Bob could not reject his null hypothesis.
If this is the answer, then #lightbulb-moment to the part of this article that mentioned falsifying hypotheses. Although the experiment doesn't prove the hypothesis exactly, it generally aligns with the hypothesis, rejecting the null hypothesis and in that sense "proves" the hypothesis.
For now, you should, however, be aware that experiments carry a certain degree of confidence in the results and that the degree of confidence in the results can be influenced by many factors. Developing healthy skepticism involves, among other things, learning to assess the quality of an experiment and the interpretation of the findings and learning to ask questions about things like this.
So we rarely have cases that we are 100% sure of but generally just results that we are mostly confident about.
“The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making.”
This is something that feels like it's a given but I wouldn't consider it until someone else points it out for me. Some biases or assumptions are just ingrained in my thinking, which would complicated things a lot.
Sometimes those details don't matter, but sometimes if they aren’t known it can lead to confusion. Using vocabulary correctly and being careful about word choice is important. Knowing when to simplify and when to give extra detail is also key.
It's the slight nuances that can lead to potential lead misunderstandings. Similar to professors teaching a concept by using an anthropomorphism to describe a nonhuman thing, there are small implications that work initially, but the more in depth we go into the concept the greater the impact of those nuances.
Can you give an example from your previous classes where an instructor has used an anthropomorphism to describe a nonhuman thing? What were/are the trade-offs of the description (i.e. why did the description work and what were its limitations)?
I can't give a specific example of a professor or instructor using an anthropomorphism to describe a nonhuman thing but I know they have given some in the past. Generally this would help with initial understanding but as we learned more about it, I would find myself more confused because of the slight differences between the analogy and cocnept.
However, some students are more accustomed to studying for exams by memorizing information rather than understanding it.
It's kind of hard to avoid this since we are learning a whole lot of information in just 10 weeks on top of having other classes to manage. Memorizing information comes naturally since it usually takes more effort and time to focus on understanding the information and concepts as a whole.
How do you interpret the term mental model and why do you think that it is important for learning?
Mental model to me would be like laying out a map containing all the topics and ideas that I already know about. Each topic would be like a landmark or so and I would have paths that would connect from one another. This way rather than just arbitrarily memorizing facts, I have a way to keep track and form connections of all various pieces of information I've been exposed to over the years.
"Natural selection acts for the good of the species." Discuss what you think about this statement - perhaps invoking some of the reading above.
Natural selection doesn't act for any specie, it's the result of the changes that occurred to traits, impacting the species' fitness. Natural selection weeds out the organisms possessing traits that are less competitive resulting in the organisms that we have today. We call the results today a product of natural selection but we cannot say it acted to favor one specie over another.
Thus, the selective pressures that create the filter are constantly changing (sometimes rapidly, sometimes slowly), and organisms in the same reproducing population could experience different pressures at different times and in different locations.
Is there ever a cap to evolution, like a point where evolution just ceases to exist?