Question 3

From one observation you can get many different interpretations and conclusions. What someone see's as a cup half full others will see as half empty. Hutton and other scientist need to convince others of the meaning of their observations by explaining them what they see and why it happened, or why it looks the way they see it. Doing that requires a lot of supporting facts and evidence. For example, when someone see's the moon they assume it's just some captured asteroid, but through evidence, facts, and a lot of research, scientist explained that the moon was the remains of a colossal collision between Earth and a Mars sized object. With evidence, facts, research,analysis, and even computer simulations supporting their hypothesis scientist were able to prove that the Moon could of been the result of a massive collision. And that's the support that Hutton needs to use to convince the meaning of his observations.

Graphs and other forms of representing data isn't always revealing the complete truth or the whole story. A graph shouldn't be enough to convince the mind what to think. Data doesn't tell a scientist what to think. Sometimes data can be misleading and even incorrect. For example, imagine to bar graphs. One graph displays two tall bars one twice as tall as the other, and the other graph displays the same results but both graphs are significantly smaller. The reason for that is because one graph shows the difference between the growth increase of a giraffe and a rat per inch and the other one per 20 inches. The smaller bar graph will fool you because since both bars are really small you would think that their difference is smaller but the larger graph would magnify the results and make their difference look much larger. A scientist can't just depend on data and graphs. A data on a graph doesn't explain it's information it just displays it. It's the scientist job to solve the puzzle and expain it's results.