So if you ever think science isn't for you, or science is beyond what you can possibly wonder about the universe, think again. As long as you can ask very simple questions, you can think exactly like a scientist.
Viewing entries tagged
A significant fraction of the best and brightest coming into graduate programs in the physical sciences simply aren't interested in the physical sciences long-term. And those will include some of the best and brightest and most ambitious and most clever and the best humanity has to offer.
It looks us almost a hundred years to finally convince ourselves that atoms existed. Be patient.
There's another source of bias that is much more pernicious and insidious. But it's surprisingly easy to find that source of bias: just look in the mirror.
Is the presentation of the data hiding something? Was anything excluded or minimized? Was anything glossed over? Was one part of the graph highlighted or emphasized to draw attention away from something else?
Take the case of the interior of a black hole (a question I get a lot). We'll never see inside a black hole, and if you were to visit one you would a) die horribly, and b) never be able to communicate your gruesome results to the outside world. So how do we know what's inside?
It's a part of the training to become a scientist, but it's not one you learn through any class. Instead, over the course of years you begin to recognize that what at first feels like harsh, personal critique is actually a vital part of the scientific process itself.
First off, the very act of using natural language to describe scientific concepts can be considered "dumbing down".
There are many features of the scientific enterprise that we can incorporate into our everyday lives. These are all well and good, and with a properly trained mind can be wielded to great effect. But there's one more feature of science that has only emerged in relatively recent times: the rise of the collaboration.
The most interesting stories are when theory connects to observations, when there's a strong attempt to refute or bolster some piece of (un)known science. And here the name of the game is error bars.
The end goal of this process is to achieve a mastery of the subject. And a handy side effect of having an understanding of a topic with this particular technique is that you're perfectly positioned to explain it to audiences who have no prior experience using simple, uncomplicated language with lots of metaphors.
If a single person walks away from an educational moment not understanding the concept, we have to assume that it's entirely our fault.