Cool Science

It's easy to make fun of science. Pundits do it - why? - likely to attract attention to themselves, boost ratings, and so on. The less the pundits know, the easier it is to draw fabulously skewed portraits of scientists bilking the taxpayer to fund outlandishly silly projects.

The pundits would probably have us believe that our tax dollars are wasted on studies of mass sponge migration. I really shouldn't have to point it out, but let's all rest assured that no public grants from the NSF have been made in this area.

I don't mean to over-sentimentalize this, but science used to be front page material. Consider this extraordinary front page in the Jan 30, 1939 issue of the Palo Alto Times. This clipping ominously foreshadows Hitler's brutal campaign but also proclaims the marvel of Russel and Sig Varian's invention of the Klystron tube, an extraordinary device to amplify microwave and radio signals, which ironically had many implications for the outcome of WWII.

Can science hit the front page again? Or, should science grace our front pages again? Maybe, probably. Yet it seems as a society we can't talk about, or promote science in any objective way any more. Is that the pundits at work, relentlessly forcing themselves into these discussions, stoking and inciting others, all for personal 'branding'? Maybe - but let's consider also that the pundits could be a symptom of something deeper. Regardless of what political aisle you stroll, it is natural to grapple with opinions on the applications of genetic engineering, the development of nuclear power, the ethical uses of nanotechnology in consumer products, the testing of new drugs, and much more. So perhaps all of this is a sort of social maturing process. We are in the throes of the realization that society can't be a spectator to science. Where might this lead?

Is it too much to hope that the pundits will adapt, and try to stimulate and lead authentic discussions of science? I don't think I am too naive in believing that the nation in some form is demanding this. Or maybe we could get the Kardashians to do a science show...

Posted by Dave at 11:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I have finally reached an opinion about this article in New York magazine, a list of math classes actually offered on liberal arts campuses in this country which is supposed to spin our heads a little and presumably raise some ire, or perhaps merely inspire comment from the blogosphere. At a minimum I'd go easy on this list, but ultimately I'm going further. The list is stupid.

To begin, many don't deserve to be on the list like Bard's Stats class (#9) or Hampshire's topology class (#5) which are both high quality math. They show that the authors of the list were phoning this one in. I'm willing to compromise on one perhaps: Kenyon has pulled off classic bait and switch with #6 - GOTCHA, this is actually differential equations! But there is no lapse in instruction there - it's just an attempt to try get students to overcome their fears and realize the payoffs of digesting some math.

Many others are obviously not offered by math departments but by english or maybe even philosophy. It's gratifying to realize that students across the country will find math outside of the math department and learn to see it as a bigger part of their lives. They might go on to be lawmakers, philanthropists, or any other profession to be honest, and will always think back to that class back in college where they had an epiphany about seeing math in a whole new light.

Look at Google - they hired the smartest people on the planet, went aggressively after the top math and science PhD's from MIT, Harvard, Stanford, etc. and now they've pulled off the impossible - they are the third major player in smartphones, operating systems and internet technology. They aspire to nothing less than knocking off Apple and Microsoft simultaneously and they are pursuing it with math, math and more math. Although my bias is that nobody can touch Apple as long as Jobs is running the show...

The authors end by saying these courses are why Asia is 'winning'. Wrong. These are exactly the courses that could save us by changing our national cultural attitudes about science and math. If anything, it appears the authors' inability to recognize topology, statistics or number theory, and their lack of appreciation for the broader social contexts of mathematics, are why Asia is winning.

Posted by Dave at 09:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

In case you didn't hear, 2011 is the international year of chemistry. As far as I can tell, this is in fact a big deal. But I want to issue a sort of challenge about this, because the event is marked primarily as a celebration and I think celebration falls short.

Nobody will look back and say 'Wow, 2011 truly was the year of chemistry' if all we do is throw parties, do magic shows, and proclaim from the hills how amazing this craft is. True, we fervently wish we could immerse the broader public in the knowledge of how deeply their daily wonders are the result of beautiful chemistry.

But if we want people to remember 2011 for chemistry, then we will have to do something truly spectacular. And that's where it gets a little interesting: 2011 could be scooped by the physicists who might find the Higgs boson at the Large Hadron Collider. Let's be honest - that could rain on the parade a little, even if that would be a victory to be shared across many sciences. Never, ever count out the biologists and their gift for insight into that which we prize most: life. And what about geologists? It may be that 2011 gets dominated by the ever increasing spectre of global climate change and is remembered for any number of meteorological tragedies and transformations. And then all these myriad space probes might claim the spotlight - what if 2011 is the year of first contact?

Chemists - I assume we asked for this, campaigned for this, fought for this. It's true that maybe all we want is the the PR opportunity to help folks have more positive associations with the 'c' word. I'd rather not cringe every time I confess to a doctor that I teach chemistry (response: "oh, I HATED chemistry when I was doing my premeds...") Is that all we want though? I don't think so.

Posted by Dave at 10:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

...for making an essentially perfect caramel apple and restoring my faith that there are still others out there who possess this deep and arcane knowledge.

First off, I just have to say what a great father's day it was with Jenn and Henry at Knoebels. After Jenn got me cool goodies from Woodcraft because she knows me sooooo well, the fam had a gut-bursting breakfast which we worked off on all kinds of kiddie-rides at the nation's largest free-admission park. Henry was in heaven and so was I and Jenn staged the perfect Father's Day. I felt like the biggest man around.

Second off (that was for you Kyle, if you're watching), I will now explain for all once *and once only* how the perfect caramel apple must be achieved:

1. start with an incredibly tart granny smith apple; anything else will be crap. You don't want it sweet or mushy. It has to be a crisp, violent-pucker-inducing apple the size of a baseball. Cheaping out on the apple is the worst sin of all. I submit that there is a special level of hell for any one who gets this wrong.

2. Apply a strong stick (3/8" diameter minimum) through the entire length of the core. This stick must stay in the apple even if an F5 tornado blows through, which coincidentally is equal to the force needed to bite into a caramel apple (get it? dentally?). See the previous comment about the importance of a crisp apple. It should be obvious that the right apple also helps in securing said apple to a huge stick that could double as a rake handle.

3. Dip apple in real hot caramel, not the fake junk, so that it forms a deep 1/4" covering EVENLY over the entire apple. We will say no more about the evil-doers who can't even bother to melt their caramel and use mystery-liquid-food-stuff-instead. But there should be no doubt about the importance of coverage: honestly, who can stand the amateurs who put the apple upside down and let the caramel cake on the top leaving an essentially bare apple behind. This is an insult that should not be endured : YOU should be dipped in hot caramel if you commit this sin.

4. Roll freshly dipped apple in nuts so liberally that at first sight you don't even see the caramel. DON'T wait for caramel to harden to do this.

5. Serve ASAP while caramel is luke warm.

FINAL PRODUCT: every bite must rake in gooey caramel, crunchy peanuts, and crisp, sweet-tart-like apple achieving ideal contrast and harmony simultaneously and setting off taste buds in your mouth you didn't know you had.

Knoebels nailed parts 1-4, which is extraordinary. Let's put it this way : I challenge you to remember the last time you met a caramel apple that even made it to part 1 successfully. And to give some credit, I sympathize that they have logistal issues to deal with and aren't in a position to hand dip right in front of you (IT CAN BE DONE, Knoebels - take that last step to caramel apple nirvanna). So there it is.

Posted by Dave at 10:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Anybody remotely close to the state of being alive has been inundated with news of Ford Motor Company's massive losses for 2006, over half of which were due to an employee buyout program. Ford's on the ropes. 2007 is the critical year...

Continue reading "Ford, Ford, Ford..." »

Posted by Dave at 08:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)