A steel fork and a plastic spoon are both at the same temperature. The fork feels colder when you touch it. This is because: 1. Steel conducts thermal energy better than plastic.

2. Plastic loses more thermal energy than steel.

3. Steel contains more thermal energy than plastic.

4. The fork has more mass than the spoon.

The fork feels colder when you touch it because Steel conducts thermal energy better than plastic. The correct statement is 1

Explanation:

The ability of a material to transfer heat energy in an environment is known as thermal conductivity. It feels cooler to touch a steel spoon than a plastic spoon found in the same temperature because steel which is a type of metal is a highly efficient thermal conductor than spoon which is a plastic.

Metals can be defined as those substances which forms positive ion in a chemical reaction by lossing it's electrons. It has the following properties:

--> it is solid at room temperature

--> it has high melting point

--> it has high boiling point and

--> it is malleable.

Metals are said to be good thermal conductor because they contain free flowing conduction electrons. Therefore, when you touch a steel spoon and plastic spoon, it feels cooler because the steel metal is able to conduct heat away from your hand faster than the plastic which is a poor conductor of heat.

1. Steel conducts thermal energy better than plastic.

Explanation:

Both objects are at the same temperature, and when you touch them, you feel the steel to be colder.

This happens because steel is a better thermal conductor, then when you touch it, it "steals" more thermal energy from you than the plastic.

As the amount of thermal energy transmitted is greater for the steel, you will feel it to be colder.

Then the correct option is the first one, steel conducts thermal energy better than plastic.

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: