Teaching Scientific Values

I've been thinking a lot about scientific values lately, since watching a talk by neurologist Sam Harris, where he is speaking on whether science can say anything about morality. I won't speak to his larger point (other than to direct readers to his book The Moral Landscape), but I will pull this one quote out of his statements (starting around the 19:30 minute mark on the video):

... science has always been in the values business. We simply cannot speak about facts without embracing certain values. It's not that you can't get an "ought" from an "is," you simply can't get an "is" without embracing certain "oughts." Consider the simplest statement of scientific fact. Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. This seems to be as value-free an utterance as human beings ever make. What do we do if someone doubts the truth of this proposition? What if someone comes forward and says, "I'm sorry, but that's not how I choose to think about water"?...

What do we do with that person? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. If a person doesn't share those values the conversation is over. We must appeal to the value of understanding the world. The value of evidence - in this case some hundreds of years of evidence in chemistry. The value of logical consistency? Much of what we believe about the world is predicated on the validity of our beliefs about the structure of water. If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide that proves someone should value it. If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you invoke to show that they should value logic?

Now, Harris is using these points as part of his overall discussion of morality ... but I want to go another direction with his invocation of the "values" of science. My undergraduate degree includes a minor in philosophy, so in addition to my work in science, I also have familiarity with the philosophy of science. This notion that scientific investigation requires inherent value judgments resonates with that part of my education.

Really, these "values" all represent something which I gather together under the general umbrella of "scientific reasoning" in my article on skills needed to study physics. At the time, however, I didn't make the connection between scientific reasoning and any sort of value system, but the connection is certainly there. As Harris points out, scientific reasoning is at its heart a decision about what sort of things we value.

In other words, as I'll argue, the primary goal of science instruction - especially in the early years - is (or at least should be) to instill these intellectual values into students.

Political Correctness and Scientific Values

Immediately, I can sense some readers balking at the idea that a science teacher should be involved in the teaching of any sort of values, but I say that these values are so crucial to the scientific enterprise, and making students into rationale thinking adults, that they can't be overlooked. The problem with science education is that it's stepped away from teaching scientific thinking (including scientific reasoning and scientific values) in favor of a spattering of facts and procedures.

Part of this reason has been the politically correct need to give all opinions equal weight, even those which are dangerous to scientific teaching.

A few years back I wrote the article "Why Study Physics?" which puts forth my basic argument for why scientific literacy is so important to our society and culture. That article includes the following quote by Richard Feynman, describing what science is:

Science is a way to teach how something gets to be known, what is not known, to what extent things are known (for nothing is known absolutely) , how to handle doubt and uncertainty, what the rules of evidence are, how to think about things so that judgments are made, how to distinguish truth from fraud, and show.

I then suffered from some bizarre bout of political correctness and said: "The question then becomes (assuming you agree with the merits of the above way of thinking) how this form of scientific thinking can be imparted upon the population."

Looking back on it, though, whether or not anyone "agrees" with the merits of scientific thinking (as described by Feynman) is irrelevant.

First of all, I find it difficult to imagine that anyone would stand up to oppose any of the above thought processes. Even the most anti-scientific person is hardly likely to take to the floor of Congress (where many of these anti-science people seem to gather) and say, "I don't believe that knowing how to handle doubt and uncertainty has any merit." While the anti-science crowd often make their livings from people's inability to distinguish truth from fraud, I'd say that they still see the merit in it, at least in their own lives.

Second, even those who oppose such thinking (probably on a subconscious level) don't have the right to prevent it from being imparted upon the population. If their way of thinking would result in people being unable to distinguish truth from fraud and show, or to be unable to think about things so judgments can be made, then their thought system is just plain inadequate to the task of dealing with the world.

Why Creation Science is Dangerous

At the beginning of 2012, Indiana's State Senate (my home state) introduced Senate Bill 89, which consists of this text:

"the governing body of a school corporation may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science, within the school corporation."

I felt strongly enough about this to contact my state senator. (New Hampshire has a more complex bill, which I'm sure I'll get to in another post.) Once I laid out my bona fides - my science, education, and writing background - I got to the meat of my protest:

Science must address the evidence, and by its very nature saying that a natural phenomenon can only be explained by reference to a non-natural phenomenon is anti-scientific. Allowing public schools to teach "creation science" as part of an established science curriculum puts us in danger of having students ill prepared to understand how science really works. The Creation/Evolution debate may be worthy of discussion in a social studies or religion class, perhaps as some sort of elective, but there is nothing scientific about "creation science," and it has regularly been shot down as an attempt to inject religion into science curricula. The current wording seems to allow it to be taught on equal footing with evolution, which would be doing a disservice to the students, parents, and taxpayers in our state, who expect that science classes will actually inform students about science, rather than be used to indoctrinate non-scientific thinking.

To my way of thinking, the invocation of God is not the biggest problem with "creation science." God could exist, after all, despite the general lack of evidence. The problem with it is that running up against a natural mystery and invoking an un-natural explanation is not scientific and has no place in a science classroom.

Teaching this as a valid scientific methodology is equivalent to teaching randomly picking numbers as a valid addition process in math class!

Scientific Values

In other words, creation science fails to mesh with the basic values at the heart of the scientific enterprise.

Especially since becoming a parent, I have firmly come to believe that the task of teaching science is really the task of instilling scientific values, and the earlier the better. Children are inherent question machines, and the way we respond to these questions will teach them how to answer questions throughout the rest of their lives.?Responding to questions with honesty and an open sense of inquiry, to see if they can figure out a way to find the answer on their own, either through investigation, experimentation, or research, is probably the best thing you can do for instilling scientific values.

I certainly realize how hard it is (Kids ask so many questions!), but the good thing is that this process tends to be a lot of fun for everyone involved.

What values are necessary for the scientist (or at least the good scientist)? Some are proposed by Harris, and I've added a couple more that I've thought up:

Understanding the World/Universe is a Worthy EndeavorRespect for EvidencePrinciples of Logical ConsistencyLearn from OthersCommunicate Results to Others

How's this list look? Can you be a good scientist without any of these? Should some be rephrased? Do you have any suggestions for scientific values that I've missed?

I'll be exploring these values in more details in the coming weeks, and I look forward to advice on how to help flesh out the list and make it useful to teachers of science.

View the original article here

5 Great Science Book Gift Ideas

A couple of weeks ago I mentioned one of my favorite science-related Christmas gifts, the copy of The Physics of Christmas which I received as a teenager from my grandmother. If you're still in the process of searching for a great gift for your positively neuro-atypical friends and family members, here are a few other suggestions.

For the family-oriented science book, there's really nothing that can top this volume, put together by the editor of Wired magazine's Geek Dad blog. With a stronger science emphasis than the previous two books in the series (Geek Dad and The Geek Dad's Guide to Weekend Fun), this book works for pretty much any member of the family who has an interest in science. Kids can get it for parents, parents can get it for kids, or Santa can get it for the whole family.

What's nice about this gift is that, much like board games and card games, the gift is not merely a gift, but rather a promise--a sacred covenant, if you will--between giver and recipient. It is a promise of future joint activities, of experiments to be planned and executed, of time to be spent together making it, really, one of the best possible holiday gifts.

This book is less directly scientific than the rest of those on this list, but I'm including it because I think it will appeal to the scientifically minded. This humorous self-help book explains how to take the passion that makes one a nerd and turning it into a true art form. Once you have become a nerd artist - or nerdist, if you will - then you will learn how to take all of the energy that had previously been devoted to myriad tasks and use them, with laser-precise focus, to improve your life. It worked for Chris Hardwick, the nerd-turned-nerdist who transformed his own life in this way.

Why would a scientist like this book? That question is answered in a chapter near the end conveniently title "Recurring Themes of this Book." The first theme listed is Measurement, and the section begins:

Data. The key to mastering anything is data.... It should then be your pursuit to be an information gatherer.... we must listen to numbers and data so we can form a relationship with them. Through this empirical understanding, we are able to take this tangible information and manipulate it to suit our wants, needs, and goals.

Assuming that "manipulate" is meant in the non-nefarious sense, this sounds very much like the way scientists talk about data and their relationship to it. So any book which would attempt to transform life through scientific means is pretty cool in my book.

Anyone who's read this blog for any period of time has likely figured out that I'm a big fan of CBS's hit sitcom The Big Bang Theory, which explores the adventures of a group of geeky scientists (and an engineer) and the trials in their lives and romances. This new book from the wonderful Smart Pop Books imprint goes behind the scenes to explore why this series works so well. The book begins with the series' inception, including in-depth looks at both the failed 2006 pilot and the retooled, successful 2007 pilot. He then goes on to explore the characters and setting of the series.

Of course, science itself plays a big part in the show. I've done my part on this website to begin explaining some of the science behind individual episodes of The Big Bang Theory (and my DVR currently contains another 60+ episodes from syndication that need added). Author George Beahm doesn't shy away from this either, with chapters such as:

A Condensed History of the Universe, from the Big Bang to the Twenty-first CenturyScience MattersStellar Scientists Star on The Big Bang TheoryThe Science of The Big Bang Theory: A Primer for the Science-Impaired, Perpetually Perplexed, but Sufficiently Intelligent Person

Richard Feynman is one of the biggest names in twentieth century physics, a man who developed fundamental insights into the quantum world while also making great efforts to reach out and explain science to the masses, at a time where such things were rarely done.

One of the best science biographies of the year (and the Physics World podcast seems to agree, placing it on their top 10 list), The thing that makes this book is great is that it's written by an actual physicist, which means the emphasis is entirely placed on Feynman's approach to science. There are references to the various distractions from his life - the "curious character mythology" which he himself helped to cultivate in his own biographies - but by and large this study is of Feynman's scientific character, which is curious in the sense that he himself continually sought to understand the world around him in very fundamental ways.

For the science enthusiast, especially those who are in the process of studying physics, this is an invaluable resource to understanding the way a scientists should approach questions of a theoretical nature.

The list really wouldn't be complete without at least one book that contains a fairly comprehensive history of modern physics and attempts to explain cutting edge physics theories in a way that is completely accessible to the non-scientist. There's no shortage of these books, but one which has been getting a lot of positive press lately is Lisa Randall's new tome, Knocking on Heaven's Door.

I'm going out on a limb suggesting this book, though, because the fact is that I have yet to read it. I've seen her discuss it numerous places, including this interview on The Daily Show. I've had the book sitting on my shelf for a few weeks, but just haven't had time to pick it up for more than a casual reading. Still, the nice thing about it is that in addition to explaining science it does one of my other favorite things:

It tries to make the case that scientific thinking is relevant to the world at large, such as in cases of evaluating risk in non-scientific situations like politics and economics.

Some critiques of the book complain about it being overly-redundant and that many of the anecdotes are over-used, but the reader who has read these books can easily enough skim those parts and get to the meatier subjects quickly enough, I imagine. And, of course, for the reader who likes science but doesn't have a strong background, that level of redundancy may be necessary to get the point across.

So there you have it, a set of 5 books that should give you some ideas for filling out your science-based Christmas gift list. And, of course, if none of those seem to fit the bill, there are always more options ...

View the original article here

Laser Tests Offer Clue to Magnetic Field Mystery

A shock wave is the only thing needed to create a magnetic field, lab experiments show. An experiment using powerful lasers demonstrated what could happen when a star explodes. The test showed how an exploding star could lead to the creation of magnetic fields.

Gravity may be the master of the universe, but it has had a key assistant in shaping the cosmos -- magnetism. Exactly how that force, which comes from the motion of electric charges, got its start however, has been a mystery -- until now.

A new experiment shows that a relatively simple system that's not initially magnetized can generate magnetic fields out of nothing, said University of Michigan astrophysicist Paul Drake.

"From the standard theories of the Big Bang, you don't start with a strong magnetic field. It has to arise out of what the universe does," Drake told Discovery News.

Working in a laboratory in France, scientists fired high-energy lasers that pulse in a billionth of a second with a trillion times the intensity of sunlight into a helium-filled chamber. The lasers are made of carbon rods, similar to what is found in ordinary pencil lead.

When they pulse, some of the carbon atoms are ripped apart and explode, creating a blast wave that moves out into the gas and generates a magnetic field.

ANALYSIS: Stars Caught in Fiery Merger

The process is similar to what happens when a star explodes. It shows one mechanism by which the universe formed and evolved.

Gravity gets the process started, eventually giving rise to collapsing objects that send out shock waves.

"Shocks are the driving force for the formation of magnetic field, and all this precedes galaxy formation," lead researcher Gianluca Gregori, with Oxford University in the United Kingdom, told Discovery News.

Once magnetic fields are established, turbulence takes over, making them larger and sustaining them over the eons.

"It's been rather mysterious that the universe is as magnetized as it," Drake said. "When you do simple calculations, any magnetic field formed in the early phases of the universe one would think should have vanished by now."

Magnetic fields are found everywhere in the universe, even in places where they seemingly shouldn't exist, such as the voids between clusters of galaxies.

NEWS: Mysterious 'Dark Flow' May Be Tug of Other Universe

Gravitation is the driving force for the formation of shocks and shocks are the driving force for the formation of magnetic field, and all this precedes galaxy formation," Gregori explained.

Gregori plans to repeat his experiment using the world's largest laser at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. It has 10,000 times as much energy as the lasers used in his study.

"If we can use a bigger laser we can drive this shock wave even more powerfully," Gregori said.

"The process that we're investigating now is one possibility (for the origin of magnetic fields), but people have come up with different ideas. The experiments are a tool to guide you to what could be the answer," he said.

The research appears in this week's journal, Nature.

View the original article here