tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18036993768598650812024-03-05T15:38:41.832-08:00PlanktonGirlPlanktonGirlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03972627099801512955noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1803699376859865081.post-28632448976307179682012-02-07T13:50:00.000-08:002012-02-07T21:20:27.262-08:00Pleasure in AnachronismGross, A. G., Harmon, J. E., & Reidy, M. (2002). Style and presentation in the 17th century. (p. 31-47). <i>Communicating Science</i>. Oxford: University Press.<br />
<br />
<br />
This text is actually a bit of a dry read; it is a lot of hard-core textual analysis. However, there are some moments of note.<br />
<br />
If you read my post on <a href="http://planktongrl.blogspot.com/2012/02/bringing-it-to-boyle-virtual-witnesses.html" target="_blank">Boyle</a>, this is the century in which his writing style predominates. At this time, there are two main scientific institutions: the Royal Society (England) and the Academie Royale (France). As such, there are only two major scientific publication outlets at this time.<br />
<br />
Science, as we recognize it today, is in its infancy. How infant:, you ask? Let's just say that <i>botany </i>is a "new" science. Science does not have the force of <i>ethos</i> it does today. No one was walking around talking about "science says" or "scientists have found." In England, this is the hobby of well-off gentlemen, although France is a little more civil-servant oriented.<br />
<br />
Communication of science therefore is also in its infancy. Like we saw with Boyle, detail is very important. Scientific writing is more reliable testimony than creation of new knowledge. Thus, the exposition is in qualitative style and personal, readily understood by others. There is no specialized, technical language at this point; it doesn't exist.<br />
<br />
While the writing is personal and verbose, while containing meager data, the tone however is neutral and lacks stylistic turns of phrase. In fact, metaphors and similes are discouraged. When used, they are functional, not poetic.<br />
<br />
I have a little challenge for myself as I walk through these centuries. I am going to take a paragraph from one of my studies and try to re-write it in the style of each century. Please bear with my silliness and certainly don't take my paragraph as a wonderful example of x-century writing! As writing is "thinking on paper," let's just say that I'd like to try my hand at thinking like these early scientists.<br />
<br />
<br />
"I walked out from the driest part of the land, toward the waters of the bay, connected at one end to the river and at the other to the ocean, whereupon the land began to become muddied and a great stink as of rotting eggs rose from the ground, until at last water, unconnected to the inlets of the bay, collected in pools of various size among the marsh grasses. The largest of these was the size of a farmer's pond, though not as deep, being as on a windless day, where waves did not muddy the waters, the spectators, as well as myself, could see the muddy bottom, marked with the tracks of waterfowl and the holes of various crabs and other burrowing animals. After extensive rains in the spring, these pools were nearer to fresh water than salt, lacking the briny taste of the bay itself; indeed, many land animals made use of these pools, as feral swine were seen drinking from them without harm; likewise, upon entry into the pools, I often came within a pace or less, of river snakes bathing themselves in the spring heat, and upon one occasion, the spectators and myself observed an alligator, which normally resided in fresh lakes farther inland, swimming healthily in the nearby salt creek of the inlet, made fresh and swollen by the same spring rains."<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9IBPRnD12zWRJxYhxzjX3UNKMzdV9gP6TjSNJC4MWgdyGmwZjvbz4CM9vatCNwxaylbPvp85d-9CGotYqq-l7tOl_VUPQ_T-StdmpvCylWNuPyNmmqU5HWp2nQxmNHq2xM2zGsEwphLQM/s1600/Unicorn.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9IBPRnD12zWRJxYhxzjX3UNKMzdV9gP6TjSNJC4MWgdyGmwZjvbz4CM9vatCNwxaylbPvp85d-9CGotYqq-l7tOl_VUPQ_T-StdmpvCylWNuPyNmmqU5HWp2nQxmNHq2xM2zGsEwphLQM/s1600/Unicorn.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><strong>Portion of Alsted, 1630. Image(s) courtesy History of Science Collections, University of Oklahoma Libraries</strong>.</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilzoYnWqVP0BLCUwjFPaJZSLk_jXSzze-BvUrpuowRQ8h2qT1-6NIlmV6eZwHHwfNu9G0KeLjqUDLFbQF3flGKcpnhr6FIXWMRV_ObOXIPXUam42YPQ3vuy-j5BDYgl9kPOsdLXZU0fIsa/s1600/Alsted-1630-0000tp.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilzoYnWqVP0BLCUwjFPaJZSLk_jXSzze-BvUrpuowRQ8h2qT1-6NIlmV6eZwHHwfNu9G0KeLjqUDLFbQF3flGKcpnhr6FIXWMRV_ObOXIPXUam42YPQ3vuy-j5BDYgl9kPOsdLXZU0fIsa/s200/Alsted-1630-0000tp.jpg" width="126" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><strong>Alsted, 1630. Image(s) courtesy History of Science Collections, University of Oklahoma Libraries</strong>.</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"> </td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"> </td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"> </td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"> </td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"> </td></tr>
</tbody></table>PlanktonGirlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03972627099801512955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1803699376859865081.post-4948988324405534392012-02-06T21:47:00.000-08:002012-02-06T21:47:07.025-08:00Theory and Philosophy: Taking a BreatherFortunately for my sanity, I have a wonderful blog-mentor and hero, <a href="http://thedragonflywoman.com/" target="_blank">Dragonfly Woman</a>. My entire semester so far (all three or four weeks of it) has been laden with theory and philosophy from the social sciences. It is definitely a great learning experience and opportunity to stretch my brain, but every so often I need to come up for air!<br />
<br />
Hence my maniac giggling as I write this post. You see, Dragonfly Woman researches giant water bugs and she recently wrote an <a href="http://thedragonflywoman.com/2012/02/05/abedus-respiratory-behaviors/" target="_blank">incredibly beautiful piece</a> on their <i>respiratory behaviors</i>. Respiratory behaviors...taking a breather...up for <i>air</i>...*snort*<br />
<br />
All bad puns aside, DW's post is an excellent example of how scientists can include their creativity and humanity into a "scientific article" without losing credibility.<br />
<br />
Once I get done reading <i>Communicating Science</i> by Gross, Harmon, and Reidy, I'll let you know into which century her blog style best fits. I'm actually considering trying to write a paragraph from one of my own studies into the style of each century, just for the immersion experience. I'll let you know how that goes...PlanktonGirlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03972627099801512955noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1803699376859865081.post-1574615146918606942012-02-04T11:12:00.000-08:002012-02-04T11:12:16.013-08:00Bringing it to a Boyle: Virtual Witnesses to Matters of FactShapin, S. (2010). "Pump and circumstance: Robert Boyle's literary technology." <i>Never Pure: Historical studies of science as if it was produced by people with bodies, situated in time, space, culture, and society, and struggling for credibility and authority.</i> Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, p. 89-116.<br />
<br />
Recently, I have been thinking about social construction of knowledge. Shapin's discourse on Boyle underscores this reality. Before "scientists" came "experimental philosophers" who took on the task of what we take for granted today: creating <i>ethos</i> for "matters of fact." These matters of fact are the measurements and data that we modern scientists collect as evidence.<br />
<br />
Whereas we report our findings as concisely as possible (and in some cases stash a brief methodology at the end), Boyle had to write in great detail to create "virtual witnesses." His manuscripts were conducted to create the effect that the reader had been there and seen what happened at each step of the way, including mistakes and failures.<br />
<br />
Thus, these matters of fact were not dependent on Boyle's word alone, reported through the text, but by consensus of the public community who could, in essence, observe the proceedings vicariously.<br />
<br />
Considering <a href="http://planktongrl.blogspot.com/2012/01/language-of-my-science.html" target="_blank">Hoffmann</a>'s arguments, it is perhaps to a Boyle-style article that he wishes to return. This would certainly make for a more open scientific community, as Shapiro notes that the modern scientific community is a subculture in which one can participate only after they have mastered the specialized language and form of communication practiced by scientists.<br />
<br />
Despite the evolution of the modern article however, there are some Boyle-style elements that have been retained. Boyle was extremely careful to separate matters of fact and conjecture/theory both through language and layout. This continues today with the separation of the results (matters of fact) and the discussion (theory/explanation); however, I believe that the onus now lies more on the reader to separate the ideas, as the language we use has become more confident and direct.<br />
<br />
The peer-review system is reminiscent of the credible witnesses that actually observed the conduction of the experiment. We have moved away from the original intent of the budding "scientific community" however, in that our version of "public space" has been reduced to those that practice science and can afford access to scientific journals. Much of the science that the broader public receives is passed through the oracles of media.<br />
<br />
I will leave off with what I think is an interesting juxtaposition of two quotes from Shapin. The first is on Boyle's principles of offering detailed circumstantial accounts, and the second is quoted from Ludwik Fleck.<br />
<br />
"It was also necessary, in Boyle's view, to offer readers circumstantial accounts of <i>failed</i> experiments. This performed two functions: first is allayed anxieties in those neophyte experimentalists whose expectations of success were not immediately fulfilled...." (p.100)<br />
<br />
"Ludwick Fleck noted.... 'The optimum system of a science, the ultimate organization of its principles, is completely incomprehensible to the novice'" (p.115)<br />
<br />
Has science gone wrong in the method of reporting its practices? In Boyle's time, experimental philosophers were largely self-funded and publication, while affecting reputation, perhaps did not affect employment. Has the switch to external funding and page charges in journals led to the conversion to brief reports of success alone?PlanktonGirlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03972627099801512955noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1803699376859865081.post-88694520042016767732012-01-24T14:19:00.000-08:002012-01-24T14:19:23.689-08:00Promoting a Necessary Myth: The Arrangement of a Scientific PaperGross, A. G. (1996). The arrangement of a scientific paper. In <i>The Rhetoric of Science</i>. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. p. 85-96.<br />
<br />
<br />
Induction is a fallacy. Gross argues that we recognize causes based on effects. Thus, inductive reasoning becomes a circular argument in that in one case, a certain effect indicates a certain cause; therefore, one can continue to expect that cause to precede a similar effect (assuming uniformity).<br />
<br />
I know... it makes my head spin too. Here's the example that Gross uses: Everyday a man goes to feed a chicken. The chicken correctly argues that if the man cares for the chicken, then the man will feed the chicken. The problem however, lies in assuming that because the man feeds the chicken, he cares for it. One day, the man will not come to feed the chicken, but to kill it for dinner.<br />
<br />
So, what does this have to do with scienctific writing and the scientific paper? Everything. Last post, I talked about <a href="http://planktongrl.blogspot.com/2012/01/ludicrous-pretense-in-scientific-papers.html" target="_blank">Medawar's assertion that the scientific paper is fraudulent and misleading</a>. His argument? Scientists have an agenda of sorts, we don't actually use pure induction, but rather plan and execute experiments and observations with a hypothesis in mind.<br />
<br />
Gross addresses this very argument in this chapter however, proposing that whatever developments have been made in the philosophy of science, the structure of the scientific article will remain the same to uphold the myth of induction. He bases this theory on that of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_L%C3%A9vi-Strauss" target="_blank">Levi-Strauss</a>, who analyzes myths as "a logical model capable of overcoming a [fundamental] contradiction." (Gross, 1996, p. 95).<br />
<br />
What is the fundamental contradiction in science? Perhaps it is between theory and reality. Even so, I think I would describe it like this:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwqAz3U39kaaYhBAE_TCCtyBL6SjWguXPcQGUWusot1rMNnI-vAJHaHdX0wSP1KEp1BmoeiHwQMXAcYLLJTUQZRaoYdyVh9JdwBlpyqI_42UZi6LfEkKF7he_99K_o3HWRrBGdywPOlmGu/s1600/myth.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwqAz3U39kaaYhBAE_TCCtyBL6SjWguXPcQGUWusot1rMNnI-vAJHaHdX0wSP1KEp1BmoeiHwQMXAcYLLJTUQZRaoYdyVh9JdwBlpyqI_42UZi6LfEkKF7he_99K_o3HWRrBGdywPOlmGu/s320/myth.jpg" width="320" /></a></div> The inductive process tries to take little pieces of reality and put them together into new knowledge, whereas deduction begins with a series of simplified assumptions to create a "perfect world." Experiments are analogous to induction; the scientist is trying to isolate random facts to later reassemble. Theory is analogous to deduction; the theorist creates a scholarly model of the way the world should work. Bacon and Euclides are emblematic of these two realms and the scientific paper mediates between the two.<br />
<br />
How does the scientific paper mediate? I argue that in reality, the scientific paper combines deduction and induction. Truthfully, this is what I've been teaching my students for the past few years. The introduction serves to establish context and explain the underlying assumptions and theories that frame the proposed experiments. Later, the discussion takes the myriad of results (isolated facts) and pulls them together into a solid argument. Deduction followed by induction.<br />
<br />
According to Gross, the mediating nature of the scientific paper requires that the structure remain constant. Otherwise, the philosophy of science (we never <i>really</i> know) gets mixed up with the practice of science, and confidence in that practice is shaken.<br />
<br />
Come to think of it... that's a pretty scary argument. Do we have too much confidence in that practice? Is this why many non-scientists distrust the practice of science - because of its ever-changing nature? In this light, perhaps we should reconsider Medawar's arguments.<br />
<br />
Especially since scientists neither read nor write scientific articles in the order they are structured.PlanktonGirlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03972627099801512955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1803699376859865081.post-59322663295577543192012-01-18T11:13:00.000-08:002012-01-18T11:13:10.590-08:00Ludicrous Pretense in Scientific Papers: Medawar's Three LawsMedawar, P. B. 1964. Is the scientific paper fraudulent? Saturday Review, 49:42-43.<br />
<br />
1. The Law of Conservation of Information: Generalizations cannot contain more information than the sum of their foundations.<br />
2. The Law of Entropy of Information: Orderly general statements do not somehow emerge from a disorderly array of facts.<br />
3. The Law of Bias in Information: There is no such thing as unprejudiced observation.<br />
<br />
While this is a sort of "tongue in cheek" summary of Medawar's paper (and one I think Medawar would appreciate, based on his writing) the concepts merit serious consideration.<br />
<br />
Like <a href="http://planktongrl.blogspot.com/2012/01/language-of-my-science.html" target="_blank">Hoffmann</a>, Medawar challenges the structure of the scientific paper as a misrepresentation of the nature of scientific thought. He even goes so far as to label the standard form fraudulent, a totally mistaken conception, and a travesty. According to Medawar, the "orthodox" IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results, And Discussion) format follows an inductive structure.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhO7aZLJVozMePgZgYWXVV1Ijyk4HFb_hfZG15vTUlIcsrDpg2p4ml0KZvj3rGLvhytqG92iCeaR1g6QRoJt7rGtYGE29n4Bu66J19pqdBlW6w92yZhvoiwswLlzanaRpWtWlLJCSVcVqdQ/s1600/inductive.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhO7aZLJVozMePgZgYWXVV1Ijyk4HFb_hfZG15vTUlIcsrDpg2p4ml0KZvj3rGLvhytqG92iCeaR1g6QRoJt7rGtYGE29n4Bu66J19pqdBlW6w92yZhvoiwswLlzanaRpWtWlLJCSVcVqdQ/s320/inductive.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 1. This is how I illustrate the inductive approach to my students. After making a multitude of observations in a number of areas, Charles Darwin posited Natural Selection as a mechanism of evolution.</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<br />
So, what's the problem with the inductive approach? Well, using induction, one cannot both discover and prove at the same time. Doing both requires the hypothetico-deductive interpretation. In other words, scientists generally have the end in mind when they begin an experiment. Hypotheses allow for focus in experimental design. Deduction gives us a framework or a lens through which to view data.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDwREFWKq_6E2BjHqnm0kTHC85a9snBwj6pVeSe-odfE6g5ZL3uyJEEycrQnLoXwND5EGvdsrYczTUP-RHplifgmbwQER9Dtrji4jrhmOjGZ5tWwXl9e-MZpNhHpfMjz0xkYItsAOPja0V/s1600/deductive.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDwREFWKq_6E2BjHqnm0kTHC85a9snBwj6pVeSe-odfE6g5ZL3uyJEEycrQnLoXwND5EGvdsrYczTUP-RHplifgmbwQER9Dtrji4jrhmOjGZ5tWwXl9e-MZpNhHpfMjz0xkYItsAOPja0V/s320/deductive.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 2. This is how I illustrate the deductive approach to my students. Using theory, in this case Natural Selection, we can create hypotheses and posit an explanation for results. Here, antibiotic resistance is explained. Bacteria able to survive exposure to an antibiotic because of a mutation reproduce, whereas bacteria without the mutation die out.</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Hoffman touched on this very same idea... that scientists do view studies through lenses; they have particular motivations. As Hoffman says, "But of course scientists are human, no matter how much they might pretend in their articles that they are not."<br />
<br />
This is a HUGE difference between the physical sciences and the social sciences. From what I've learned so far, social scientists are all about identifying bias. They know its there, acknowledge it, and move on. I'm beginning to think we scientists are a repressed lot...<br />
<br />
Anyway, Medawar's big take-home message here is this: Turn the scientific article upside down. Put your conclusions first and then set about showing support with the data. <br />
<br />
I find this suggestion rather intriguing, especially recalling Chris Mooney's post, "<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/good-communication-good-scientific-practice" target="_blank">Good communication is good scientific practice</a>." He discusses the most important facets of communicating science to the public: put the bottom line up front.<br />
<br />
In a response to last week's post, I talked about why I thought Hoffman's suggestions for change to the scientific paper were nigh impossible. Medawar's may be closer to our grasp. Indeed, some elements are already sporadically present. While the discussion remains at the end of the paper, it is occasionally combined with the results, and introductions are often direct in the intent of the researcher to apply biological principles to some ecological "problem" or at least identifies the theory through which the study finds its meaning.<br />
<br />
I have to run off to do a class visit, ironically on how to write a scientific paper. I'll share my thoughts on this later.PlanktonGirlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03972627099801512955noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1803699376859865081.post-53120339773728275462012-01-07T20:35:00.000-08:002012-01-07T20:38:03.204-08:00"The Language of My Science"<a href="http://www.roaldhoffmann.com/pn/modules/Downloads/docs/Under_the_Surface_of_the_Chemical_Article.pdf" target="_blank">Hoffman, R. (1988). Under the surface of the chemical article. <i>Angewandte Chemie International Edition in English, 27</i>, 1593-1602.</a><br />
<br />
In case you want to read it too. I recommend it.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_Hoffmann" target="_blank">Hoffman</a> looks at the chemistry article through a non-science scholar's eyes and paints a beautiful picture of what chemistry (and science) really is, and how the reality of science can be obscured by the emotionless form of the scientific article.<br />
<br />
My husband and I have a fundamental disagreement on the beauty of nature. He sees chaos and danger, while I see an amazing interconnected world in which every drop of water, every leaf, every living, moving thing is amazing. Except maybe spiders. I might agree with him on spiders.<br />
<br />
Anyway, the way I see nature is why I became a scientist. The world is cool, and I wanted (and still want) to know more. My view of nature is why I am so driven to share with others. I want to make sure they're not missing out. I'm really not trying to be sappy and melodramatic here, but it is true. This world is crazy exciting. Going deeper just makes it better. <a href="http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=607559329142" target="_blank">Like ogres</a>.<br />
<br />
The thing is, most people don't see that kind of excitement when they read a scientific article. Most of the time, it is because it is not there. Science and science writing are supposed to be objective and unemotional. Hoffmann argues that because of this personal distance in our writing, scientists come off as cold and stoic, an automaton that doesn't make mistakes.<br />
<br />
I agree with Hoffmann. I think that this image has done science a bad turn. When we remove humanity from science, science becomes this vague "thing" that does this or that. Thus, when some public scandal hits one scientist, it hits us all. But, who reads scientific articles anyway? Not laypersons (not usually, anyway. I do know a few.).<br />
<br />
Hoffmann points out in this article that the current concise and objective form of the scientific article came about because of "Natural Philosophers" who pulled evidences from and described "Nature" without verifying what nature is actually like. Thus, a standard format requiring experimental evidence squelched the poets and sages. Has the squelching gone too far? Maybe. Scientists have a really hard time (in general) communicating with the outside world. Maybe we do need to reconsider how we communicate with one another. <br />
<br />
I think perhaps that I should put on my history of science hat and think about this a different way. The point of the article is, that the scientific journal article never tells the whole story. It leaves out the real process - the trial and error, the frustration, the emotion, the fact that I had three months of sample data missing because I dropped and broke an entire tray of crucibles containing my samples. We might be able to understand the progress of the field by looking at trends in articles, but we'll never understand the progress of a single article by reading that particular article. And yet, this does not invalidate the progress of science (see Hoffmann's Personal View #6: As a system, science works).<br />
<br />
There is a lot to say about this article, and I haven't even really expressed a kernel of what Hoffmann succeeds in saying. Perhaps the main take-home message is that the language and the form of the scientific article communicates more than we think and less than it should.PlanktonGirlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03972627099801512955noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1803699376859865081.post-7217292855703382582012-01-07T18:21:00.000-08:002012-01-07T18:21:33.802-08:00Back!For the scores of followers who were disappointed at my absence, the end of the semester included a huge workload, followed by a two-week trip to Maryland for the holidays.<br />
<br />
I really like the part of Maryland where my parents live; it is kind of a low-key area, very local, and close to the quaint beaches and bays of the Chesapeake. One of my favorite aspects of the area are the fossil cliffs that erode away to reveal Miocene fossils, including scallops, barnacles, ray dental plates, and shark teeth. I have some great photos and even brought home a couple fossils from the Calvert Maritime Museum, home of Bubbles and Squeak, the river otters. It is also home to the Drum Point Lighthouse, the William B. Tennyson, and Mindy - an exhibits interpreter that works with the museum's outreach program. I got to "talk shop" with Mindy, which was really great - CMM has a distance learning outreach program that I'm hoping to check out sometime, because it sounds pretty cool.<br />
<br />
I also got my husband to touch a sea star. No really. With one whole finger tip. His favorite part was the ray tank (no petting there) featuring butterfly rays, Atlantic rays, and skates.<br />
<br />
Anyway, I wanted to come back and say hello, because it is about to get all crazy on the ol'blog! I am taking a History of Science course this semester, on the History of Science Writing and Rhetoric. Since it is an independent study, my instructor has asked me to post my responses to the readings on my blog!<br />
<br />
Since I'm carrying a 15-credit load this semester (which for a graduate student is near ridiculous), I am going to try and do a lot of the reading and responding for this course up front, before the semester really gets going. With five units, and eight readings per unit, that means (hopefully) several posts per day!<br />
<br />
One thing that I would love is feedback and discussion... so if you want to pass my blog on to others who might enjoy, I would really appreciate that.<br />
<br />
<br />
Best!<br />
<br />
<br />
PlanktonGirlPlanktonGirlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03972627099801512955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1803699376859865081.post-80319559695524260402011-11-17T19:22:00.000-08:002011-11-17T19:22:19.122-08:00Things on my deskA number of my students have already played this game, so I've decided to join in.<br />
<br />
Lets see...<br />
<br />
On the right side of my desk are the normal desk accoutrements - letter organizer, inbox, Navy recruiting cup (Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of all who threaten it) with pens and scissors. There is also an automatic stirring and heating mug, which one of my lab mates at Texas A&M bought me for a "Secret Santa" gift after I kept leaving lukewarm cups of tea lost in the microwave.<br />
<br />
To the left of my desk are the 3-hole punch, various cups of lukewarm, several-day old tea (did you know mold will grow in tea?), a bottle of mint Chloroseptic from my desperate battle with the canker sore, and my newly acquired "Project Learning Tree" manual and other science education paraphernalia. Also to my left is my monitor.<br />
<br />
Directly in front of me is a black kitten (6-8 months old) purring madly and trying to dig his way into the 1-gallon aquarium also residing in the back center of my desk. Said aquarium contains two freshwater mussels, two crayfish, and one giant water beetle. It also contains one pond snail and a zillion zoo and phytoplankton. Next to the aquarium is the mason jar, containing yet another pond snail (it did have one of the mussels in it previously) who likes to amuse itself (and me) by doing its "snail buoyancy trick." Seriously. It makes a controlled floating ascent to the top of the water and then just as controlled, descends back to the gravel. Love it.<br />
<br />
Behind my monitor is my latest piece de resistance, the decomposition chamber. Fashioned out of two 2-liter soda bottles according (roughly) to the Bottle Biology website, I have been filling it with random bits of food and other decomposable material from my working meals. Now I decompose things on purpose on my desk.<br />
<br />
I should also mention that not far from my desk is the new mealworm breeding facility. I find this all very exciting, much to the dismay of my husband. He is currently still insisting that I label the Magic Bullet container I used to make the spinach-cat food-yeast puree for the mussels since I used aquarium water to help mix it instead of tap water (tap water has chlorine). He is convinced the dish washer will never eradicate the "fish fecal matter" that surely made it into the cup.<br />
<br />
Sigh...PlanktonGirlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03972627099801512955noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1803699376859865081.post-18982406490526766802011-11-05T21:03:00.000-07:002011-11-05T21:03:11.512-07:00Earthquake in OKWell at about 10:54ish we had an earthquake here in Norman, OK. Naturally, the whole house shook - you could hear our stuff rattling. Our cats were not pleased, they ran about while I made my husband join me in a doorway - he's pretty impressed. This is only the second earthquake he's experienced. <br />
<br />
This earthquake was the sliding kind - I could feel the house shake north-south maybe 4 or 5 times. I suppose it was an aftershock from the 4.7 in Prague, OK early this morning. Friends of mine not too far east of us felt that one around 3ish this morning.<br />
<br />
So strange.... I've heard some talk that frakking is causing increased earthquake activity in the midwest. Silly me, I thought I left earthquakes back in the Pacific Rim (California <i>and </i>Japan).PlanktonGirlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03972627099801512955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1803699376859865081.post-54822759669887144502011-11-04T10:20:00.000-07:002011-11-04T10:20:12.570-07:00Aquatic Ecology and High School in 50 minutesMonday I go to two high school Ecology classrooms to present on freshwater and saltwater ecology. Once again, I am nearly overwhelmed by the possibilities of what I can do with these students. There are so many cool things out there - I wish teachers knew how to narrow down their request for my classroom visits!<br />
<br />
Anyway, given the strict time limit, I have decided to plan ahead this time. Here's the modification I think I'm going to make to what I did with the 8th graders.<br />
<br />
1) First 10 minutes of class: introduction (who I am, what I do, why I do it) and short discussion on what aquatic habitats entail. I am hoping for a list of various aspects of habitat including food sources and water forces (flow).<br />
<br />
2) Three stations, 5-10 minutes each. Students make observations and sketches. Perhaps some guiding questions based on the list we generate during the discussion. <br />
Station 1: flotsam and jetsam from the beach<br />
Station 2: live aquatic inverts (note to self: get aquatic inverts Sunday. Wear old shoes. Better yet, wear boots.)<br />
Station 3: comparison of freshwater and saltwater organisms (maybe - I'm ambivalent on this station at this point...)<br />
<br />
Hmmm... 14 students... I'm re-thinking this. Perhaps instead of moving students, I can have four trays: 2 freshwater and 2 saltwater. We can then shuffle the trays throughout 4 groups (instead of three stations) so that groups are limited to 3 and 4 students. I think I'm going to go with this option. This might also be easier to transport. I think I'm going to pre-separate the aquatic inverts into shallow plastic containers as well. Bingo!<br />
<br />
3) Discussion and application: Talk about observations (again, focus on feeding and body shape). Show students OK limpet-like fossil. Ask them where this fossil came from and how they think it ate. Reveal that the fossil is from OK (shallow sea).<br />
<br />
Ba-daaa!!!<br />
<br />
I'll let you know if this goes as smoothly as its planned in my mind.PlanktonGirlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03972627099801512955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1803699376859865081.post-87403433706966748982011-10-24T20:58:00.000-07:002011-10-24T21:01:45.157-07:00Finally... How I introduced 8th graders to aquatic ecologyIn my last post, I talked about my trip to the pond in preparation for outreach to a group of students. I wasn't completely sure what to do with them (they were learning about biomes and habitat) since their teacher gave me a really broad idea of what she wanted.<br />
<br />
So, with a few loose ideas in mind, I loaded a lot of show-and-tell type stuff into my car and headed off on a 90 minute journey to a very small town in Oklahoma (so small that I passed the school completely the first time around).<br />
<br />
The science classroom was fairly well equipped - they had a separate "lab room" with sturdy lab benches and microscopes. Once I saw the space and the number of students, I decided to set up learning stations (for the uninitiated, I do not recommend going in without a firm plan).<br />
<br />
Anyway, the six learning stations were as follows (no particular order):<br />
<br />
<b>Flotsam and Jetsam: </b>Here I put out random things from the ocean - some mermaid's purses (skate egg cases), a weird isopod molt from Japan, a couple of deceased hermit crabs (one in shell and one out of shell), various shells and barnacles. I also put out a number of tide pool books and golden guides to the seashore, seashells, etc. Believe it or not, the students were very excited to identify the miscellanea using said books.<br />
<br />
<b>Freshwater/Saltwater:</b> I set out various clam/mussel shells from the seashore alongside freshwater mussel shells (clams) so that students could make comparisons among the different shells from organisms that have similar function (filter feeding) in different habitats.<br />
<br />
<b>Ancient Aquatic Habitats</b>: This station allowed students to compare modern clam and limpet shells (both marine) with fossils from Calvert Cliffs, MD and Southeastern OK. Since OK was once covered by a shallow sea, the forms of the fossil shells are very similar to the fossils from Calvert Cliffs and modern oceans.<br />
<br />
<b>Microscopic Life:</b> This is my specialty. We set up three microscopes where students were able to view living plant tissue, live rotifers, and a cladoceran (which was fortunately stuck in place for some reason).<br />
<br />
<b>Macroscopic Life: </b>This is where the pond water mentioned in the last post comes into play. Students were able to isolate aquatic invertebrates on styrofoam plates (it gives just enough water for the invert to move around, while allowing the students an opportunity to observe them rather closely).<br />
<br />
<b>Constructing a Habitat:</b> With my giant water bug, "Buggy" (so named by another group of students) as an example, students set up their own aquatic habitats with mud, gravel, plants, pond water, and aquatic inverts.<br />
<br />
Afterwards, we chatted about things they noticed and I pointed out form and function (grazers, shredders, predators, filterers). We also talked about animal shape and how water flow (rivers, waves, tides) can influence shape.<br />
<br />
They asked some really great questions too - like why there are zebra mussels in the lakes. They were a very mature group as well. We were talking about how mussels feed, which involved talking about the location of the mouth and anus, strategically located such that mussels do not end up eating their own feces. The only one who giggled was their teacher, who was chastised by her own class! I think my most interesting question came from a student who wanted to know how mussels "do it" (we were talking about life cycle in response to the zebra mussel question).<br />
<br />
I feel like I passed some sort of test with that one. "Explain mussel sex to eighth graders... check."PlanktonGirlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03972627099801512955noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1803699376859865081.post-60303250358687022162011-10-11T13:33:00.000-07:002011-10-11T13:33:31.522-07:00No really, I'll just run out to the pond quick.Let me start by saying there is no such thing as running out to the pond <i>quick</i>. Instead, I was there for a little over an hour and got muddier than a dog in the rain. Okay, maybe not that muddy, but I was expecting to stay clean (don't ask me why...).<br />
<br />
I ran out to the pond in the first place because I needed aquatic insects for a classroom visit in Asher tomorrow. Most of what's out there was water beetles and snails, but I did get a few crayfish too. The lake level is pretty darn low, which made it a little difficult not to get wet and muddy. <br />
<br />
I love going to the pond over different seasons. There is definitely a fall-feeling to the vegetation that's up - purple thistles and hardy plants staking their claim over the fragile flowers from the spring.<br />
<br />
Seeing the pond in its context made me think a lot about habitat, though nothing specific. That's what I'm talking about tomorrow - aquatic habitats, both freshwater and marine. I'm thinking of going the feeding route: i.e., shredders, grazers, filterers, and predators. We'll be able to talk about examples of those in both marine and freshwater systems. I think it will go well. I do need to get all of my "stuff" together tonight (besides the live guys, which I sacrificed my new sneakers to get - stupid, stupid aquatic ecologist!).PlanktonGirlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03972627099801512955noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1803699376859865081.post-17880318529570509212011-10-08T10:20:00.000-07:002011-10-08T10:24:53.937-07:00Jack is Back!Jack and Fey are littermates by farm cats in Nebraska and had never been apart. They were the first cats my husband brought home after his beloved Kaos died of an infection after having been lost for three weeks. Needless to say, Jack slipping out one Sunday was cause for concern.<br />
<br />
Jack and our other cats are indoors-only. On average, indoor cats live three times longer than outdoor cats. Jack loves a roll around on a sunny sidewalk, and this time we didn't see him slip out.<br />
<br />
When we realized he was gone, we went into desperate cat-finding mode. I posted on craigslist and lost-pet websites. My husband biked around the neighborhood for hours. We drove around at all hours, staring at houses, calling for Jack, and clanging dishes. We printed over 500 fliers and distributed them door-to-door throughout our neighborhood. We called the animal shelter and went over every 2-3 days to make sure Jack wasn't among the adoptable.<br />
<br />
What we found, for six days wasn't Jack, but rather a caring community. We received several phone calls letting us know of possible Jack sightings. People stopped to talk with us, to give encouragement, and to promise to be on the lookout for our Mr. Jack.<br />
<br />
We learned that we have a unique community of families and students just like us. Did you know that within our area there is a bookbinder, a paranormal investigator, and a storm-chaser? We also ran into three other families that have lost their cats. Keep your eyes peeled - without our community looking, we would have never found Jack.<br />
<br />
Speaking of finding Jack, our favorite storm-chasing neighbor was coming in from a night of paintball and saw Jack sitting on one of the fence columns around our apartment complex. He called us several times in the wee hours and finally coaxed Jack inside, waiting for us to wake up and get his messages.<br />
<br />
Jack is home! We've learned several things and made some changes around the house. All five of our cats wear collars with tags now and on October 29, the Norman shelter is holding a low-cost clinic. They're offering microchipping for $20 - so you better believe we'll be there!<br />
<br />
Once again, I want to thank our entire community. All of you kept us uplifted - without your words of encouragement and phone calls, we would have certainly lost hope. Thank you.<br />
<br />
I'm including a photo of all of our Jack sightings. The pink areas are where we posted fliers. If anyone needs to borrow our live traps to try and catch their kitties, well, you know how to contact us!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHxp6bstPVxuv2z11xOt8tWxUvEuNx6APC_fPGno6RloZ4-CYsYNgWfsfT2Qgdr39A5SpL7xnytk3wDhZg-8U2jGs8Kq4Nx0wQDx2dXG5ZvfIG0FAjqgLxxU-VVN0ob1rWeN75TwdLsNsP/s1600/Lost+Jack+Map.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="218" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHxp6bstPVxuv2z11xOt8tWxUvEuNx6APC_fPGno6RloZ4-CYsYNgWfsfT2Qgdr39A5SpL7xnytk3wDhZg-8U2jGs8Kq4Nx0wQDx2dXG5ZvfIG0FAjqgLxxU-VVN0ob1rWeN75TwdLsNsP/s320/Lost+Jack+Map.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>PlanktonGirlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03972627099801512955noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1803699376859865081.post-5913564684252190532011-10-08T07:32:00.000-07:002011-10-08T07:32:22.761-07:00Playing PossumOur cat Jack has been missing for nearly a week now. We've posted on lost pet websites, craigslist, etc and physically delivered 500-600 flyers around our neighborhood. As sightings came in, we decided to purchase a couple live traps and bait them with tuna.<br />
<br />
One of these traps we put at the edge of a neighborhood "wilderness area." The other is at the back of our apartment complex property. Both are places where a large, black cat has been seen and the two locations are perhaps within half a mile of each other.<br />
<br />
For two days now, I have gotten nothing in the trap in our complex. After one night on the edge of the wilderness area.... possum. The poor little guy (he really wasn't very big) was waiting patiently, having finished off the can of tuna. My husband was concerned. In his days as a paperboy, he was once chased by a possum "the size of a dog." He brought the Maglite along just in case things got ugly. <br />
<br />
Of course, everything was fine. Naturally, friend possum hissed and growled at me, but after I convinced him the trap door was open (this required some upending of the cage and shaking) he trotted off. <br />
<br />
At least it wasn't a skunk.PlanktonGirlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03972627099801512955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1803699376859865081.post-68927712465414647892011-10-03T12:01:00.000-07:002011-10-03T12:01:54.395-07:00The Philosophy of AnimeMy husband and I enjoy Anime, which is a style of Japanese cartoon. Anime is more of an adult cartoon (in my mind), just because of the complex and often dark storylines. I could be totally wrong though... I was a fairly sheltered child twenty-some odd years ago. Who can say what kids are used to these days? Maybe I'm just a Victorian prude.<br />
<br />
Anyway, what I wanted to talk about today was the philosophy that is woven into the Anime shows we watch. Two of my favorites are Ghost in the Shell and recently, Full Metal Alchemist.<br />
<br />
Ghost in the Shell constantly addresses the concept of consciousness. The story takes place in a modern world with highly intelligent automatons (programs) and the ability to transfer human consciousnesses (as programs) into artificial bodies. Do the automatons form a consciousness in time? Are the human consciousnesses transferred completely, or is there a spark that is lost when the mind is transformed from biological to mechanical data? This question of dualism of mind and body (i.e. a consciousness separate from physical being) hearkens back to Renee Descarte, who titled this "Ghost in the Machine." I often think about this when considering the ethics of human cloning. What determines consciousness, and do we as humans have the power or right to grant or deny that to a clone?<br />
<br />
Full Metal Alchemist brings up thoughts of scientism. The main characters are always talking about the scientific objectivity of alchemy. In some ways, this is really kind of funny, because alchemy is an ancient and debunked "science" if it ever was one in the first place. In this show, the characters are able to mentally restructure atoms, affecting the form and function of existing items.. It addresses the concept of ethics and human limitation in the context of equivalent exchange. Again, the thread of humanity weaves its way through the story as the two main characters tried to bring back their dead mother by transmuting the major elements that make up an average adult human. Unfortunately for them, there is nothing of equivalent value to a human soul.PlanktonGirlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03972627099801512955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1803699376859865081.post-65207757125273145622011-09-28T13:10:00.000-07:002011-09-28T13:10:53.235-07:00Out of this worldI touched a piece of the oldest rock on Earth today. It is 4.6 billion years old and is a piece of the rock used as a standard for radiometric dating.<br />
<br />
Is that not crazy? I also held pieces of another planet in my hand, a piece of the meteorite that formed Meteor Crater, and a piece of the core-mantle boundary. The core-mantle boundary was by far my favorite; it was beautiful.<br />
<br />
I know I've been subjecting my students to a little more geology than they would like this semester, but this stuff is just as interesting as biology. There's something about rocks that feel like time travel. They are a little piece of an environment long gone. It is from those environments that the world we know today sprang. There were organisms with an ecology similar to, yet alien from what we as biologists study and understand.<br />
<br />
Chemistry is a little the same way for me. Since matter is neither created nor destroyed, the very air molecules we breathe in today, the compounds that form our cells, the ground under our feet - these things existed in some fashion over eons. Its like Charlie Brown says to Frieda regarding Pigpen: "Don't think of it as dust. Think of it as maybe the soil of some great past civilization. Maybe the soil of ancient Babylon. It staggers the imagination. He may be carrying soil that was trod upon by Solomon, or even Nebuchudnezzar."PlanktonGirlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03972627099801512955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1803699376859865081.post-81903706126184567372011-09-27T14:00:00.000-07:002011-09-27T14:00:02.826-07:00Practical Seismic PetrophysicsTad Smith is a petrophysicist working in the oil and gas industry. Chosen as a 2011 Honored Speaker, Smith came to OU to discuss how petrophysicists analyze geological information to reduce the risks associated with drilling for oil and gas.<br />
<br />
One of the problems that petrophysicists face is error and noise in the data. As with any model, simplifying assumptions exist that are not necessarily met in the real world. Additionally, data collected under field conditions are rarely perfect. Therefore, petrophysicists have to find ways to deal with these inconsistencies, including working closely with geologists and geophysicists.<br />
<br />
Smith delivered this central message to a broad audience that included specialists and non-specialists alike. He encouraged confidence in his message through a forthright and relaxed demeanor. Smith presented himself as the professional he is, and so won the trust of the audience. This professionalism was compounded by Smith's knowledge of his topic. His Power Point included mostly images and few bullet points to emphasize integral evidence for his audience. Anything that existed on the slide, Smith explained using analogies and examples. <br />
<br />
The main detractor from Smith's message was a confusing message towards the end of his presentation. Smith began to summarize his main points, both verbally and visually, only to continue presenting new information for an additional fifteen minutes afterward. This was the moment he lost the audience. What had been a brilliant performance geared toward a general audience suddenly became a tedious and overbearing waste of time.<br />
<br />
After speaking with several of my students, I agree - Smith should have focused his message more narrowly. The amount of information presented overwhelmed some lower-level students and the inability to finish on time alienated a previously receptive audience. Had Smith managed his time more effectively, his clear message of collaboration among professionals to properly assess drilling locations to save time, money, and lives would have stuck more firmly in the minds of students and specialists alike.PlanktonGirlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03972627099801512955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1803699376859865081.post-18810252888239252282011-09-26T18:06:00.000-07:002011-09-26T18:06:30.717-07:00Professorial GuiltLet us take a moment to consider time management and prioritization. This topic is on my mind, because for the second time, I will not post four times during the week. To my students, whose grade is (in part) contingent on doing the same, I apologize.<br />
<br />
Life happens. Recently, I have started to move out of my self-centric position to understand that life happens to all of us, and I am just not that special. Many of you are thinking, "no kidding jerkface." I know. I hear you. Let me just say that martyrdom is a genetic condition among the women of my family. I'm not sure its even that rare a condition.<br />
<br />
The question is, what do you do about "failure?" To be honest, I am not entirely sure - but this is what I'm learning.<br />
<br />
First, you must consider your priorities and life goals. In this regard, you can judge activities and opportunities that arise and decide where they fit into your already busy life.<br />
<br />
Second, you do your very best to plan ahead and not overwhelm yourself.<br />
<br />
Third, you face dilemmas squarely in the eye, recognize the consequences for "failure" and make the best decision you can.<br />
<br />
Finally, you recognize your humanity, your good intentions, and move on with your life. Learn from failures.<br />
<br />
Like I said, I'm still learning in this area. In fact, its probably really hypocritical of me to even make this post, but hey - work in progress. It is what was on my mind. Maybe I'll revisit and refine some other time.PlanktonGirlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03972627099801512955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1803699376859865081.post-4079284807803950812011-09-24T15:48:00.000-07:002011-09-24T15:48:21.470-07:00Isms and the Science DisenfranchisedThroughout this past week, I have been distracted by an ongoing mental conversation about "isms." This all started when I thought I could involve myself in (what I thought) was a semi-political conversation online. Apparently I failed.<br />
<br />
The thing that bothers me the most however, is the prevalence of "isms." An "ism" is any ideology that is completely closed to the possibility or discussion of another framework of thinking. Most scientists are very familiar, therefore, with "fundamentalism." Understandably.<br />
<br />
However, I am distressed to find that many who argue for scientific reasoning (explanation of observable natural phenomena using observable means) completely shut down those who agree, from a different viewpoint.<br />
<br />
For example, there was a recent blog post on attacks against female reproductive health by the religious right, i.e. fundamentalists. There is however, a large community of those who accept and trust scientific reasoning and also maintain a faith background. In trying to act as bridges, a number of individuals responded to the arguments of the religious right using phrasing common to a belief culture. I was dismayed to see two things: 1) the blog poster went and asked others to end the apparently religious part of the conversation, and 2) one of those requested responders answered with "don't argue against science with the Bible and your no-show God."<br />
<br />
First of all, that is not what was happening. All of those using belief-based phraseology were arguing FOR science, not against it. They were complaining equally about the misrepresentation of the religious right. As to his argument, it is clearly his prerogative to hold his own belief system and I by no means am trying to degrade his point of view. However, I felt that he was hypocritical as he answered not with scientific reasoning, but his own belief-based arguments.<br />
<br />
I had the opportunity to meet with science writer Deborah Blum this week, author of The Poisoner's Handbook and Ghost Hunters. She is an extremely intelligent woman with a strong grasp on how to reach the public to increase science literacy. In talking about the prevalent subculture of people who believe they have experienced the paranormal, she criticized science for shutting these people down. She termed them the "science disenfranchised" and feels that they are more reachable (in terms of science literacy) than fundamentalists. <br />
<br />
I would add to the list of science disenfranchised faith based/spiritual individuals (Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindi, etc.) who are often marginalized directly or indirectly even when they are in support of science.PlanktonGirlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03972627099801512955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1803699376859865081.post-2337906655942133302011-09-18T15:08:00.000-07:002011-09-18T15:08:33.967-07:00My kitten smells like pumpkin pieIts the all-natural cat shampoo we used on him when we took him in. That stuff really lingers!<br />
<br />
You know, last time I checked, I don't think anyone knows how cats purr. As I currently have said cat purring on my lap, I won't actually go through the trouble of trying to find the textbook of which I am thinking, but the author of said textbook postulated that it had to do with air flow. <br />
<br />
The book itself was about fluid dynamics in nature - i.e. the adaptations of biology (leaf shapes, arteries, body shape) to deal with fluid forces (movement of air and water). I think my favorite memory of that book was the description of experiments on flea body shape... the researchers used spring guns to literally shoot the fleas into the air. Go figure.PlanktonGirlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03972627099801512955noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1803699376859865081.post-77963963287898435612011-09-17T12:12:00.000-07:002011-09-17T12:12:25.326-07:00You know what I want?A microscope. Preferably two - one dissecting and one compound. Nothing fancy; just like the ones we use with our students.<br />
<br />
I actually have several microscopes, however, they are not high-quality. The best is one that I bought at Hobby Lobby; however, it has no condenser, which I think is actually a real problem. Don't get me wrong - you can see stuff in it, but the image is very low quality. <br />
<br />
I do use it on occasion. I took a look at the zooplankton that live in my fish tank - they're some sort of ostracod, I think (I told you, the image is not high-quality). I also looked at the buildup from the kitten's ear to check for mites... nothing. The little dude just has dirty ears.<br />
<br />
I have a couple of other microscopes. One is at my parent's house and is an early antique microscope kit, likely for children.<br />
<br />
Speaking of children, I also have my husband's Fisher Price microscope kit, which I naturally stole (with her knowledge) from my mother-in-law's house as we were redding out. <br />
<br />
(Note: "redding out" is a Pennsylvania Dutch phrase roughly equivalent to the idea of intense cleaning and organization. "Red up" is more along the lines of cleaning your room. As a child, my room typically needed redding out as I never really made time to red up. The whole concept of Pennsylvania Dutch makes my husband crazy, especially when I ask, "Is it all?" This is shorthand for "Is it all gone, is that the last of it?")<br />
<br />
Anyway...PlanktonGirlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03972627099801512955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1803699376859865081.post-7138881177068499052011-09-16T10:30:00.000-07:002011-09-16T10:30:11.078-07:00Charting What's Already HereI was putting together a presentation today and came upon this <a href="http://xkcd.com/731/">xkcd comic</a>.<br />
<br />
I tried to actually post the artwork on here, but was unable and didn't want to infringe any copyrights doing technological calisthenics. So, go take a look. It is a really beautiful thing.<br />
<br />
If you scroll over the comic with your mouse, there is an extensive comment from the author/artist on charting what's already here. I thought this was profound for several reasons; first, we can become trapped in our own little bubbles of despair, where we look out and think excitement and novelty have left us. In addition, we can be overwhelmed by a vast ocean of experience and observation and dismiss it as being to big and broad to understand, when in reality there is depth and specificity to be found in that ocean.<br />
<br />
Science is one of those areas that revels in looking at the things underlying the surface. While it seems that everything has been done and published, this is untrue. The universe, our own planet, is vast in both size and scope. The diversity of phenomena is nigh endless. Beauty resides in all things, from the ecosystem level on down to within individual cells. So exciting!PlanktonGirlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03972627099801512955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1803699376859865081.post-7134863533904096902011-09-12T19:33:00.000-07:002011-09-12T19:33:25.913-07:00Science and The Learning CycleTonight was our first meeting of the 2011-2012 Graduate Teaching Academy! This is year two of the program, and likely one of the reasons I get fifty emails a day.<br />
<br />
However, I did not pop on here to whine, but to share with you an insight about science and the learning cycle. I believe the <a href="http://www.ldu.leeds.ac.uk/ldu/sddu_multimedia/kolb/static_version.php">Learning Cycle</a> comes from an educational theorist named Kolb. This theory posits the following relationship: the learner has a concrete experience on which they reflect and form a working hypothesis. This hypothesis is tested through application to new situations which lead to new concrete experiences.<br />
<br />
This led me to thinking about the scientific process (scientific method for you old-school rule followers) wherein we as scientists observe a phenomenon, on which we reflect by asking questions. We develop hypotheses, which we test, leading to further observation and data collection. We continue to reflect and explain and "test" our new findings by comparing them to other experiences in the literature.<br />
<br />
In other words, science is all about the learning cycle. This brings me to two points: 1) everyone can do science and 2) science itself is a collective learning cycle.<br />
<br />
First, everyone can do science. The learning cycle was not developed to explain how a specific population learns, but to explain the learning process for all ages in all places. This meshes with constructivism, something I am learning more about now. Very simply, constructivism explains how we build knowledge as individuals.My overarching point is this: scientists are regular people too. There really is nothing superhuman or extraordinary about them compared to artists or economists or authors. We all operate using the learning cycle in our own special way.<br />
<br />
Second is this idea of science as a collective learning cycle (I know, it sounds like the Borg). In my mind, this collective learning cycle looks like a learning spiral, much like nutrient cycles in a stream. One scientist picks up an idea and takes it through the learning cycle, publishing her work. The next scientist then reads her work and builds on her theories, taking the information/phenomenon in a slightly different direction through another learning cycle. Thus, science builds on itself through the learning of individual researchers!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://science.kennesaw.edu/%7Ejdirnber/limno/LecStream/NutrSpiral.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="279" src="http://science.kennesaw.edu/%7Ejdirnber/limno/LecStream/NutrSpiral.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>PlanktonGirlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03972627099801512955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1803699376859865081.post-2620131245432317902011-09-11T21:28:00.000-07:002011-09-11T21:28:46.723-07:00Diel MigrationSo, many times I use this blog as a space to "warm up" as a writer. Tonight I have to put together a proposal for an upcoming panel on integrating research and teaching. This made me think of diel migration.<br />
<br />
Plankton is a word that means "drifter." In other words, any plankton, from tiny microscopic guys to huge things like jellyfish are at the mercy of the current. The <i>horizontal </i>current, that is. As long as there are no strong <i>vertical</i> currents, plankton have limited control over their place in the water column.<br />
<br />
This control is important because fish that eat plankton are usually visual predators. This means that zooplankton (tiny animal plankton) need to stay out of the top of the water column during the day, when its light and fish can see them in the water. However, because phytoplankton (tiny plant plankton) need light to photosynthesize, they are at the top of the water column also. This is problematic, because zooplankton eat phytoplankton. The solution? The zooplankton stay at depth, where its dark, during the day, and migrate up closer to the surface at night to eat. There are some special circumstances (other predator types) where this migration pattern is reversed, but we don't need to worry about that right now.<br />
<br />
The reason I bring this up, is that years ago while I taught the ecology of lakes laboratory, we set up two or three major projects, rather than isolated weekly labs. One project was always on phytoplankton, which we did in a lab setting, and the other was on zooplankton, which we did in the field.<br />
<br />
The first year I was a TA, we actually monitored zooplankton populations at various depths for 24 hours. The second time I taught this class, we broke the class into groups and each group came with me out to Lake Somerville at a different phase of the moon.<br />
<br />
See, the zooplankton respond not to "time" per say, but to light levels. Therefore, our expectation was that during the full moon, we would see less zooplankton at surface levels than during other phases of the moon.<br />
<br />
I have to say, I don't particularly remember our results. It was a memorable experience though, especially the night that I couldn't get the boat started. See, ecology of lakes was a course taught in the Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences Department, which some refer to as the "hooks and bullets" kids.<br />
<br />
This means, that I was out in the middle of Lake Somerville at 2:00 am, with male students who grew up fishing and hunting. Not being able to start the boat (who do you call to come haul you off the lake at 2 am?) does not increase your ethos when you're a small woman who neither hunts nor fishes (not that I'm against either... I just didn't grow up hunting or fishing). I did get the boat started, after a few muttered pleas for deliverance, but it certainly left an impression in my mind!<br />
<br />
Well, that's the end of my story for tonight. Looks like I'm off to write that panel proposal!PlanktonGirlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03972627099801512955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1803699376859865081.post-8018442331071611002011-09-09T20:40:00.000-07:002011-09-09T20:46:00.118-07:00Why Go to College?This summer, Gary Trudeau published this <a href="http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2011/06/26">Doonesbury Comic Strip</a>.<br />
<br />
Since then, I've been mulling over the thoughts presented in the strip: What does it mean to be a student? Why go to college?<br />
<br />
These are excellent questions. A friend of mine believes that in the near future, humans will be physically melded with technology. In other words, you could access the internet just by thinking about it. I'm a little doubtful, but like the characters in the cartoon strip, we already have a wealth of information right at our fingertips.<br />
<br />
Through happy circumstance, in 2006 I happened to observe a classroom at Texas A&M "taught" by award-winning professor, Dr. Hill. I say "taught" because I left with the distinct impression that Dr. Hill was more guide and less guru.<br />
<br />
In what was initially one of the strangest lectures I had seen in my entire life, Dr. Hill presented on the very same issue touched upon in the Doonesbury strip. Why go to college? What was really great was not only did he project into the future, but took us through a tour of the past reactions of teachers to new technology. Believe it or not, based on the quotes shared, issues of ball point pens vs. inkwells and paper vs. slate apparently nearly derailed the education system.<br />
<br />
So, what is the point? While the stereotypical student may agree with the Doonesbury characters, I hope the real student gives this some thought. Throughout life, we run up against unfamiliar situations all the time. We are presented with and must sort through mountains of information each and every day. In college, these mountains may threaten to overwhelm us. In the end, however, it all comes down to two basic tenets:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b><i>How </i>do we <i>think</i>? </b>and <b><i>What </i>do we <i>think</i>?</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">The words, "critical thinking skills" get tossed around in education all the time. Really, what professors are saying is, "I want my students to process and analyze the material in order to gain deeper and more personal understanding of the topic." The sequence of processing and analyzing is the <i>how</i> we think. That deeper and more personal understanding eventually becomes the <i>what</i> we think. College doesn't exist merely to fill your head with facts like some sort of time capsule. Information is vibrant and ever growing (think of all the researchers just at OU... they generate new information <i>every day</i>); there is no way we can memorize it all. College exists to help guide students through the thinking process so that by the time a student graduates, he or she has the skill to find, evaluate, process and analyze information to develop his or her own ideas and opinions.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">And that, Charlie Brown, is what college is all about.</div>PlanktonGirlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03972627099801512955noreply@blogger.com0