The information below was originally published at University of Louisville's Sciboard. It has be reprinted with permission from Univ of Louisville Professor Thomas Cleaver.
General Science
Q. What is a Scientist
Ans. Although a person with an advanced degree might claim to be a scientist, the true test of the scientist is how one thinks. A good scientist:
· Excepts nothing in science absolutely.
· Is willing to change his opinions based on new data.
· Does not rely on Authority.
· Thinks critically.
· Knows that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
· Has an open mind.
· Relies on logic and reason.
· Knows how to form hypotheses and test them.
· Respects the scientific method.
· Examines all the data, not just the data that support his or her view.
· Builds on the work of others, giving them appropriate credit.
· Documents his or her experiments so they can be duplicated by others.
· Knows that if a claim is made, the claimant must provide the proof. (It is not up to others to disprove it.)
· Is intellectually honest.
Q. What is a Science?
Ans. Many people think science is a collection of facts: Hydrogen combines with oxygen to form water. The speed of light is 299 800 000 meters/second. Man evolved from ape-like ancestors. These facts are the products of science but they themselves are not science.
Science is a method, a technique, for looking at the physical world and finding out the facts. It is a search for truth -- the kind of truth that can be verified and quantified.
The basic tool of science in its search for truth is called "the scientific method." This consists of making a "hypothesis" and conducting an experiment. A hypothesis is a theory or assumption that must be tested.
As an example, suppose a scientist forms the following hypothesis: "Light stunts the growth of mushrooms." She then tests the hypothesis with an experiment using 2 sets of mushrooms. One set (the control group) is put in a dark basement. The other (the test group) is put in a sun-lit yard. After a week, she measures the height of all the mushrooms in each group.
She finds that the test mushrooms raised in sunlight grew an average of 0.8 centimeters. The control group mushrooms raised in the dark grew an average of 1.5 centimeters. She then concludes that her hypotheis was correct: Light DOES stunt the growth of mushrooms.
No "fact" of science is ever proven beyond doubt. All conclusions of science are always open to question as discoveries and new understandings occur. A scientist must always stand ready to cast aside his fondly held beliefs as new evidence is discovered.
Returning to the mushroom example, suppose the scientist's conclusions were challenged. Someone says, "Dry soil stunts the growth of mushrooms. Your outdoor mushrooms were in dryer soil than your basement mushrooms." To prove her results are valid, the scientist may have to repeat her experiment while making sure that the moisture for both groups of mushrooms is the same.
An experiment that demonstrates a hypothesis must be "repeatable". This means that anyone who performs the experiment correctly should get the same results. In the above example, the scientist should be able to explain her methods carefully enough that her mushroom experiment succeeds when anyone does it. If the experiment is not "repeatable", no one should be expected to believe her results.
Good science is painstaking, slow, and full of disappointments. But its record of success is unsurpassed for determining the truth of how the world works.
Q. What is the Scientific Method?
Ans. The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for telling the difference between truth and lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a theory to explain what you have observed.
3. Use the theory to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiment.
5. Modify the theory in the light of your results.
6. Go to Step 3.
Usually, you can trust other scientists to follow the scientific method. So when a scientist claims to have done a certain experiment and obtained a certain result, you can usually believe it. This allows scientists to build on the work of others.
Q. What is Theory?
Ans. In scientific terms, a "fact" is an observation, such as "the sun rose today". This fact is explained by the "theory" that the earth is round and spins on its axis.
Many times, theories are so widely accepted that they are treated as fact. The "theory of gravity" and the "theory of evolution" are accepted as fact by virtually all scientists.
A theory that has not yet been tested is called a "hypothesis".
Some "theories" are untestable, and are therefore unscientific. You assert, for example, that you are the only person in existence, and that all reality is but a product of your imagination. This is the theory of solipsism. There is no way that anyone can prove that your theory is false. Therefore it is unscientific.
The solipsist theory may be true, but it falls into the realm of philosophy, not science.
Q. Can Science Prove Anything?
Ans. Yes and no. It depends on what you mean by "prove".
Suppose you have a theory that when you throw something into the air, it will fall back down. You test your theory by throwing many objects into the air, and they all fall down.
Have you proven your theory beyond doubt? No. The next object you throw might hover, or go off into orbit. But the theory is "proved" for most practical purposes.
Theories and facts (even everyday ones, not scientific ones), can be thought of on a scale of certainty. Your theory that things fall down is near the top. Down near the bottom is "the Earth is flat". Near the middle might be "I will live to be 80."
On this scale, no scientific theory can ever get all the way to the top (or the bottom), but reasonable people accept those that are near the top.
Q. What is Occam's Razor?
Ans. This is the scientific principle that says we should look for the easy explanations first.
If you have 2 theories that both explain the facts, take the simplest one. You won't always be right, but that's where the smart money is.
Example:
Your friend calls you and says he's in Miami. Moments later, he knocks on your door.
Theory 1: You're friend teleported from Miami.
Theory 2: You're friend was lieing about being in Miami.
Occam's razor says to select Theory 2. It doesn't require belief in an unproven mode of travel (teleportation).
Visit University of Louisville Sciboard @
http://sciboard.louisville.edu/
Jamie Hale
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
Interview with John Horgan
by Jamie Hale
JOHN HORGAN is a science journalist and Director of the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, New Jersey. He’s a former senior writer at Scientific American, author of several books and columnist for BBC’s Knowledge Magazine. He is not a big fan of Superstring Theory in fact he says…………
How many books have you written? Could you give readers a brief summary of each?
The End of Science: All the big discoveries have been made. We're down to details and applications now. The Undiscovered Mind. If there are any big discoveries to come, they'll emerge from the study of the brain and mind. But based on science's lousy track record so far, don't hold your breath for big breakthroughs. Rational Mysticism: There is only one common insight from science and mysticism: You are really, really lucky to be alive.
The title of one of your books is Where Was God on September 11th. It seems that the title would appear a little controversial to some. Did it cause much of an uproar? How much hate mail did you get?
Some hard-core Christians got mad at me, but they god even madder at my co-author, Frank, an Episcopal priest.
Do you have any suggestions for enhancing the general publics knowledge of popular science?
Yeah, buy my books.
Who is your favorite writer?
Jorge Luis Borges, the metaphysical fabulist.
Favorite book? Favorite Magazine?
Labyrinths, by Borges. New Yorker still kicks ass.
On what terms can religion and science live in harmony?
See above. And that isn’t enough for most folks. I'm hoping religion will just fade gracefully away.
You have a $1000 bet with Michio Kaku that Superstring Theory won't pan out by 2020. Why do you feel so strongly about this?
Because string theory is pseudo-science.
Do you any projects you are currently working on?
I'm writing a lot about how science can solve the problem of war.
If you had to rate the top three scientists off all times who would they be?
The greatest I've met personally are Francis Crick, Hans Bethe and John Wheeler. Great scientists, great characters. I profile them all in my first book, The End of Science.
Visit John Horgan’s website @ http://johnhorgan.org/
JOHN HORGAN is a science journalist and Director of the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, New Jersey. He’s a former senior writer at Scientific American, author of several books and columnist for BBC’s Knowledge Magazine. He is not a big fan of Superstring Theory in fact he says…………
How many books have you written? Could you give readers a brief summary of each?
The End of Science: All the big discoveries have been made. We're down to details and applications now. The Undiscovered Mind. If there are any big discoveries to come, they'll emerge from the study of the brain and mind. But based on science's lousy track record so far, don't hold your breath for big breakthroughs. Rational Mysticism: There is only one common insight from science and mysticism: You are really, really lucky to be alive.
The title of one of your books is Where Was God on September 11th. It seems that the title would appear a little controversial to some. Did it cause much of an uproar? How much hate mail did you get?
Some hard-core Christians got mad at me, but they god even madder at my co-author, Frank, an Episcopal priest.
Do you have any suggestions for enhancing the general publics knowledge of popular science?
Yeah, buy my books.
Who is your favorite writer?
Jorge Luis Borges, the metaphysical fabulist.
Favorite book? Favorite Magazine?
Labyrinths, by Borges. New Yorker still kicks ass.
On what terms can religion and science live in harmony?
See above. And that isn’t enough for most folks. I'm hoping religion will just fade gracefully away.
You have a $1000 bet with Michio Kaku that Superstring Theory won't pan out by 2020. Why do you feel so strongly about this?
Because string theory is pseudo-science.
Do you any projects you are currently working on?
I'm writing a lot about how science can solve the problem of war.
If you had to rate the top three scientists off all times who would they be?
The greatest I've met personally are Francis Crick, Hans Bethe and John Wheeler. Great scientists, great characters. I profile them all in my first book, The End of Science.
Visit John Horgan’s website @ http://johnhorgan.org/
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Interview with Carl Zimmer
by Jamie Hale
The following interview was conducted with Carl Zimmer science writer, Yale University Lecturer and author of The Tangled Bank: An Introduction to Evolution. E.O Wilson says " The Tangled Bank is the best written and best illustrated introduction to evolution of the Darwin centennial decade, and also the most conversant with ongoing research. It is excellent for students, the general public, and even other biologists.”
I have completed about 1/2 of your book Soul Made Flesh and I must compliment you on your writing style. Great job. What influenced you to write the book?
CZ: I like to write books about subjects I want to get more familiar with. In this case, I thought I wanted to learn more about the brain. But I didn't want to write yet another book about new developments in neuroscience. It's not that there aren't some great books on that particular subject, but there are so many that I didn't want to get lost in the crowd. It occurred to me that there hasn't been much written about the history of neuroscience. While there is a growing body of scholarship, few authors have written about that research for the public. So I started to nose around and discovered a period of history, in the mid-1600s, that was just incredible in its revolutionary discoveries and also in its political and religious turbulence. This was when the science of neurology was launched, when people came to recognize the brain as we see it today, as the center of our existence. Once I realized this, I knew I had to write the book.
How many books have you written? Do you have a favorite? Which one was the hardest to write?
CZ: I've written seven books now. I suppose my favorite is my first, At the Water's Edge, simply because it gave me the first experience of seeing my name on a book. That's a marvelous feeling.
Commenting on your soon to be released book (The Tangled Bank: An Introduction To Evolution) E.O Wilson says " The Tangled Bank is the best written and best illustrated introduction to evolution of the Darwin centennial decade, and also the most conversant with ongoing research. It is excellent for students, the general public, and even other biologists.” What do you think makes the book so great?
CZ: You'd have to ask Wilson or the other scientists who gave such wonderful endorsements why they like it so much. All I'd say is that it was a huge amount of fun to write, because there are so many fantastic lines of research in evolution these days to choose from. Making the experience even better was the opportunity to work with illustrators and photo editors to make the book as handsome as possible, and to use pictures to explain the science in ways words can't.
Do you think there will come a time in America where the majority of the population will believe in evolution?
CZ: I'm fairly optimistic, in the long term. For now I don't expect tremendous changes, though.
If Darwin were alive today and he were to modify his theory of evolution what would he change?
CZ: I think Darwin would be fascinated by the genome. Genomes are shaped by evolution in all sorts of complex ways. There are even virus-like stretches of DNA that make copies of themselves over time and gradually swamp their host genome. Most of our DNA comes from these genomic parasites. There's also plenty of evidence now that genes have moved many times from one species to another. So genomes are not just sculpted by mutations, drift, and selection from one generation to the next. They're also mosaics, made up of bits of genetic material from many different sources.
What does a typical day in the life of Carl Zimmer look like?
CZ: Breakfast with the family, then trundling off to my home office, where I interview, research, and write till dinner. I punctuate that sedentary work with the occasional trip to visit a scientist in his or her medium--a lab, a bog, a hospital, or wherever they may do their work.
Do you have a favorite writer? Favorite book?
CZ: I do love Melville--both the novels and the stories. The Loom's name is from one of my favorite passages from Moby Dick, where Melville describes how Pip, a cabin boy, was altered by a plunge into the sea:
"...among the joyous, heartless, ever-juvenile eternities, Pip saw the multitudinous, God-omnipresent, coral insects, that out of the firmament of waters, heaved the colossal orbs. He saw God's foot upon the treadle of the loom, and spoke it; and therefore his shipmates called him mad."
About the Author
Carl Zimmer bio http://carlzimmer.com/bio.html
The following interview was conducted with Carl Zimmer science writer, Yale University Lecturer and author of The Tangled Bank: An Introduction to Evolution. E.O Wilson says " The Tangled Bank is the best written and best illustrated introduction to evolution of the Darwin centennial decade, and also the most conversant with ongoing research. It is excellent for students, the general public, and even other biologists.”
I have completed about 1/2 of your book Soul Made Flesh and I must compliment you on your writing style. Great job. What influenced you to write the book?
CZ: I like to write books about subjects I want to get more familiar with. In this case, I thought I wanted to learn more about the brain. But I didn't want to write yet another book about new developments in neuroscience. It's not that there aren't some great books on that particular subject, but there are so many that I didn't want to get lost in the crowd. It occurred to me that there hasn't been much written about the history of neuroscience. While there is a growing body of scholarship, few authors have written about that research for the public. So I started to nose around and discovered a period of history, in the mid-1600s, that was just incredible in its revolutionary discoveries and also in its political and religious turbulence. This was when the science of neurology was launched, when people came to recognize the brain as we see it today, as the center of our existence. Once I realized this, I knew I had to write the book.
How many books have you written? Do you have a favorite? Which one was the hardest to write?
CZ: I've written seven books now. I suppose my favorite is my first, At the Water's Edge, simply because it gave me the first experience of seeing my name on a book. That's a marvelous feeling.
Commenting on your soon to be released book (The Tangled Bank: An Introduction To Evolution) E.O Wilson says " The Tangled Bank is the best written and best illustrated introduction to evolution of the Darwin centennial decade, and also the most conversant with ongoing research. It is excellent for students, the general public, and even other biologists.” What do you think makes the book so great?
CZ: You'd have to ask Wilson or the other scientists who gave such wonderful endorsements why they like it so much. All I'd say is that it was a huge amount of fun to write, because there are so many fantastic lines of research in evolution these days to choose from. Making the experience even better was the opportunity to work with illustrators and photo editors to make the book as handsome as possible, and to use pictures to explain the science in ways words can't.
Do you think there will come a time in America where the majority of the population will believe in evolution?
CZ: I'm fairly optimistic, in the long term. For now I don't expect tremendous changes, though.
If Darwin were alive today and he were to modify his theory of evolution what would he change?
CZ: I think Darwin would be fascinated by the genome. Genomes are shaped by evolution in all sorts of complex ways. There are even virus-like stretches of DNA that make copies of themselves over time and gradually swamp their host genome. Most of our DNA comes from these genomic parasites. There's also plenty of evidence now that genes have moved many times from one species to another. So genomes are not just sculpted by mutations, drift, and selection from one generation to the next. They're also mosaics, made up of bits of genetic material from many different sources.
What does a typical day in the life of Carl Zimmer look like?
CZ: Breakfast with the family, then trundling off to my home office, where I interview, research, and write till dinner. I punctuate that sedentary work with the occasional trip to visit a scientist in his or her medium--a lab, a bog, a hospital, or wherever they may do their work.
Do you have a favorite writer? Favorite book?
CZ: I do love Melville--both the novels and the stories. The Loom's name is from one of my favorite passages from Moby Dick, where Melville describes how Pip, a cabin boy, was altered by a plunge into the sea:
"...among the joyous, heartless, ever-juvenile eternities, Pip saw the multitudinous, God-omnipresent, coral insects, that out of the firmament of waters, heaved the colossal orbs. He saw God's foot upon the treadle of the loom, and spoke it; and therefore his shipmates called him mad."
About the Author
Carl Zimmer bio http://carlzimmer.com/bio.html
Monday, August 3, 2009
Knowledge Roundup 2
Brain Facts
A Primer on the Brain and Nervous System
Brain Facts is a 74-page primer on the brain and nervous system, published by SfN. Designed for a lay audience as an introduction to neuroscience, Brain Facts is a valuable educational resource
Free Ebook http://www.sfn.org/index.aspx?pagename=brainFacts§ion=publications
Mirror Neurons
You see a stranger stub her toe and you immediately flinch in sympathy. You watch a baseball outfielder run to catch a long fly ball and feel your heart racing and your leg muscles pumping along with him. You notice a friend wrinkle up his face in disgust while tasting some food and suddenly your own stomach recoils at the thought of eating. This ability to instinctively and immediately understand what other people are experiencing has long baffled neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers alike. Recent research now suggests a fascinating explanation: brain cells called mirror neurons. Read More http://www.sfn.org/index.aspx?pagename=brainBriefings_MirrorNeurons
The Science of Gossip: Why We Can’t Stop Ourselves
In the past few years I have heard more people than ever before puzzling over the 24/7 coverage of people such as Paris Hilton who are “celebrities” for no apparent reason other than we know who they are. And yet we can’t look away. The press about these individuals’ lives continues because people are obviously tuning in. Although many social critics have bemoaned this explosion of popular culture as if it reflects some kind of collective character flaw, it is in fact nothing more than the inevitable outcome of the collision between 21st-century media and Stone Age minds.
When you cut away its many layers, our fixation on popular culture reflects an intense interest in the doings of other people; this preoccupation with the lives of others is a by-product of the psychology that evolved in prehistoric times to make our ancestors socially successful. Thus, it appears that we are hardwired to be fascinated by gossip. Read more http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-science-of-gossip
I want to Believe
In a 1997 episode of The Simpsons entitled “The Springfield Files” — a parody of X-Files in which Homer has an alien encounter in the woods (after imbibing 10 bottles of Red Tick Beer) — Leonard Nimoy voices the intro as he once did for his post-Spock run on the television mystery series In Search of…: “The following tale of alien encounters is true. And by true, I mean false. It’s all lies. But they’re entertaining lies, and in the end isn’t that the real truth? The answer is no.”
Read more http://www.michaelshermer.com/2009/07/i-want-to-believe/
Darwin Myths
Darwin coined the phrase “survival of the fittest” (Herbert Spencer actually coined the phrase)
Darwin was an atheist (no he was agnostic)
Darwin was always an evolutionist which was passed down to him from his grandfather (Darwin was a creationist before and during the voyage of the Beagle and didn’t become an evolutionist until approximately a year after his return. Darwin did not devise his theory while in Galpagos)
A Primer on the Brain and Nervous System
Brain Facts is a 74-page primer on the brain and nervous system, published by SfN. Designed for a lay audience as an introduction to neuroscience, Brain Facts is a valuable educational resource
Free Ebook http://www.sfn.org/index.aspx?pagename=brainFacts§ion=publications
Mirror Neurons
You see a stranger stub her toe and you immediately flinch in sympathy. You watch a baseball outfielder run to catch a long fly ball and feel your heart racing and your leg muscles pumping along with him. You notice a friend wrinkle up his face in disgust while tasting some food and suddenly your own stomach recoils at the thought of eating. This ability to instinctively and immediately understand what other people are experiencing has long baffled neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers alike. Recent research now suggests a fascinating explanation: brain cells called mirror neurons. Read More http://www.sfn.org/index.aspx?pagename=brainBriefings_MirrorNeurons
The Science of Gossip: Why We Can’t Stop Ourselves
In the past few years I have heard more people than ever before puzzling over the 24/7 coverage of people such as Paris Hilton who are “celebrities” for no apparent reason other than we know who they are. And yet we can’t look away. The press about these individuals’ lives continues because people are obviously tuning in. Although many social critics have bemoaned this explosion of popular culture as if it reflects some kind of collective character flaw, it is in fact nothing more than the inevitable outcome of the collision between 21st-century media and Stone Age minds.
When you cut away its many layers, our fixation on popular culture reflects an intense interest in the doings of other people; this preoccupation with the lives of others is a by-product of the psychology that evolved in prehistoric times to make our ancestors socially successful. Thus, it appears that we are hardwired to be fascinated by gossip. Read more http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-science-of-gossip
I want to Believe
In a 1997 episode of The Simpsons entitled “The Springfield Files” — a parody of X-Files in which Homer has an alien encounter in the woods (after imbibing 10 bottles of Red Tick Beer) — Leonard Nimoy voices the intro as he once did for his post-Spock run on the television mystery series In Search of…: “The following tale of alien encounters is true. And by true, I mean false. It’s all lies. But they’re entertaining lies, and in the end isn’t that the real truth? The answer is no.”
Read more http://www.michaelshermer.com/2009/07/i-want-to-believe/
Darwin Myths
Darwin coined the phrase “survival of the fittest” (Herbert Spencer actually coined the phrase)
Darwin was an atheist (no he was agnostic)
Darwin was always an evolutionist which was passed down to him from his grandfather (Darwin was a creationist before and during the voyage of the Beagle and didn’t become an evolutionist until approximately a year after his return. Darwin did not devise his theory while in Galpagos)
Saturday, July 18, 2009
The Story of Science
The Story of Science
By Jamie Hale
One night while watching TV I stumbled across a program that featured Joy Hakim.
Hakim is an award winning writer who has written a series of book on US History and Science. After a couple of months of email exchanges I decided it was time to do an interview with Joy Hakim.
What does a day in the life of Joy Hakim look like?
When I'm writing (which is most of the time) I read the NYTimes with breakfast and then get to my desk (usually about 8:30 a.m.). I work until noon, trying to remember to get up every hour and stretch. Then lunch and--this is where my schedule varies--sometimes I do errands, or swim, or go to a yoga class, or go back to work. Sometimes I write into the evening, sometimes I play.
Of the books you have written do you have a favorite?
The book I'm currently working on is always my favorite. But I'm perhaps most proud of "Einstein Adds A New Dimension." It stretched my head and gave me a chance to get to know a wonderful MIT author/physicist, Edwin Taylor.
Was it harder to write the US History books or the science books?
The science books were harder to write because I had little background in the subject. I was trained as a journalist, so no subject intimidates me, still, quantum theory and relativity were tough. I'd like teachers to feel they can tackle any subject by being willing to learn along with their students. The old model of teacher as ultimate expert is out-of-date. Knowledge is increasing at exponential rates, no one can keep up. Teaching students how to find information and process it needs to become the ultimate school goal. If we can create real learning communities in our classrooms we can handle the abundance of information that is now available to all of us everywhere.
Did you have a team of researchers working with you on the history and science series?
I don't have any researchers helping me, I do contact lots of experts and have them read copy and answer questions. It's wonderful, when you are writing for young readers the best people are willing to help
What can we do to improve America’s History and Science programs in our schools?
We need to stop thinking of history and science as isolated stand-alone subjects. History is a great mother discipline. Everything that happens today will be history tomorrow. So history can tie all subjects together. It should be central to curricula. As to science, we live in the greatest scientific era ever. The scientific discoveries of recent times underlie and guide our society. And yet we keep today's most exciting science as an elite subject for a small percentage of our population. No wonder school seems irrelevant to many kids. Black holes, dark matter, dark energy are all out there ready to entice young minds. For heavens sake, why aren't we teaching physics and genetics to all our children? Teachers aren't trained in those subjects? Then they can learn with their students and tie the subject to history and literature too
Why is there such a huge lack of critical thinking courses offered in most school systems?
I don't think much of critical thinking courses. You learn to think critically by researching and writing. I have some experience in those disciplines. I promise--demand more research-based writing and critical thinking scores will soar.
What is your favorite book? Who is your favorite author?
I'm an eclectic reader and love to mix the ancients with 19th century fiction, but mostly I read current books for information, so it is in nonfiction that I spend much of my reading time. We have a group of science writers today who are astonishingly eloquent--they include Hans Christian von Baeyer, Alan Lightman, Richard Feynman, Marcia Bartusiak, and Brian Greene--for starters. Stephen Hawking and his daughter have written adventure books for young readers on space exploration, and they are page-turners. Among historians, David McCullough and Joseph Ellis are favorites. Christopher Buckley's recent book about his parents is a writer's gem. I just finished Jenny Uglow's wonderful book The Lunar Society, about a group of outrageous and amazing 18th century thinkers and doers.
Are you currently working on any new projects?
Yes, right now I am working on two books that are complementary approaches to biology and its process of change. I'm learning a lot.
Visit Joy Hakim's site at www.joyhakim.com
By Jamie Hale
One night while watching TV I stumbled across a program that featured Joy Hakim.
Hakim is an award winning writer who has written a series of book on US History and Science. After a couple of months of email exchanges I decided it was time to do an interview with Joy Hakim.
What does a day in the life of Joy Hakim look like?
When I'm writing (which is most of the time) I read the NYTimes with breakfast and then get to my desk (usually about 8:30 a.m.). I work until noon, trying to remember to get up every hour and stretch. Then lunch and--this is where my schedule varies--sometimes I do errands, or swim, or go to a yoga class, or go back to work. Sometimes I write into the evening, sometimes I play.
Of the books you have written do you have a favorite?
The book I'm currently working on is always my favorite. But I'm perhaps most proud of "Einstein Adds A New Dimension." It stretched my head and gave me a chance to get to know a wonderful MIT author/physicist, Edwin Taylor.
Was it harder to write the US History books or the science books?
The science books were harder to write because I had little background in the subject. I was trained as a journalist, so no subject intimidates me, still, quantum theory and relativity were tough. I'd like teachers to feel they can tackle any subject by being willing to learn along with their students. The old model of teacher as ultimate expert is out-of-date. Knowledge is increasing at exponential rates, no one can keep up. Teaching students how to find information and process it needs to become the ultimate school goal. If we can create real learning communities in our classrooms we can handle the abundance of information that is now available to all of us everywhere.
Did you have a team of researchers working with you on the history and science series?
I don't have any researchers helping me, I do contact lots of experts and have them read copy and answer questions. It's wonderful, when you are writing for young readers the best people are willing to help
What can we do to improve America’s History and Science programs in our schools?
We need to stop thinking of history and science as isolated stand-alone subjects. History is a great mother discipline. Everything that happens today will be history tomorrow. So history can tie all subjects together. It should be central to curricula. As to science, we live in the greatest scientific era ever. The scientific discoveries of recent times underlie and guide our society. And yet we keep today's most exciting science as an elite subject for a small percentage of our population. No wonder school seems irrelevant to many kids. Black holes, dark matter, dark energy are all out there ready to entice young minds. For heavens sake, why aren't we teaching physics and genetics to all our children? Teachers aren't trained in those subjects? Then they can learn with their students and tie the subject to history and literature too
Why is there such a huge lack of critical thinking courses offered in most school systems?
I don't think much of critical thinking courses. You learn to think critically by researching and writing. I have some experience in those disciplines. I promise--demand more research-based writing and critical thinking scores will soar.
What is your favorite book? Who is your favorite author?
I'm an eclectic reader and love to mix the ancients with 19th century fiction, but mostly I read current books for information, so it is in nonfiction that I spend much of my reading time. We have a group of science writers today who are astonishingly eloquent--they include Hans Christian von Baeyer, Alan Lightman, Richard Feynman, Marcia Bartusiak, and Brian Greene--for starters. Stephen Hawking and his daughter have written adventure books for young readers on space exploration, and they are page-turners. Among historians, David McCullough and Joseph Ellis are favorites. Christopher Buckley's recent book about his parents is a writer's gem. I just finished Jenny Uglow's wonderful book The Lunar Society, about a group of outrageous and amazing 18th century thinkers and doers.
Are you currently working on any new projects?
Yes, right now I am working on two books that are complementary approaches to biology and its process of change. I'm learning a lot.
Visit Joy Hakim's site at www.joyhakim.com
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Quotes that Matter
A few of my favorite quotes
Carl Sagan
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
I am often amazed at how much more capability and enthusiasm for science there is among elementary school youngsters than among college students.
Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge.
From Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit
Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities")
Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view
Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours
Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?
Aristotle
A friend to all is a friend to none.
Pleasure in the job puts perfection in the work.
Karl Popper
In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality
Socrates
If a man is proud of his wealth, he should not be praised until it is known how he employs it.
Plato
Honesty is for the most part less profitable than dishonesty
Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men
The learning and knowledge that we have, is, at the most, but little compared with that of which we are ignorant
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light
Thomas Edison
Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration
Show me a thoroughly satisfied man and I will show you a failure
There is no substitute for hard work
To have a great idea, have a lot of them
We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything
Your worth consists in what you are and not in what you have
Noam Chomsky
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like it's from Neptune
The United States is unusual among the industrial democracies in the rigidity of the system of ideological control - "indoctrination," we might say - exercised through the mass media.
Galileo
All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.
Ben Franklin
Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn
He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else
It is the eye of other people that ruin us. If I were blind I would want, neither fine clothes, fine houses or fine furniture
Never leave that till tomorrow which you can do today
Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.
Albert Einstein
Everyone should be respected as an individual, but no one idolized
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be
Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts
I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters
George Washington
It is better to offer no excuse than a bad one
Rene Descartes
It is not enough to have a good mind; the main thing is to use it well.
Jean Pigaet
Scientific knowledge is in perpetual evolution; it finds itself changed from one day to the next. Scientific thought, then, is not momentary; it is not a static instance; it is a process
George Carlin
Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man – living in the sky – who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if yu do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ‘til the end of time. . . But He loves you
Carl Sagan
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
I am often amazed at how much more capability and enthusiasm for science there is among elementary school youngsters than among college students.
Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge.
From Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit
Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities")
Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view
Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours
Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?
Aristotle
A friend to all is a friend to none.
Pleasure in the job puts perfection in the work.
Karl Popper
In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality
Socrates
If a man is proud of his wealth, he should not be praised until it is known how he employs it.
Plato
Honesty is for the most part less profitable than dishonesty
Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men
The learning and knowledge that we have, is, at the most, but little compared with that of which we are ignorant
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light
Thomas Edison
Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration
Show me a thoroughly satisfied man and I will show you a failure
There is no substitute for hard work
To have a great idea, have a lot of them
We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything
Your worth consists in what you are and not in what you have
Noam Chomsky
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like it's from Neptune
The United States is unusual among the industrial democracies in the rigidity of the system of ideological control - "indoctrination," we might say - exercised through the mass media.
Galileo
All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.
Ben Franklin
Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn
He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else
It is the eye of other people that ruin us. If I were blind I would want, neither fine clothes, fine houses or fine furniture
Never leave that till tomorrow which you can do today
Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.
Albert Einstein
Everyone should be respected as an individual, but no one idolized
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be
Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts
I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters
George Washington
It is better to offer no excuse than a bad one
Rene Descartes
It is not enough to have a good mind; the main thing is to use it well.
Jean Pigaet
Scientific knowledge is in perpetual evolution; it finds itself changed from one day to the next. Scientific thought, then, is not momentary; it is not a static instance; it is a process
George Carlin
Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man – living in the sky – who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if yu do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ‘til the end of time. . . But He loves you
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Moral Life In a Random World
by Dr. Jeff Schweitzer
The very foundation of our moral code is fundamentally flawed. The current code of ethics predominant in modern societies, shaped largely by divine command theory, is based on false promises of eternal salvation or threats of damnation, not on a morality inherent to the human condition. As a result, a moral vacuum has developed, creating a society with deeply-rooted destructive behavioral maladaptations. War, overpopulation, unrelenting poverty, destruction of the environment, indifference to the needs and rights of other life forms and intolerance of our fellow humans all result, to an important extent, from an obsolete religious moral code.
Human beings are not inevitable, and our brief existence is not preordained to be extended into the distant future. If Homo sapiens is to have a continued presence on earth, humankind will reevaluate its sense of place in the world and modify its strong species-centric stewardship of the planet. Our collective concepts of morality and ethics have a direct impact on our species’ ultimate fate.
That religious morality has failed is made clear by humanity’s current fate, and the sad state of the planet. Religion has had 2000 years to prove itself worthy as a guiding moral force. Yet the result of that 2000-year experiment is war, poverty, hunger and suffering across the globe as humanity consumes itself; in addition, after two millennia, we see over-population, depletion of non-renewable resources, and accelerated degradation of the environment because our current moral foundation is not suited to guide us away from that destruction.
Our inner life, our own thoughts, our acts of kindness, and our responsibility and honesty are immune to the random events in the world around us, blind to the inherent purposelessness of the universe. The world can be seen with amazing clarity upon realizing that life is not manipulated by some unseen force, but instead is guided by an individual's power to make decisions and a personal choice to be moral. There is tremendous joy in understanding that the purpose and meaning of life are self-derived.
Many of humanity’s problems originate in the hubris of imagining ourselves at the center of the universe, separate from and better than other animals. But human beings are neither special nor inevitable. As a minor branch on a vast evolutionary bush, modern humans have been roaming the earth for no more than a few hundred thousand years of the earth’s 4.5 billion year history. If the earth’s lifespan were one year, humans would come on the scene only during the last 50 minutes of the year. Ours has been a truly brief presence, barely a cameo on the stage of life, with too little time to demonstrate if the evolution of large brains is a successful strategy for long-term survival of the species.
When Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, he exposed the world to a momentous discovery every bit as significant and disorienting as when Copernicus discovered that the earth was not the center of the universe. For the first time in history, human beings were seen not as creatures of divine origin, but instead as a natural product of evolution, an animal like every other on the planet. Imagine yourself back in that amazing year. The day before Darwin’s book was published, you woke up thinking yourself the image of God; the next morning you realize you have the face of a monkey. Not everybody immediately embraced this rude demotion. Resistance to the idea was inevitable. But have absolutely no doubt: evolution is one of the most extraordinary, successful, thoroughly documented scientific discoveries in human history. Evolution through natural selection is an indisputable fact, just as we now know that the earth revolves around the sun.
Thanks to Darwin, natural selection allows us to understand the development of nature's diversity and complexity without resorting to divine intervention. Through Darwin’s insights, we can understand that life on earth began as a natural event, and that evolution is a random process with no direction or drive. The male peacock would probably agree that any rational design would have relieved him of the burden of a ridiculously large tail, which leaves him vulnerable to predation. But because natural selection is uncaring, the poor bird now has a tail just big enough to attract painfully picky females (something to think about the next time you are pumping iron at the gym), and just small enough to make the competing male next door a greater temptation as somebody’s lunch.
Perhaps unwittingly referring to bacteria, Mathew 5:5 says that “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth,” and indeed they shall. For regardless of the fate of humanity, bacteria will survive. Bacteria can easily live without us, but we would die quickly without them. If we were able to kill every bacterium in our body, we would be dead within a month. It is the height of folly to claim that evolution was driven toward humans anymore than toward any other living being. Humans are nothing but a short-lived biological aberration, with no claim to superiority. If evolution had a pinnacle, bacteria would rest on top. When the human species is a distant memory, bacteria will be dividing merrily away, oblivious to the odd bipedal mammal that once roamed the earth for such a brief moment in time. Our claims to superiority and our self-promotion to the image of god are simply embarrassing in the face of the biological reality on the ground. There is a loss of credibility when you choose yourself for an award.
The human brain is extraordinarily adept at posing questions, but simply abhors the concept of leaving any unanswered. We are unable to accept “I don’t know” because we cannot turn off our instinct to see patterns and to discern effect from cause. We demand that there be a pattern, that there be cause and effect, even when none exit. So we make up answers when we don’t know. We develop elaborate creation myths, sun gods, rain gods, war gods, and gods of the ocean. We believe we can communicate with our gods and influence their behavior, because by doing so, we gain some control, impose some order, on the chaotic mysteries of the world. By making up answers to dull the sting of ignorance, we fool ourselves into thinking we explain the world. Religion was our first attempt at physics and astronomy.
The idea of powerful gods controlling each important aspect of our lives would not by itself be satisfying. We want to put a face to the power; we want to be familiar with the deities that control our fate; we want to know them so that we can communicate with them and solicit their interventions. We are all Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, seeking to reveal the nature of god, hoping to strike up a conversation with whoever is in charge. By no coincidence then do our gods take on human form, usually idealized. Male gods are typically buff, in great shape, with washboard abs and thick biceps, while their female counterparts conform to the ideas of beauty at the time, usually in all cases sporting large breasts.
Advances in science, which explain the mysteries of nature’s wrath, remove the need for multiple gods of rain, sun and harvest. If we know the sun is a star sustained by thermonuclear reactions, we need not invoke a sun god. If we know that rain is caused by evaporation and condensation, we can discard our rain god. We understand that thunder is caused by lightning as a consequence of atmospheric ionization, relegating Thor to the pantheon of gods now myth. As gods are the child of ignorance, knowledge is a lethal potion strong enough to kill the most powerful force.
We will show that morals are not derived from religion, nor god’s grant of free will, but instead arise from inherent characteristics embedded in human nature as a consequence of our sociality. What we view as moral behaviors – kindness, reciprocity, honesty, respect for others – are social norms that evolved in the context of a highly social animal living in large groups. The evolution of these social norms enabled a feeble creature to overcome physical limitations through effective cooperation. Morality is a biological necessity and a consequence of human development. Religion, however, has masked and corrupted these natural characteristics with a false morality that converts intrinsic human benevolence and generosity into cheap commodities to be purchased with coupons for heaven. Good behavior is not encouraged as a means of advancing our humanity, but instead is enforced with threats of eternal damnation.
About Jeff Schweitzer
He is the Author of the upcoming book Beyond Cosmic Dice – Moral Life In A Random A World. Dr. Schweitzer served at the White House for the Clinton Administration
Working under President Clinton, Dr. Schweitzer was assigned to provide scientific and technological policy advice and analysis for the President of the United States, Vice President Al Gore and the Director of the OSTP, and to coordinate the U.S. government's international science and technology cooperation (working with the president's cabinet and 22 technical agencies) in countries throughout the world. Visit his website @ www.jeffschweitzer.com
The very foundation of our moral code is fundamentally flawed. The current code of ethics predominant in modern societies, shaped largely by divine command theory, is based on false promises of eternal salvation or threats of damnation, not on a morality inherent to the human condition. As a result, a moral vacuum has developed, creating a society with deeply-rooted destructive behavioral maladaptations. War, overpopulation, unrelenting poverty, destruction of the environment, indifference to the needs and rights of other life forms and intolerance of our fellow humans all result, to an important extent, from an obsolete religious moral code.
Human beings are not inevitable, and our brief existence is not preordained to be extended into the distant future. If Homo sapiens is to have a continued presence on earth, humankind will reevaluate its sense of place in the world and modify its strong species-centric stewardship of the planet. Our collective concepts of morality and ethics have a direct impact on our species’ ultimate fate.
That religious morality has failed is made clear by humanity’s current fate, and the sad state of the planet. Religion has had 2000 years to prove itself worthy as a guiding moral force. Yet the result of that 2000-year experiment is war, poverty, hunger and suffering across the globe as humanity consumes itself; in addition, after two millennia, we see over-population, depletion of non-renewable resources, and accelerated degradation of the environment because our current moral foundation is not suited to guide us away from that destruction.
Our inner life, our own thoughts, our acts of kindness, and our responsibility and honesty are immune to the random events in the world around us, blind to the inherent purposelessness of the universe. The world can be seen with amazing clarity upon realizing that life is not manipulated by some unseen force, but instead is guided by an individual's power to make decisions and a personal choice to be moral. There is tremendous joy in understanding that the purpose and meaning of life are self-derived.
Many of humanity’s problems originate in the hubris of imagining ourselves at the center of the universe, separate from and better than other animals. But human beings are neither special nor inevitable. As a minor branch on a vast evolutionary bush, modern humans have been roaming the earth for no more than a few hundred thousand years of the earth’s 4.5 billion year history. If the earth’s lifespan were one year, humans would come on the scene only during the last 50 minutes of the year. Ours has been a truly brief presence, barely a cameo on the stage of life, with too little time to demonstrate if the evolution of large brains is a successful strategy for long-term survival of the species.
When Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, he exposed the world to a momentous discovery every bit as significant and disorienting as when Copernicus discovered that the earth was not the center of the universe. For the first time in history, human beings were seen not as creatures of divine origin, but instead as a natural product of evolution, an animal like every other on the planet. Imagine yourself back in that amazing year. The day before Darwin’s book was published, you woke up thinking yourself the image of God; the next morning you realize you have the face of a monkey. Not everybody immediately embraced this rude demotion. Resistance to the idea was inevitable. But have absolutely no doubt: evolution is one of the most extraordinary, successful, thoroughly documented scientific discoveries in human history. Evolution through natural selection is an indisputable fact, just as we now know that the earth revolves around the sun.
Thanks to Darwin, natural selection allows us to understand the development of nature's diversity and complexity without resorting to divine intervention. Through Darwin’s insights, we can understand that life on earth began as a natural event, and that evolution is a random process with no direction or drive. The male peacock would probably agree that any rational design would have relieved him of the burden of a ridiculously large tail, which leaves him vulnerable to predation. But because natural selection is uncaring, the poor bird now has a tail just big enough to attract painfully picky females (something to think about the next time you are pumping iron at the gym), and just small enough to make the competing male next door a greater temptation as somebody’s lunch.
Perhaps unwittingly referring to bacteria, Mathew 5:5 says that “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth,” and indeed they shall. For regardless of the fate of humanity, bacteria will survive. Bacteria can easily live without us, but we would die quickly without them. If we were able to kill every bacterium in our body, we would be dead within a month. It is the height of folly to claim that evolution was driven toward humans anymore than toward any other living being. Humans are nothing but a short-lived biological aberration, with no claim to superiority. If evolution had a pinnacle, bacteria would rest on top. When the human species is a distant memory, bacteria will be dividing merrily away, oblivious to the odd bipedal mammal that once roamed the earth for such a brief moment in time. Our claims to superiority and our self-promotion to the image of god are simply embarrassing in the face of the biological reality on the ground. There is a loss of credibility when you choose yourself for an award.
The human brain is extraordinarily adept at posing questions, but simply abhors the concept of leaving any unanswered. We are unable to accept “I don’t know” because we cannot turn off our instinct to see patterns and to discern effect from cause. We demand that there be a pattern, that there be cause and effect, even when none exit. So we make up answers when we don’t know. We develop elaborate creation myths, sun gods, rain gods, war gods, and gods of the ocean. We believe we can communicate with our gods and influence their behavior, because by doing so, we gain some control, impose some order, on the chaotic mysteries of the world. By making up answers to dull the sting of ignorance, we fool ourselves into thinking we explain the world. Religion was our first attempt at physics and astronomy.
The idea of powerful gods controlling each important aspect of our lives would not by itself be satisfying. We want to put a face to the power; we want to be familiar with the deities that control our fate; we want to know them so that we can communicate with them and solicit their interventions. We are all Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, seeking to reveal the nature of god, hoping to strike up a conversation with whoever is in charge. By no coincidence then do our gods take on human form, usually idealized. Male gods are typically buff, in great shape, with washboard abs and thick biceps, while their female counterparts conform to the ideas of beauty at the time, usually in all cases sporting large breasts.
Advances in science, which explain the mysteries of nature’s wrath, remove the need for multiple gods of rain, sun and harvest. If we know the sun is a star sustained by thermonuclear reactions, we need not invoke a sun god. If we know that rain is caused by evaporation and condensation, we can discard our rain god. We understand that thunder is caused by lightning as a consequence of atmospheric ionization, relegating Thor to the pantheon of gods now myth. As gods are the child of ignorance, knowledge is a lethal potion strong enough to kill the most powerful force.
We will show that morals are not derived from religion, nor god’s grant of free will, but instead arise from inherent characteristics embedded in human nature as a consequence of our sociality. What we view as moral behaviors – kindness, reciprocity, honesty, respect for others – are social norms that evolved in the context of a highly social animal living in large groups. The evolution of these social norms enabled a feeble creature to overcome physical limitations through effective cooperation. Morality is a biological necessity and a consequence of human development. Religion, however, has masked and corrupted these natural characteristics with a false morality that converts intrinsic human benevolence and generosity into cheap commodities to be purchased with coupons for heaven. Good behavior is not encouraged as a means of advancing our humanity, but instead is enforced with threats of eternal damnation.
About Jeff Schweitzer
He is the Author of the upcoming book Beyond Cosmic Dice – Moral Life In A Random A World. Dr. Schweitzer served at the White House for the Clinton Administration
Working under President Clinton, Dr. Schweitzer was assigned to provide scientific and technological policy advice and analysis for the President of the United States, Vice President Al Gore and the Director of the OSTP, and to coordinate the U.S. government's international science and technology cooperation (working with the president's cabinet and 22 technical agencies) in countries throughout the world. Visit his website @ www.jeffschweitzer.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
