The aim of this text is to express my opinion on the different topics covered during the lecture held on 17/12/2015. At first, I would like to congratulate my colleagues not only for the several phenomena they highlighted in the observations, but also for the different questions related to them. I think that it is not easy to describe a determined phenomenon when we do not have the right background that allows us to explain it completely and clearly, but in this case, I saw that the scientific method was applied in a correct way.
In particular, I have found very interesting the observation about the red powder on the iron surface mainly because it concerns my field of study. In addition, I think it could be a usual question that we ask to ourselves when we see boats moored in a harbor.
The question related to the laying hens is the most detailed and clear question among the four topics; the sentence structure, the words type (e.g. statistically) and position are correct and follow the principles of the scientific method
Regarding the relevant background, the points highlighted in the discussion of the candle are the most specific and useful to explain the physical phenomenon. In fact, we have a chemical reaction related to the combustion and a physical propriety related to the air convection that, in this case, must not destabilize the airflow in the vertical direction. If airflows are coming from the left and right hand of the candle, the “connection” between the candle and the lighter will be lost and so it will not be possible to light the candle again.
I would like also to point out the different approaches on the variables and hypothesis sections. We find two different kinds of approach: in the topic of the laying hens and in the topic of the foam in the Gulf of Taranto, we can see variables and hypothesis written as a text, while in the other two topics they are written as a list or as a flowchart. In my opinion, the last one is more suitable because it allows you to think in an orderly and consequentially way. Every time you pass from a point to another, you have the time to think if this passage is correct or not; in the latter case you are able to go back, to discuss about
the previous points and to have the possibility to make other hypothesis.
I tried to be objective and clear in the explanation of my ideas; I am waiting for your opinions too.