Material you need to read：
Building off of the case study for last week, you looked at the concept of fracking and two opposing views. You evaluated evidence from both arguments and made a decision as to which you felt had stronger evidence. In your reading you have been looking at the Criteria of Adequacy, which works really well when looking at large scale theories such as the Big Bang or Evolution, but it can be hard to use on smaller ideas or hypotheses. For example, it is hard to know the “fruitfulness” of claims about the effect of caffeine on your health. Another system that may help you weigh competing claims and evaluate evidence is the FiLCHeRS model. Read the description of this evidence-based method at the link in the Digital Case Study File. In addition, go to the Wikipedia link in the Case Study Folder on “Non-overlapping magisteria” also called NOMa.
After you have read these two articles, in your initial post apply two concepts of FiLCHeRS to the following statements:
· Earthquakes are caused by fracking.
· It is unethical to frack.
· Fracking causes the land around it to look ugly.
In the second paragraph of the post, discuss how this process went. Why is it easier to apply to FiLCHeRS to some claims and not others.
Finally in the third paragraph, go to the What’s the Harm website. Choose a topic that you are interested in, read a couple of case studies on that topic. Write a brief paragraph describing the difference between the scientific approach and the nonscientific approach to the issue and what the potential danger is for the non-scientific. If you can think of a danger for the scientific view feel free to include it.