments (we would 

in one sweep toss astronomy out as unscientific if we did so), or any other subset of methods. 

But this is another strength of science: it is not only testing facts for truth, but testing methods 

for accuracy, and thus is the only endeavor we have that is constantly devoted to finding the 

best means of ascertaining the truth. This is one of the reasons why science is so successful, 

and its results so authoritative. 

4. Experiments are a Goal-Oriented Form of Scientific Observation 

Science is closely associated by everyone with the idea of conducting experiments, but the 

role of the experiment in science is not well understood. Three common naive views of 

science are: (1) science requires the use of experiments; (2) scientists have no idea how those 

experiments will turn out; and (3) an experiment can prove a theory true. All are false. 

(1) Science is based on observations. Observing experiments is merely one variety of this 

activity. Zoology, for instance, relies heavily on observation alone, and in fact often seeks to 

avoid any hint of an experimenter’s influence on the animal being observed or its 

environment. Thus, experiments are merely one tool in a scientist’s arsenal for collecting 

observations. The utility of experiments lies in their controllability, not their repeatability per 

se, since observations can be repeatable without experiments, as again the astronomer well 

knows. By setting up an experiment, a scientist can control what affects the process being 

observed and thus can see exactly which factors have which effects. This is clearly useful, but 

it is not essential. Many scientific facts can be established, and theories validated, without 

using experiments, a fact that many a creationist fails to appreciate. Geologists cannot exactly 

create mountains or continental drift in a laboratory. Yet they can confirm with extensive and 

overwhelmingly-convincing evidence how these things come about, simply by observing 

nature. 

(2) Experiments are goal-oriented procedures. As one subject put it, “if you are going to 

organize the experiment you sort of need to know what you are looking for.” As the 

researchers note, prior expectations play a crucial role in designing and conducting scientific 

experiments. Rarely are experiments set up just to see whatever happens. Rather, the typical 

procedure is for a scientist to have a hypothesis or theory already in hand, and thus already to 

expect a certain outcome of a certain arrangement of events. Indeed, that is the point of the 

experiment: to see if the intended outcome materializes or not. The experiment may still 

surprise the scientist by not doing what it was predicted to do, but even then that possibility 

was usually already anticipated in the form of a null-hypothesis, i.e. the result the scientist 

would expect if the theory being tested is false. In fact, the very purpose of most experiments 

is to create an opportunity for an observer to control the outcome by manipulating the 

variables that come into play, including their environment. However, contrary to our common 

sense reaction, this does not mean that the scientist proves himself right by manipulating the 

data. The data will confirm or disconfirm the theory being tested whether the scientist likes it 

or not. Nor does it mean that the manipulation of the experiment invalidates the results. To the 

contrary, it is the manipulation of the experiment that validates the results, by eliminating 

uncertain causal factors and limiting the observation to a controlled set of causes that the 

observer can clearly identify and trace. This is yet another counter-intuitive feature of science: 



Source: 


HP: +60193551621

that an artificial set of circumstances can teach us about the natural world seems illogical, yet 

we have discovered it is true. 

(3) No single experiment can prove a theory true. Indeed, it is only in a colloquial and 

tentative sense that we can say a theory is ever “proven.” As one subject said, “an experiment 

is a controlled approach to test the validity of a theory or hypothesis. No experiment can ever 

fully validate a theory as fact.” As a result, “experiments are constantly refined in an attempt 

to substantiate the implications of a theory.” A well-established theory, which we would 

normally call “true” in casual conversation, is one whose every notable implication has been 

repeatedly tested by numerous different means. This falls back to point #1 above, the 

tentativeness of science. But here the implications of that tentativeness must be drawn out: 

many experiments and observations are necessary to prove a point scientifically, not just one, 

and most preferably by completely different scientists or scientific teams. This is an important 

check against possible random errors or biases, and also serves to distinguish theories that 

make many of the same predictions: by checking what the theories predict differently, we can 

eliminate one theory in favor of another. But most importantly, we should never jump the gun 

and hail the truth of a theory that has passed merely one test, or a fact that has been 

established by merely one observation. That would be fundamentally unscientific behavior. 

5. Scientific Theories are Explanations of Scientific Facts 

Many people in the study claimed that theories could not be tested, or that they were just ideas 

or hunches. Only a few understood that in science, as one subject put it, “the word theory is 

used differently than in the general population. It does not mean someone’s idea that cannot 

be proven. It is a concept that has considerable evidence behind it and has endured the 

attempts to disprove it.” This is one of the most commonly misunderstood aspects of the 

nature of science, largely because the word "theory" has a different colloquial meaning. We 

commonly hear a scientific claim being dismissed because it is “just a theory,” expressing a 

belief that theories are unprovable or unproven concepts, when in fact for an accepted concept 

to be given the rubric “theory” in formal scientific literature it must be far from unproven. To 

the contrary, it must be extensively tested or confirmed and it must continue to survive 

attempts to disconfirm its predictions in order to win and keep such a title. Otherwise, it is 

more properly called a hypothesis. Therefore, every currently-accepted theory is wellsupported 

and not “just a theory,” though all theories will vary in how well-supported they are 

at any given time, and some theories have been refuted and are no longer accepted. 

Related to this misunderstanding is a confusion between facts and theories. Facts are what 

have been carefully observed to be the case. Theories, in contrast, are explanations of those 

facts. It is possible for a theory to be so well confirmed that it is nearly as certain to be true as 

the facts it explains, but that would still not make it a fact: theories are not observed, they are 

only confirmed by what is observed. This suggests a paradox to our common sense, since here 

we have something that can be empirically tested yet never observed, a counter-intuitive 

notion that has led to many an ignorant polemic against science. The correct understanding 

lies in the role the theory plays in explaining and thus predicting facts, for such an explanation 

must always include one or more unobservable features (the idea of causation, for example) 

that account for what is observed, since humans cannot observe everything. In the end, a 

theory’s success in explaining the past and predicting future facts is the basis for believing it 

is a correct account of things, and that is more than sufficient as a justification. Most people 

would be astonished to know how frequently they completely rely on theoretical notions their 

whole lives, constructing explanations for everything they see or even take for granted. 



Source: 


HP: +60193551621

Science merely does this more rigorously. For example, the moment you say your car is in 

your garage even though you aren't there to see it, that is a theory, not a fact. Of course, it is 

so certain to be true that we readily treat it as a fact and thus forget the important difference-so 

one can see here how futile and ridiculous it is to dismiss something by saying it's "just a 

theory." 

Because of a theory’s role in generating predictions, scientists employ theories to guide 

further research, which is another feature of science that goes underappreciated. The amount 

of new scientific knowledge that the theory of evolution has led us to in just the past century 

and a half is vast in scope and depth and not to be sneezed at. It has been tremendously 

successful as a research programme, and has not lost its steam, for it has survived incredible 

efforts at refutation and become more and more confirmed from more and more angles. In 

contrast, creation theory offers no guidance for further research and has produced no new 

scientific discoveries. But this is not to say that only new information, or new technology 

allowing more accurate observations, will lead to a new theory or the modification of an old 

one. Theories might change, as one subject said, “due to the reinterpretation of extant data” or 

“as perspectives and values change.” This is most frequently the case in history, where the 

same data is looked at in a different way or from a fresh perspective, or connected with other 

already-known data, and a new theory is proposed that is a superior explanation of the facts at 

hand. This reiterates the fact that science is as much a rational and logical enterprise as an 

empirical and investigative one. 

6. Scientific Laws are Descriptions of Nature’s Behavior 

Many people think that scientific laws are absolute or certain, but this represents the same 

lack of acquaintance with the tentativeness of science discussed in point #1 above. As one 

subject claimed, “a scientific law” is “something that has been proven, and therefore will not 

change because it is true.” This is not what a scientific law is, nor is it even a property of a 

scientific law. Laws can change, as we discover past errors or new facts. The study’s subjects 

also betrayed ignorance of the conditional nature of most scientific laws. Laws only apply 

when certain conditions are present. A common example is the creationist who forgets that the 

second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed thermal systems. A less common case is 

the green physics student who thinks the speed of light is a single value, when in fact it varies 

according to the medium through which light passes. This makes science difficult, because it 

is complicated, and people expect the world to be simple and easy to grasp. 

But more telling, a kind of popular folklore has it that there is, as the researchers’ say, a 

“hierarchical view of the relationship between scientific theories and laws” such that, as one 

subject said, “a scientific law is a theory that has been accepted by all scientists and has been 

proven again and again over time to be true.” This idea that a law is just a theory with a 

privileged status is frequently taught in high school science courses (I recall being taught it 

myself), but this is a very naive view that completely misses the function of scientific laws 

and their relationship to theories. One teacher correctly stated the case: “A scientific law 

states, identifies or describes relationships among observable phenomena” while “scientific 

theories are inferred explanations for observable phenomena.” In other words, theories 

explain, laws describe. These are very different functions. Newton’s laws are often thought to 

have been overthrown by Einstein’s theory of relativity, but in fact Einstein’s theory 

explained Newton’s laws. It did lead to some modifications of those laws, but it incorporated 

them rather than casting them out. For Newton never proposed any theory of gravity, shying 

away from attempting to know why gravity behaves like it does, and contented himself with 



Source: 


HP: +60193551621

merely describing gravity’s behavior in precise mathematical terms, by collecting and 

analyzing a large amount of relevant data. Laws, unlike theories, are proven directly by the 

data: the relationships or behaviors found in the data entail some mathematical or logical 

relationship that is categorized a “law.” Once this is understood, it will be easier to see how 

scientific laws are not something that had to be decreed (as a common sense reading of “law” 

would suggest), but are simply patterns of behavior inherent in nature: laws describe how 

nature behaves, while theories seek to explain that behavior. 

7. Science is a Creative Enterprise 

Finally, we must not forget how fundamentally imaginative and creative science is. The 

popular image of the scientist as unimaginative and blindly conservative does not reflect the 

reality that science only progresses when humans are at their most creative, plumbing their 

imaginations for ideas and ways to understand the facts and theories of science. This also 

stands in the face of the common sense notion that science is destructive, being hopelessly 

skeptical and overly critical, ending up hostile to the feeling of wonder. This mistaken view of 

science is so common that several authors have written books attacking it and presenting the 

way science really is: full of wonder and beauty, a source of belief as well as doubt, and 

fundamentally constructive.[5] Many people might think that the creative aspect of science is 

limited to the initial stages of research, but in fact it permeates all scientific activity. Brilliant 

and original ways of collecting and analyzing data are developed, clever theories proposed, 

experiments run imaginatively. But this does not undermine the value of scientific results: to 

the contrary, science needs this inventiveness to make progress. It is one of the virtues of 

science that it is so versatile and can find and make use of so many different ways to explore 

and study man and his natural world. Science is not shackled to one set of rituals or 

procedures. 

This does mean that scientific explanations, models or theoretical entities are human 

constructions, created by human beings, drawn from their imagination. But the proof is in the 

pudding: what makes science so successful is that it marries this tireless resource of human 

fantasy to a dedication to test everything thoroughly against observed facts and the rules of 

reason and logic. Thus science gains the best of both worlds: the benefits of human creativity 

without the shortfalls of superstition or fancy, plus the benefits of a demand for empirical 

proof without the limitations inherent in the data taken by themselves. Thus, science certainly 

relies extensively on the believed existence of theoretical entities that have never been directly 

observed, but does so only when extensive evidence is offered from which those entities can 

be inferred. This brings us to a close with the one most fundamental and characteristic feature 

of science: it constructs an understanding of the world through the logic of inference. Though 

simple deductive logic plays a role in science, the conclusions and discoveries and theories 

and laws which comprise nearly the whole of scientific knowledge at any given time are all 

built on statistical inferences (whether overt or implied), employing inductive reasoning to 

arrive at the most plausible and most probable interpretations of the observations we make not 

only in the laboratory or in the field but in daily life. In the end, it is a mark of profound 

achievement that the human species, lacking any means to be certain about anything, has 

come to know and master so much about the universe. 

Concluding Observations 

In the sense science is defined here, the term “science” can be expanded to encompass all 

rational-critical fields, even mathematics, analytical (vs. speculative) philosophy,[6] and 



Source: 


HP: +60193551621

history. These last three fields differ from what we normally classify as “science” in certain 

respects that are not fundamental to the nature of science as such. 

• In general, math and philosophy rely on analysis far more than observation, but neither 

is independent of observation, and each have their own form of experimentation and 

require the same ultimate demands of rational-critical peer review. For example, many 

a mathematical theorem begins with an observed problem or phenomenon, or was hit 

upon through diagrams or other empirical tools of discovery, and theorems have to be 

observable and repeatable. And though mathematical “proofs” are unlike scientific 

theories in that they are genuine proofs, intended to be final and decisive, they may 

still be in error and thus remain somewhat tentative. Ultimately, in mathematics 

empiricism is to be found in its heuristics and applications, not in its proofs as such. 

• Philosophy often calls upon observations and experiments that everyone can perform 

anywhere (self-examination, for instance), and relies heavily on both the methods and 

conclusions of all the sciences in arriving at an accurate, unified, and comprehensible 

worldview. 

• Finally, history rarely involves experiments (though it sometimes does), yet like 

philosophy it still draws heavily on the conclusions of science, and employs 

hypothetico-deductive methods that are not fundamentally different from other 

observational sciences (like geology, though geology also has a strong experimental 

side, as many other observational sciences do). In the end, the historian must gather 

facts, test theories against them, and construct logical arguments that are subjected to 

intensive peer review, and thus in effect his observations must be repeatable just as in 

science, and like scientific theories, historical theories entail predictions about the 

possibilities of future evidence. 

Abd-El-Khalick's and Lederman's study also does not address the role of methodological 

naturalism in scientific method, perhaps because this is not essential to science, only useful, 

and has more to do with what science has discovered than with the nature of science as such. 

But something needs to be said about it here. It has been observed by countless authors that 

science has over the last several centuries discovered a vast body of diverse knowledge which, 

in hindsight, we now see supports a unified picture of a single natural world,[7] a picture that 

can thus be used to make scientific research more efficient by directing studies where results 

are promising, and that confirms the success of science in no small way as a means of getting 

at the truth. All the sciences contribute to eachother: biology converges on and informs 

psychology, as physics chemistry, and chemistry biology. This is one proof that these sciences 

are getting it right. The only failure in this regard to date is the supposed irreconcilability of 

relativity and quantum mechanical theory, but with the body of support for a coherent natural 

world we are confident that this conflict is only the result of either or both theories being 

incomplete or incorrect. 

This same phenomenon is relevant on a smaller scale, too: scientific results are built from 

stronger foundations to less certain theories, so that there is more room for change at the 

cutting edges of science, but the deeper you get into fundamental matters in any scientific 

field, the greater and more powerful the span of evidence. Indeed, all the other discoveries in a 

science in some degree confirm the fundamentals, so that to overthrow the fundamentals 

would require re-interpreting a vast mass of ancillary research. This cumulative nature of 

science is another factor supporting its truth, and in conjunction with the proven interconnectedness 

of all science, it requires positing too great a coincidence to suggest that the 



Source: 


HP: +60193551621

fundamental findings of science could be false. But this leads us to discussion and exploration 

of what science has found out, rather than its nature alone.[8] 

I would like to thank Keith Douglas and others for their many critical and helpful remarks in 

my preparation of this paper for the Secular Web. 

[1] This is not to say that science does not employ, and perfect, natural patterns of thought 

shared by all humans, only that the way people often think about things is contrary to the way 

science teaches them to, at least until they are taught to think scientifically. See especially 

Alan Cromer’s excellent book Uncommon Sense: The Heretical Nature of Science (1993). 

Several books have discussed the natural human tendency toward irrational or unscientific 

approaches to belief formation, in particular: Stewart Guthrie, Faces in the Clouds (1993); 

Stuart Vyse, Believing in Magic (1997); Michael Shermer, How We Believe (1999); and 

Donald Calne Within Reason: Rationality and Human Behavior (1999). The above books 

naturally touch on the biology of belief formation, which has become a hot research subject of 

late, now more thoroughly discussed in the following recent works: Joseph Giovannoli, The 

Biology of Belief (2001); Andrew Newberg, Eugene D'Aquili, and Vince Rause, Why God 

Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief (2001); Eugene D'Aquili and 

Andrew Newberg, The Mystical Mind: Probing the Biology of Religious Experience (1999). 

On the nature of doubt and skepticism as studied in psychology, see Bibliography. 

[2] Fouad Abd-El-Khalick and Norman G. Lederman, “The Influence of History of Science 

Courses on Students' Views of Nature of Science,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 

37:10, pp. 1057-95 (2000). 

[3] A note of caution: I don't think Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman mean subjective here in the 

sense of non-objective, but in the sense of human-constructed. We don't see theories, we 

invent them, and then infer their correctness. Though they can (and when well-supported, 

probably do) represent objective truths, they are only subjectively perceived, e.g. we do not 

see electrons orbiting a nucleus, we imagine this in our heads, and then deduce consequences 

that we then look for in observed facts. More on this follows in the text. 

[4] See my A Fish Did Not Write This Essay. 

[5] Prominent examples: Carl Sagan’s Demon Haunted World, Richard Dawkins’ Unweaving 

the Rainbow, and Edward O. Wilson’s Consilience. 

[6] I mean by this the distinction between analytical philosophy, which includes such 

endeavors as analytical ethics and metaphysics (this latter being the analysis of the 

conclusions of the other sciences for the purpose of constructing a sensible unified 

worldview), and pure metaphysical speculations of the sort made by Plato or Descartes, or 

mystical or theological philosophy, which rely in any way on dogmatic assertions or nonintersubjective 

personal experience. 

[7] For more on these issues, see our many essays on Naturalism, as well as my Prima Facie 

Presumptions vs. The Lessons of History. 



Source: 


HP: +60193551621

[8] For the whole scoop on the philosophy of science, the best recent survey of the subject is 

provided in two volumes by Mario Bunge, Philosophy of Science: From Problem to Theory 

and Philosophy of Science: From Explanation to Justification, 1998. Also recommended is 

Robert Klee's Introduction to the Philosophy of Science: Cutting Nature at Its Seams, 1996. 



Source: 


HP: +60193551621

eviDences foR classRoom innovations, leaRning gains & teaching ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?