Since Sandra has posted links to sites with brainy games for kids*, and Karmen is working on her list of science education web sites for children, I thought I’d mention one of my favorite online destinations for kid-strength chemistry. Luddite that I am, what I like best is that the site isn’t hypnotizing your child with a virtual chemistry experiment, but actually gives you activities to do with the child in the three-dimensional world.
Friday Sprog Blogging: scare-owls.
Elder offspring: Owls in zoos are kind of weird.
Dr. Free-Ride: How do you mean?
Elder offspring: Well, owls are nocturnal, but zoos are usually just open during the day.
Dr. Free-Ride: Hmm, so either the owls are sleeping, or they’re awake but they’re not too happy about it?
Elder offspring: Yeah.
Dr. Free-Ride: I guess it’s possible that they adjust to a diurnal schedule in the zoo so they don’t miss their meals. And I bet a lot of the sleeping ones get woken up by people walking by their enclosures saying, “Whoo! Whoo!”
Elder offspring: Who would say “Whoo! Whoo!” to a sleeping owl?
Younger offspring: I would. I said “Whoo! Whoo!” to the sleeping owl we saw at Turtle Bay.
Elder offspring: (with an eye roll) That figures.
* * * * *
Book review: Storm World.
When I was growing up in New Jersey, hurricanes were “on the radar” for us, one of many possible (if infrequent) weather patterns during summer and fall. Later, in my first semester of college in Massachusetts, the morning of my first broadcast on the college radio station was made memorable by the landfall of Hurricane Gloria; I remember the name of the storm because I closed my show by playing the U2 song “Gloria” before signing off the air at 7 am. (The governor of the Massachusetts had just declared a state of emergency, although it wasn’t until some 30 minutes later that the trustees of the college decided it might be a good idea to cancel classes.) The Atlantic coast, and the inland area not too far from it, was a site of weather events that commanded your attention.
For nearly two decades now, I’ve lived in California, in an area described as having climate, not weather. When I started reading Chris Mooney’s new book Storm World, a part of me wondered whether the fact that hurricanes are no longer a part of my day to day life would make it harder for me to get into this book about the scientific efforts to understand and forecast hurricanes, and the political struggles around the science.
My worry was misplaced.
Studying the ubiquitous (a puzzle about experimental design).
One of the strengths of science is its systematic approach to getting reliable information about the world by comparing outcomes of experiments where one parameter is varied while the others are held constant. This experimental approach comes satisfyingly close to letting us compare different ways the world could be — at least on many occasions.
There are some questions, though, where good experimental design requires more cunning.
Science in the courtroom: is ‘made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar’ false advertising?
The July 9 issue of Chemical & Engineering News (alas, behind a paywall — but worth checking to see if your library has an institutional subscription) has an interesting piece [1] on the recently-settled trial in which the makers of Equal (an artificial sweetener based on aspartame) sued the makers of Splenda (an artificial sweetener based on sucralose) over their claim in advertisements, “Splenda is made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar.” The makers of Equal (a company called Merisant) asserted that this claim was deceptive.
Soon to be a major motion picture?
Apparently Blake Stacey is pitching a movie about the Dover trial and featuring, as central characters, some luminaries from ScienceBlogs. There’s sort of a Star Trek: The Original Series meets Star Trek: The Next Generation meets other iconic exemplars of science fiction and action genres vibe in the plot outline and casting ideas. At least, so far.
Me, I figured a ScienceBlogs movie might run more along the lines of All the President’s Men meets This is Spinal Tap. Although there would definitely be stuff blowing up.
Does writing off philosophy of science cost the scientists anything?
In my last post, I allowed as how the questions which occupy philosophers of science might be of limited interest or practical use to the working scientist.* At least one commenter was of the opinion that this is a good reason to dismantle the whole discipline:
[T]he question becomes: what are the philosophers good for? And if they don’t practice science, why should we care what they think?
And, I pretty much said in the post that scientists don’t need to care about what the philosophers of science think.
Then why should anyone else?
Scientists don’t need to care what historians, economists, politicians, psychologists, and so on think. Does this mean no one else should care?
If those fields of study had no implications for people taking part in the endeavors being studied, then no, I don’t think anyone should care about them. Not the people endeavoring, nor anyone else. The process of study wouldn’t lead to practical applications or even a better understanding of what was being studied – it would be completely worthless.
Let me take a quick pass at the “why care?” question.
A branch of learning that ‘need not be learned’?
Prompted by my discussion of Medawar and recalling that once in the past I called him a gadfly (although obviously I meant it in the good way), Bill Hooker drops another Medawar quotation on me and asks if I’ll bite:
If the purpose of scientific methodology is to prescribe or expound a system of enquiry or even a code of practice for scientific behavior, then scientists seem to be able to get on very well without it. Most scientists receive no tuition in scientific method, but those who have been instructed perform no better as scientists than those who have not. Of what other branch of learning can it be said that it gives its proficients no advantage; that it need not be taught or, if taught, need not be learned?
Bill’s take is “scientific methodology” here can be read “philosophy of science”. So, what do I think?
Some of our language needs an update.
So, there’s some amount of Harry Potter mania out there in the world this weekend, what with a new movie and the last book in the series being released. (To show you how disconnected I am from the mania, I could not tell you without recourse to the internet whether The Order of the Phoenix is the new movie or the new book.) I haven’t read any of the Harry Potter books (yet), but my eldest child recently finished the first Harry Potter book and quite liked it. However, as we were discussing it this morning, we encountered one of my pet peeves: