View allAll Photos Tagged Science"
My kiddos we're seeing the destruction of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (yeast) as they were poured into a beaker of acetic acid to produce oxygen. I hope this helps maintain the scientific curiosity all kids are born with.
When I was a kid I found a long narrow stone in the Conodoguinet Creek. I was sure it was an Indian spearpoint. I showed it to a neighbor, Mr. Weaver, who knew about such things. It wasn't a spearpoint. It wasn't anything fashion by humans.
What you see in the image is my seventh grade science notebook cover. On top of it is a collection of small stones. Most can look like humans had a hand in their appearance - as tools or art objects. Only one of them is actually likely to have been worked by human hands - the one on the lower right. It's probably a pebble someone worked to make it into a fishing weight. But I'm not qualified to make that claim with authority. If something is blatantly obvious in its human connection, no problem. Otherwise, forget it. I leave it to the folks who have training and experience to identify the one from the other.
That brings me to the point of this image, arranged and shot early this evening. There was an archaeology blog entry posted a few days ago entitled ”Why 50000 bp is a 'Crazy Date' for Topper”. After reading the entry and all the comments, I posted my own comment. After another two comments by others, I felt I had to post one more in response. That's the last for me, as I say in the second comment. The text of those comments follows (with typos corrected - at least those I've identified).
Essentially, if you don't feel like checking out the article and comments at the link above, all you need to know before reading my comments included here is that the subject of the blog entry is an archaeological site in South Carolina where the principal archaeologist has an established date of about 50,000 years BP for a layer where he suggests the stones he's found are crude man-made tools - that they were worked by people, not just chipped that way by nature. It relates to a debate - sometimes contentious - over the "peopling of the Americas", particularly the date of the earliest migration from the Old World. (If you want more background on that, go here). Most of the comments were rational and displayed a mutual understanding of what science is and what it isn't. It was a pleasure to read those for the clarity - individuals weighing in on the topic with an understanding that issues were ones within the framework of the archaeological and scientific method - that the difference of professional opinion related to the sufficiency of evidence which needed to be resolved before going any further in making a case for people being in the Americas 50, 000 years ago. And then there were the other posters whose comments were about what's true, what's a "fact", using shaky logic based on questionable conclusions, and/or simply not understanding that the issue wasn't about whether or not people were possibly or even probably here 50K BP - it was about getting to that conclusion according to the rules of archaeology and science that are necessary to transition something from objects found, and inferences made regarding them, to a consensus-accepted "knowledge" - and that that was not evident in the case of the 50K BP human presence at the Topper site.
So I weighed in on that point... Here are my comments:
kawkawpa says:
Thanks to the scientists who have contributed thoughtful, grounded comments here, and have included links for others to make their own assessments.
After having read the discussion, I only want to offer what seems clear to me... When a scientist says "crazy date", it's in reference to current scientific consensus of a reasonable theory - a theory based on (1) available evidence - and that evidence has also been assessed by peer review using the scientific method; and (2) the accumulated assumptions of the scientific community that can be applied to the evidence. A "crazy date" remark may be considered a challenge, more than anything else, for someone to provide more to back up the proposed theory with evidence and arguments solidly based in evidence and accumulated assumptions (knowledge that has been built through years by careful peer review) that can measure up to the criteria of the field that the proposer's peers have to adhere to as well. That's the crux of it. Nothing would delight us more than to have evidence that stands up to scientific criteria. Scientific criteria are absolutely essential in order for any science to be science. Without such criteria, it's not science. If you argue against the importance of science, then that's another debate.
The best scientists have no lack of imagination. They're not stuck in accepted theories and that's that. It's only about convincing them within the framework of rigorous application of the scientific method. Evidence that does not have what it takes to conclusively qualify will have to have a footnote saying "possible" or "probable" with a long string of references attached for other scientists to scrutinize and make up their own minds on the validity of the evidence. That's how it works in order for it to be science. Anything less is great for imagination and discussion, but is not eligible to be added to the pool of "what we know" (physical evidence) or "what we can conclude based on evidence" (our theories that are always subject to change - if verifiable evidence can be found and/or a new way of interpreting it can be successfully argued) .
More importantly, such footnoted "possible" evidence is also vital to proposing what we should keep in mind or be on the look-out for when doing research from that point forward- something out of the paradigm - like an archaeologist of 50 years ago deciding to dig deeper than a Clovis layer instead of stopping at Clovis because "since Clovis was the first, there's no point to digging deeper". That's the way the best scientists operate. Even if someone's evidence doesn't make the grade conclusively according to the required criteria applied, if there's enough about it that sparks a possibility in a scientist's critical evaluation, s/he will have that in the back of his/her mind. If there's validity to the possibility, history has shown that other evidence will turn up. Some of it may not make the grade either. Some might. And there's something to be said for the preponderance of evidence even if none of it stands up to scientific criteria that indicates something conclusive.
Ok, I've said enough. Just wanted to weigh in on the matter. Thanks for listening...
Keith
[There were two comments after this that I responded to.]
kawkawpa says:
“If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” (attributed to Voltaire)
Tay, I’ve found that most arguments (of the round and round kind, not the making of cases) are ignited and fueled by imprecise & ineffectual communication - communication between individuals where a word is understood/conceptualized differently enough between them that everything that follows is out of sync with agreement - the basis of the argument was a flawed mutual understanding of what each alone never doubted was mutually understood.
That takes me to a primary point of my comment - one touched on by Charlie Hackett’s comment after yours. You start with the ground rules - science. If we can agree on using the scientific method (a big “if”), we can move on. The scientific method is defined - it has rules. It’s dependent upon a logical sequence of steps, each building on the previous one. If at any point in the step process the rules of the scientific method are not precisely followed, then everything that follows and that depends on that step being accurately done is flawed as far as the whole process is concerned - I mean the accuracy of the final conclusion derived from the whole process, although any following step itself may have scientific merit within its own component part if it was done according to the scientific method.
But let’s get back to that - the scientific method. If you don’t agree to the rules of the scientific method, strictly defined, then you aren’t agreeing to the scientific method. Every step builds to a conclusion in a logical sequence. Each step must be precisely completed according to the agreed-upon rules of the scientific method. Any one that doesn’t flaws the whole. Charlie Hatchett pointed out something (that I didn’t know, btw) that calls the conclusions of the Topper issue into question. My point is, according to the scientific method, there is insufficient agreement among peers (a vital part of the process) that the oldest stones were made by intelligent beings (which covers humans and other species in human evolution). Without that consensus agreement, which is based upon each peer applying his/her own reasoning resources while using the mutually agreed-upon scientific method, then every step that follows - while obviously intriguing, and that as a subset of steps may be without flaw in logic and application of the agreed-to rules - is necessarily logically “false” in regard to the whole argument (the “making a case for” kind, not the round and round sort). (Look up deductive reasoning on Wikipedia.) Classic examples of this happening are many in the history of the world. And in those tests we had in grade school that demonstrate with gusto just how imprecise a kid (or adult) can be in applying the rules for getting from point A to point Z (the very first instruction says: “Read all the instructions carefully before you begin” and the last reads: “Put your name on the paper and turn in without answering any of the previous questions.”)
Nothing less than the accuracy of what we tend to refer to as “knowledge of our universe” is at stake - that is, knowledge accrued through science (there are many ways of “knowing”, “faith” being the first one that comes to mind). One error accepted as accurate and repeated ever after, others building upon it, can skew whole worlds of what we can be said to “know”. We base our mutually acknowledged understanding of reality on accumulated and culturally-transferred knowledge. The empirical and deductive nature that’s the basis of the process must be of utmost importance, the inherent principles followed to the letter. Wanting something to be a certain way is entirely human, however when it’s something to which science is applicable, and applying science to it - and all the ramifications of that… the scientific world-view - is something you value, then it must be done in accordance with the rules of that valued system.
Science isn’t Truth. It’s a sometimes painful, sometimes plodding, often elegant way to build a body of information capable of being gotten by a process by which we can all agree, and by which anyone - if they choose to repeat the process - can arrive at the same results. Done right, it’s always approached with focus and thoroughness… Hard science is closer to the basis of this than soft science. Precision in applying the rules of the scientific method, including practically accounting for all factors influencing the result, ensuring that each step of the way is done accurately, and vetting the whole thing in an accredited publication for your peers to assess its validity, is the key.
“Facts” are not “facts” unless we first agree on the definition. Lets start there…
Thanks for your thought-intensive comment, Tay; and thanks, Charlie, for adding your point to what I was trying to get at. All this stuff I’ve written isn’t a demonstration that I am infallible in following it myself. I likely used incorrect terms for things in this comment, and made other mistakes. I’ve consciously chosen not to refine this piece - it’s not a high priority. I’ve taken short cuts. What gets across has to be enough for me. Oh, and what I’ve written here will even sound pedantic to somebody, I figure. From my perspective, it’s a necessary self-refresher of these principles. I have to continually reinforce them (and other concepts I feel are of value).
I write these things regarding the scientific method because I value clarity in purpose and (to the best of a chosen level of systematic exactitude, time being a big factor) communication. I’m not a scientist, not a logician. I admire those who have the wherewithal to maintain precision of focus over long periods, with no appreciable error as to follow-through on purpose and method. My concentration isn’t what it used to be. Well… it never was, I suppose… I was one of those kids tooling away at that first-read-all-the-directions test till the class bell rang.
Lastly, I’m not looking for an argument - of any kind. No time to follow through. I’ve said what I intended to say. A significant motivation for my saying any of this at all is a fascination for the peopling of the Americas, as it’s often known. Another is my valuing of the usefulness of knowledge of the universe honed through science and logic. The results of other people’s diligence in those methods is a body of knowledge I can rely on. (Because it’s too often not the case that such knowledge was added to the pool with thoroughness, I must also rely on my own critical thinking to verify “knowledge” - that’s just the way the universe is. Scientifically speaking.) If what I’ve written here helps in any way to add to a refinement in scientific thoroughness in relation to Topper, and to others’ critical assessment of the findings from Topper, then I’ll have helped myself as well.
Nuff said. Some might say more than enough… :)
Keith
Science World and Cambie Bridge in Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Out-of-focus image overlayed with focused image
Taken with Canon EOS 100D (identical to Rebel SL1) using EF 40 mm f/2.8 STM Pancake lens
THE SMALL ANGLE SCATTERING SYSTEM CAN BE USED TO MEASURE PARTICLES BETWEEN .01 AND 1.0 MICRONS (MILLIONTHS OF A METER) IN SIZE.
WHEN A BEAM OF ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION STRIKES AN OBJECT, ITS LIGHT WAVES ARE SCATTERED, FORMING INTERFERENCE PATTERNS WITH UNSCATTERED WAVES OF THE SAME LIGHT THAT CAN BE MATHEMATICALLY INTERPRETED. AT WAVELENGTHS BETWEEN 10 AND 50 ANGSTROMS, LOW ENERGY OR "SOFT" X-RAYS ARE THE PERFECT SIZE FOR MEASURING MICRON AND SUBMICRON OBJECTS. USING THIS TECHNIQUE, LBL RESEARCHERS WILL BE ABLE TO LOOK AT BIOLOGICAL MATERIALS WITHOUT REMOVING THEM FROM THEIR NATURAL AQUEOUS ENVIRONMENTS, OR CAUSING EXTENSIVE RADIATION DAMAGE. PHOTO CREDIT: LAWRENCE BERKELEY LABORATORY.
For more information or additional images, please contact 202-586-5251.
Kista Science Tower stood finished in 2002 and is 117 m or 384 ft tall (156 m or 512 ft with its antenna). That makes it the third tallest skyscraper in Sweden, and the tallest office building in Scandinavia. For shots of the interior, go here.
I wish to impress upon you how incredibly difficult it was to get a clean shot of the entire tower. It's located right in the middle of everything else, and my lens does not go wider than 18mm. (Have I complained about that before... nah, can't be.) Move closer, and the tower is too big. Move away, and you get some ugly traffic sign in the composition.
An experiment Sam was doing for school to see how the density of the number of seeds planted affected the growth of the plant.
Science World at Telus World of Science, Vancouver is a science centre run by a not-for-profit organization in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. It is located at the end of False Creek, and features many permanent interactive exhibits and displays, as well as areas with varying topics throughout the years.
As a child I loved looking at the covers and the illustrations within my dad's old science magazines. I didn't actually read any, just looked at the pictures. It's still absolutely inspirational stuff.
October 4, 2014 at College of San Mateo Family Science & Astronomy Festival + Makerspace.
Photo by CSM Library
Glasgow Science Centre is a popular visitor attraction located at Pacific Quay on the south bank of the River Clyde in Glasgow, Scotland. It is a purpose-built science centre composed of three principal buildings which are the Science Mall, an IMAX cinema and the Glasgow Tower.
The new BBC headquarters building is located immediately east of the Science Centre.
metaLayer Dashboard makes data management and discovery easy. Drag and drop complex algorithms like sentiment analysis, keyword extraction, facial detection and more.
Visit us at metalayer.com
it's boron if you're interested. Beaker looks very afraid of me.
Lt. Cmdr. Todd Wimmer, commanding officer of Coast Guard Civil Engineering Unit Honolulu, learns the best method to kick a soccer ball from Charlie Matsumoto, a 7th grader at Island Pacific Academy in Kapolei, Oahu, Jan. 12, 2017. The Coast Guard was invited to help judge the school’s annual science fair which gives students the opportunity to compete for district and state titles. U.S. Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Amanda Levasseur.