 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People, especially writers, soak up vocabulary automatically when young. It’s a slow process and you have to hear words many times for them to stick. There are, however, exceptions.
When I was about five or six years old, I had a nightmare. Not unsual for me. I was already deep into Universal monster movies and loved them to death, although there were some occasional negative side effects.
I remember talking with my mother about one of these nightmares. I explained to her about how one dream was ending and another was starting, and there was a bit in my head that said, “Coming next…The Werewolf!” along with a still picture, like what you’d see on TV or before a movie.
She told me that was called a “preview.”
And that one time was enough to learn the word. Thanks, werewolf.
We all remember where were and what we were doing when we heard JFK was shot, when Reagan was shot, when the space shuttles exploded, when the terrorists attacked on 9/11. Moreover, we also remember everything that was going on in moments of personal crisis, from car accidents, friend’s deaths, divorces, rapes, muggings, etc. These are moments when our bodies give our brains extra power to act and the memories of those moments are indelible.
Happy times don’t seem to stick as well, which is too bad…for my students!
So I’m thinking that next fall, when I teach introductory astronomy again for non-majors, I might try a new educational approach. There are particular parts of the class that students find especially challenging. A few of these are not conceptually difficult, just a little boring as normally presented. So, maybe they should not be normally presented.
Here are a few ideas:
There is the onion-skin model of stellar structure, but onion is a bit boring. How about a brain? How about pulling one out and stripping it to the core, layer by layer?
How about making a key point about cosmology, and faking a heart attack in front of the class? Heat death of the universe anyone?
How about demonstrating temperatures on a distant outer planet by doing the bit with smashing the fake hand after dipping it into liquid nitrogen?
Killing the lights and paying a student to scream to emphasize things that will definitely be on the midterm.
Hiring theater majors to dress up as zombies and shamble back and forth outside the classroom (especially after the brain layer demonstration, probably for the topic of the death of stars).
Demonstrating stellar nucleosynthesis by lighting various combustibles on fire (while avoiding setting off the fire alarm the way a chemistry prof did this past semester).
Showing graphic illustrations about what happens if you’re exposed to the vaccuum of space (NOT! — I’d use the head exploding scene from OUTLAND and then explain that this is not how it works in reality).
Tell everyone the first day of class that their pets will die if they don’t get an A. Stupid and mean, but I bet it would make a few people study a little longer, especially the superstitious ones who need to work harder in science classes.
Other suggestions? Preferably ones that I could actually use? A few of these above might get me in trouble, and get me a bad reputation (and not a good bad reputation).
I probably won’t do any of these, but sometimes this sort of brainstorming leads to truly memorable lesson or two…
Originally published at Mike Brotherton: SF Writer. You can comment here or there. Tags: uncategorized
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All of writing hinges on knowing your audience. This is true of fiction and non fiction, and applies not only to writing, but communication of all kinds from entertainment to education.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot after reading Randy Olson’s very interesting and worthwhile book Don’t Be Such a Scientist, which is about a scientist turned filmmaker and how to reach broad audiences, and contrasting his ideas with those in Mooney and Kirshenbaum’s Unscientific America, which hits on some similar topics but is shallow and ultimately a failure. In fact, that book made me name Mooney a “stupid smart person.”
Randy Olson has really made me think about audience in a deeper way, and I’ve always been very aware of audience and made adjustments accordingly (for the most part). Still, I think he’s missed a few tricks along the way, and Mooney and Kirshenbaum definitely have.
First, Olson is right about one thing. A sizable fraction of scientists (he says 1/3), are curmudgeons who only want information and want it with as few frills as possible. Anyone adding frills is right out. And these scientists are too narrow-minded to have a broader perspective. Case in point. Passive voice sucks in writing, and nearly everyone would agree. But not that fraction of scientists. I was refereeing a paper last year, written by someone junior to me, and I made some stylistic suggestions about changing some passive sentences to the active voice (not even involving “I” or “we” — just stuff like “Table 1 shows the data…” instead of “The data are given in Table 1…”). The author told me that she preferred the passive voice in scientific articles and rejected my suggestions. You can lead a horse to water, but…
So where I am I going with this?
Well, I have been really struggling with the issue of calling a spade a spade (e.g., creationists, science deniers of other strips) or being less confrontational.
I think the answer depends on the audience and goals.
Here, my readership is a particular niche of science and science fiction fans, primarily. I am preaching to the choir most days, I suspect. A good, angry, and righteous rant can be inspirational to like-minded people. That’s a good thing, but it would be a bad thing if I was writing for a general audience. I would come across as mean, arrogant, etc., even though I would likely be totally right, and people would ignore me or even harden against me. No good.
The general audience cares less for facts and what’s right. That’s hard for the non-expert to be sure about, so they look for other clues. They look for likability, and get turned off by arrogance. They need a subtle touch, and do not weigh debates rationally. Which SUCKS. But until I can change our entire educational system, culture, and species demographics, isn’t going to change much.
Olson gets some things wrong, I think. I doesn’t like the rants and negativity on scienceblogs, for instance, but he doesn’t appreciate their niche audiences. At the same time, he admits that peer pressure, his friends in college laughing at him for believing everything he read in Reader’s Digest, changed his mind. That was not his friends being nice and understanding. That was his friends ridiculing his ridiculous position. Being negative can sway in the right context.
So, what are the issues?
Well, If your audience is anti-science, you have to be conciliatory, likable, reasonable. Unless it is the hardcore fundie who isn’t going to change, but that isn’t the target audience in most cases. In most cases it is the reasonable but uninformed person watching such a debate who will decide who “wins” based on something other than the facts they don’t yet fully appreciate. And when you’re preaching to the choir, a little bit of being an ass is okay. But for the special choir of hardcore scientists, they just want the facts and any enhancement is a negative to them.
I remember reviewing a grant proposal once that was very nicely written with some great analogies, enthusiasm, and style. And I bumped it up in my grade for that. Once of my fellow panel members, however, commented on the “extreme” writing style and wanted to put something in the comments to admonish the proposer. God, I thought this person was ridiculous with that review, but it reflected his opinion, and probably that of 1/3 of the panel.
Well, I can’t change THAT much. I’m going to write effectively as best I know how and can’t make myself do things that suck just to satisfy some of my clueless peers. I understand them, but I won’t compromise that much. They’re only 1/3, so I can still win…sometimes. But I do worry less about the presentation for scientist-only audiences. A single factual error, however…
So, I am still learning how to do this, and feel like no one knows the exact formula. Olson’s formula is to be like Carl Sagan, except only Sagan was Sagan. I will be me, trying to be Sagan-like when addressing broad audiences. He wrote science fiction, too, and I feel something kindred with him. He was also here in Wyoming for the dedication of our local observatory (with a racy story to boot, which I approve of). He somehow avoided the label of being arrogant that Dawkins has stamped on his forehead now. Personally I don’t think it’s arrogant to be right and frustrated with stupid people, but I’m in a minority on that one.
Know thyself, and know thy audience.
Randy Olson’s book, Unscientific America, scienceblogs, inspiring the choir, audience, and converting the masses when style is substance…
Science is the antithesis of style over substance, so not self-consistent in practice
Originally published at Mike Brotherton: SF Writer. You can comment here or there. Tags: uncategorized
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now, I don’t expect everyone to love everything that I love, but I do know that everyone loves the results of science even if they don’t readily acknowledge it. I mean, people love using the internet, driving cars, being warm in the winter, getting medicine when they are sick, all that good stuff. But even if they don’t readilly acknowledge this love for the roots of science, I do understand the hate. Or I think I do, part of it.
I’ve taught science to non-major students a number of years and also spend my time watching science wars on the internet (e.g., deniers of global warming, evolution, etc.).
I think that countering biases means figuring out misconceptions, confronting them, and knocking them down first thing. If you don’t hit the misconception, you don’t actually teach anyone anything. The misconceptions run strong and reassert themselves over time. So, I want to try to list the issues people have with science, rational and irrational, and want to think about how to respond to and perhaps counter these.
1. Scientists are arrogant, so I don’t like science.
Bush and Clinton are arrogant, so does that mean you don’t like politics? Simon Cowell on American Idol is arrogant, but he is popular and tens of millions of peolple like that show. Astronomers Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan don’t come across as arrogant on their TV shows, so maybe everyone can like some science.
2. Science is full of math. I’m not good at math, so I don’t like science.
Not all sciences have a lot of math (e.g., biology). Moreover, science concepts are more fundamental than the math. The science is all in setting up the equations. The math is in solving them, so you can understand the science without the math. (P.S. Math isn’t so bad, really!)
3. Science is full of negativity. Scientists are always doubting things. It isn’t just arrogance, it’s being pessimistic, skeptical doubters. So I don’t like science.
This is true, but necessary. Sometimes it’s better to have a dose of honesty, and not take everything on authority. Besides, not every idea is right out there, so let’s make a virtue out of honesty, ok?
4. My beliefs are strong, and I have faith. Science says some things contradictory to my beliefs (e.g. evolution, global warming, autism, etc.), so I don’t like science.
Well, this one is harder I think. Reality is reality. Science doesn’t care. We can be understanding about people in the past, with a different culture and educational background interpreting things as they saw them. We know better now. And science, ultimately, is less beholden to any particular belief system or ideology. Eventually it gets to the right answer, like it or not, and there’s always someone one your side and on the other side who both get bitten by science. Science is not a belief system. It reflects reality. We all have to deal with reality, don’t we?
5. Science is mechanistic and cold, so I don’t like it.
Think of your favorite robot. The Iron Giant. Bender. Data. Robby. R2-D2. HAL. Okay, maybe not HAL. But there’s at least one robot out there you like, isn’t there? Make that the face of cold, mechanical science, if you must.
Originally published at Mike Brotherton: SF Writer. You can comment here or there. Tags: uncategorized
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, one flaw, and one issue that is my personal probelm.
First, if you want to give people kindle ebooks for Christmas, what do you do? As far as I can tell a gift card is the only way to go and that’s a little less personal than I like. But that’s what I’ve asked my family to do:
The second problem is that I finally realized that amazon’s whispernet, the system the kindle uses to let you browse and download, doesn’t work in Laramie, Wyoming any better than it did for my while living in Brazil last year. Ugh. I can still download through the computer, or wait until I go out of town, but definitely less convenient than I originally thought, for me personally. Anyone know other places where it doesn’t work? I believe kindle’s whispernet works over cell phone systems, and verizon is about the only one that covers Laramie, well, so, I don’t think they work with verizon.
Well, I still really like my kindle. Anyone out there who owns one of the newer competition and can recommend it?
Originally published at Mike Brotherton: SF Writer. You can comment here or there. Tags: uncategorized
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I’m a science fiction guy who craves new stuff, but even I’ve written a vampire story or two.
They are immortal, I’ve finally concluded, because they are a cultural shorthand for SEX.
Vampires are not monsters or villians. They are stand-ins for romance, sex, eroticism.
They are not crude like porn or salacious like bodice rippers.
They are not even necessarily horror, or even genre, when you have “sparkly” let-me-tan-in-the-sun Twilight vampires. They’re just teenage love idols then.
So, I’m going to stop worrying about why people don’t get tired of the same old, same old. Sex is just a bit of the old in and out, and people don’t tire of it. And they won’t tire of vampires.
Originally published at Mike Brotherton: SF Writer. You can comment here or there. Tags: uncategorized
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The links keep piling up, so let’s clear them out again and get back to writing for the rest of the evening.
Really cool. Spacewalking astronauts spotted from backyard telescope.
Something not so cool. This applies to the UK, but I have little doubt it happens a lot in the U.S. as well. Schools not pushing gifted students. WTF?!?! They don’t want to promote “elitism.” What they don’t want to do is admit that there are people smarter than teachers, principals, and administrators in our mediocre system and encourage the best, even though the best produce 90% of the worthwhile stuff in the world. Jesus Christ. This sort of thing makes me mad. The system bends over backwards to make sure the awful students who don’t care scrape by at minimum acceptable level (pretty damn low) and don’t do a damn thing to help out the best and brightest. Of course the best and brightest tend to succeed despite of this, but imagine how much higher they could fly.
OK, back to the non story of climategate. AP “scientists” figure out that the “scandal” actually doesn’t have any impact on the science of climate change. Glad the media finally figured this out after a month. Check out what the scientists have already posted to debunk this right wing conspiracy nonsense.
Why is every scandal and pseudo scandal given a name with “gate” tacked on at the end? Why are f-ing vampires still so popular year after year? Who made liquid soap and why?
Back to cool. Giger’s skeleton bar. Way cool.
io9 gives us their 20 best sf books of the decade. I haven’t read enough to dispute the list and acknowledge that there are many wonderful books on this list, so check it out.
Barnes & Noble switches formats on their ebooks, makes it hard to even know what their selling. Slimy, sounds like to me. Not so cool.
More coolness. Sleep in a dinosaur bed. I still would. Sleep tight. Don’t let the dinosaurs bite…
Originally published at Mike Brotherton: SF Writer. You can comment here or there. Tags: uncategorized
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
prof_brotherton's journal
Previous
