Science doesn't move as fast as basketball, so spectators need to adjust their expectations. The 'game' plays out over a period of years. The first play of the game is that someone publishes their work in the peer reviewed professional literature. But that's something like the first pass in football/basketball/hockey -- it might _eventually_ turn in to a score. But it isn't the score itself.
The short-hand for this is 'single study syndrome'. All sorts of things show up in the media, or scientific literature, as being interesting and perhaps revolutionary. But almost no revolutions follow from the very first study. Few of the potentially interesting ideas, from the first publication, really hold up for any length of time. Something worked out to be interesting _once_. But, chances are good it won't hold up in the long run -- the previous consensus or state of knowledge is more likely correct than the new idea with just a single supporting piece of research.
For the spectator of science, which also includes me most of the time, we can, and have to, sit back a little and wait for the confirming evidence or studies. One area which is an active area of discussion in science now is whether the recent US weather extremes (Eastern US has been far to the cold end of the historical distribution in winters of 2014 and 2015, but the Western US has been far to the hot end -- including setting several all time records) is due to the reduced Arctic sea ice pack.
Showing posts with label spectating. Show all posts
Showing posts with label spectating. Show all posts
08 June 2015
23 February 2011
Science Fairs
Last week I had the pleasure of judging at the Eleanor Roosevelt High School science fair. The pleasure was only added to by the breakfast, snacks, and beverages provided by the ERHS PTSA. Program organized by Jennifer Massagli
The main fun, as always, was talking to the students. But I'll also make some comments here for students who are thinking about next year's science fair projects. One part of the fun (for judges) being to talk to the students, I'll advise that students act like they're interested in their projects. "Here is something I slapped together because the school made me." even if true, is just not the way to your judge's heart. I also make this comment to graduate students and scientists about their presentations. Many people don't act interested in their own work. Trust me, if you aren't interested, we won't be either.
Fun parts of the talk include finding out what prompted the student to do their project and where they might take it in the future. Also an important part of a professional presentation. One student I spoke with was looking at the output of solar cells, how they depended on light sources and filters. This is sufficient reason for the science fair project, and he explored that question ok. But it became much more interesting to me when I discovered that he was using the solar cells as proxies for plant photosynthesis. Plants do rely on the sun, as do solar cells, and there are degrees to which you can indeed use solar cells to map out plant responses.
A different line of interest for me is to see what the students think of to investigate, and how. Many different sorts of things investigation, and many ingenious ideas on how to get the measurements. Both are good areas to use and show your creativity, which is one of the areas on the official scoresheet.
The main fun, as always, was talking to the students. But I'll also make some comments here for students who are thinking about next year's science fair projects. One part of the fun (for judges) being to talk to the students, I'll advise that students act like they're interested in their projects. "Here is something I slapped together because the school made me." even if true, is just not the way to your judge's heart. I also make this comment to graduate students and scientists about their presentations. Many people don't act interested in their own work. Trust me, if you aren't interested, we won't be either.
Fun parts of the talk include finding out what prompted the student to do their project and where they might take it in the future. Also an important part of a professional presentation. One student I spoke with was looking at the output of solar cells, how they depended on light sources and filters. This is sufficient reason for the science fair project, and he explored that question ok. But it became much more interesting to me when I discovered that he was using the solar cells as proxies for plant photosynthesis. Plants do rely on the sun, as do solar cells, and there are degrees to which you can indeed use solar cells to map out plant responses.
A different line of interest for me is to see what the students think of to investigate, and how. Many different sorts of things investigation, and many ingenious ideas on how to get the measurements. Both are good areas to use and show your creativity, which is one of the areas on the official scoresheet.
27 September 2010
Science Cafe
This Thursday (September 30th) I'll be talking about ice, and, better, yet, answering questions about ice at the Annapolis Cafe Scientifique. The time will be 6 PM instead of the usual 6:30. Same location as usual -- Cafe 49 West. Local folks are invited, and non-local are welcome to pose questions here.
29 July 2010
Scientific spectating
The peculiar subject line is to introduce a new series of posts I'll be making -- scientific spectating. My idea is that there is too much science in the universe for us (any of us) to be expert about all of it. On the other hand, same as there are too many sports to be expert at doing them all, we can all learn to be good spectators. And being an informed spectator is its own kind of rewarding activity.
It can be helpful to keep Science Jabberwocky in mind. Individual terms can be pretty mystifying, but it can be obvious that certain ones are important -- CCR5 means nothing to me directly, but I know that it has something or other to do with plague and partial resistance that some Europeans have towards AIDS. In a similar vein, you can know that Shaquille O'Neal is a center, without knowing exactly what a basketball center does. On the other hand, you will find it easier to follow basketball if you know that he is a center. Knowing that, you can watch what he does, and what other centers do. After some time of that, you can appreciate watching the game much more.
It was in this vein that I appreciated some papers and comments in the late 1990s and early 2000s, regarding the expansion of the universe. The expansion of the universe (the 'toves') had been expected to be slowing ('slithy'). After all, gravity was pulling everything together. But then there were some observations presented which said that the toves were not slithy after all (that the expansion of the universe was not slowing). It turned out that the expansion of the universe looked to be accelerating (mimsy). In terms of doing the science myself, it may as well have been Jabberwocky. But I could spectate -- clearly there was a conflict between the expected slithy-ness and the newly-observed mimsy-ness.
As a spectator, I knew to start looking for papers defending the slithy-ness of the toves, or attacking the claimed observations of the mimsy-ness, or both. That, or even newer papers supporting the recently new claims of the mimsy-ness of the toves (er, accelerating expansion of the universe). And I saw just that. As it worked out, the papers supporting the mimsy-ness of the toves were stronger, and held the field. I was able to watch and appreciate that much. In the same vein, I can appreciate watching a college basketball game -- seeing one team take up a zone defense, and the other break the zone by feeding the ball to their excellent outside shooter, or fail in their attempt to do so. As a spectator, I know that the offensive team has to do something to counter the zone defense, and look for it.
It is this that the series will attempt to do -- help educate readers in how to be good spectators of science. A related point being, most of the best spectators of sports are people who love playing the game themselves (whatever the game is). You may not be professional level, any more than I am at basketball (or any other sport!). But it can be more fun to spectate when you play the game sometimes yourself. To that end, see my 'project folder' links, and keep asking questions.
Since I like a conversational approach to blogging, I'll invite comments, questions, suggestions at this point as to how you'd like to see this series go, whether you think it can be useful (and how), and so forth.
It can be helpful to keep Science Jabberwocky in mind. Individual terms can be pretty mystifying, but it can be obvious that certain ones are important -- CCR5 means nothing to me directly, but I know that it has something or other to do with plague and partial resistance that some Europeans have towards AIDS. In a similar vein, you can know that Shaquille O'Neal is a center, without knowing exactly what a basketball center does. On the other hand, you will find it easier to follow basketball if you know that he is a center. Knowing that, you can watch what he does, and what other centers do. After some time of that, you can appreciate watching the game much more.
It was in this vein that I appreciated some papers and comments in the late 1990s and early 2000s, regarding the expansion of the universe. The expansion of the universe (the 'toves') had been expected to be slowing ('slithy'). After all, gravity was pulling everything together. But then there were some observations presented which said that the toves were not slithy after all (that the expansion of the universe was not slowing). It turned out that the expansion of the universe looked to be accelerating (mimsy). In terms of doing the science myself, it may as well have been Jabberwocky. But I could spectate -- clearly there was a conflict between the expected slithy-ness and the newly-observed mimsy-ness.
As a spectator, I knew to start looking for papers defending the slithy-ness of the toves, or attacking the claimed observations of the mimsy-ness, or both. That, or even newer papers supporting the recently new claims of the mimsy-ness of the toves (er, accelerating expansion of the universe). And I saw just that. As it worked out, the papers supporting the mimsy-ness of the toves were stronger, and held the field. I was able to watch and appreciate that much. In the same vein, I can appreciate watching a college basketball game -- seeing one team take up a zone defense, and the other break the zone by feeding the ball to their excellent outside shooter, or fail in their attempt to do so. As a spectator, I know that the offensive team has to do something to counter the zone defense, and look for it.
It is this that the series will attempt to do -- help educate readers in how to be good spectators of science. A related point being, most of the best spectators of sports are people who love playing the game themselves (whatever the game is). You may not be professional level, any more than I am at basketball (or any other sport!). But it can be more fun to spectate when you play the game sometimes yourself. To that end, see my 'project folder' links, and keep asking questions.
Since I like a conversational approach to blogging, I'll invite comments, questions, suggestions at this point as to how you'd like to see this series go, whether you think it can be useful (and how), and so forth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
