Sarah wants to install a wind turbine on her farm, which would convert wind energy to electricity to power her home. She can only afford one wind turbine, so she wants to determine the best location around her farm to harness the wind’s energy most effectively throughout the year. Sarah decides to conduct a science investigation to answer her question A. She could build a miniature model of her farm, and blow air through a straw in different locations to simulate wind.
B. She could create a survey for her friends and neighbors, asking them where they think the wind
turbine would look the coolest.
C. She could conduct an experiment, using a tool to measure wind speed at multiple locations around
her farm, and collect data over a period of one year.
D. She could go on a nature walk every weekend for one year, recording her observations to make an
inference about the best location for the wind turbine.

The best choice would be c

Explanation: Sarah wants this wind turbine to efficient since she can only get one. C has the most reasonable option data collected will help her know the best wind speed over her farm.

relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them. more precisely, “relativism” covers views which maintain that—at a high level of abstraction—at least some class of things have the properties they have (e.g., beautiful, morally good, epistemically justified) not simpliciter, but only relative to a given framework of assessment (e.g., local cultural norms, individual standards), and correspondingly, that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied. relativists characteristically insist, furthermore, that if something is only relatively so, then there can be no framework-independent vantage point from which the matter of whether the thing in question is so can be established.

relativism has been, in its various guises, both one of the most popular and most reviled philosophical doctrines of our time. defenders see it as a harbinger of tolerance and the only ethical and epistemic stance worthy of the open-minded and tolerant. detractors dismiss it for its alleged incoherence and uncritical intellectual permissiveness. debates about relativism permeate the whole spectrum of philosophical sub-disciplines. from ethics to epistemology, science to religion, political theory to ontology, theories of meaning and even logic, philosophy has felt the need to respond to this heady and seemingly subversive idea. discussions of relativism often also invoke considerations relevant to the very nature and methodology of philosophy and to the division between the so-called “analytic and continental” camps in philosophy. and yet, despite a long history of debate going back to plato and an increasingly large body of writing, it is still difficult to come to an agreed definition of what, at its core, relativism is, and what philosophical import it has. this entry attempts to provide a broad account of the many ways in which “relativism” has been defined, explained, defended and criticized.

explanation:

no. dot product   =0 when vecs at right angles