Standard Operating Procedure

How to Make a Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich

Date Created: March 26, 2012

Created By: Brandon Alvarado, Sarah Richardson, Yvonne Rodriguez, Ellen Schneider, Elbert

Overview: This procedure details how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich step by step.

Supplies: 

Crunchy or Smooth Peanut Butter

Your choice of Jelly (Raspberry, Blackberry, Blueberry, Mixed Berries)

Your choice of Wheat of White Bread

Equipment:

Plate

Knife

Spoon

Procedure:

1. Pull out two slices of bread out of the bag of your choice and place them on your plate.
2. Dip the knife in the peanut butter and spread on one side of one slice of bread. 
3. Dip the spoon in your choice of jelly and spread on one side of the other slice of bread.
4. Place one piece of bread on top of the other, so that the peanut butter and jelly touch.
5. Use the Knife to cut the sandwich in half or in quarters.
6. Wash the utensils used.
7. Enjoy your sandwich.

Quality Control: To make sure your peanut butter and jelly sandwich was made correctly check for two things:

No peanut butter or jelly is on the outside of the bread

It tastes GOOD.

Phlogiston Theory

In 1667, Johann Becher published Physical Education. In it is found the first suggestion of what would later become the phlogiston theory. At Becher's time, alchemists believed that there were four classical elements: fire, water, air, and earth. In his book, Becher disputed this by eliminating fire and air and replacing them with three forms of earth. The third, terra pinguis, represented combustible properties. Becher believed that terra pinguis was a main feature of combustion which was released when substances capable of combustion were burned. Becher's theory was expanded in 1703 by a professor of medicine and chemestry called Georg Stahl who renamed terra pinguis phlogiston. The phlogistion theory as it is known today is mainly influenced by Stahl's representation.


The theory was an attempt of early scientists to explain the processes of burning, such as combustion. It states that phlogiston is a substance without color, smell, taste, or mass which is freed during the process of burning. A burned substance, now free of phlogiston, or "dephlogisticated", was considered to be in its true form. It was believed that oxygen was capable of absorbing only a certain amount of phlogiston, and that once it became fully phlogisticated it would no longer support the process of combustion. The fact that combustion stopped in an enclosed space supported this line of thought. Another relationship between oxygen and phlogiston that was believed was that phlogisticated air could not support life, since the job of air in the process of respiration was to remove phlogiston from the body.
Ironically, this early description was essentially opposite of oxygen's actual role in combustion.


Eventually, the phlogiston theory began to loose ground. One of the biggest observations that began this process was that when certain metals, such as magnesium, were burned, they actually gained weight. This was against phlogiston theory since burning was supposed to release phlogiston and make a substance lighter. Some tried to hold on to the theory anyway by suggesting that phlogistion actually had negative weight, others proposed that it was lighter than air, but these conjectures were proved false. During the eighteenth century, phlogiston began to be seen as a principle rather than an actual substance; when it was referred to at all, it was usually linked with hydrogen. Some scientists, most notably Joseph Priestely, held onto the concept of phlogiston theory throughout his career.


Despite evidence of its flaws, the theory was still dominant until Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier indisputably disproved it. His work showed that combustion requires the use of a gas that has weight; since phlogiston was understood to have no mass, it would be impossible for such a substance to have any effect on combustion. Lavoisier's work left phlogiston theory behind, and allowed for the caloric theory of combustion to take it's place.

Deductive vs. Inductive reasoning

Deductive and inductive reasoning can in very loose, unspecific terms, be deemed opposite ways of coming to a conclusion; while deductive reasoning takes a general statement and makes specific observations, inductive reasoning uses specific instances to come to a generalization. However, there are many more pointed differences between these two systems which set them apart from each other.

Deductive reasoning can be based on knowledge that a person already has. For example, in order to solve a cryptogram, deductive reasoning is necessary. Since I know the English language as I try to solve a puzzle regarding the language, I know where all of the limitations and possibilities of the puzzle will be. Because I know how the alphabet works, I know that there are only so many places where double letters will be possible; if I need two identical letters to solve the puzzle, I know that there are only so many options and I could work around these limitations to deduce the other letters in a similar manner.


Deductive reasoning can also be expressed in if...then...but...therefore statements. 

For example, we might hypothesize that "The color of a mineral is determined by its crystal structure."

 And so we could test this hypothesis using deductive reasoning:
 If the color of a mineral is determined by its crystal structure; then all purple minerals should have the same crystal structure. But purple amethyst has a hexagonal structure and purple fluorite has an isometric structure (determined by observations). Therefore, the hypothesis is not supported or strengthened.
http://www.nakedscience.org/mrg/Deductive%20and%20Inductive%20Reasoning.htm 

 Deductive reasoning is the preferred type of reasoning when it comes to scientific study.


Inductive reasoning produces much less specific results. 

This is the kind of reasoning used if you have gradually built up an understanding of how something works. Rather than starting with laws and principles and making deductions, most people collect relevant experience and try to construct principles from it. http://www.nakedscience.org/mrg/Deductive%20and%20Inductive%20Reasoning.htm 

 If you were using inductive reasoning to make a connection between obesity and sugar intake, you might be able to make a chart which suggests that the more sugar a person consumes, the greater chance that they will be obese. You will be able to make a trend line demonstrating this relationship, but that is about it. It would be very unlikely that any particular instance plotted in the graph would actually fall on the trend line, so all you would have is a generalized explanation. Another problem with this type of reasoning is that by using this method, you cannot determine whether or not sugar would be the only cause of obesity. There could be several factors present in certain individual cases, but these would not be studied and would not be reflected in the trend line. Therefore, at best, you would only have a loose understanding of your topic.

The table below (Figure 7) summarises the most prevalent properties and differences between deductive and inductive reasoning which are important to keep in mind.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cognitive_Psychology_and_Cognitive_Neuroscience/Reasoning_and_Decision_Making 

 

Wiwaxia

One of the many incredibly unique creatures discovered 

• Wiwaxia fossil
• This particular preparation also contains a fossil of Marrella at the upper left. 

during the excavation of the Burgess Shale is  Wiwaxia, 

a creature which even today has not been classified into 

any existing animal group.   Wiwaxia is distinguished by a double row of elongated spines which rise upwards from it's back. The rest of its body was covered in overlapping, scale-like segments called sclerites which were arranged in different orientations depending on their position on Wiwaxia's body.. Evidence suggests that Wiwaxia grew by molting these plates. The sclerites along with the rows of spines probably offered protection for Wiwaxia, a small creature ranging from 3 to 55 mm in length, from predators. Another defining feature of Wiwaxia was it's anterior jaw, which had two rows of teeth; it's position suggests the bottom feeding nature of the creature.

The classification of Wiwaxia has always been a challenge for scientists. 

There were no sclerites on the bottom of the creature and its soft body moved across the sea floor using bands of muscle in a way that is reminiscent of a slug. This brings to mind images of the mollusk family, but Wiwaxia's sclerite armor is not a characteristic of mollusks. Charles Walcott, the original discoverer of the Burgess Shale and it's fossils, placed Wiwaxia with the annelids, calling it a polychaete annelid or bristle worm. Conway Morris, who helped to disprove many of Walcott's original classifications, argued that Wiwaxia's sclerites weren't like those of other polychaete.

As a result of all the unique features of Wiwaxia and the debate between scientists, Wiwaxia has yet to find a home in any known animal group. Instead it joins the ranks of ranks of other Burgess Shale "oddballs" like Hallucigenia and Anomalocaris.