Thanks Fadia Lekouaghet for sharing this post and introducing me to Caleb Charland’s art. In grade school, kids are shown how to make a circuit with a lemon or tomato but this is better way to get the point across and get kids interesting in science.
See the explanation of how it works in the comment by Fernando J. Rodriguez
#ScienceEveryday
Originally shared by Fadia Lekouaghet
What if pictures begin as simple questions…
Caleb Charland is a photographer that captures the everyday physical phenomena which we never think about in a unique and inspiring way.
The photo below is one of his works. it shows an *Orange Battery*.
The photographer uses still-life arrangements, for instance, apples and potatoes as an electrical source for the lamp that illuminates the resulting photograph. In this image he used the orange’s natural wedges as the cells for the battery, which were held up-right with an armature of small wooden skewers.
Thanks Kee Hinckley for posting this. I’m often debating with various conspiracy theorists on G+. Whether it’s big pharma conspiracies or Monsanto/anti-GMO conspiracies, this video helps put the anti-science proponents in perspective. When people use big pharma as an argument against a lot of the biomedical science that I post about, it does two things. First it insults people like me that spend their careers using science to fight things like cancer. When conspiracy theorist say things like “big pharma has a cure for cancer but it’s more profitable to keep the cure secret”, it implies that I, along with my colleagues, are bumbling idiots or unscrupulous scum. Well I’ve said many times, big pharma must have the wrong address for me because I drive a VW. I wish I knew who is cashing my checks from big pharma.
Secondly, the conspiracy theory card is a cop-out. It’s very difficult to argue against because the conspiracy theorists just negates everything you say because you are part of the conspiracy. It’s very convenient and lazy.
My favorite quote from the video is:
Once you’re forced to hypothesize whole new technologies to keep our conspiracy possible, you’ve stepped over into the realm of magic. It demands a deep and abiding faith in things you can never know.
and knowing vs. believing is very powerful.
Kee Hinckley posted the mobile link, which is why I didn’t reshare his post. However his comments are also worth sharing.
This video has a very important lesson for people who believe every government conspiracy theory out there.
You don’t have to watch the whole thing, although he does an excellent job of showing how the technology available in 1969 was incapable of faking a moon landing. But watch the last two minutes (11m and on). There he explains why it matters that you don’t fall for conspiracy hoaxes. Because yes, the government does lie, and that makes it even more important that you have the critical skills to distinguish the real problems from the made up ones. When your conspiracy theory starts relying on faith (whether in technology, ridiculous numbers of secret organizations, or anything else) you’ve crossed the line.
I’ve been busy with visiting family for the 4th of July holiday. You’ve probably noticed my stream is stagnant. Since I don’t have time to write up a decent post, I’ll piggyback on Buddhini Samarasinghe’s excellent post.
G+ is a great place to meet people with similar interests. I’ve heard several times that FaceBook is for keeping in touch with people you already know and Google Plus is a place for meeting people you don’t know, who have similar interests. For me that’s Science. I’m a scientist and I’ve had the pleasure of becoming friends with other scientists here that share a passion for science and science outreach.
Whether it’s curating ScienceSunday, posting about science on our own, or fighting pseudo science/anti-science, there is a group of real scientists that work hard on this endeavor. Counteracting the sensationalizing of science is part of what we do.
Thanks Buddhini Samarasinghe for an excellent post that I agree with wholeheartedly. Here’s my favorite post for dealing with a cancer story that was blown out of proportion.
Two years ago, I signed up to G+ and was thrilled to discover so many scientists and science advocates on here – I found my kind! From those early days, we built a community, from the ground up, made of people who were passionate about communicating science and battling anti-science. Over time, we gained enthusiastic support from the public, and our followers on G+ grew, along with the engagement we received from the content we produced. Fascinating topics, insightful discussions, the occasional swatting of the pseudoscience troll, these were all things that brought us closer together. Pages and Communities sprang up, all with the common goal of science outreach and public education and I am so proud and happy to be a part of that. To that end, ScienceSunday and Science on Google+: A Public Database are excellent resources for any newcomers.
As a scientist, communicating science comes with a responsibility to be honest. When I write a science post, I do it because I read a paper that made me go “wow, that is so cool! I want to share that with people!”. My goal is not to hit What’s Hot, or to get more followers, or to become popular, or to increase a Klout score or whatever. I don’t care about those things because they are side effects.
Because of this, I don’t sensationalize my posts to become popular. I strongly feel that the science I write about is already pretty damn sensational. I don’t need to lie to you, the public, to make you excited about it, because I hope that my science writing skills can translate the jargon from the research so that you are excited about the science itself.
Sensationalizing scientific discoveries is patronizing. It implies that you, the public, is too stupid to understand or care about the science, and I need to deliver it in a form that you will consume easier. This is lazy, and ultimately doesn’t really educate anyone about the scientific discovery; it just spreads misinformation.
Sensationalizing science also leads the public to have false expectations about the science. A sensationalized title such as “Scientists Have Grown a Fully Functional Liver from stem cells” might hit What’s Hot, but is an outright lie. It leads the public to expect ‘fully functional livers’ to be made available to transplant candidates within months and years, whereas the reality is far from the case. This is not the fault of the science, or the scientist.
Misinforming the public to popularize science does not popularize science; it hurts science. The science out there is already so amazing, we don’t need to make it something it’s not. I understand that it’s not easy for everyone to always read the original paper and understand it, let alone convey the findings in a manner that the public can understand, but sensationalizing it to make people take notice is disingenuous and lazy at best, and harmful and detrimental to our collective goals of science outreach at worst.
If you have me circled, I won’t lie to you. I will do my best to share the research that I think is exciting, in a jargon-free manner that I hope you can understand, and be available to answer any questions you might have about it, or find other scientists who could answer you. You can expect to read about things like radioactive bacteria shrinking tumors (http://goo.gl/FhPeM), the evolution of snake venom proteins (http://goo.gl/qZHcF) or how a compound in breast milk could be used to treat MRSA (http://goo.gl/RQGv5) if I am in your circles. I am here to communicate science and to make you as excited about it as I am. I don’t need to sensationalize something that is already sensational.
Thanks Tommy Leung, Rajini Rao, Hedwig Pöllöläinen and Brian Koberlein for inspiring this post. It’s something that was on my mind for quite a while, and you guys were awesome catalysts 🙂
