The adversarial system is rigid – the roles are proscribed – the prosecutor wants to convict, the defendant wants a decision of not guilty. They are not just allowed but expected to bias their presentation, trusting the truth to come out between the adversaries. Science certainly has its sides of partisanship and bias. But these sides are self-imposed and can be abandoned at any time. While a prosecutor should not lie or hide evidence, and should drop a case if they become convinced the defendant is innocent, they wake up in the morning with no choice about which side of the argument they will come down on. In the criminal justice system the advocates are rigidly fixed in their roles and the jurors are rigidly neutral (the process to find a random neutral jury took as long as the trial itself). In science, the advocates are the same people as the jurors. And as a result they have to be willing to be flexible and change their minds. A good scientist shouldn’t have a pre-determined rigid answer to a question.
Lack of investigation – we jurors were told over and over not to investigate the situation ourselves. We were to make our decision only on the basis of the evidence presented to us. I can tell you in the case I was on there were at least two whopping big questions hanging over the case that nearly every juror in the room identified as very important but not addressed by either lawyer. Either one of them (whether the defendant’s schedule allowed time to drink before being stopped in the car, whether a particular medical condition could affect breathalyzer tests) could have changed the outcome. We could have answered one of these with 10 minutes on google and the other with some very simple subpoena of records. But we couldn’t use any of this. Scientists obviously are the opposite – if they need more information, they are expected to go get it before making an opinion.
Reliance on personal testimony – although science and trials share a focus on evidence, trials recognize testimony of individual people under oath as a major form of evidence. They certainly acknowledge the possibility of lying and explicitly instruct jurors to decide what testimony they believe. My case was unusual in that there was so much video footage, but still a majority of the case came down to testimony by the police officers, and most cases even a few years ago would have had only testimony. Science on the other hand, doesn’t accept testimony. Or does it? What else is the methods and results section of a paper? I’m on the fence whether science is so different on this one.
I would say 1000c as my answer
After reading this whole question, I feel like I've already
earned 5 points !
-- Two satellites at the same distance, different masses:
The forces of gravity between two objects are directly
proportional to the product of the objects' masses. In
other words, the gravitational forces between the Earth
and an object on its surface are proportional to the mass of
the object. In other words, people with more mass weigh more
on the Earth, and the Earth weighs more on them.
If the satellites are both at the same distance from Earth,
then the Earth pulls on the one with more mass with greater
force, and also the one with more mass pulls on the Earth
with greater force.
-- Two satellites with the same mass, at different distances:
The forces of gravity between two objects are inversely
proportional to the square of the distance between them.
In other words, the gravitational
forces between the Earth
and an object are inversely proportional
to the square of
the distance between the object and the center of the Earth.
If
the satellites both have the same mass, then the Earth
pulls on the nearer one with greater force, and also the
nearer one pulls on the Earth with greater force.
-- Resistor in a circuit when the voltage changes:
The resistance depends on how the resistor was manufactured.
Its resistance is marked on it, and doesn't change. It remains
the same whether the voltage changes, the current changes,
the time of day changes, the cost of oil changes, etc.
If you increase the voltage in the circuit where that resistor is
installed, the current through the resistor increases. If the current
remains constant, then you can be sure that somebody snuck over
to your circuit when you weren't looking, and they either installed
another resistor in series with the original one to make the total
resistance bigger, or else they snipped the original one out of the
circuit and quickly connected one with more resistance in its place.
Answer:
<h3><em>Flavonoids</em><em> </em><em>are</em><em> </em><em>a </em><em>diverse</em><em> </em><em>group</em><em> of</em><em> </em><em>phytonutrients</em><em> </em><em>(</em><em>plant</em><em> </em><em>chemical</em><em>)</em><em> </em><em>found</em><em> in</em><em> </em><em>almost</em><em> </em><em>all</em><em> </em><em>fruits</em><em> and</em><em> </em><em>vegetables. </em><em>Along</em><em> with</em><em> </em><em>carotenoids</em><em> </em><em>they</em><em> </em><em>are</em><em> </em><em>Responsible</em><em> for</em><em> the</em><em> </em><em>vivid</em><em> </em><em>color</em><em> </em><em>in </em><em>fruit</em><em> </em><em>and</em><em> vegetables</em><em>.</em><em> </em><em>.</em><em>.</em><em>.</em><em>.</em><em> </em><em>Like</em><em> </em><em>other</em><em> </em><em>phytonutrients</em><em> </em><em>flavonoids</em><em> </em><em>are</em><em> </em><em>powerful</em><em> </em><em>antioxidant</em><em> </em><em>with</em><em> </em><em>anti-inflammatory</em><em> </em><em>and</em><em> </em><em>immune</em><em> </em><em>system</em><em> </em><em>benefits</em><em>.</em></h3>
The rate at which velocity changes over time is <em>acceleration</em>.