A Mind is a Horrible Thing...
Mar. 26th, 2009 01:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ymarkov...to waste, and in general :-)
Saw this, and it reminded me of the science fair I attended recently at my daughter's Bais Yaakov. There were a lot of neat projects, but two stood out in my mind - not for content, but for conclusions.
For the first one, the author tested the hypothesis that acid rain is bad for plants. She planted two sets of beans and watered one with water and the other with sulfuric acid (a weak solution, but still way stronger than any acid rain). Expecting the latter set to grow weaker, she instead detected no difference in the growth of the two. Her conclusion was, nevertheless, that acid rain is bad (and it is - but not based on her experimental data).
For the other one the author hypothesized that organic plants are healthier and better. She, too, grew two sets of plants, with natural and artificial fertilizers. The latter set turned out visibly better, but the conclusion still ignored the data. (She did, however, supply a few possible explanations.)
But there were a couple of other projects where the hypothesis was disproved and the girl went with the results!
Saw this, and it reminded me of the science fair I attended recently at my daughter's Bais Yaakov. There were a lot of neat projects, but two stood out in my mind - not for content, but for conclusions.
For the first one, the author tested the hypothesis that acid rain is bad for plants. She planted two sets of beans and watered one with water and the other with sulfuric acid (a weak solution, but still way stronger than any acid rain). Expecting the latter set to grow weaker, she instead detected no difference in the growth of the two. Her conclusion was, nevertheless, that acid rain is bad (and it is - but not based on her experimental data).
For the other one the author hypothesized that organic plants are healthier and better. She, too, grew two sets of plants, with natural and artificial fertilizers. The latter set turned out visibly better, but the conclusion still ignored the data. (She did, however, supply a few possible explanations.)
But there were a couple of other projects where the hypothesis was disproved and the girl went with the results!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-03-26 05:38 pm (UTC)After all, the whole charedi upbrinding ( and chassidic in particular ) is about the need to trash the common sense and believe in rebbe/hashem wonders. So, it is very natural to test the hypothesis ( Hashem provides for everyone, just keep learning Toirah, Rebbe does wonders by reciting a few psalms, etc. etc. ), see the results which often prove otherwise, and yet interpret them in such a way that the conclusion would be completely different from what one has seen, despite the results.
Right, a mind is a horrible thing to waste. But in some societies, it is kind of necessary.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-26 07:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-26 08:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-27 12:11 am (UTC)My question is:
Did anybody (teacher?) explain why the results were not as expected? Was there an explanation why the acid rain is bad for the plants?
no subject
Date: 2009-03-27 12:31 am (UTC)