The Essentials: Let’s Do This Thing

The topic of science can invoke fear in the hearts of the young and old because it has a reputation for being hard to understand, boring or both.  Evolution can raise trepidation and dread in the hearts of many, especially some Christians because it has a reputation for being a threat to God and the Bible and is perceived to question our relationship with both. This alarm has many sources and one is a misunderstanding of what evolution is and what the theory claims to be.

Many have been tempted to say that evolution is “just a theory” and therefore something that can be easily dismissed.  At best saying evolution is “just a theory” reveals that the person making the claim simply doesn’t understand what a scientific theory is or at worst shows that the person is being sneaky to advance their point of view. 

It is easy to see why there is some confusion about the term theory.  Often when someone says they have a theory they don’t have a lot of evidence to back it up. For example we were having problems with a wireless device at work. Someone had a theory that the sensors for the automatic lights were interfering with the wireless signal.  This was a pretty good explanation so we created a little test to see if the theory was true. 

To test the theory we covered up the light sensors then tried out the wireless device.  It turned out that we experienced the same problem with the device even when the light sensors were covered.  The theory was a reasonable explanation but it was also easy to dismiss once we checked it out.  These guesses and checks go on all of the time and are actually an important part of science but not a theory in a scientific sense.  In science we would call the guess a hypothesis and the check an experiment. 

There are other words that can be understood differently depending on how they are used.  If I said, “I used to be a hockey player” you would probably know what I mean.  If I said, “Wayne Gretzky used to be a hockey player” you would also know what I mean, but you wouldn’t assume that I meant the same thing.  Wayne Gretzky has a 20 year career in the NHL with a mountain of records as evidence for what kind of hockey player he was.  I have a bag of equipment in the rafters of my garage as evidence for what kind of hockey player I was.  A scientific theory is like the Wayne Gretzky of explanations. 

The Essentials: What Is Essential?

After finishing a great Star Talk podcast on The Big Bang Theory (the TV show not the theory for how the universe as we know it got its start) the next episode in the queue was about ghosts.  I wasn’t too excited about the topic but Joe Nickell, the main guest who was billed as a paranormal investigator, was surprisingly good. The investigator took a different approach to ghost busting, practicing his craft in the form of neutral skepticism.  In other words he took a scientific approach.   

By this point in the blog the faithful readers and those others who know me well might be saying, “Oh you know Ben, he loves science so of course he’d agree with someone who took a scientific approach to ghost busting.”  Of course you would be dead right but I content that, even more so, Nickell’s approach appealed more to my heightened affinity for common sense.

The important point from this paranormal investigator was that when we approach a particular effect we must be neutral to the possible causes that can explain it.  In other words if a door swings open and the cause is unknown, neither the natural or supernatural hypotheses should be immediately rejected. This isn’t to say we can claim either hypothesis to be correct. It is only to say that by not preconditioning our investigations with limits on the possibilities we open ourselves up to seeing the actual causes.

For this to happen, Joe Nickell adopts a suspension of disbelief when faced with a case.  Surely this isn’t easy but it is essential.  This neutral posture is important because just as a strong belief can sway thinking so can a strong disbelief, just in a different direction.  Beliefs can easily lead to being misled and being misled is often a result of dulled skepticism.

Skepticism often gets a bad rap but it is important to be skeptical.  Skepticism is one of the cardinal traits we parents hope to instill in our children.  We might not say it this way but it is true. We say “Don’t talk to strangers.” Because we think, “Be skeptical that their interest in you is malicious.” We say, “Look both ways before crossing the street.” Because we think, “Be skeptical of every driver’s level of attention and care for pedestrians.”

We train our kids to be skeptical so they can be safe and grow into maturity but how does this relate to what we teach them about belief. In a way we teach our kids to have faith in our own skepticism, we ask them to believe but how do we teach them to not be misled?

The Essentials: Spoiler Alert – Take 2

Please forgive me for yesterday’s randomness and lack of content/clarity.  I started out wanting to write something about fossils and ended up writing a brief synopsis of a fun book I read.  The book came to mind because the main tension in the story surrounds a meteorite found buried deep within the ice in the Arctic Circle.  The meteorite is a fossil, in a sense, in that it is a preserved artifact buried under layers of sediment.  In this case the layers of sediment are formed by ice and snow.  This particular meteorite also fits the category of fossil because it contains traces of organisms.  

(Note: It has been a while since I last read the book so details are a bit fuzzy.  Rest assured that I am reviewing the text and will correct any inconsistencies in my recollection as I find them.)

As stated above, fossils are bits or traces of organisms that have been long buried and are then dug up. One of the interesting things about fossils is that they are pretty rare.  This rarity is due to the unlikelihood of fossilization to occur.  For an organism to be fossilized it has to be buried before it is eaten by scavengers or decomposed by detritivores*, buried in such a way that it is not decomposed while underground (which is where a lot of the decomposers hang out), be positioned in a place geologically that will allow for its tissues to be replaced by minerals and finally survive the heaving and weathering that takes place under the subtle yet relentless motions of the earth.

With all of these required conditions it is a wonder that we have any fossils at all.  But, especially considering the enormous timescales that span natural history, fossilization conditions have and will exist and there is an ever growing collection of fossils.  This collection, when considered collectively, is known as the fossil record. 

Like the conclusions drawn from the da Vinci Code  (sorry I just can't give up the Dan Brown references) some of the conclusion from the fossil record have been controversial or, maybe better said, disagreed about.  However there are a few things about fossils that are generally agreed upon.  One is that if you find a fossil in old rocks the fossil is also old.  Another is that there are uncanny connections in structure between older fossils, newer ones and modern day organisms.  A final agreement about fossils is that the fossil record is incredibly incomplete. 

This last point is often cited as proof that evolution is a misguided, unsubstantiated guess put forth by humanistic scientists.  Unfortunately this conclusion is simply wrong.  The rarity of fossilization events to occur actually predicts that there would be limits to the fossil record.  Most unfortunate about the mischaracterization of the fossil record is that it makes those who purvey that viewpoint appear unreliable.  That unreliable quality is then all too easily transferred to other areas such as statements of faith in an all powerful God, who came to Earth as a human, defeated death and provides salvation for anyone who believes.

The Essentials - Where Does He Get Those Wonderful Toys?

The Joker was impressed by the cool grappling guns, smoke bombs and armored PJs Batman wielded but those were not the reason the Caped Crusader was a great crime fighter. Batman was good at his job because he was motivated and he was a detective.  While Joker saw Batman as a flawed fighter (because he knew that Bruce Wayne, like any (hu)man is capable of good and evil) what the clown overlooked was the cunning and diligent detective work that unraveled the mysteries of the joker’s schemes and ultimately brought the truth to light and the criminal to justice.

Scientists are a lot like Batman.  Sure they have cool tools.  Who wouldn't want to go to work every day to a lab filled with lasers and liquid nitrogen or at the heart of a rainforest or the bottom of the ocean? But it is not just the tools that scientists have, but how they use the tools to unravel mysteries, that give them super powers.

For much of history a rational understanding of the world has largely been a mystery scientists have diligently worked to unravel.  Like Batman’s detective work, the work of science often reveals new areas to investigate.  As these new areas are investigated new techniques develop and understanding grows. 

How do scientists learn about the age of the Earth? It’s elementary my dear Watson, specifically isotopic elements.  How do you observe a time that has faded into the past? See the forest for the trees, while making careful comparisons of the rings they have accumulated.

Radiometric dating and dendrochronology are examples of detective tools that scientists have used to reach into the past.  However simply counting rings or measuring and comparing ratios of isotopes doesn’t do anything.  These tools have helped us understand events and scales of time that were unobservable.  Natural history is a mystery and scientists are the sleuths that can solve it.

The Essentials- Science: Standing with Neil deGrasse Tyson and Other Midgets Like Me

In my previous hypothesis post I referred to a scientist’s utility belt.  At the moment I included that term in the post I knew I had to write this post, posthaste.  I had to write this post in order to give proper credit to the person I heard describe a scientist’s utility belt: Neil deGrasse Tyson.  I’m a big fan of Neil’s and enjoy his podcast Startalk and his work on the PBS series NOVA Science Now. 

As described on the internet, Neil (I call him Neil because in my mind we’re tight) is an American astrophysicist, director of the Hayden Planetarium, and popularizer of science.  I heard him talk about the utility belt in an interview with Steven Colbert.  I highly recommend listening to the whole interview but if you want to hear the utility belt comment start at 30:00 then continue on from there.

One of the great things about Neil is that he knows science and he knows how to communicate science.  He also loves and is impressed by it and expresses that every time he talks.  When an elevated degree of drama is required by his subject matter he’ll drop the tone of his voice to a deep and slow baritone allowing the words to resonate with the grandeur they deserve.

You may wonder why, if I hold Neil in such high regard, I would call him a midget.  The reason I’m comfortable with this portrayal is because Neil said it about himself.  He was referring to an Isaac Newton quote, which is also one of my favorites, “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”.  In response to this notion, and out of reverence for Newton’s work, Neil thought the quote should have been stated “If I have seen further it is because I am standing among midgets.”  

This is why I am big Fan of Neil deGrasse Tyson.  Now back to the utility belt, and back to more from Neil (I’ll paraphrase from here). When asked, “What is science?” and “Is science a bunch of facts?” Neil responded that you don't want someone who can spew out a bunch of facts; you want someone who can figure stuff out.  Science is an understanding of the relationships that are the natural world. A scientist wears a utility belt full of gear that helps interpret the world.  He was careful to distinguish the utility belt from a tool belt.  He said scientists don’t wear a tool belt because if you have a hammer all of your problems look like nails and maybe they're not, maybe their more subtle than that. Some of the implements available to a scientist are mathematical relationships, physical concepts, and knowledge and systems for how to inquire.

One of Neil’s motivations is in increasing scientific literacy for all and that is why I stand next to him, among the other midgets, and so can you if you want.

The Essentials- Hypothesis: Slippery Conditions

We hosted our first official broomball tournament today and it was great.  Nine teams of two battled on a 600 square foot sheet of ice in a north Minneapolis backyard.  It was a great turnout and a great time but once again I was most intrigued by the ice.

At 8:00am this morning the temperature was perfect for a quick shovel and last minute flood.  After glazing the ice with a thin layer of hot water (hot water promotes good integration of the new water with the existing substrate and also freezes faster(yet another topic for another time)), the sheet was silky smooth.  I was impressed with how the flood turned out and I wasn’t sure if the ice could get any smoother than after the morning flood had frozen. I was wrong.

By the end of the day the ice was much slicker. After thinking about it I have a hypothesis to explain my observation.  All day long the ice was subjected to dozens of feet, scrubbing tiny crystals against the surface, buffing it to a brilliant polish.  The crystals were provided by the snow that has recently fallen and that snow was transported back onto the rink by every player’s feet.  I don’t know if this is what really happened but it makes for a compelling story.  The story is only part of a hypothesis because in science a hypothesis has to have standards.

This explanation works as a hypothesis because it is testable.  That is to say that I could re-flood the rink to mimic the pre-tournament conditions, measure the slipperiness, treat the ice with a good snow assisted boot scrubbing, measure the slipperiness again and compare the results with the first test.  Based on the results of my little experiment my hypothesis would either be supported (not proved) or rejected.  The hypothesis has the power to eliminate possibilities but never prove an explanation because science always leaves room for better and more conclusive evidence to trump previous assumptions.

This rink test is a simple example of experimentation and represents one way of how science works to understand the natural world. Science isn’t, however, limited to experimentation as a way of knowing. Experimentation is just one of many tools science carries on its utility belt of knowing.  Unfortunately those means, and their explanations, will have to wait for another day to be resolved.

The Essentials – Science: A Matter of Perspective

I only began to realized what science is after I was almost done with college.  Initially, in middle and high school, I thought of science as a fun class with dissections and demos that helped bridge the periods between lunch and the bus.  Later, in college I saw science as an opportunity in which the content would provide me with a lifetime of intellectual stimulation while supplying a career that would provide for my family.  While science is those things, I found that it is also much more.

Science is more than a class or a career. Science is a lens to magnify, understand and connect the world around us.  This realization started to take hold when I ignored the advice of my professors and enrolled in four upper level biology lab classes while also working in the department in an emerging undergraduate research program.   

My advisors main concern was for my ability to keep up with the work load and that my grades, and subsequently future opportunities, would suffer.  There is no doubt that my advisers were right about the extreme workload. I remember many days that started with 9:00 am lectures and ended getting kicked out by security when they locked the building at 10:00pm, with labs, research, study, writing, eating, sleeping (a little) and thinking in between.

The pace was crazy but in the early weeks of the semester I began to realize that 1+1+1+1 class loads did not equal the work of 4, it was actually less.  Cell, Plant, Comparative Vertebrate and Invertebrate Anatomy.  All different in detail but the dialogue that developed between them funneled down to a distinct point.  My science immersion experience showed me that science isn’t just about classes, content or careers, science is about making connections.

These connections are what kept me sane and allowed me to survive the semester (without taking a hit to my GPA), but far beyond the grades I maintained, in my crazy semester I gained perspective.

Wax

To cross country ski is to live a paradox. The skier must glide frictionless on the snow but has to stick to the snow in order to propel forward. To do this the skier has to rely on one thing- wax. A classic ski has two types of wax, glide and kick.  Glide wax is applied to the length of the ski and provides a nearly frictionless surface that allows the ski to slide across the snow. Kick wax is applied to the “kick zone”.

The kick zone is below the foot and somewhat variable but generally extends several inches in front of the toe and just behind the heel. Kick wax is a bit more interesting than glide wax because, like the kick zone, it is variable.  Different kick wax is used based on the temperature. The general idea behind kick wax is that it lets the ski stick to the snow. However the way it works is a bit different. The wax actually allows the snow to stick to the wax. 

Snow has a crystal structure that makes it rather rough at the microscopic level.  The rough snow surface grabs onto the corresponding rough surface of the wax and allows the skier to push, or kick forward. If the wax actually stuck to the snow it would be disastrous for the skier because snow would build up on the bottom of the kick zone and reduce the ability to glide. This actually happens when the wax applied to the ski isn’t matched to the size of the snow crystals on the trail.  

Fortunately skiers don’t have to carry specialized equipment to the trail in order to gauge the microscopic magnitude of the ice. All they need is a thermometer.  How does a thermometer predict the size of snow? The answer is the same answer that makes all of science work.  The natural world is predictable.

Snow crystal size is dependent on temperature just like the descent of an apple to Earth as it falls from a tree is predicted by the force of gravity. Science has exposed countless predictable phenomena and relies on this predictability to explain new observations, make predictions about yet unobserved events and even helps skiers stick and glide on snow.