Category Archives: Science-general

It's the End of the World as We Know It. Repeat as Necessary.

Posted on by

And I still feel fine.

The latest brouhaha, of course is the LHC, which is supposed to destroy us all, but this is not the first time that science, some (quasi-) scientific phenomenon, or scientists, have supposedly threatened to pushed us into the abyss. Here’s a sampling of recent scenarios, ignoring the many-more-numerous armageddon/rapture predictions (there are some people who have predicted the end of the world numbering in double digits, and yet their credibility with their followers seems undiminished)

Leading up to its startup in 2000, amid all of the Y2k and Millennium hype, the relativistic heavy-ion collider (RHIC) was supposed to do almost exactly the same thing as the LHC: make baby black holes that would devour us.

In 2003, it was was feared (by some) that the Galileo probe, scheduled to crash into Jupiter, would initiate a fusion reaction, either igniting it like a star, or blowing it up in a massive explosion.

2003 was also to have brought Planet X close to earth, amid cataclysm, wailing and the gnashing of teeth.

In 1999, the Cassini probe did a flyby of earth in a slingshot maneuver to send it to Saturn, and was going to be the death of us all (some especially egregious physics in that one)

1997 was to have the earth enter the “photon belt” which would cause electrical disruption and, paradoxically, several days of total darkness.

In March of 1982, it was the planetary “alignment,” when all nine of the planets (Pluto was still an evil conspirator back then) were within a sector of less than 100 degrees in the so-called “Jupiter Effect” that was supposed to cause earthquakes and other other disasters (I got a cool night of viewing out of this, since it was so easy to see Mars, Jupiter and Saturn)

yaddayaddayaddayaddayadda LEONARD BERNSTEIN

They Don't Know They're Scientists

Posted on by

They’re just systematically figuring out how to beat the computer by figuring out the rules, via hypotheses and experimentation.

How Videogames Blind Us With Science

At one point, Steinkuehler met up with one of the kids who’d built the Excel model to crack the boss. “Do you realize that what you’re doing is the essence of science?” she asked.
He smiled at her. “Dude, I’m not doing science,” he replied. “I’m just cheating the game!”

Is This a Con Job?

Posted on by

Because this fire needs more fuel.

Why Girls Leave Science And Math – Confidence, Says Psychologist

The study confirmed that old stereotypes die slowly. Both boys and girls perceived that teachers thought boys were stronger at math and science. For boys this represented a support, while for girls it acted as a barrier.

Top barriers for all age groups and disciplines were test anxiety and subject difficulty. But these differed between boys and girls. In addition, the genders formed their perceptions of math or science based on the barriers and supports, but they often arrived at different views.

Ultimately, it’s perception, more than reality, that affects the person’s academic and career choices, says Fouad.

Nobelmetrics

Posted on by

Can you predict Nobel Prize winners by counting citations?

Short version: Previously, Yes. Currently, no. Like sports.

In some sense this is like the “parity” many sports fans talk about. Making good predictions in an NCAA tournament bracket or fantasy football league can be pretty difficult, because there has been an increase in the number of high-quality players and teams. Further, the teams now must be compared across conferences or leagues. While Gonzaga might have won its conference tournament, it may not be strong compared to teams from the ACC, and the fifth-place team in the English Premier league might still win the European Cup.

Sports has better merchandising, too. (Can’t find an “I’m a Hänsch-man” (2005) hoodie anywhere)

Just Do It?

Posted on by

The question asked at incoherently scattered ponderings: Why would anyone want to get a PhD in sciences?

[T]he bottom line is that 10 years later non-PhD path can provide on the order of 0.5 million more in earnings than the PhD path. And one could argue that the career options after completing PhD and 1 or 2 postdocs are still quite bleak.

No, a PhD doesn’t get you more money. What it tends to get you is interesting work — there are opportunities that become possible with a doctorate that won’t be there without treading that path.

Good Argument, Bad Argument

Posted on by

Ran across the tube containing Standards in Science Blogging and My Inbox. I’m interested in standards of science blogging, so I gave it a read. The author almost gets it right when talking about the right way and wrong way to support your argument.

There is a right way and a wrong way to buttress one’s viewpoints on controversial issues involving science and society.

The right way is to do a comprehensive search of the literature on the topic and to find a group of peer-reviewed articles that support one’s argument. In a popular article, it’s OK to also quote popular sources, but if the subject is science, the focus should be on peer-reviewed mayerial.

I think you need to take it one step further. Finding articles that support your argument is the lawyer’s way of making a case. The scientist looks at all of the material, or at least a reasonable sampling of it. In any widely-researched area there will invariably be some literature that is unsupportive, contradictory or at least ambiguous, and it is not scientific to cherry-pick results. This is just the nature of, well, nature — you get statistical results, and sometimes those results are the outliers rather than the average.

So make sure it’s carefully-done research (peer-review helps with that). But survey the whole body of it, and make sure the science really is supporting you. There are people who will point to a poorly-done study and build a position from it, oblivious to the fact that it contradicts mounds of other works — these are not good arguments.

I think it that science bloggers and journalists should work toward a standard of ethics that their scientifically-related posts and articles will contain at least a minimal number of links or citations to peer-reviewed material.

Obviously, if blog posts aren’t about science, there’s no such need for literature citation.

I think this is true, remembering the context of discussions of science & society. One also needs to remember the difference between fact and opinion. There are quite a few people out there who post their opinions as if they were facts, or dismiss facts as if they were opinions.

Playing Hard to Get

Posted on by

Giving your new results away too soon

[W]here do you announce your results first: in the title? In the abstract? In the introduction? Or, in the results paragraph? If you wait to long your paper will become a whodunit and readers will get bored and stop reading your paper. If the clue of your paper is already in the title you might fear that many of your readers will only read your title and will then go on to read the next paper.

It depends on the type of paper, but I think you generally give your main result in the abstract. The paper gives the details of how you did it, context and information about other related research (but not in that order)

We're Awake … But We're Very Puzzled

Posted on by

Gender issues in science. Nerd Girls at Bad Astronomy, which begat smart = sexy at Cocktail Party Physics, which begat Flirt harder. I’m a physicist at sciencegeekgirl.

There’s some really interesting commentary to go along with the posts.

I have the sneaking suspicion that this topic is one where it is impossible to be right; there is no position one can take that won’t piss someone else off. Given, then, that I’m already in trouble, I will blithely assume that this is simply a Boolean state.

On “geeky” vs “girly,” Jennifer Observes with the very first comment on Phil’s blog,

What we really need to get over is this silly “either/or” tendency…

which I think is spot on, and it’s a bit surprising to me to see later remarks to the contrary — things to the effect of it’s great how girls can like science and girly stuff, too, and stereotypes such as “shopping is for girls.” I thought stereotypes were bad, hence the title of this post, and my comment that some people will get PO-ed no matter which side of this argument you’re on. Unless it’s just a big conspiracy to confuse me.

The other comment that came up a few times was that if we try and deny the significance of physical attraction we’re fighting a few million years of evolution. It’s true. Men have evolved to be responsive to visual cues. However, along the same timeline, humans have also evolved bigger brains and developed language and culture, and so response to visual stimuli does not give you the excuse to be a jerk.