Abigail Thomas, 4/23 lecture

04/23’s lecture was confusing and I felt that I didn’t get closure. Ideas and statements were made without practical examples or applications. The area I found most confusing was that the language of science is math and numbers but I don’t think math is the language of science. I also don’t think ‘objective’ is subjective enough when describing science and its process, methods or purpose. The only thing I could imagine was computers as being objective.
When I think of the language of science I think of science journals. Journals are studies, they’ll refer to what’s been studied what they’re studying and what could be studied. It’s like building blocks: the study is the material block and the references to what was and what could be studied are the adhesions and connectors to the pattern or journeys of the studies.
The math part is important but it makes up only one section (one objective section) as the ‘results’ section. The ‘results’ section is where the numbers (and graphs) are kept and the rest is discussing results: ‘discussion’ and ‘conclusion’ and before the results section there’s ‘abstract,’ ‘introduction,’ and ‘methods and materials.’