You'll build the best explanation the evidence allows — then never find out if you were right. That's not a flaw in the activity. It's the point.
In this practical you meet sealed canisters, each hiding one object. You work out what's inside using only your senses — and you never open them to check.
That constraint is doing real work. A scientist is in exactly the same position: reality doesn't come with a lid you can lift to see the "true answer." You gather evidence, build the explanation it best supports, and hold that explanation open to revision. The canister isn't a party trick — it's a working model of how knowledge is made.
The whole activity hinges on one habit scientists live by: separating what you detect from what you conclude. An observation is fixed evidence. An inference is your interpretation of it — and interpretations can be argued with.
Read each statement. Is it an observation or an inference?
It's the most natural assumption in the room — that if you just investigate hard enough, you'll eventually know for sure. Commit to an answer before you read on.
A stronger idea — never certainty. Ten minutes of careful work makes an explanation more trustworthy, not more proven. The lid never lifts. That feels like a limitation, but it's actually how science operates: no experiment hands you the final answer, only better or worse support for competing explanations.
The misconception this corrects: that science delivers fixed, proven facts. It doesn't. It delivers the best explanation available so far — powerful, reliable, and always open to revision if new evidence arrives.
Tap the canister. Each shake surfaces one piece of evidence — and no single one settles it. Collect the set, then notice how your mind rushes to a conclusion before the evidence is really in.
This is the science-conference moment. When groups reach different conclusions from the same sealed canister, you don't settle it by opening the box — you settle it by weighing the evidence and the reasoning behind each claim.
Accept: a well-argued case for wood, for cork, or for "insufficient evidence to decide", provided it is justified from the observations. Do not accept: "just open it and check" / a conclusion asserted with no reference to the evidence.
Fill the blanks so the sentence reads as a model answer.
Scientists gather and use it to build the best-supported . Because reality cannot be "opened" to check, scientific ideas are — open to revision. Sharing reasoning for others to challenge is called , and it keeps the process honest.
Scientists can't check reality's answer key. They construct the best explanation the evidence allows.
New evidence can refine, revise, or overturn today's best idea. "Tentative" means open to revision, not flimsy.
Sharing reasoning so others can challenge it is quality control. The best-supported case wins.
Observation, inference, discussion and imagination drive it — the same skills for a canister or a cell.