Science...it's not a dirty word!

[meeshrox]

My first journal entry is about science and education. I'm not accustomed to writing about myself, usually just data...so please bear with me!

As a scientist, and particularly as a geologist, I have been trained to see the world in a different way. Most of my courses in college taught me how to think, not just what to think. Not that other disiplines brain-wash, but I've been taught to train my mind to answer every question with five more. This is something that's been a hallmark of science since the beginning and one of the main reasons I'm so addicted.

I used to think that I had to divide my time into scientific pursuits and political pursiuts separately. The two don't often mesh well. This is my attempt to mash them together with a metaphorical Large-Hadron Collider. Thanks to a geologist and fiction author whose keynote address I had the pleasure hearing a couple weeks back, I know it can be done.

I began college studying to be a elementary teacher. I then moved to biology and eventually geology. The draw for me was that geology combines the major scientific disciplines: chemistry, biology, physics, even planetary astronomy if you try hard enough. I know just enough about education to get into trouble. I've sat in and student-taught classes in elementary, middle, and high school. I understand the state of education in Florida about as well as an informed, child-less citizen is able. But, there is one major issue that sticks out in my mind to this day, thanks to the repettitive voice of a college professor.

Science education. Science is very close to my heart. I love the scientific method; I would love to be able to use it to solve the world's problems. I know this is impossible, by the way. I'm just drifting for a moment. I want the world to know the scientific method; to be able to use it everyday like I do. Now, I'm not talking about scientific experiments, here. I'm thinking more everyday questions like "which foods will be a healthy choice?" and "how many bags of mulch do I need for my garden?" By being aware of and ignoring marketing techniques such as label design, I can pick up every bottle of my favorite flavor of salad dressing and determine which I want. I read every label. If a label claims that the dressing is "made with olive oil," but it is not in the first few ingredients, I put it down (even if it's organic!). If something is supposed to be honey flavored, and honey is not one of the first few ingredients, I put it down. This is a specific example of how you can use logic and reason to make an educated choice. I am still shocked everyday when people that want to lose weight pick out food that is full of oil or flavored with sugar when the label says honey. I have never taken a nutrition course, but I can figure it out with a few guiding principles. The scientific method picks up the rest.

I will never claim to be an expert, except at hydrogeology (my trade) and volcanology and tectonics (my master's education). Using the scientific method, I've been able to figure out politics. It's more like a game of chess, of action and reaction. Politics is not about making the world a certain way, it's about making voters think that you will do better than the next guy. Those that have specific goals and benchmarks in their policies eventually get caught up in the pissing contest anyway, although they sometimes have to be dragged in. Common sense and reason does operate in politics, you just have to know the guiding principles. To be a successful politian, it's not about making the world a better place. If this legislative session passed real healthcare reform (IMO, single-payer), environmental and financial regulations on corporations and banks, and solved all of the world's problems, however impossible/improbable that would be, they all would be out of ammo for their next campaign. With the goal of being a politician for more than a few years, there must be some level of bickering and stalemate.

I am not by any means saying that all polititians are like this or that this is a good thing. I am simply calling out what I see to be some guiding principles of politics. This also does not mean that I will not call out when I see someone being a hypocrite, liar, bat-shit crazy fearmongerer, or profiteer.

Our personal experiences make each of us different and these differences shape the world into what it is. So, I know that there will never be a universal push to learn logic and reason. Some, in fact, fight it directly with preference to confusion, ignorance, fear, and therefore, control. But, I will continue to fight back, teaching and learning as much as I can give and absorb and by spreading what I see as the truth through the scienfic method, logic, and reason. Hopefully, I will be successful in melding this with my life in politics.

It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. -Carl Sagan

[LWolf]

1. As a teacher,

I can tell you that I think thinking skills, including logic and reason, are part of literacy, and I'd like to see them focused on in every discipline. I can also tell you that the process of inquiry is effective in every discipline, not just science.

I don't see science as holding the answer to everything, but I appreciate positive contributions.

As far as politics and politicians go, you describe a corrupt system that, imo, needs to be reformatted.

[meeshrox]

5. I would argue that inquiry is science-based...

and that someone don't need scientific training to use logic and reason...but that the scientific method can be applied in making everyday decisions in every discipline. That's all...thanks for your post!

And thanks for the hard work that you do to educate our future generations!

[Codeine]

2. I welcome your contribution here,

especially considering the combination of ignorance, hysteria, and outright hotility this place to often demonstrates toward science. :hi:

[meeshrox]

3. Yes, thank you!

I've been flamed continuously the last couple of days just for asking for evidence...thanks for you support! :hi:

I wish to join the effort here against what is an increasing pseudo-science crowd...it's frustrating to see!

[Codeine]

4. Please consider

contributing to the Skepticism, Science, and Pseudoscience forum as well.

[meeshrox]

6. Thanks, I'll look into it...

I come from a Saganist point of view about pseudoscience and would like to debunk as much woo as possible!

[JoeyT]

7. Virtually everyone uses the scientific method every day, whether they realize it or not.

They just need to use it a lot more often and be taught to be better at figuring out what's signal and what's noise. (Critical thinking)

If you go asking for or providing evidence of any kind to people on here, be prepared to be called a shill. It happens a lot. Instead of being insulted, just remember that it's an admission that they have no real argument.

Sagan's who got me interested in science as well. We really need another series like Cosmos, instead of the random reality show stuff the so called "Science" channels show now.

[meeshrox]

8. Ah, yes...I've had that the last two days, actually!

Trying to point out to everyone else the shortcomings of the elctric sun/universe, for example...DUers are posting that crap all over the science thread...ridiculous...

We need Sagan back! It's tragic we don't have him to publically point out pseduo-science and make science fun for that masses! My dream job would be to pick up where he left off...as if I could even compare to him... :loveya:

Thanks so much for the support! I really appreciate all the love from DU's critically-thinking science-oriented peeps!

[JoeyT]

24. Electric suns?

Wow. I thought you were kidding until I searched for it.
It's like they think saying "These are established facts!!!" makes it so.

It's almost http://www.timecube.com/">Timecube levels of crazy.

[meeshrox]

27. Nice...yeah, I guess it's that level of crazy

The problem is that the author of the electric universe uses scientific jargon to mask the unbelievably ridiculous pseudo-science. So, someone that has never studied astronomy/cosmology would not know the difference. It sounds good to someone who wants to believe it...just like the "young earth creationists" and the "hydroplate theory"; trust me...these are very entertaining and scary!

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview7.html

[JoeyT]

35. Wow

That's the first time I'd ever seen Hydroplate theory too.
I can't help but wonder if this is what happens when you let people study geology at Liberty U.
"Don't drill to deep, you'll crack the planet open and kill us all!"

[meeshrox]

39. A couple of years ago...

I had an evil thought: what if someone took the language of science to dupe the fundies into believing fake science? Ha! So, I looked it up and found all kinds of this crap...scheeples will believe it because they have an obscure doctorate from a christian college. It's so mind-numbing!

The young earth crowd uses all sorts of crap like radio-carbon dating: according to them, the half-lives of isotopes has changed over time, so they calibrated the data to their own geologic timescale (10,000 yrs) to try to "prove" scientists wrong. It's such a sham, but people believe it! :eyes:

[MicaelS]

9. Damn good post...

So what's your opinion of the megafauna extinction in the Americas 13,000 years ago? Nova had a special on last week, and most of it was devoted to the comet impact theory as the reason behind the extinction. I do have to admit the iridium and nano-diamond evidence looks pretty strong. But, very little time was given to opposing viewpoints. One physicist's point was "Where's the crater?" The answer offered to that was "The comet hit the mile thick ice sheet."

The other idea about humans having caused the extinction has always been pretty hard for me to accept. The idea that a bunch of primitive human could have wiped out that many large animal in only about 2,000 years is a real problem for me. Unless the current theory that humans arrived here 15,000 years ago is totally wrong, and humans really arrived here 25,000+ years ago.

Other than the comet, the most plausible idea is climatic change.

[meeshrox]

11. I didn't see that special...

it must have been good, though. Nova has great productions.

In what part of the Americas would that be? I'll have to watch the program to be sure, but if iridium was found, it is almost 100% an impact from space. Iridium is not found naturally at the Earth's surface. I agree that I would have a hard time with a megafauna extinction by humans at that time. Do you have other details as to what types of species?

Not so sure that we could jump straight to climate change unless we looked at the climate record at that time. Unfortunately, I'm not up to speed on paleontology/climatology from that time period. My paleo professor preferred animals of the cretaceous (think jurassic park)... The best place to start would be to use stable isotope geochemistry to find the chemistry and temperature of the atmosphere at that time.

Thanks for your interest in my post...I'm excited to see the positive feedback!

[MicaelS]

16. Iridium was found in N. America

Here's the show, you can watch it online. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/clovis/

[meeshrox]

20. I'll make sure I watch it when I get a chance...thanks for posting!

BTW...love your sig line!

[MicaelS]

22. Glad you like it, I wish I could say it was my idea,

But it wasn't, I ...er stole it from here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7806183&mesg_id=7806183

[meeshrox]

25. I read the transcript for the Nova program...

Shows like this don't always show opposing viewpoints. Similarly, most scientific papers do not. It was probably more of a time-constraint issue with the programming, though. I timidly agree with the comet theory, mostly because of the nano-diamonds and the fact that they are hexagonal and not cubic. Geologists do not know of any other way that those habits of diamonds form other than collisions. I suggest that the low-iridium content is because this was a comet and not an asteroid. Comets contain ice and therefore would have less rock (and less iridium as a percent volume) for a given size. Also, there does not necessarily need to be a crater left behind for the theory to hold.

[antigone382]

26. I'm not that familiar with the comet impact theory...

...so I have no reason to doubt it as a plausible, and based on the evidence you describe, likely theory. But I wouldn't discount the possibility of humans having a major impact on megafauna species in the Americas. Humans had already had eons to gradually hone their hunting skills by the time they reached the Americas. Animals in areas that had long contained humans had co-evolved survival strategies to keep pace with human advancement, whereas large game in the Americas had never encountered the challenge of a predator with anything approaching human ingenuity. I don't have concrete proof, but I'd bet humans brought at least a few diseases with them as well that might have decimated certain animal populations; but I admit that's speculation.

If you haven't read it yet, you might want to check out Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel." He presents a pretty plausible argument that humans were at least partially responsible for the American extinctions.

[meeshrox]

28. Hey, I know that book...

It's been on my reading list for a while...I really have no experience in anthropology whatsoever...so, I cannot speak to that mechanism. It would be interesting to read about...I'll have to move that book towards the top of the list! Thanks!

[antigone382]

30. No prob!

I'm actually *belatedly* working on an anthropology degree right now. There's an ongoing debate on whether anthropology in particular can really be considered an objective science, depending as it does on material like interviews and participant observation don't really render themselves to precise, quantifiable analysis. In all honesty, I think that haziness is part of what attracts me to the field. :)

[meeshrox]

31. The haziness makes it fun!

Good luck with your degree! I'm *trying* to finish my master's now...it's tough. My sister's starting her anthropology degree next semester. It would be nice to see what she thinks, too...I wonder if she's heard of that book.

To the haze! :toast:

[MicaelS]

32. Up until recently I "sort of " accepted

The idea humans caused the extinction by predation. But then I started reading that the group of Siberians who migrated over the Bering Straight land bridge could have been very small, as little as 200 individuals, or less. Assuming they migrated around 15k years ago, I find it very hard to believe after 2k years that people could have bred fast enough to affect the entire population of megafauna of both N. and S. America by 13k years ago. Furthermore, if humans did breed fast enough to kill off the megafauna via predation, it seems like we would be finding much more evidence of human habitation, and massive piles of bones, of that time. This is all predicated on the currently accepted theory of migration around 15k years ago being the correct one. If instead humans migrated 25k-50k years ago, then that makes the case for human caused extinction much stronger. But I sort of realize that is heresy suggesting humans migrated that long ago. As far as the disease aspect, I don't know about that, I'm skeptical of human to animal transmission.

[meeshrox]

38. Predation, disease, comet impact...

it seems like there's a lot of research to be done...it could be any combination of these things, too. I've heard a little (different population of humans, I admit) that disease and predation stressed the megafauna population to the point where small climate changes brought on extinction. It can get very complicated. You seem to have a level head on those shoulders and you'll do great as an anthropologist! Keep at it!

[meeshrox]

45. Oops! Hey, sorry!

I guess it helps to check the user name before I post a reply...confused you with someone else...sorry!

The disease may not be between species transmission, but perhaps more that rampant disease weakened the animals and gave the hunters an advantage. I'm still not sure that the populations of humans would have grown fast enough to kill off the megafauna, either. Again, I'm not so much an anthropologist...it's very interesting stuff, though.

[semillama]

50. Actually, it's not heresy to suggest that humans were here 25,000 years ago

The Clovis-first argument is the one that is being discarded. Look at sites like Monte Verde in South America and some of the evidence coming out of places like Topper, SC.

I personally don't think that human predation was the sole reason the megafauna went extinct, but I'm pretty sure it was a significant factor. The only places that still have megafauna are those areas that also have a pretty long established human presence. Where humans came in fairly recently, megafauna and specialist species do tend to disappear (New Zealand is a great example).

[immoderate]

10. Are you in South Florida?

We held our first annual Carl Sagan Day in November. His friend James Randi was our keynote speaker.

Have you seen the new Florida science education standards? They're pretty good. We just have to get the teachers to follow them.

--imm

[Dappleganger]

12. How have the new science standards changed?

That's one of our huge beefs w/the county here--they perform very well in math and language arts but their science instruction leaves little to be desired!

[immoderate]

37. There are new standards for the state of Florida.

You should be able to find them on the web. I was a commenter. I'm not familiar with the old standards but I know the new ones contain the word "evolution." :bounce:

--imm

[meeshrox]

41. Hooray!

As long as "evolution" is not followed by "as an unproven theory compared to other theories, such as ID"...

I'll look into it...sounds encouraging!

[meeshrox]

15. I'm in the Tampa Bay area...

I actually found the website for Carl Sagan day a couple of weeks ago...so sad I missed it! It is on my calendar for this year; I have family in Sunrise and Hollywood and could definitely see myself there.

I have not looked at the new seience education standards, but I'll be checking them out...my mother-in-law is a (partially) retired elementary teacher, I'm suprised she didn't pass that along to me.

Do you happen to have a copy/transcript of his address? I would love to see/read his insight into Carl's life.
Also, are you interested in developing a Tampa chapter for your group? Any way I can help to honor his memory would be fun.

[immoderate]

36. Sagan Day was put on by (mainly) four groups:

Florida Atheists and Secular Humanists (FLASH), Center for Inquiry of Ft Lauderdale (CFI), James Randi Educational Foundation, and Broward College.

Are you asking about Randi's speech? There was a whole day of speakers, most of whom knew Sagan, including Phil Plait. I don't know if videos are available. The JREF group handled that, I think. You might find something at randi.org.

So I'll see you in November. :hi:

On edit: We have people at FLASH that help other groups to get started. I guess if you PM your contact information to me, I'll pass it along. We have our main weekly meetup Tuesday nights.

More edit: And don't forget to visit the DU Atheists and Agnostics Group. :)

--imm

[meeshrox]

42. As soon as I get my star...

I'll be posting there!

Thanks for all the great info...I'll have to learn to PM, too.

Counting the days until Nov... :hi:

[Dappleganger]

13. Looking forward to reading your posts! nt

[Romulox]

14. The OP misuses the word "science" to buttress what amounts to nothing more than opinion....

There is nothing "scientific" about your method of choosing salad dressing, for example. Nor have you applied anything like the scientific method to your study of politics.

Why isn't logic and experience enough? Why misuse the word "science" in this way? :shrug:

[meeshrox]

17. Ok, the scientific method is applied logic and reason...

and I use them interchangably...it is not a misuse of the word.

Why is it so hard to admit that logic is a form of scientific reasoning?

Applying scientific reasoning to politics is exactly what I did...I do not have to have a hypothesis, develop an experiment, and then write a paper on my data and conclusions. The scientific method is mostly used in that way in elementary schools to help children develop the critical thinking skills needed to think logically. Once you move beyond that, it is an application of logic and reason.

I just don't understand the fear of the word science...it has such a stigma attached in our society.

[Romulox]

18. "Science" means "discipline which employs the scientific method".

Logic and science are related (but distinct!) concepts.

"Why is it so hard to admit that logic is a form of scientific reasoning?"

It's simply not an accurate statement.

[meeshrox]

19. I do not wish to get into a semantic argument here...

Using the scientific method employs logic, you cannot have science without it.

"Why is it so hard to admit that logic is a form of scientific reasoning?"

"It's simply not an accurate statement."

Perhaps my statement works better the other way around...

I wish that the argument did not get reduced to finding a definition of word science. I am completely aware of what the definition is. Please focus more on the content of the piece and not semantics. My point is that people apply science in their everyday lives without realizing it...perhaps if people began to see this, science would not be treated as a dirty word by society.

[Romulox]

21. Reminds me of the time I was discussing statute construction with a person

who objected to my argument with "well, if you want to get technical about it..."

I did, (and do!) want to get "technical" about it, especially when, as here, the word "science" is used more as a shield to defend what amounts to little more than one's personal opinions (e.g. which candidate one should credit, or which salad dressing one should buy) than a lens into the objective truth of the matter. As if there is an "objectively" correct (not to mention falsifiable) amount of olive oil that should be in your salad dressing!

Edit: I'll give you a concrete example. A poster this morning told me that "science" dictated that the harmful effects of marijuana be judged without reference to the harmful effects of tobacco.

I told him that that was a statement of value and policy, not of science. He called his position "scientific", called me "benighted" (though in a less articulate manner) and declared himself the winner of our discussion. That's not "science"--it's a word used as a rhetorical bludgeon.

[meeshrox]

23. First, science does not dictate...

Data and evidence can suggest...the poster of which you refer does not know what science is, perhaps your definition of science would be better suited for them. The poster also reduced him/herself to name-calling; they clearly could not contend with a logical argument. I do not consider this a contest nor would I declare myself a winner; this, to me, is more of an open discussion. I agree with you in reference to that poster.

I am not using science as a shield for my opinion...my choice of condiment is not the question. I use logic and reason (albeit I decide which parameters I use for choosing a salad dressing) as a method is the question. The method itself is not the opinion...I use the method in a scientific (or logical) way based on my preferences for ingredients.

Sure, salad dressing is a weak example. Nowhere do I contend that the same parameters and preferences be used by everyone or that this is some kind of truth revealed by science...I am only speaking to the logical method by which I decide for myself. I am not using science as a rhetorical bludgeon in this case.

[Swamp Rat]

29. Off-topic field methods question:

Have you done fieldwork collecting data? If so, did you use hand-held spectrometers (capable of measuring IR and thermal bands, which can also be used for vegetative studies), and a GPS (w/ accurate x,y, altimeter/barometer, etc.)? And, what software did you use (ArcGIS, ERDAS, Idrisi, etc. or just stats software like SAS or SPSS)? Do you use LIDAR, SAR data at all (I assume a geologist would use GPR)?

[meeshrox]

40. Field instruments

The only tools you listed that I have experience with are the GPS and ArcGIS. I have not used GPR directly; I analyzed some data for a structural geology class, but did not collect the data myself. It was more of a classroom exercise.

In my undergrad classes, I mostly used the old-technology stuff like Bruntons and Direct-Current Plasma Emission Spectrometer (major and minor element geochemistry, my fave). I don't get to do too much field work anymore so I haven't used a lot of the tech that's come out in the last 5 years...

[Swamp Rat]

46. Thanks

I mainly use data imagery from satellite-based platforms, but I am considering instruments for in-situ data collection too. So, I am looking for tips from others. :hi:

[unkachuck]

33. "Science...it's not a dirty word!"

....how can you claim this being a geologist?

[meeshrox]

43. Well, you got me there!

Geologists know how to make the bedrock! :evilgrin:

[Zhade]

34. Welcome to DU -- we need more like you! Too many woowoos and climate denialists here.

We need your brand of rationality to beat back the woeful ignorance.

[meeshrox]

44. Thanks!

I was on lookout after the Chilean earthquake and tsunami...crazies out there, I tell ya! :crazy:

[Skittles]

47. I have to say

this is DAMN GOOD for a first journal entry - :thumbsup:

[meeshrox]

48. Thanks!

I pined over it for a week because I wanted to start strong...I've never blogged before and I don't have a facebook, myspace, or other page. I'm very encouraged and excited by all of this positive energy. Thanks! :D

[Quantess]

49. You aren't all that new, but welcome anyway!

[meeshrox]

51. Thanks, feeling welcome!

:)