You and a partner are asked to complete a lab entitled “Oxides of Ruthenium” that is scheduled to extend over two lab periods. The first lab, which is to be completed by your partner, is devoted to carrying out compositional analysis. In the second lab, you are to determine melting points. Upon going to the lab you find two unlabeled vials, one containing a soft yellow substance and the other a black powder. You also find the following notes in your partner’s notebook—Compound 1: 76.0% Ru and 24.0% O (by mass), Compound 2: 61.2% Ru and 38.8% O (by mass). (a) What is the empirical formula for Compound 1? (b) What is the empirical formula for Compound 2? (c) Upon determining the melting points of these two compounds, you find that the yellow compound melts at 25°C, while the black powder does not melt up to the maximum temperature of your apparatus 1200°C. What is the identity of the yellow compound? What is the identity of the black compound? Be sure to use the appropriate naming convention depending on whether the compound is better described as a molecular or ionic compound.
Topic 1: Course Overview and Introduction •Rhetorical Questions •Introduction to Research in Cognitive Neuroscience •Pragmatics What is Science By What Method does it advance → Philosophy: tests itself against its own internal consistency(does it contradict itself). → Science takes this a step forward and now wants to see verification and some data as to why this is correct. → Contrast of evidence(showing both sides) → Science advance s through r igor and transparency Replication Crisis a lot of cognitive psychology results are turning out not to hold up--deploying methods in a standard way, not going back and replicating other studies and asking questions like “what else did you do besides what you reported” Example: taking non-random samples (only took people who they knew were good at math), also need people not good at math, and people with average abilities in math. Results ended up being confirmatory--Ex: if you smile, it makes you happier (1) The more established the research(in the past), the more at risk you are for confirmation bias. (2) The less established the past literature, the less developed or concrete your initial question/theory is. Hierarchies in Science Neuroscience: combines Psychology, Biology, and Chemistry What is the nature of the questions and answers: Generality: How broadly the studies apply External Validity :Likelihood of observing in the real world Scale: What spatial and temporal extent do the phenomena span Internal Validity: How certain are we that we are measuring what we think we are