Category Archives: Science-general

Why, Indeed?

Posted on by

Why is the news media comfortable with lying about science?

If a news organization had put words in the mouth of a political figure, there would almost certainly be a firestorm of controversy. The same would occur if one had turned to a Hollywood star or sports figure for comment on, say, a Congressional Budget Office report. When it comes to science, however, the response seems to be limited to a few outraged bloggers. It’s difficult not to think that there’s a double standard involved in the complete indifference to accuracy when it comes to scientific information.

Can Obama Stop the War on Science?

Posted on by

Can Obama Stop the War on Science?

One of our two great parties — and many, if not most, of the people who support it – decided some time ago that science was an enemy, and there’s little reason to think it will change its stance any time soon. That doesn’t mean that all Republican politicians are equally hostile to science. For instance, one suspects that a Mitt Romney administration would be somewhat less vigorous in its quashing of scientific advancement than a Sarah Palin administration. But as long as the GOP retains its current form, science will remain a political issue, with the partisan lines clearly drawn.

New and Improved. Now with Lemon!

Posted on by

Uncertainty in Science: It’s a Feature, Not a Bug

People tend to think of scientific progress as always advancing in a straight line, with new facts being added permanently to our body of knowledge as they are discovered. “They do not understand that, instead, research is an ungainly mechanism that moves in fits and starts and that its ever-expanding path of knowledge is complicated by blind alleys and fruitless detours,” writes New York Times science reporter Cordelia Dean in her book, Am I Making Myself Clear? A Scientist’s Guide to Talking to the Public (2009). As a result, Dean says, revisions to a scientific consensus make people think that scientists don’t know what they’re talking about. NECSS panelist Dr. Massimo Pigliucci, chair of the philosophy department at City University of New York-Lehman College, has a favorite example of this mindset. In response to an editorial he penned on the science of evolution, a letter to the editor replied, “I don’t understand why people want to believe in science—science changes all the time.” Yet this, of course, is its strength; science adjusts its claims in response to new information.

Give Me the Blue One. I’m Always Blue.

Posted on by

Rands in Repose: Gaming the System

There’s a discoverable structure to the rules. There’s a correct order, which, when followed, offers a type of reward. It’s the advantage of thinking three blocks ahead in Tetris or holding onto those beguiling hypercubes in Bejeweled. This is the advanced discovery of the system around the rules that leads to exponential geek joy.

There’s a paradox and a warning inside of optimization and repetition.

The paradox involves the implications of winning. Geeks will furiously work to uncover the rules of a game and then use those rules to determine how they might win. But the actual discovery of how to win is a buzz kill. The thrill, the adrenalin, comes from the discovery, hunt, and eventual mastery of the unknown, which, confusingly, means if you want to keep a geek engaged in a game you can’t let them win, even though that’s exactly what they think they want.

The theme-within-a-theme in the story is that science is a lot like this. Just like a gamer, scientists are looking to find the rules of nature. In fact, in complex games where you don’t know most of the rules at the outset and have to figure them out as you go, you will find aspects of the scientific method. Systematic testing where you change the conditions and see what the outcome is.

I don’t know what kills that monster, so I’ll try different characters or weapons to find the vulnerability.

Oh look, pac-man ate that dot and all the ghosts turned blue. I wonder what that means?

Now That's Cooking With Science

Posted on by

Physics Buzz: When chemistry dunces bake

What about my deflated cakes? I remember baking a very sad birthday cake that cooked but didn’t rise. Incredibly, a detail as tiny as what baking powder I used could have been the culprit. While baking soda reacts immediately, baking powder usually makes bubbles twice—once when cool and once when heated. But this all depends on the acids in the baking powder. If a baking powder happens to release all the bubbles in the first stage, when mixed, you’ll lose out on most of your leavening if you don’t act fast. Considering how slow I am about going about things, this could very well be an explanation.

Bonus for including the Möbius bagel at the end.

(I still maintain that most food preparation doesn’t rise to this level, to allow it to be called science. Jennifer and I will have to agree to disagree)

More Professors Who Lie

Posted on by

Catching up with blogs after Thanksgiving travel. I saw this on Chad’s linked list. Zen Moments: My Favorite Liar

What made Dr. K memorable was a gimmick he employed that began with his introduction at the beginning of his first class:

“Now I know some of you have already heard of me, but for the benefit of those who are unfamiliar, let me explain how I teach. Between today until the class right before finals, it is my intention to work into each of my lectures … one lie. Your job, as students, among other things, is to try and catch me in the Lie of the Day.”

And thus began our ten-week course.

I think that’s a pretty interesting way to engage the students.

Later on, the author lists some lessons learned from the exercise, including

“Experts” can be wrong, and say things that sound right – so build a habit of evaluating new information and check it against things you already accept as fact.

It should probably go without saying, but this holds true for nonexperts, only moreso. Skepticism is a tool that gets refined as one progresses in science, and one tends to develop a decent BS detector. For claims that jibe with what I already know, provisional acceptance is easier. If an assertion seems dubious, I require more convincing. I like Feynman’s trick (can I use that word, in light of the recent kerfuffle?) which he explains in one of his books, of thinking of an object or scenario, trying to disprove an assertion.