communicating science
Not really, but if you feel like it, go ahead and record it. There's a contest for the best interpretive dance of your Ph.D. project (here are some past winners). Easy, right? Perform your dance, record it and submit the video, and maybe you'll win $500, a trip to Brussels, and eternal fame and glory.
(Also on FtB)
Go watch this video of Bill Nye explaining global warming to a Fox News babbler. You can see why he's a national treasure: he cocks those eyebrows, he clearly thinks he's dealing with a knucklehead, but he goes on to slowly and carefully explain the science to him. All those years of children's programming pay off perfectly when dealing with our conservative media — treating the announcers like small angry children is just perfect.
You can also see the shortcomings of television, though. The patient, thorough approach bumps up against the tiny time windows and short attention spans all too…
Some people are planning to make a sequel, another 13 part series, to Carl Sagan's Cosmos. This may be a greater heresy than giving Star Trek a reboot with a time-travel movie, or turning Star Wars into Jar Jar Binks land, but there is one glimmer of sunshine: it's going to star Neil deGrasse Tyson. He's our only hope.
(Also on FtB)
Oh, this is beautiful. Bill Nye (the Science Guy!) is being interviewed by a Fox News talking head who asks a surprisingly dumb question: Nye is talking about a volcano found on the moon, so he asks, "Does it go anywhere close to the climate change debate on earth?...we haven't been up there burning fossil fuels.". Bill Nye's eyebrows shoot up, he pauses very briefly, and you can see him recalibrating his brain so he can answer as he would to a perky little 5 year old. It's wonderfully amusing, and he does give a very good answer.
Ken Ham is crowing over fooling a child. A young girl visited a moon rock display from NASA, and bravely went up to the docent and asked the standard question Ham coaches kids to ask — and she's quite proud of herself.
I went to a NASA display of a moon rock and a lady said, "This Moon-rock is 3.75 billion years old!" Guess what I asked for the first time ever?
"Um, may I ask a question?"
And she said, "Of course."
I said, in my most polite voice, "Were you there?"
Love, Emma B
Ken Ham is also quite proud of himself. He's also pleased with the fact that many people will be…
Darryl Cunningham has a new comic explaining evolution — read the whole thing.
I am not a fan of beauty pageants, especially after hearing about the preliminary questions in the Miss USA contest. The women were asked if evolution should be taught in US schools. Only two of the 51 contestants could bring themselves to answer yes.
But here's the good news: one of those two was the ultimate winner.
The newly crowned Miss USA, Alyssa Campanella, 21, of Los Angeles, who calls herself "a huge science geek," says evolution should be taught in public schools.
…
Before her victory night, Miss California earned her way into the semi-finals in preliminary judging including…
When I fly off to give talks, I've got three basic categories that I choose from: there's the "science is godless, and here's why" talk for atheist audiences, there's the "development and evolution go together like peanut butter and chocolate" talk for atheists or scientists, and finally, there's the "you better pay attention to the online world, and here's why" talk for scientists, who often don't have a clue about blogs and twitter and facebook. Now Nature gets in on the latter act, with a feature on managing your online reputation. It turns out that most scientists, especially younger…
Go read Open letter to the NCSE and BCSE. Or read it here:
Dear comrades:
Although we may diverge in our philosophies and actions toward religion, we share a common goal: the promulgation of good science education in Britain and America--indeed, throughout the world. Many of us, like myself and Richard Dawkins, spend a lot of time teaching evolution to the general public. There's little doubt, in fact, that Dawkins is the preeminent teacher of evolution in the world. He has not only turned many people on to modern evolutionary biology, but has converted many evolution-deniers (most of…
For those of you who aren't satisfied with this weird electronic stuff, you can now get the last year's best science blogging manifested in ink on cellulose. The Open Laboratory is now on sale.
If you asked me about cosmology, I'd defer to physicists — I've read Stenger & Hawking & Krauss & Carroll, and I might be willing to say a few generalities about what I've learned about the process, but I'd always say you should look to the original sources for more information.
There seem to be a lot of physicists, however, who believe they know everything there is to know about biology (it's a minor subdivision of physics, don't you know), and will blithely say the most awesomely stupid things about it. Here, for instance, is Michio Kaku simply babbling in reply to a question…
Jerry Coyne has made a strong observation, and is also hinting at an alternative, about the way the AAAS panders to religion. Once again, they're having a session at the national meeting in February dedicated to the accommodationist view, with a one-sided slate of speakers all preaching about the compatibility of science with superstition. We're all getting a little tired of this, I think; it's the same old story where a bunch of credulous apologists get to trample freely all over science in the name of putting up a façade of simpering friendship with religion, all in the name, they say, of…
I've heard back from a few people now who contacted Google about the issue of indexing creationist sites in Google Scholar; these are informal remarks from the team, not an official policy statement, but they're still interesting. And revealing. And useful. They'll change your perspective on Google Scholar.
The premise of the petition to Google to stop serving up creationist claptrap is a misconception. Google Scholar does not index on content; it can't, it's just a dumb machine sorting text. Google Scholar does not, and this is the surprise to me, index on the source — it makes no decision…
I told you that maybe talking real fast would be a viable lecture strategy, and here's Ben Goldacre proving me right!
You might want to look at Ince's web page: he's touring in March and April, and in May he's gathered together Brian Cox, Ben Goldacre, and Simon Singh for a "science tour celebrating the universe and many of the wonders that lie within it". That all looks wonderful, you think, and so do I. I would like to see that.
But then, look at the venues.
To my horror, surprise, and dismay, "Morris, Minnesota" is not among them. They're all strange little places like Glasgow and Oxford and Cambridge and of all places, London. Those places don't need these kinds of tours. The rural midwest does. I want…
Have you got kids? Are you tangentially related to any young people? Are you young yourself? Do you know anyone who just likes a good story and interesting science?
Well, then, I'm sorry, but reading this article will cost you $12.89. Jay Hosler has a new book out (illustrated by Kevin Cannon and Zander Cannon), Evolution: The Story of Life on Earth(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), and I'm afraid it's going to be required reading for everyone, and you're also all probably going to end up buying multiple copies for gifts.
Really, it's that good. It's a comic book about aliens from Glargalia explaining…
I don't think journal editor L. Henry Edmunds is quite clear on how the scientific method should work: we're supposed to have the free exchange of information. His journal recently retracted a paper (from other sources, it was apparently because the authors, um, "recycled" data from another study), and when asked why, his answer was "It's none of your damned business", ranted a bit against "journalists and bloggists", and then made an interesting comparison: "If you get divorced from your wife, the public doesn't need to know the details.".
Hmmm. Except that details of your relationship with…
The journal Nature has selected optogenetics as its "Method of the Year", and it certainly is cool. But what really impressed me is this video, which explains the technique. It doesn't talk down to the viewer, it doesn't overhype, it doesn't rely on telling you how it will cure cancer (it doesn't), it just explains and shows how you can use light pulses to trigger changes in electrical activity in cells. Well done!
People keep sending me this link to an article by Jonah Lehrer in the New Yorker: The Decline Effect and the Scientific Method, which has the subheadings of "The Truth Wears Off" and "Is there something wrong with the scientific method?" Some of my correspondents sound rather distraught, like they're concerned that science is breaking down and collapsing; a few, creationists mainly, are crowing over it and telling me they knew we couldn't know anything all along (but then, how did they know…no, let's not dive down that rabbit hole).
I read it. I was unimpressed with the overselling of the…