Helpful+Links+for+NATURAL+SCIENCE

=NATURAL SCIENCES= __Link (use the Insert Link button in the Editor toolbar, choose "External Link").__ This will be followed by a **proper MLA citation**. Use of online generators such as citationmachine.net is acceptable.
 * Your reason for including this link. You might consider the following questions: How did you find it? Why did you find it helpful? What concerns might you have about this link? (Your name goes in parenthesis at the end of the bullet point.) (With name)
 * A review from one other student. (With name)

== HELPFUL LINKS FOR PERCEPTION (only edit BELOW other people's entries) "The matter with antimatter." //Youtube//. Web. 22 Dec 2007. . of entire antimatter worlds sparse throughout the cosmos. It's like the childhood wish of being an astronaut or a scientist that makes me keen for these sort of things, the fact that science-fiction movies may not be fiction, at least someday. (Filippo Ricci)
 * This video discusses antimatter, one of science's darkest mysteries. It roughly explains the theory behind it so the genreal audience can understand. I found it really interesting how they explained the Big Bang might be the key to why antimatter is so rare in the 'known' universe; this also assuming the existence

[|Science as a Way of Knowing]"Science as a Way of Knowing." //Scientific Integrity//. Union of Concerned Scientists, 2010. Web. 29 Mar 2011. .
 * As a matter of fact all I did was type "science as a way of knowing" into a search engine and clicked on the first link. The website above happened to be that link. After reading it, I found the content interesting and relevant. It talks about how the word "theory" is misunderstood by many. While a "theory" can be a "hunch" or an "opinion", in scientific terms it is "an extremely strong statement that provides an explanation of a natural phenomenon based on a wealth of well-documented evidence." It also goes on to talk about what a "theory" must integrate. This site seems to have been contructed by "Citizens and Scientists for Environmental Solutions," so we can assume that it is a fairly credible source. (Harry O'Sullivan)
 * This is pretty useful not only because it has lists of articles and contents that are deeply related to science, but also because it is handy to read. I was kind of surprised to see that intelligence design is not a proper science. It says that a Intelligent design might base its ideas on observations in the natural world, but it does not test them in the natural world, or attempt to develop mechanisms (such as natural selection) to explain their observations.(Shawn)
 * This article basically denies the idea that intelligence design was a proper science. As Shawn said, we do not test the intelligent design in the natural world. However, throughout all the observation and historical research, we vaguely assume that something likely happened in the past to explain certain phenomenon. This is rather not scientific but more toward the guess. (Chae Young)

Obringer, Lee. "How the Bermuda Triangle Work." n. pag. Web. 17 Apr 2011. .
 * This site talks about what possibly happened at the Bermuda Triangle where a lot of ships and airplanes disappeared throughout the history. This is just a hypothesis and what could have happened: imaginary scenario. I found this very interesting because I watched a lot of documents and movies and also I heard that there was a story that says airplane pilotes actually took a long way around to avoid the Bermuda Triangle, thinking that they can avoid any catastrophe. (Chae Young)

[|The Scope of Knowledge witth Science] Ayala, Francisco. "Coda: Science as a Way of Knowing." Counterbalance. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Mar 2011. 
 * I found this site when browsing about "Knowing and Science"; although the text may seem a little dense, I find that it combines simple explanations with concrete examples, giving you a really good feel of the subject. The subject discussed is that of how science is, of course, a way of knowing, but is not the only one. It also discusses how scientific knowledge "emerges"; I also thought it was interesting that the author considers that the scope of scientific knowledge excludes things such as values and meaning, as seen in one of his examples: the Guernica by Picasso (Quentin).
 * I liked this assertion that "Science is a way of knowing, but it is not the only way. Knowledge also derives from other sources, such as common sense, artistic and religious experience, and philosophical reflection. " Truly, just spending a whole lot of time on researching doesn't inspire you, and that has been proven by "science"...The article reminded me of Einstein who said that music did greatly contribute to his findings of space and time. And as you've mentioned, it is interesting that scientific knowledge is created by the consensus of the scientific community.(Shawn)
 * Science is definitely not the only way we reveal this world. We cannot see the world by just using science. We have to use the combination of emotions, science, mathematics, common sense, history, religion (some people), etc. And when a person says "Science is the only way of knowing" how can you make sure what this person says is true scientifically? There is no scientific evidence. Therefore, science is not the only way we know things. (Kiyo)

[|The Limits of Science] Gherdjikov, Serghey. "The Limits of Science." //Paideia Project On-Line//. Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy, n.d. Web. 12 Apr 2011. [|How Spontaneous Human Combustion Works] Watson, Stephanie. "How Spontaneous Human Combustion Works" 02 March 2005. HowStuffWorks.com.  12 April 2011.
 * While many are compelled by the "omnipotence" of science, I started to wonder about the limits of science. Though relatively condensed and tight, the gist of the passage is that science is nonetheless imperfect by a number of ways. What drew my attention was " Act of seeing some kind of an "Absolute" in this order freezes the spirit of the Western culture and make it rather frail and weak against the disastrous changes that happen on Earth and against the self-produced alterations of the spirit itself." The implication that the word "Absolute" is risky inspired me to reconsider the standard of what is absolute and what is not. (Shawn Lim)
 * I really liked the part of the author saying definite answer to the question which was "yes, science has a limit". The author here defined science as an artifact that is limited in a deeper and more important sense. Also, according to him, the world is limited as a definitenes of human form. It was impressive to see someone stating his or her opinion without being nebulous. Among his 15 conclusions, I especially liked how he explained his own definition about "absolute" in scientific ways and definition of unity and zero which remains the gap between the Western and the Eastern world. (Soo Hyung Jung)
 * This link is interesting in terms of actually pointing out the limits of science. Many people now believes that there is nothing impossible with technology and science. However, this website states that science is only an "artifact". This website shows us how we should not rely too much on science and should change our views toward it. (jangho)
 * As this website points out, I believe that science have limits. Actually, I think that everything in this world have limits. We can go up to a point but it may be hard or even "impossible" to go further than that. In this website, there is a section where the title is "How far does Science Go?" It was interesting to read this website, especially this section, since the information is stated clearly and to the point and is true! (Nari)
 * This is one interesting phenomenon which a person just burns into flame without any premonition. " The first known account of spontaneous human combustion came from the Danish anatomist Thomas Bartholin in 1663, who described how a woman in Paris "went up in ashes and smoke" while she was sleeping. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%; line-height: 18px;">What makes the charred bodies in the photos of spontaneous human combustion so peculiar is that extremities often remain intact." Theories suggested a diversity of explanations, from excess amount of alcohol to static electricity, but few of them had scientific verity. The article gives a scientific answer to this phenomenon, and I found interesting how these "unscientific things" could be discovered and explained so scientifically. (Shawn Lim)
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">I thought this article was really interesting in that it blurs the line between science and simple coincidence. For example, spontaneous combustion could not be spontaneous at all, and be caused by lit cigarette during sleep. You'd think that the scientific community would have disproven something so bizarre, but "no one has ever conclusively proven or disproven the truth of spontaneous human combustion." Shawn's previous link posts "the limits of science", and here we discover that even though many have tried to disprove - or to prove - the notion of human combustion, it all comes down to your word against mine, in an area of "science" that remains so obscure. This link is also very simple and straight forward, with bolded sub sections that allow you to jump to what's most important to you (Quentin).
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">I agree with Quentin in that this article mixes science and coincidence. Maybe sometimes that's just what it is - science can only sometimes be explained with "it was merely a coincidence." While this may not be a very convincing explanation, the fact that coincidences exist may be the reason why some phenomena - such as human combustion - are left unexplained, and are likely to be left unexplained. (Edward Cannell)

[|Peer Review - Good or Bad?] Goldacre, Ben. "Peer review is flawed but the best we've got." Guardian. Guardian, 12 September 2009. Web. 13 Apr 2011. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/12/bad-science-peer-review-goldacre>. >> 1) Time consuming >> 2) Open to corruption >> 3) Fraud, plagiarism >> 4) Duplication (Harry O'Sullivan)
 * This 2009 article by Ben Goldacre highlights that even though the peer review system is flawed, as"it is time-consuming, it could be open to corruption, and it cannot prevent fraud, plagiarism, or duplicate publication." Despite these problematic points, the scientific community has come to find that even though the peer review system is not the best, it has no better alternative. For example, in websites such as Aidstruth.org, scientific articles are only subject to one editor's approval. This is clearly not a just way of looking at the validity of science. Indeed, "the academic world benefits from having journals with different editorial models, that peer review can censor provocative ideas, and that scientists should be free to pontificate in their internal professional literature" (Quentin).
 * I like how the author, Ben, tries to come up with numerous problems with the peer review system:
 * I find it interesting how Ben Goldacre questions the peer review system. A system respected because it gives a more 'broad' view on a specific phenomena--yet we still see people question it, seems almost ironic. Though, I believe in the words of Ben Goldacre, peer reviews could be heavily influenced by other scientists 'common belief,' for instance, the other scientist might subconsciously keep in mind the outcome they want. In other words, we see what we want to see and we believe what we see. Again, there is no alternative for the peer review system, at least until robots run experiments; in that case, there would be no reason for humans to run experiments. (Filippo Ricci)

[|Does Science Prove Atheism?]"Does Science Prove Atheism ." //Youtube//. Web. 15 Apr 2011. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eC3GR1DOyg&playnext=1&list=PLA19C8A377819916C>.
 * Scientists believe that the natural world is what can only be proven. Thus, how can we disprove that a supernatural phenomenon exists? If we can only prove what is natural, then how can we disprove what is not natural? Hence, as this speaker says, "There seems to be no good reason to believe that the natural world is all there is, and there is certainly no good reason to believe we should only believe what can be scientifically proven." I found this video after searching: does science prove anything? It's short and interesting, so watch it! (Harry O'Sullivan)
 * I was interested in the process of how he reaches; it's just simply too restrictive to contend that we should only believe what can be scientifically proven. Contemporary physics, the theory of relativity by Albert Ainstein was used in order to explain why he thinks that there are numerous flaws and why some scientific theories are unprovable. Many theories and laws just simply require assumptions to hold the theory. The part how he casts a doubt on "we should only believe what can be scientifically proven" by listing mathematical, logical, methaphysical, ethical, aesthetic, and scientific troops was interesting enough to watch this video without losing focus. Very intriguing and SHORT to motivate myself about natural science. (Soo Hyung Jung)
 * I also agree that the speaker contends a view that is way too much limited. Science cannot even prove where humans come from, since our "missing link" of the evolution has not been found. The speaker reminded me of native Americans who first saw European ships. According to the native American's explanation of natural world, it could only be magic that huge wooden ships were floating on the ocean. With OUR way of explaining the natural world, phenomenons like the Bermuda triangle cannot be fully explained(the methane gas theory isn't complete enough yet). Just like Soo Hyung Jung, I love how short the clip was. (Shawn)
 * I really enjoyed this video as this argument is incredibly popular. Many scientists see themselves as strictly atheists and make claims about the absence of worlds beyond the natural one. Many theories, (correct me if I'm wrong) rely on assumptions about scenarios where only specific phenomena would occur. We cannot assume there is nothing beyond this world, we cannot disprove heaven or hell, we have no evidence. For instance, people might prove the existence of parallel universes but not heaven? The same way parallel universes might be proven, heaven would be just as good of a candidate. I'm only using heaven as an example, I like to think that I am an agnostic; in other words I'm not saying there is a heaven, but there's no way to prove there isn't. This reflects the TOK topics we went over in class last year such as an argument from ignorance. (Filippo Ricci)
 * The short length of this video prevents viewers from becoming bored and ending it, which I think is a positive aspect of this link. The video also brings up a fallacy when the speaker questions, "Can this statement (we should only believe anything that can be scientifically proven) be scientifically proven?" I think that this can be considered as circular reasoning, since the statement is already assuming something to be true, making gaining knowledge all the more harder. (Edward Cannell)
 * Good video Harry, I actually liked this video and as Edward said, it was short and brief so I watched to the end. Although I believe that this video was not very accurate, I like to see that there are people out there continuesly questioning, asking things about this mysterious world that we live in. (Sean Williams)

[|Why are Simpler Explanations Usually Better?] Kim, Oliver. "Why are Simpler Explanations Usually Better?." //TOKTalk.net//. N.p., 24 Dec 2007. Web. 16 Apr 2011. <http://www.toktalk.net/2007/12/24/why-are-simpler-explanations-usually-better/>.
 * The author of this article defines the purpose of science as to make things more simpler and not more complicated. Scientists strive to find the most simple explanations to theories, and I think this is because so that everyone can understand science and the world more. However, the question that arises is: is "simplicity" one of the most important things in gaining knowledge? (Edward Cannell)
 * I really liked this article. I agree with the fact that science aims to simplify natural phenomena, instead of complicating things. However, I was left to question the proposition that "the simpler explanation is often the correct one". But I liked the fact that the author said, "Simpler explanation rely on fewer assumptions which cannot be proven or disproven. At the bottom of the page, the author lists some good discussion topics. "Can you come up with examples where the theory or explanation with the fewest assumptions is not always the best explanation?" That would be good! (Harry O'Sullivan)
 * First of all, I love how the website's name is TOKtalk.net, since we can refer to this site for other various topics we learn later on. Also, I happen to be the non-initiated one who has difficulty understanding science. Yet, I loved how science, according to the author, could be so simple and concise. It reminded me of mathematics because mathematicians also prefer "elegance", which basically means simplicity. So this very idea that simple explanations which rely less on assumptions seem attractive and sort of universal. What grabs people's mind for long is not the type of music with all complex structures and chords, but of that with easy, common structures and chords. (Shawn)
 * I thought it was interesting how Oliver Kim described science to be very difficult to understand for the "non initiated," as it forces us to imagine things that are hard to imagine in the first place - for example, blood vessels being 100000km long for example. However, I don't know if I'd agree with the fact that simpler explanations are usually better; of course, they are easy to understand, but does it make them better? What are "simpler explanations" in the first place? The difficulty with this is that, as the author says, assumptions are sometimes hard to test, and because of this, truly knowing which explanation is "better" is impossible (Quentin).
 * This website made me think that judging if explanations are simple or not is simply up to individual perception. Just like this author said, she felt the explanations that were hard for the "non initiated" were easy for her, which means she perceived it differently. Although the title of this article generalizes that simpler explanations are "better", this statement is very abstract because it is up to individual's perception about the simplicity of the certain explanations. (jangho)
 * In response to Quentin about "simplier explanations being better...", I think they are trying to say that simple is better in this case as it leads to more complex explanations. If we start off with a "complex" explanation, it is not easy to work yourself back to the broad stage. (Sean Williams)

[|Science as a Way of Knowing: The Foundations of Modern Biology] Moore, John A. "Science as a Way of Knowing: The Foundations of Modern Biology." //2think//. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Apr 2011. [].
 * Although this link is actually a review about a book of the same name, it does provide some information about its content. The book connects science with reasoning, as it gives examples of different scientists reaching different conclusions through multiple experiments, involving trial and error. This is proof of how the different aspects of TOK are related. (Edward Cannell)

<span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 12px; letter-spacing: 2px; line-height: normal;">"The Nature and Philosophy of Science."//Tisthammerw's Homepage//. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr 2011. <http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/science.html>.

Saner, Emine. "Is there any place for religious faith in science?." //Can scientists be religious? Sam Harris argues science and faith are completely incompatible, while Robert Winston would like to be more inclusive. Emine Saner adjudicates// 1.1 (2011): 1. Web. 17 Apr 2011. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/16/conversation-science-religious-faith>.


 * <span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 12px; letter-spacing: 2px; line-height: normal;">A brilliant article, a well done interview. I feel that the argument betweenSam Harris and Robert Winston is indeed a very applicable one. Today we talk about science, yesterday it was religion, tomorrow it might be something different. Sam Harris argues that people should not apply science to religion, and vice versa; whereas Robert Winston feels it is perfectly acceptable to blend the two together. I personally agree with Robert Winston, though I am no strictly religious myself, I do not deny the existence of a 'God,' nor do I agree with it. This article/interview is incredibly interesting and I recommend people to question the words of these two men, what do you think? (Filippo Ricci)

<span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 12px; letter-spacing: 2px; line-height: normal;">Lambert, Dolphin. "The Limits of Science." //The Biblical Basis of Modern Science//. Baker Book House, 1984. Web. 17 Apr 2011 Web.< [].>
 * <span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 12px; letter-spacing: 2px; line-height: normal;">This online encyclopedia provides ideas about the limits of science. This site shows that science cannot do everything, and it should really not surprise us. Because, a "merely physical" model of the universe has always proven inadequate from the nature of science. It was once thought "solid science" is seen to be incomplete. " the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal" was one of the favorite quotes in this site in order to prove the limit of the science. (Soo Hyung Jung)
 * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 12px; letter-spacing: 2px; line-height: normal;">I think this website is very interesting since it literally maps out the system of science from the point of view of human beings which they are not perfect. And it changed the way how I see the world since I thought science is perfect, but after I read this articles it reminds that there is no such a thing "perfect". (Kiyo)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;"> A quote by Sandage says ** "Science is the only self-correcting human institution, but it is also a process that progresses only by showing itself to be wrong." **  <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">This quote was particularly interesting as it illustrated a way how science progresses. Also, the part where it said" No one really wants to learn conclusively that life makes no sense at all for any reason. Such a conclusion leads to existential despair, a sense of futility, fatalism, and a feeling that human endeavors of all kinds are worthless and of no value." was intriguing because many astronomers commit suicide because after they realize that humans are infinitesimal, they see no point of living life. Indeed, as the author says, people should have a right vision to see and analyze the beneficial role of science, and preclude it from straying to an undesirable way. (Shawn)

[|http://www.atoday.com/content/science-“a”-way-knowing-religion-also-way-knowing] "Science is "A" way of knowing. Is religion also "A" way of knowing? <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">Posted April 28th, 2009 by Ervin Taylor Web.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">I found this article by googling "Science is a way of knowing".This article is talking about whether religion can be a way of knowing or not. " <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 20px;">Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not a part of science." (Taylor). So from this interpretation of the capability of science, religion is not part of science. But on the other hand, religion is an another way of knowing this world and "faith" is an element that kept religion to be true. Therefore, from the point of view from science, religion is not strong enough to be a way of knowing due to scientific experiment and evidence. Although from the point of view from religion, science is too determinative yet it is made by human being (imperfect) unlike religion by supreme (perfect). (Kiyo)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxJQe_FefxY "Does science prove anything?" youtube April 21st 2010 <span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 12px; letter-spacing: 2px; line-height: normal;">simonandisa,. "3 - ToK in Science - An Intro to Scientific Reason." //Scribd//. Scribd, n.d. Web. 17 Apr 2011. <http://www.scribd.com/doc/376411/3-ToK-in-Science-An-Intro-to-Scientific-Reason>. <span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 12px; letter-spacing: 2px; line-height: normal;">"Science is only way of knowing objective truth." //Curch of the Churchless//. Church of the Churchless, 20 May 2009. Web. 17 Apr 2011. <http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2009/05/science-is-the-only-way-of-knowing-objective-truth.html>.
 * I found this video on youtube by typing "science is a way of knowing" on the search bar. This is an interesting video I found on Youtube. It says if one person says "Science is the only way to know reality by processing experiment and observation to collect data." than how can we be sure what this person said is to be true if science is the only way to reveal reality by processing experiment and observation to collect data? Therefore science is not the only way human know reality, it is one of the tools to help us understand the reality but it is not the only one. The video is really in good shape so watch it! Also in the explanation of this video on youtube, there is an useful link that talks about how we see the world from the point of view of religion. (Kiyo)
 * <span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 12px; letter-spacing: 2px; line-height: normal;">I came across this link when I was looking for a good way of reasoning with science. This link contains a power point presentation. Straight up, this presentation is about TOK scientific reasoning. I decided to post this link because it directly had a connection to what we are doing in class. This link is also helpful because it explains to us what is not science and what is science. Not only that, but it also tells us how we reason taking science into account. (Jangho)
 * <span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 12px; letter-spacing: 2px; line-height: normal;">I found this website when I was searching up ways of knowing truth with science. This website contains a post where it tries to convince why science is the only way of of knowing objective truth. I decided to use this link because it contained some of the things we went through in class. For example, the document talks about scientific method and theories. Although we can't be sure if science is the only way of knowing truths, but this document is worth reading about.(jangho)
 * Although I believe that science isn't the only way of knowing objective truth, I found this website interesting to read. This is because this website mentions that everybody uses the scientific method in their normal everyday lives. The fact that we use scientific method everyday without even noticing is true, but that doesn't mean that science is the "only" way of knowing the truth and I am pretty sure that there are other ways out there. (Nari)

[|Good Science / Bad Science]Daney, Charles. "Good Science / Bad Science." //Science and Reason//. N.p., 11 May 2006. Web. 17 Apr 2011. <http://scienceandreason.blogspot.com/2006/05/good-sciencebad-science.html>.
 * This website introduces the fact that there is good science and bad science. It mentions that good science is helpful and reliable while bad science is worse than something mistaken. I thought that this website is interesting because I never thought that there would be good science and bad science. Science is always science but, this area of knowledge and way of knowing is strong, so it should be clear what good science is and what bad science is (Nari)
 * I liked how the author is being narrative, speaking in a way which it is easy to understand. The mentioning of Hwang Woo Suk reminded me of how biased science can be because the Korean scientific community did not, or could not, accuse his findings as spurrious. <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 14px;"> The author asserts that "...For any given theory, it is often reasonable to regard both the theory and its negation as plausibly correct to some extent. Which means that both the supporters and opponents of a theory can be reasonably regarded as advocating "good science", even though at least one side is actually wrong... if and when we could determine the "real" truth." Here we can see that a good science should regard the pros and cons of its aspect, then integrate the two and see to what extent it is valid. (Shawn)

[|Science: Truth or Fraud?] "Science: Truth or Fraud?." N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr 2011. <http://www.optionality.net/mag/apr98a.html>.
 * I found this website interesting because it discusses whether science is true or false. Usually, people would think that science is true, but this website thinks out of the box. As one of the sections is called the "Horror of Science!" it explains how and why science can turn aside on us. (Nari)
 * This is an interesting link which just shows us how dangerous "Bad science" can be for the rest of us, when it gives the example of the tobacco companies' class action lawsuit. They had competent scientists present data which they said came from a reliable test group, yet they found no link with lung cancer, something which even at the time was becoming more and more obvious. This shows us how bad science can be used for personal gain over others, something that's never good. The link also tells us the author's view of how good science is performed. This can still be considered an opinion though, just like most other blogs. (Gerard Belmans)
 * I found this website very interesting as well. The tobacco examples tells us that we tend to believe in science too much. We almost believe anything and become blind to the ruth. People believed the data that scientist presented that did not have any relationship to the lung cancer. This just shows how science can both benefit and harm the humanity by sometimes making us blind and sometimes revealing the truth to us. (Chae Young)

[|Can Science prove or disprove God's existence]? <span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 12px; letter-spacing: 2px; line-height: normal;">Multiple,. "Can science prove or disprove god?."//Takeonit// n. pag. Web. 17 Apr 2011. [|The start of the Universe: String Theory] <span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 12px; letter-spacing: 2px; line-height: normal;">Andrew, Jones. "The start of the Universe with string theory." //Dummies// 1. Web. 17 Apr 2011.
 * I found this link after being intrigued by this ongoing debate. This particular site finds experts' opinions on certain topics and then posts them, to allow both sides of the argument to be shown on one page. The users can then discuss the topic below. I chose this website because it showed me interesting things like the Church's official position on science and God, as well as some reasons which believers and even some some scientists give for not being able to prove or disprove God. One of the main reasons seem to be the face that he is considered a supernatural being and as such does not fall into the realm of science. It is a good conversation topic. I have some concerns with this link, namerly that anyone can edit the opinions of these experts, even though sourcing it is required. Selective quoting may also have been used. (Gerard Belmans)
 * ====<span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 12px; letter-spacing: 2px; line-height: normal;">I found this website while looking up string theory after the discussions we had in class. The website give a very good basic introduction to certain critical components in string theory, like the fact that the strings can combine, which allows our universe to expand. Some further research is needed before reading though, and so this will not be something for everyone. Make sure you search "brane" before viewing this link. (Gerard Belmans) ====

[|God vs. Science- Time] Dan Cray, "God vs. Science", Nov. 5, 2006.
 * This website is an article that discusses about god and science. It tries to debate, weither this world was created by god, or the existsnace of this world could be scientifically proven. It is interesting how this kind of a topic is pulled out as an article. In this article, it provides both supportments of the creation of god and the universal science. (Albrt Takagi)

<span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 12px; letter-spacing: 2px; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">"Mystery of Science." n. pag. Web. 17 Apr 2011. <http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/connections_n2/science_essay.html>.
 * This site talks about the scientific way of asking certain things. This site shows the process of doing so. Also the questions that the site tries to answer is rather vague and uncertain. Throughout the site, 'what if' question is constantly asked and it is pretty interesting to see different conclusions that id derived from different hypothesis or assumption. (Chae Young)

"The Science of Truth and Reality ." //YouTube//. Web. 18 Apr 2011. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQB2cKVk7lE>.
 * This video talks about the connections between the science and the truth. He defines physics as, "the study of the ultimate truth," and the truth as, "nearly a correspondence between things that we can observe and our knowledge of observable matter." Although he claims that science is the truth of the universe, he also claims that our understanding of the universe is much different from the universe itself; therefore, the science cannot be an absolute truth. (Taku)

Haven, Dharma. "The Terrible Truth About Truth." N.p., 10 Oct 2001. Web. 18 Apr 2011. <http://www.dharma-haven.org/science/terrible-truth.htm>.
 * This website describes how science can affect our knowledge and ideas. This website is interesting to me because the author of the website claims that science is truth that determines our ideas and knowledge, but it is different from the ultimate truth. There are some quotes that supports his ideas, such as "the ideal of completely correct knowledge is a concept. Scientific knowledge keeps changing, and our ideas about truth change too," by Dr. Terry Halwes. (Taku)

<span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 12px; letter-spacing: 2px; line-height: normal;"> Anissimov, Michael. "What are the Natural Sciences?." wiseGEEK. wiseGEEK, n.d. Web. 17 Apr 2011. < [|�10�] http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-natural-sciences.htm >.
 * 

<span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 12px; letter-spacing: 2px; line-height: normal;"> Mar, Silvia. "Chemistry of Dail Life." Squidoo. squidoo, n.d. Web. 17 Apr 2011. < [|�16�] http://www.squidoo.com/ChemistryOfDailyLife >.
 * <span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 12px; letter-spacing: 2px; line-height: normal;">