Standard Operating Procedures

TYING SHOE LACES

1.0   Scope and Application

            1.1 This procedure is used for tying shoes in an efficient and comfortable manner

2.0   Summary of Method

            2.1   Manipulating shoestrings into a bow that will securely keep shoes on feet but can be unfastened with relative ease

3.0   Inter References

3.1   Inter References are not applicable to this method

4.0   Apparatus and Materials

4.1   Shoe (1 or 2)

4.2   Shoe laces (laced throughout the shoe)

5.0   Procedure

5.1   Pull laces until tight with a lace in each hand

5.2   Cross the laces forming an “X” shape while maintaining the tightness

5.3   Put the lace in the right hand beneath the bottom of the “X” and pull. You should be left with a “V” shape.

5.4   Make a loop with the left lace, pinching it at the base of the loop

5.5   Take the right lace and wrap once around the base of the loop

5.6   You should be left with a second loop formed around the first

5.7   Pull the right lace through the second loop

5.8   Pull the newly formed third loop and the first loop. This will eliminate the second loop.

6.0   Quality Control

6.1   The end result should be a knotted shoe with the two loops and two loose lace ends. The knot should hold and not come undone

Phlogiston Theory

The phlogiston theory was put forward in 1667 by Johann Joachim Becher as an attempt to explain the combustion process and the rusting of metals both of which are now known as oxidation. Becher suggested that there was the existence of a fire-like element called phlogiston which was contained within flammable or combustible substances that were released during combustion.

The Phlogiston theory said that all flammable substances had phlogiston within them. It was something that did not have any colour, smell, taste or mass that was released upon burning. After everything was burned, only then would the dephlogisticated, substance would take its true form. For instance substances that could be burned in air were determined to be rich in phlogiston. When air was taken away, burning would cease leading to a conclusion that air had a capacity to absorb a finite amount of phlogiston.

This theory didn’t survive for very long.

Chemists were beginning to conduct quantitative experiments and taking measurements. It was observed that some metals gained weight after being burnt, magnesium being one of them. If phlogiston had been released during the burning process, why was there a gain in weight? If anything the weight should have decreased on the release of phlogiston, or perhaps remained the same given that phlogiston was supposed to not have any mass.

Phlogiston Theory survived as the dominant theory until Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier demonstrated that combustion requires a gas with a measurable weight to occur. This gas was oxygen. He used closed vessels to make these measurements and his findings started the caloric theory of combustion.

Burgess Shale Creature

The hallucigenia is one of the strangest creatures, in the Burgess Shale. It is less than three millimeters long, making it one of the smaller creatures int he Burgess Shale. At one end there is a bulbous "head" which is a round mass. This connects to the cylindrical trunk of the Hallucigenia, which, on the top has seven pairs of spines pointing upward and outward. These conical spines are embedded into the trunk, and are fairly long when compared to the rest of the Hallucigenia. Below each pair of spines there is a tentacle except that the last tentacle is offset from the pair of spines. Behind these tentacles there are three pairs of much shorted tentacles, and then the trunk narrows and curves upward. The tentacles have pincers at their tips, and there is a hollow tube in each one which is connected to the gut. Originally the Hallucigenia was thought to have stood on its spines, with the tentacles upward. Later studies have shown that the "tentacles" are actually feet, and the Hallucigenia is a descendant of today's velvet worms.

Inductive VS. Deductive Reasoning

Induction and deduction are pervasive elements in critical thinking. They are also somewhat

misunderstood terms. Arguments based on experience or observation are best expressed inductively, while arguments based on laws or rules are best expressed deductively. Most arguments are mainly inductive. In fact, inductive reasoning usually comes much more naturally to us than deductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning moves from specific details and observations (typically of nature) to the more general underlying principles or process that explains them (e.g., Newton's Law of Gravity). It is open-ended and exploratory, especially at the beginning. The premises of an inductive argument are believed to support the conclusion, but do not ensure it. Thus, the conclusion of an induction is regarded as a hypothesis. In the Inductive method, also called the scientific method, observation of nature is the authority.

In contrast, deductive reasoning typically moves from general truths to specific conclusions. It opens with an expansive explanation and continues with predictions for specific observations supporting it. Deductive reasoning is narrow in nature and is concerned with testing or confirming a hypothesis. It is dependent on its premises. For example, a false premise can lead to a false result, and inconclusive premises will also yield an inconclusive conclusion. Deductive reasoning leads to a confirmation (or not) of our original theories. It guarantees the correctness of a conclusion. Logic is the authority in the deductive method.

If you can strengthen your argument or hypothesis by adding another piece of information, you are using inductive reasoning. If you cannot improve your argument by adding more evidence, you are employing deductive reasoning.