Drag each tile to the correct box, Nor all ties will be used

One statement is an example of a scientific observation. Another statement is an example of a scientific explanation.

• It is not possible to collect evidence supporting or challenging the standard model of quantum mechanics
• Monotremes have likely undergone an evolutionary history that is distinct from other types of mammals.
• Flaws in the Bohr model of the atom should be used to discredit the idea that all matter is made up of atoms.
• It is unnecessary to research the composition and origin of elementary particles because the Bohr model is accurate.
• People should ignore all evidence indicating that most species of dinosaur went extinct at the end of the Cretaceous period.
• Monotremes are mammals that have significantly different body structures and reproductive strategies from other mammals.

 

Scientific Observation	Scientific Explanation

a set of careful steps followed in order by people in lab coats.

just a collection of facts.

a process of learning about the natural world.

unchanging and static - once we know a scientific fact it does not change.

a method that can answer any question.

testing ideas with evidence.

it is not an interesting enough question for scientists.

it involves collaboration with others to fully answer.

it deals with supernatural explanations.

it only has one answer.

He wore a lab coat while in the maternity ward. He did not wear a lab coat in the rest of the hospital.

He tested the idea that doctors caused the deaths by comparing mortality rates of patients treated by doctors that disinfected their hands (in between patients) with the mortality rates of patients that had dirty-handed doctors.

He read a scientific journal about bacterial causes of childbed fever.

He changed birthing procedures so that women gave birth on their sides and were assisted by doctors that disinfected their hands.

choose the most popular explanation.

choose the hypothesis supported by evidence.

go with their favorite hypothesis (as long as it's still shiny).

support the most recent hypothesis to be proposed as a plausible explanation.

We should re-evaluate the current understanding and possibly reject past ideas based on the new evidence.

The scientific community labels the scientist that collected the evidence as an unreliable quack.

Scientists throw out the new evidence since obviously the experimental design must be flawed.

Scientists should test the idea in a novel way (inspire new ideas) to determine if the new evidence is consistent with a new understanding.

fabricate your data often to support your favorite hypothesis.

take all the credit for yourself.

check all the boxes on the science checklist. If you miss even one, you're denied your scientist ID card.

behave scientifically (preferably in a lab coat).

speaking at conferences.

locking themselves in ivory towers.

being inspired by other scientists and testing their ideas in new and novel ways.

only listening to NPR (National Public Radio) on Science Fridays.

publishing in science journals.

How does migration affect the reproductive success of monarch butterflies?

Should local communities invest money in sustainable farming practices instead of new infrastructure (e.g., roads and bridges)?

How does coastal development affect wetland biodiversity (number and types of organisms present)?

Is water a toxic substance?

Do pesticides cause developmental changes in frogs?

incorporates the important concept of testing ideas with evidence

does not capture how science really works.

is too simplified.

incorrectly implies that there is an endpoint to science. (If the scientific method is a simple progression, once a valid conclusion is reached, science is done!)