Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Welcome Back!

Just a few short days . . .

Until the techs in the ICU CCU can get the right software loaded onto my laptop, this page will be your source of information for the class.

Seniors - Advanced Physics - M1:

Wed 8/22
  • Why take this class??
  • Safety issues & video
  • Begin "Nature of Science" iMovie project
Fri 8/24
  • Safety Test
  • Math diagnostic test
  • Finish "Nature of Science" iMovie project
Tu 8/28
  • Present "Nature of Science" project - BEGINNING of period
  • Start Chapter 1 in text
Honors Freshmen - G3, M4

Tu/W 8/22,23

Th/F 8/24,25
  • SAFETY TEST!!
  • *Turn in your signed syllabus at the beginning of the period*
  • Accuracy v Precision demo
  • Lab: Graphing in Excel I, or How To Run Circles Around Your Teacher
  • Ban DHMO?

M/Tu 8/27,28
  • The Nature of Science & The Way Science Works
  • Checks Lab
  • Read pp. 4 - 19; Complete p.11, q.2-8; p. 19, q.1-7

Freshman Physics G4
TBA . . .

Thursday, May 3, 2007

The other questions . . .

Okay, admit it, you have non-science questions to ask of le jeune Francais (the young French).

Please submit two original questions in the comments below that you'd like to have answered by your jeune compagnons de Francais* from the Lycee Bernard Palissy d'Agen next Friday.
These questions need NOT be scientific, but they should be civil; culture, music, customs, daily life . . . they're fair game!

Part of the reason these students want to interact with you is to practice their English-speaking skills. On Tuesday morning, I'll get your questions to them so they have time to translate the question and formulate an answer in English for Friday.

As always, please submit using only your first name and last initial for safety's sake.

*This is supposed to mean, "young French counterparts."

Questions for the scientist

You've watched "An Inconvenient Truth."

A NASA consultant has visited with you about aerosols, clouds and their formation, and how NASA and the French space agency - CNES - have satellites in orbit to take measurements that climatologists need to make long-term climate predictions.

Next Friday, twenty of you will be in direct conversation with 20 students in France who are your age from the Lycee Palissy d'Agen. You'll be joined (virtually, from Virginia) by the scientist who designed the satellite mission who is one of the top atmospheric scientists in the world.

Here's your chance! Undoubtedly, there are parts of the movie or the NASA consultant's presentation that you didn't understand. So . . . each of you should submit two original science questions here - in the comments - for the scientists to answer next Friday.

Bonne chance! (Good luck!)
Ce tâche à faire pour la fin de lundi, 7 May. (This assignment is due by the end of the class day on Monday, May 7. Or at least that's what it's supposed to mean.)

Friday, April 13, 2007

Dodos in Hays - recap



The National Weather Service had issued a winter storm warning.

The film was a documentary, focusing on a topic many Kansans are just plain tired of hearing about.


(Above: The mastodon guards the entrance)

Still, 105 people from Hays and the surrounding area braved the threat of a blizzard to watch “Flock of Dodos” last night at Sternberg Museum, sponsored by FHSU’s Science and Mathematics Education Center. Refreshments were provided by Kansas Citizens for Science.

And although the promise of 8-12 inches of snow melted faster than a teenager can hit the snooze button, the film and the discussion afterward sparked dialogue that continued after the official “close” of the function.


The panelists, from left to right:

The evening’s moderator was Dr. Paul E. Adams, Professor of Physics and Anschutz Professor of Education at Ft. Hays State University. Paul began teaching astronomy at the age of 10 to budding astronauts in his neighborhood, and his passion for excellence in science education influences every facet of his work.

Andy Stanton has spent the past 10 years working in the advertising, public relations and marketing industries. His experience has taken him into the communication field involving the propane industry, Kansas K-12 educational public relations and Kansas tourism. Andy is an assistant professor of Communication Studies at Ft. Hays State University. Dr. Steven B. Case is the Associate Director and Research Assistant Professor at the Center for Research on Learning at the University of Kansas. Dr. Case was the co-chair of the Kansas Science Standards Writing Committee during the last adoption cycle.

Dr. Carl Miller holds a PhD in philosophy from the University of Georgia and a JD from George Washington University Law School; he’s an assistant professor of philosophy at FHSU. His philosophical research is largely inter-disciplinary, with interests in issues relating to science, especially evolutionary biology, and the scientific method, such as the nature and origin of the mind, the relation between science and religion, and the use of science in the law and ethics. Carl is also keenly interested in the issue of Constitutional interpretation and judicial activism. Dr. Loretta Dorn is an associate professor in the Chemistry Department at Ft. Hays State University. Loretta earned her BS (with honors) from Carnegie-Mellon in chemistry with a concentration in biochemistry, and her PhD at Brandeis focused on organic synthesis. Current research interests include a joint project relating the feeding behavior of lemurs to the nutritional value of the tamarind leaves upon which they feed.

Some questions posed to the panelists:

If evolutionists think we have evolved from apes, then where do they think apes come from? How do they think life initially began? Why is evolution theory sometimes called impossible? If we have evolved why are there different ethnicities? Will evolution or intelligent design ever be proven? Is modern evolution any different than Darwin’s evolution? Are they coming toward a conclusion for this controversy? Isn’t it illegal to teach intelligent design? Will evolution and intelligent design ever be taught together? Kathy Martin said “there aren’t enough transitional fossils.” Have evolution critics agreed on how many would be enough? How is evolution not a simple answer for a Godless society? The scientists at the poker game take the Lord’s name in vain and act like they despise religion. How can we believe these same people when they insist they know best what should be taught in school? What can we do to make sure Kansas doesn't undergo "Evolution War III" in 2008?

Many of these questions were submitted by the students. It was enlightening to me as a teacher to be reminded that these young men and women are capable of thinking more deeply than adults sometimes realize. These are students who would relish a course in comparative religion or a basic philosophy class.

Although Case and Miller had a spirited discussion on the issue of Charles Darwin’s faith – or lack thereof – the evening was refreshingly civil. The adults in attendance proved to be excellent role models for the students who were present: the panelists expressed dissenting opinions without rudeness or rancor, and answered fairly pointed questions calmly and patiently.

Props to the staffs of the FHSU Science & Mathematics Center and Sternberg Museum. Thanks also to Randy Olson for his support!

At right: Dave Pollock, president of Kansas Association of Teachers of Science, just chillin' at the close.

Monday, March 26, 2007

Making stuff up

Leonard Pitts has an interesting column today which begins:

"Hard to believe, but they're at it again. After 2002, when a National Cancer Institute statement reporting no link between abortion and breast cancer was changed by the Bush administration to say evidence of a link was inconclusive; after the administration cut language on global warming from a 2003 report by the Environmental Protection Agency; after a government scientist was forbidden in 2001 and 2002 from discussing health hazards posed by airborne bacteria emanating from animal waste at large factory farms; after 60 scientists, 20 of them Nobel laureates, signed a statement in 2004 accusing the White House of manipulating and distorting science for political aims.

After all that, Team Bush has once again been caught censoring science it dislikes."
Amazing, isn't it?

On the one hand, you have government officials with little or no scientific credibility censoring and distorting and outright lying about science.

On the other, there are some who insist that it's the scientists who just "make this stuff up."

Problem is . . . scientists can't just "make this stuff up" when they don't know what's going on. That's because there's always another scientist somewhere who'd just love to make a name for him/herself by showing just how wrong the "made up stuff" is.

That's why procedures and results are published and subjected to something called peer review. Peer review is just a fancy way of saying "experts in this field of study carefully analyzed this experiment." "Peer" means that if you write a paper about biochemistry, it will be critiqued by other biochemists, not mathematicians or theologians. Or clueless government officials.

However . . . those who push non-scientific ideas avoid peer review like the plague. Instead, they publish books and produce videos that bypass the scientific review process, and market them to gullible consumers who are attracted by the pretty pictures and explosive sound bites. They rely on politics and press releases instead of peer review and rigor. It's these charlatans pushing pseudoscience who are the ones "just making stuff up."

Just like the government officials who are clueless about the science.

As Pitts concludes,

"But here's what really burns my toast: These people [the officials who are cluelessly censoring science] think I'm stupid. And they think you're stupid, too. What else can we conclude of a government that treats us with such brazen disdain?

They think we're a bunch of doofuses, dimwits and dolts who will never notice that they've placed the interests of their cronies above our own.

For the record, I am not stupid and I resent being treated as if I am.

How about you?"

I know you're smart enough not to be duped by the un-scientists who are really "making up stuff."

Tuesday, March 6, 2007

Cool Topic, but Dry

Or, "Why Teaching High School Science is So Much Fun."


We'd used dry ice in the morning for the Advanced Physics lab, as they measured the speed of sound through air and through the CO2 gas sublimed from the dry ice.

(Top photo by Koffi Toulaboe)


In the afternoon, the freshmen got to play investigate some properties of this substance that so easily changes from solid to gas. Students were surprised that the gas wasn't wet, like water vapor is. (Dry ice, remember?)

*This* is what makes teaching so exciting - seizing that moment. Those moments produce more learning and more excitement about science than even the prettiest PowerPoints.

Science, Out in the World

Moonrise over Homer, Alaska, August 2006

In the centuries before our electronic era, most folks had a much better understanding of how nature worked than most of us do now. Undistracted by the lure of light, we looked to the heavens to try to discern meaning in the world. We knew, without looking at Channel 8 or weather.com, what weather we'd probably be facing for the next couple of days, while animal fur and cicada songs gave longer-term forecasts.

There's a growing movement across the country to get back to these roots, and away from the more esoteric features of science.

Try it yourself. Tear yourself away from your laptop (yes, you!) and get out for a walk. It doesn't have to be in a pristine natural setting; just somewhere where you can see the sky and feel the ever-present winds of western Kansas.



Maybe you'll catch the unexpected!