Key Idea.
Section 1
Scientific Argumentation
Science is a social process of argumentation. When studying complex areas like Jalisco, scientists may propose competing claims. One group might argue the block is rifting away (divergent), while another argues it is subducting (convergent).
To resolve this, scientists do not just vote; they debate using evidence. They evaluate the quality of the data to see which claim is more robust.
Section 2
Testing Claims with Evidence
In the case of the Jalisco Block, scientists test their claims against the geologic fingerprints. Does the earthquake depth data match a subduction zone? Does the volcanic lava chemistry match a divergent ridge?
Evaluating hypotheses involves checking for consistency. The claim that accounts for the most evidence with the fewest contradictions is accepted as the scientifically valid explanation.
Book overview
Jump across lessons in the current chapter without opening the full course modal.
Continue this chapter
Expand to review the lesson summary and core properties.
Section 1
Scientific Argumentation
Science is a social process of argumentation. When studying complex areas like Jalisco, scientists may propose competing claims. One group might argue the block is rifting away (divergent), while another argues it is subducting (convergent).
To resolve this, scientists do not just vote; they debate using evidence. They evaluate the quality of the data to see which claim is more robust.
Section 2
Testing Claims with Evidence
In the case of the Jalisco Block, scientists test their claims against the geologic fingerprints. Does the earthquake depth data match a subduction zone? Does the volcanic lava chemistry match a divergent ridge?
Evaluating hypotheses involves checking for consistency. The claim that accounts for the most evidence with the fewest contradictions is accepted as the scientifically valid explanation.
Book overview
Jump across lessons in the current chapter without opening the full course modal.
Continue this chapter