1. My group’s presentation:
2. Reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the criteria established. Were these good criteria, or should there have been different criteria established?
I think that the criteria that we established weren’t the strongest in evaluating whether or not the paper was a legitimate scientific paper. It is very important to assess the scientific method—including repeatability and accuracy of data presented, and an open-perspective, non-biased approach in terms of data analysis and interpretation. However, it was difficult to evaluate this particular paper with that criterion because the paper wasn’t necessarily a scientific research paper—it was a literature review. In addition, it was difficult to refute the references used in the article (including their credibility, how recent they were, and the publisher) because some are no longer accessible and many are credible. One of the strengths of the criteria is that the content of the paper was not what we were debating; we were debating whether or not the paper is a legitimate paper today.
If we were to tailor the scientific method criterion to fit the literature review nature of this particular article, the groups would have had more effective assessment of the paper. Also, if the references criterion was more specific, it may have been easier to use to evaluate the paper.
3. Reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the presentations as a whole. Consider the "yes" and "no" groups as a whole.
“Yes” group strengths and weaknesses
These groups did a good job of pointing out the credibility of the references cited in the paper. The “yes” groups acknowledged that, although the paper did cite a few references that seemed sketchy, many of their sources were very credible and cited from frequently. Their weaknesses were present in proving the validity of the scientific method.
“No” groups strengths and weaknesses
The “no” groups’ strengths were in disproving the validity of the scientific method in terms of dissecting the figures and graphs in the paper and acknowledging the biases present. However, when it came to rejecting the references as bad sources, the “no” groups fell short.
4. Reflect on the group management of your group. What went well, what did not?
I think that the people who presented did the most work. Although the rest of the group helped in gathering the content of the presentation, there was more pressure on the presenters. I think that management of my group would have been better if the tasks were divided up more evenly and the group members all did their share of the work.
5. Reflect on the personal "ethic" you felt in your group. Did you believe in your position? Were you arguing against your beliefs?
My group did believe in our position; all of us disagreed with how the paper went about in presenting their findings. We also believed that the paper was very poorly written in terms of the scientific method and the open perspective of the authors.
6. Did the class make the correct decision when considering the broader impacts of the global warming/climate change debate? Why?
I believe that the class did make the correct decision when considering the broader impacts of the global warming debate. The paper we used for this debate was very biased, and therefore, the data they pulled from the climate change field were data that supported their perspective instead of considering the extensive range of literature out there that may or may not back up their beliefs. Like any other topic of debate, both sides must be considered.
7. Explain the statement, "What we do in the US, soon will not matter." Provide evidence to justify this statement.
This statement basically means that no matter what the US does, it won’t matter in the future because, on a global scale, people living in other places will continue to do what they do as well. For example, if the US decided to stop driving cars and rode bicycles or walked to their destinations, it wouldn’t make much of a difference on the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere because people in China and other places in the world would continue to drive their cars.
8. Explain this statement, "What we do as individuals matters." Provide evidence to justify this statement.
This statement means what we do as individuals makes an impact on a larger scale. It means that our actions affect more than just us, that it affects others in the world as well, directly or indirectly. An example of this would be all of the inventors. Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone; his invention changed how the whole world communicates with others.
No comments:
Post a Comment