Category Archives: Politics
Yes, John, You Had a Question?
I notice that the answers are posted for the “Presidential Physics quiz” in the NY Times (original quiz wording) and, well, blech. Sorta. I’ve read decent things about the Physics for Future Presidents book, but I don’t want this to be the example for “how to quiz presidents and justify the answers.”
QUESTION 1. How does the amount of energy per gram of TNT compare with the energy per gram of a chocolate chip cookie?
My answer is (d), the cookie contains nearly 10 times as much energy.
But the answer is really around 5 or 6, depending on what numbers you’ve used, and one of the other choices is “about the same.” If you’re going to do multiple-choice, try not to bracket the right answer this way.
I do like the defense of discounting the E=mc2 answer, because it shows recognition that we’re dealing with chemical rather than nuclear reactions. But in the defense of the answer, there’s
TNT explodes all by itself, no air needed.
Well, no, not really. If you balance the reaction, you’ll find that significant oxygen is needed. Sugars have oxygen in them, too. You still need external oxygen for that reaction as well.
But all of this ignores that science isn’t just a bunch of facts. What I’d rather see from a president (or student) is some reasoning, like “these are both basically combustion reactions, so to first order, I’d expect them to release similar amounts of energy” and worry about the details later on, like what difference there is because you have some nitrogen in TNT, and how that might affect the bottom line, and maybe the reasoning that you give up some energy for the convenience of a reaction that forms more moles of gases (and those gases want to occupy 22.4L each at STP, so boom!) instead of keeping the molar amount of gas the same (swapping CO2 for O2).
QUESTION 2. Based on the answer to the previous question, suggest an energy-efficient way to destroy a car.
Hopscotch in the Minefield
Teaching evolution — and, by the sound of it, doing a good job — in Florida. He realizes that if the science sounds dogmatic he’s lost before he even starts.
A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash
When Florida’s last set of science standards came out in 1996, soon after Mr. Campbell took the teaching job at Ridgeview, he studied them in disbelief. Though they included the concept that biological “changes over time” occur, the word evolution was not mentioned.
He called his district science supervisor. “Is this really what they want us to teach for the next 10 years?” he demanded.
In 2000, when the independent Thomas B. Fordham Foundation evaluated the evolution education standards of all 50 states, Florida was among 12 to receive a grade of F. (Kansas, which drew international attention in 1999 for deleting all mention of evolution and later embracing supernatural theories, received an F-minus.)
Just in Case They Aren't Lying
Via Asymptotia, the Physics Today political summary: Where do they stand on science
Do As I Say, Not As I Do
Are we science-savvy enough to make informed decisions?
Let me guess: no. I mean, really, is this a gimme or what?
Seventy-six percent of Americans say presidential candidates should make improving science education a national priority, according to a national Harris Interactive survey of 1,304 adults in November and December. Results were released this spring.
But only 26% believe that they themselves have a good understanding of science. And 44% couldn’t identify a single scientist, living or dead, whom they’d consider a role model for the nation’s young people.
So at least some of those possessing marginal scientific literacy recognize that science education is important.
It boils down to this — if you can’t make the informed decision yourself, then you’re going to fall for whoever can lie most convincingly. And I think that accomplished liars have an advantage.
There is also a link to a quiz, which looks like the NSF Science and Engineering Indicators quiz. Unfortunately, we are told
10 or 11 right: You are a geek!
Maybe some small part of the problem is that basic science competency is being identified as geeky, though somehow I doubt that USA TODAY is the arbiter of cool amongst today’s teens.
Udate: commentary at Physics and Physicists
If You Build It, They Will Come
Cities play hardball to host biodefence lab
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) disregarded the advice of carefully selected experts to put a Flora, Mississippi, site on the shortlist of candidates, the Associated Press said Monday.
[…]
Now, other applicants are crying foul. “It is very suspicious,” said Irwin Goldman, whose Madison, Wisconsin, site failed to make the cut. State representative Marti Crow (D) of Leavenworth, Kansas, was angry that Flora’s score of 81 beat out Leavenworth’s 92 for a spot on the shortlist.
Wait, what? Biodefence lab? Mississippi? Kansas? How about a rule that any state that’s recently tried to derail the teaching of evolution or promote creationism/intelligent design doesn’t get a frikkin’ federally-funded biology lab in their state.
Vote Early, Vote Often
OK, maybe not the latter. This is about integrity, after all. The Union of Concerned Scientists’ Scientific Integrity Editorial Cartoon Contest
I got an email invitation for this, but it was too close to the deadline for me to do anything about it. First prize is a trip to Washington, DC. (Some of us call that “commuting”).
Finger on the Button
Kill Switches and Remote Control at Schneier.
Don’t be fooled by the scare stories of wireless devices on airplanes and in hospitals, or visions of a world where no one is yammering loudly on their cellphones in posh restaurants. This is really about media companies wanting to exert their control further over your electronics. They not only want to prevent you from surreptitiously recording movies and concerts, they want your new television to enforce good “manners” on your computer, and not allow it to record any programs. They want your iPod to politely refuse to copy music to a computer other than your own. They want to enforce their legislated definition of manners: to control what you do and when you do it, and to charge you repeatedly for the privilege whenever possible.
“Digital Manners Policies” is a marketing term. Let’s call this what it really is: Selective Device Jamming. It’s not polite, it’s dangerous. It won’t make anyone more secure — or more polite.
Round as a Baby's . . . Nodule
Roundest objects in the world created
[A]n international group of engineers and craftsmen has . . . built a pair of nearly perfect spheres that are thought to be the roundest objects in the world.
The unusual balls, discussed last week at the SPIE Astronomical Telescopes and Instrumentation conference in France, were created as an answer to the “kilogram problem”.
High purity Si-28, and they hope to count the number of atoms to define the kilogram. With no danger to the pergium miners on Janus VI.
But even if all of the Avogadro Project’s research teams arrive at the same number of silicon atoms in each sphere, it’s far from clear that the International Committee for Weights and Measures will take up their definition.
[…]
These million-dollar spheres may be the roundest in the world, but will they be round enough?
One of the issues with international standards is that individual standards labs each want to be able to realize the standard. It’s not only a matter of having the absolute best measurement. If you make it too technologically advanced or involved, so it’s only within the grasp of a few labs, it’s not likely to be adopted.
I Saw It In a Movie, So It Must Be Real
Photographers being treated as security threats, because that’s how Hollywood portrays things
A movie-plot threat is a specific threat, vivid in our minds like the plot of a movie. You remember them from the months after the 9/11 attacks: anthrax spread from crop dusters, a contaminated milk supply, terrorist scuba divers armed with almanacs. Our imaginations run wild with detailed and specific threats, from the news, and from actual movies and television shows. These movie plots resonate in our minds and in the minds of others we talk to. And many of us get scared.
And we overreact, because we respond irrationally when faced with unusual risks. We can’t properly assess them.