The principles of science – v7.1

Every day, we see and hear numerous statements about how things work – about how things relate to each other. Science is normally thought of as the way of conduct that provides certainty about such relationships. However, beliefs and statements that are not sufficiently substantiated can often be seen – also within science.

So what are the principles of science then? It is hard to say. One might imagine that such set of principles already exists. I dare say that it don´t. It seems like many people think they have some kind of understanding about the principles of science, but a well-defined and compact set of principles does not seem to be readily available.

This position seems to be supported by the following quote “The basic and particular principles that guide scientific research practices exist primarily in an unwritten code of ethics. Although some have proposed that these principles should be written down and formalized, the principles and traditions of science are, for the most part, conveyed to successive generations of scientists through example, discussion, and informal education.” Ref.: Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process; Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research, National Academy of Sciences;” http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864.html

This work is nothing less than a bold attempt to provide a set of fundamental principles for science. Principles that can be used to distinguish knowledge from beliefs.

The principles provided here have not been taken out of thin air. Some principles may be recognised as sound scientific principles phrased in various ways in various sources. Other principles are distilled from existing international standards. However, this is an original work that provides a unique and essential set of well-defined principles.

This work itself, or parts thereof can be proven wrong simply by identifying a logically invalid principle or definition. The work can also be proven wrong by identifying a concept that is known to be validated, that can not be put forward in a way that complies with relevant principles, or by identifying a concept known to be wrong that complies with relevant principles.

Principles that are clearly irrelevant for a propounded statement can be disregarded for that statement. If it is not clear to an opponent that a principle is irrelevant, this might become the origin of a discussion.

The first section of this work provides the principles and the associated definitions. The first section is self-contained.

The reason why almost all terms are defined is that there are many different dictionaries available at the fingertips of any reader. This work cannot rely on undefined terms or terms having various definitions as a changed definition will change the conclusions that can be drawn on basis of this work or even make it logically invalid.

The second part of this work provides the essential arguments for each principle.

If you like this set of principles – hit the “like” button and spread the word about this work. If you find something wrong, have an idea about an improvement or just want to discuss a particular aspect – tell me about it by leaving a comment at the original site: https://rulesofscience.wordpress.com

This work may be reproduced on the condition that the principles are not detached from the definitions and that the reproduction includes a link to the original work.

1 The principles of science

§1 A scientific argument consists of clearly stated premises, inferences and conclusions.

§2 A scientific premise is verifiable. Premises and their sources are identified and readily available for independent verification.

§3 A scientific inference is logically valid.

§4 A scientific conclusion is deduced by an explicit application of axioms, definitions and theorems or measured properties and scientific concepts that have already been verified or validated.

§5 A scientific concept consists of statements that are logically valid conclusions deduced from premises that are themselves logically valid conclusions, axioms, definitions or theorems.

§6 A scientific concept is well-defined and has a well-defined capability of prediction within a well-defined context.

§7 A scientific concept can only be validated by comparison of predictions deduced from that concept with measurement results. Whenever predictions differ from measurement results, by more than the combined uncertainty of the measurement results and the claimed capability of the concept,  there must be something wrong with the concept – or the test of it.

§8 A scientific concept can only be referred to as validated for the context covered by the validating tests.

§9 A scientific statement is based on verifiable data. Data and precise information about how that data was obtained are readily available for independent verification. Whenever data are corrected or disregarded, both uncorrected and corrected data are provided together with a scientific argument for the correction.

§10 A scientific measurement report contains traceable values, units and stated uncertainty for well-defined measurands in a well-defined context.

§11 A scientific prediction report contains values, units and claimed capability for well-defined measurands in a well-defined context.

https://rulesofscience.wordpress.com/2017/01/24/the-principles-of-science-v7-1/

Definitions for The principles of science

 

argument: a conclusion inferred from a set of premises 
axiom: a statement that is self-evidently true and accepted as a true starting point for further deduction
calibration: comparison of a measurement with a reference having a known uncertainty
capability: maximum difference between predictions and measurements
comparison: quantification of the difference between
concept: any expression of a relationship between two or more measurands
conclusion: a statement inferred from one or more premises
context: a set of those things that have an influence on a measured or predicted value
corrected: replace a measured or predicted value with another value
data: measured or predicted value of a measurand or relationship between measurands
deduction: logically valid combination of premises into a conclusion by means of mathematics and logic
definition: identification of a set of properties that distinguish a thing from all other things
disregard: remove a value from a series of data that is used as a premise
document: an identified collection of words, numbers and symbols
explicit: stated in a manner that is only open to the intended interpretation
false: a statement that can be contradicted, within the defined context, by a logically valid statement based on true premises
hypothesis: a propounded statement or concept that has not been verified or validated
independent: not under influence of the party propounding a concept
inference: logical connection between premises and conclusion
logically valid: the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion – it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false.
mathematics: a consistent and logically valid system of symbols and operations on these symbols
measurand: well-defined property that can be quantified by a measurement
measure: quantify a measurand by establishing the ratio between that measurand and a references that serves as a unit – and assign a number representing that ratio, and the associated unit, to that measurand
measurement (result): a measurand quantified by a value and an associated unit
nature: any thing and any relation between things
non-contradictory: either true or not true
observe: conclude if an attribute is in accordance with a definition
precise information: sufficient for replication by an independent person using equal tools
prediction: quantification of a measurand without any foreknowledge about an eventual measurement result
premise: a statement used to infer a conclusion
property: an attribute that can be observed or measured
prove: verify a statement by means of theorems.
readily available: available without further request
reference: a measurement device or procedure that has an unbroken chain of calibrations to the definition of the unit
relationship: a quantified change in measurand A is followed by a quantified change in measurand B
source: identified document containing a premise
statement: a logical proposition that can be either true or false within the defined context
test: an activity that can verify or validate
theorem: a concept that has been proven and that can now be used as the basis of other proofs.
thing: whatever that can be defined
traceable: having an unbroken chain of calibrations to the definition of the unit
true: a statement that can not be contradicted by a logically valid statement based on true premises
uncertainty: quantified accuracy
unit: a well-defined quantity that has one unique value
validate: demonstrate the truth of a concept within a well-defined and applicable context
verify: demonstrate the truth of
wrong: not true

 

2 Arguments for the principles of science

Introduction

It should be noted that the intention with this work has been to provide the fundamental principles of science in a comprehensive but still compact manner. A significant effort has been invested in limiting the amount of text to an essential minimum.

Regarding §1 A scientific argument consists of clearly stated premises, inferences and conclusions.

The constituents of an argument should be recognisable in §1 and the associated definitions. The essential part of §1 is that all parts of a scientific argument should be clearly stated.

Without a clearly stated argument, other interpretations than the intended interpretation will be possible. It can then be expected that judgement of the argument will be suspended, or that the argument will be questioned or disregarded. If on the other hand the argument is accepted, it will be on the basis of some kind of fallacy – some kind of belief as the interpretation may be another than the intended.

Regarding §2 A scientific premise is verifiable. Premises and their sources are identified and readily available for independent verification.

If a premise can not be verified, the argument can only be accepted on the basis of a belief in the authority of the proponent of the argument. The intention with §2 is to emphasise that a premise can only be verified if it is properly referred to. Both the premise itself and the source containing the premise should be identified, and the source should be available for verification. If not, the premise can not be verified, hence it can only be accepted on the basis of some kind of belief.

Regarding §3 A scientific inference is logically valid.

If an inference is not logically valid, it follows from the definitions that the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion – it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Hence, the conclusion can then only be accepted as true on the basis of some kind of belief.

Regarding §4 A scientific conclusion is deduced by an explicit application of axioms, definitions, theorems or measured properties and scientific concepts that have already been verified or validated.

Any collection of words, numbers and symbols is an abstract construction that may or may not correspond with observations and measurements of nature.

In the case of science, this collection of words, numbers and symbols will have to be a non-contradictory construction – a logically valid construction – simply because knowledge can not both be true and not true at the same time. We can not know if a statement is true if, at the same time, it is both true and not true.

A logically valid construction that ends up in a conclusion has to be based on something, a basis. That basis is here identified as axioms, definitions, theorems or measured properties and scientific concepts that have already been verified or validated.

In the case of abstract constructions like theoretical mathematics, the basis for the construction will be axioms, definitions and theorems.

In the case of constructions intended to provide a correspondence between an abstract construction and observations and measurements of nature (like physics), the axioms, definitions and theorems may be about nature or about the correspondence between the abstract construction and nature. In this case, the construction may also be based on observed or measured properties or scientific concepts that have already been verified or validated.

As an example, it will normally be acceptable to base a scientific conclusion on a concept like Newton´s laws of motion within their validated context. It will normally also be acceptable to base scientific conclusions on a measured property like the gravitational acceleration (approximately 9,8 m/s^2 on earth). The application of a property will dictate how accurate that measured property will have to be – whether 9,8 m/s^2 is sufficiently accurate or if a more accurate value is required.

A scientific conclusion may be applied in an argument for or against a propounded concept, or as a part of a scientific concept.

Regarding §5 A scientific concept consists of statements that are logically valid conclusions deduced from premises that are themselves logically valid conclusions, axioms, definitions or theorems.

The intention with this principle is to emphasise that the entire concept will have to be a logically valid construction that has a well-defined and true basis. If there are any logical fallacies in a construction, the result will be that the concept can only be accepted as true on the basis of some kind of belief.

A concept that is under construction and has not yet been validated should be clearly identified as an hypothesis to avoid premature application of the concept.

Regarding §6 A scientific concept is well-defined and has a well-defined capability of prediction within a well-defined context.

Even if a concept complies with §5, there is no guarantee that a concept is a complete construction without any errors in it and that it also provides a correspondence between the concept and observations and measurements of nature.

To facilitate independent judgement, the concept itself will have to be well-defined. If the concept is not well-defined it can not be tested by an independent party. The independent party would not know what to test and how to test it. Further, if it can not be tested by an independent party, the concept can only be accepted on basis of a belief in the party propounding a concept.

Concepts are only valid within a context. For example classical physics: “Beginning at the atomic level and lower, the laws of classical physics break down and generally do not provide a correct description of nature.” (Ref.: Wikipedia; classical physics; at the date of publishing this work). Hence, to facilitate judgement of a concept by an independent party, the context for which the concept is claimed to work well will have to be defined by the party propounding a concept.

Many concepts got a capability of prediction of the value of a measurand, but not exactly. A concept may have a capability of prediction with some uncertainty. To facilitate judgement of a concept, the capability of the concept will have to defined by the party propounding that concept. If not, there is no way to tell if the concept performs as claimed or not, or whether it is useful for an intended use or not.

Regarding §7 A scientific concept can only be validated by comparison of predictions deduced from that concept with measurement results. Whenever predictions differ from measurement results, by more than the combined uncertainty of the measurement results and the claimed capability of the concept,  there must be something wrong with the concept – or the test of it.

A concept may or may not correspond with observations and measurements of nature. Within many areas of human expressions, like in politics, religion, love, hate, humour or whatever; it may not matter if an expression corresponds with nature. Within science, on the other hand, an essential characteristic of a useful scientific concept is that of a non-contradictory correspondence between predictions of that concept and measurements of nature.

A scientific concept that is supposed to correspond with nature will have to be true in its correspondence with nature. A concept that can be contradicted by a logically valid statement based on true premises can not be true – that follows from the definition of true used in this work.

There are many possible errors in a concept. Even if a concept complies with §1 to §6, there is no guarantee that the concept is a complete construction that also provides a correspondence between that concept and observations and measurements of nature. We can not know that the concept is complete, that there are no errors in it, that the concept is correctly constructed or that the concept has the claimed capability of prediction.

The only way to know that a concept actually performs within the claimed capability within a defined context is to deduce predictions from that concept, measure nature in the same context and see if the difference between predictions and measurements is within the claimed capability of the concept. In judging the results of the test, the uncertainty of the measurement will have to be taken into account. Repeated tests are required to ensure that the results are representative.

It is worth mentioning that there are may ways to adjust a concept to match measurements. Many kinds of curve fit, parameterisation, change of definitions or addition of theorems can be used to adjust a concept to measurements. Basically, that is what many scientists do while making a concept. The problem is that adjustment of a concept to match measurements will hide that the concept does not have the claimed capability within the applicable context. If a concept really has the claimed capability to predict the value of a measurand, there should be no reason to adjust the concept so that it match measurements.

The reason why it is so useful to compare predictions with measurements is that all kinds of adjustments to the concept to match measurements are logically impossible. It is impossible to adjust a concept to match something that is not yet known. Prediction excludes all kinds of adjustments of the concept to match the measured values. There may be other ways to validate a concept, but all other ways leave a possibility that the concept has been adjusted to match measurements. Hence all other ways to validate a concept should also be followed by a scientific argument proving that the concept has not been adjusted to match the measurements of that particular test.  Without such proof, the concept can only be accepted on the basis of a belief that the concept has not been adjusted particularly for that test.

Regarding §8 A scientific concept can only be referred to as validated for the context covered by the validating tests.

A test is performed within a context. Obviously, the test is only valid for that context.  As a principle, the concept can only be referred to as validated for the context covered by the validating test.

It may be that interpolation or extrapolation can not be contradicted by a logically valid statement, but that is not normally the situation. However, the party propounding a concept might be able to put forward a scientific argument for the validity of interpolation of extrapolation, and it might be that no opponents are able to put forward a scientific counterargument. Anyhow, extrapolation or interpolation should be followed by a scientific argument.

Regarding §9 A scientific statement is based on verifiable data. Data and precise information about how that data was obtained are readily available for independent verification. Whenever data are corrected or disregarded, both uncorrected and corrected data are provided together with a scientific argument for the correction.

Whenever a statement is based on predicted or measured values or a relationship between measurands, the data should be readily available for independent verification. If not, the statement can only be accepted on the basis of a belief.

Further, errors may have been made in the experiment that produced the data. Such errors can possibly be revealed by an investigation into how the data was obtained or by independent replication of the experiment. Anyhow, the statement can only be verified if precise information about how that data was obtained is readily available. If not, the statement can only be accepted on the basis of a belief in the proponent of the statement.

Finally, it can be irresistible to disregard or correct data. There may be scientific arguments for doing that. If so, those arguments should be verifiable. If not, data should not be corrected, discarded or disregarded.

Regarding §10 A scientific measurement report contains traceable values, units and stated uncertainty for well-defined measurands in a well-defined context.

Obviously, a measurand will have to be well-defined, how else can anybody know exactly what has actually been measured? Obviously, the measurement result will also have to be provided with a value and the associated unit. A value without a unit is meaningless.

By using a unit in accordance with the International System of Units, the unit will already be well-defined. If the unit is a non-standard unit or even a hitherto unknown unit, the unit will have to be properly defined in the measurement report.

Whenever a measurement is performed by some kind of measurement device, the measurement device should be traceable by an unbroken chain of calibrations to the definition of the unit. Without a traceable measurement device, there is no way to know if the measurement is accurate, there is no way to quantify the uncertainty of the measurement.

Regarding the uncertainty of a measurement, the introduction to the following freely and readily available guideline: “Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement;  JCGM 100:2008 explains why quantification of uncertainty is essential: “When reporting the result of a measurement of a physical quantity, it is obligatory that some quantitative indication of the quality of the result be given so that those who use it can assess its reliability. Without such an indication, measurement results cannot be compared, either among themselves or with reference values given in a specification or standard.”

In the principles provided here, it is regarded sufficient to state that it is essential that the uncertainty of a measurement is provided in the measurement report. Obviously, there are benefits in providing the uncertainty in accordance with an international standard or guideline. By not providing the uncertainty in accordance with a standard or guideline, there is a risk that the measurement report is regarded insufficient and that no judgements can be made on basis of that report.

Finally, it is also essential that the context for the measurement is well-defined. All the things that are known to have an influence on the value of the measurand should be identified.

Regarding §11 A scientific prediction report contains values, units and claimed capability for well-defined measurands in a well-defined context.

This principle is an analogue to §10 about measurement reports, this should be no surprise since predictions are supposed to be comparable with measurements. A claimed capability may be expressed and documented in the same way as the uncertainty of a measurement.

This work can only be reproduced on the condition that the original source is identified by a link to:

https://rulesofscience.wordpress.com/2017/01/24/the-principles-of-science-v7-1/

 

Advertisements

38 thoughts on “The principles of science – v7.1

  1. “non-contradictory: either true or not true”
    the definition of logic is ‘non contradictory identification’
    that doesn’t mean ‘true or false’. it means not self-contradictory
    if you redefine ‘non-contradictory’ it kills the definition of ‘logic’

    “Regarding §4
    We can not know if a statement is true if, at the same time, it is both true and not true.”
    a self contradiction is false. (and it’s a very specific cognitive attack vector that one must identify correctly in order to be immune to it)

    the new one ‘thing’ is perfect.

    i’m afraid i’ve read this too many times now and need to take a break, too.
    plus i have a cold and am fuzzy headed.

    Like

    • I see that there is something to fix. Found this summary somewhere on the internet:
      “A tautology is true and a contr
      adiction is false no matter how things stand in the world, whereas nonsense is neither true nor false.”

      I´m still working with things like:
      attribute
      property
      and now:
      contradiction

      However, I will be cut off from working until over the weekend.

      Which is a good thing. I need fresh eyes too. 🙂

      Like

        • attribute: characteristic used to describe or define a thing

          (It appears that I don´t use the term entity any more.)

          definition: identification of a set of attributes or properties that distinguish a thing from all other things

          property: an attribute that can be observed or measured

          measurand: well-defined property that can be observed or quantified by a measurement

          Like

        • true: a statement that can not be contradicted by a logically valid statement based on inferred from true premises

          false: a statement that can be contradicted by a logically valid statement inferred from true premises

          contradict: demonstrate that a statement is not true

          There is no doubt that close to axioms there will be some circularity. I like to think that the way axioms are used also define them. I like to think that I am creating a net rather than a construction founded on the bedrock. A net that will catch fishy beliefs and let truths pass.

          Like

        • identification is a statement of equality (a thing is the same as itself)(double implication)
          definition does not refer explicitly to identity but to a set of attributes that uniquely characterize an entity.
          so i suggest:
          definition: THE set of attributes or properties that distinguish…etc…
          or, if you want more concise: the set of distinguishing characteristics.
          definition is about distinction from other things. identity is self referential.
          when you have a set, you can refer to the contents, the outline or the outside.
          definition is about the outline or border that separates- what sets it apart.
          Latin distinguere, from dis- ‘apart’ + stinguere ‘put out’
          identity is about the contents of the set – the thing which has been set apart.

          is it unnecessary to state that ‘distinguishing characteristics’ means ‘from all other things’
          because that’s implicit once you say ‘distinguishing’
          these redundancies invite ambiguities which contradict the purpose of definition.
          there is no subset of distinct that means ‘the same as’, you see?

          see how thrifty you can be.
          if you unnecessarily specify hairless tomatoes, for a funny example, it implies the existence of hairy ones.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Two alternatives:

          definition: a set of distinguishing characteristics

          definition: the set of distinguishing characteristics

          Consider a gas inside a container. I can think of a vast amount of distinguishing characteristics for that gas.

          The set of distinguishing characteristics for that gas may depend on the issue at hand.

          Hence, I am tempted to say a set of distinguishing characteristics rather than the set of distinguishing characteristics.

          Like

        • true: a statement that can not be contradicted by a logically valid statement based on inferred from true premises

          you dropped the context. now it’s not going to work.
          truth exists in some context. context dropping is a very common way to infect someone with lies.
          ‘everyone should have enough to eat!’ are you going to argue with that?
          the context has been dropped. it’s not a truth. but can you then say ‘no, everyone should not have enough to eat!’? try it. won’t be true and will be guarantee no rational outcome.

          Like

        • New try:
          “true: a statement that can not be contradicted within the defined context”

          I agree that “context” need to be in the definition. I think I removed it as it is kind of covered by the principles.

          Like

        • true: a statement that can not be contradicted by a logically valid statement based on inferred from true premises

          is there such a thing as a logically valid statement that is inferred from false premises? if not, then don’t suggest there are by specifying ‘true premises’.
          do you see the pattern?

          Like

        • “is there such a thing as a logically valid statement that is inferred from false premises?”

          By this definition there is:
          “logically valid: the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion – it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false.”

          By this definition a conclusion can be logically valid but still false – if it is based on false premises. That is why I included: “inferred from true premises”.

          However, contradicted is now defined in the following way:

          “contradict: demonstrate that a statement is not true”

          Implicitly, it will then have to be logically valid. Also implicitly, it can not be based on a false premise. However, I´m not sure it is wise to leave that implicit.

          If I want that to be explicit I could defined “contradict” the following way:
          “contradict: demonstrate that a statement is not true by a logically valid statement inferred from true premises”

          If not – I bet that a psychologists and their ilk will think they can demonstrate that something is not true by referring to consensus. I guess they will think that anyway, but this work should be explicit.

          Like

  2. well, goo0d evening.
    i’m on a weird schedule and about to go to bed shortly.
    well- you mention circularity and i’ve been waiting for that because there is a distinction to be made between ‘circular logic’ and ‘recursion’.
    perhaps a good example is the definition of ‘human nature’
    the thing about circularity is there is no terminal symbol.
    recursion parses to a value, ultimately. it doesn’t go round and round forever.

    Like

  3. ” a conclusion can be logically valid but still false – if it is based on false premises. ”
    once upon a time this was the distinguishing characteristic of paranoia, which was defined as a metaphysical view consisting of an elaborate, self consistent delusional system. (fear of persecution is the newer, descriptive definition)
    in the context of ‘fiction’, a story can certainly be logically self consistent. don’t we all love entertaining narratives?
    logically valid, though? wasn’t your aim to draw a distinction between truth and fiction?
    perhaps the word ‘valid’ needs clarification?
    if ‘validate’ means ‘demonstrate the truth of a concept within a well-defined and applicable context’ but fails to distinguish truth from fiction, then should it be circumscribed to delineate the distinction between a logical function in the abstract vs a real world instantiation?
    it is certainly true that something can be false. it can certainly be true that a falsification be valid and logically true.
    this is just a little knot which, imo, should be unraveled a little better.
    maybe a way to do it would be to put definition for ‘falsify’ right alongside ‘validate’. when you check the definition for ‘true’ and ‘false’ you may see how to make the definitions all fully self-consistent.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. so it looks like you have achieved your stated purpose.
    if there are any tweaks, they won’t change the substance of it.
    and you accomplished much more than your stated purpose.
    you’ve gained the means to fully govern your own mind
    you know it’s not a matter of faith.
    and i made a friend. 🙂
    cuz, you know, you’ve done this thing of awesome quality and nobody will give a fuck or even know why they should- except i do.
    but your best friend you really made is your self.

    Liked by 1 person

    • oh yeah:
      the distinguishing characteristic of human nature is that a human being, through his choice of thoughts, words and deeds, defines himself.
      recursive, not circular.

      Like

      • you did the work, so you honestly own it.
        polish it up and bask in the glow.
        you should pass it on to your kids, too.
        but wait! there’s more!
        there’s another level where you get to see a more elemental structure.
        another day- when you’ve had enuff basking. 🙂

        Like

        • i can help with that editing – but not all at once- i really have read this too many times and i know my attention has gone a bit stale. (and just cuz i don’t choose to use the shift key regularly,, doesn’t mean i don’t know how…lol)
          “I dare say that it don´t. It seems like ”
          ‘I dare say that it does not (doesn’t – 3rd person singular: it does). It seems that’

          Like

        • Thank you so much Gnomish. You have already given me so much more than any blogger could wish for.

          I was about to say that I would like to spare you from trivialities. So I upgraded to Gramarly premium.

          However, Gramarly had about 100 warnings about repetitive and overused words. And yes – Gramarly opposed to “an hypothesis”.

          Dam it, thats the whole point with defining all terms – use the defined terms and avoid duplication.

          I´m not writing a book – I´m writing the god damn guide to science!

          Ok – If you see something glaring, please save me from embarrassment. 🙂

          Like

  5. Pingback: The principles of science (v7.2) | The rules of science

  6. Pingback: The principles of science (v7.3) | The rules of science

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s