William Faulkner was right when he said the past isn’t the past at all. The past, in fact time itself as a dimension, is a causation, it is all things that lead to a moment that was neither predictable nor irrevocable. The truth is that the present and the future are products of determinants prescribed by powers that can never be fully understood. In many ways, the physical laws of nature are being created and destroyed in a split second, before they would even apply to your current reality, much like our universal reality is dynamic and constantly in flux. The truth, then, of which I speak is entirely without absolutes and entirely without predictable certainties. By employment of deductive reasoning, then, it must be the case that the past, present and future of our physical existence has both already happened and never happened at all. This inevitably creates a discussion involving fate, determinism, free will and what, if anything, science has to say on the topics.
The possibility of time travel is one particularly unique unit of the physical reality in which we inhabit. Can the past affect the future and can you, as a time traveler, affect your own past or future? Does our notion of free will stand in the way of the possibility of time travel paradoxes? Can, as in Schrodinger’s cat, we exist as two entirely different states of being in two entirely different universes as time travel theory predicts?
I mean, haven’t you ever had that déjà vu sensation; that you have done this, been there, felt this very sensation before? And it definitely doesn’t exist in your memory bank? An old family friend of mine, in response to my inexplicable, terrifying, debilitating fear of elevators at the time, told my mother that there simply was no other explanation other than it is a residual sensation from a past life, or in physics terms, an alternate self in an alternate universe. As insane as it may sound, if there is no other reliable solution, what is to keep it from being a possible explanation?
Okay, enough of my stream of consciousness rambling. Here is what is known. Black holes are invisible entities in our universe; they suck everything, including light, into their abyss at the event horizon. There is no telling what that experience must be like for one falling into it, but the observer would almost certainly see that person getting stretched angel hair pasta thin until the forces of the black hole obliterate them. But what if, a wormhole exists in that particular black hole into which you fell? Then, as a matter of theoretical physics, you would find yourself transported out of a white hole and dumped into an alternate universe. We can thank Albert Einstein for this projection. It is, after all, the curvature of space time proposed in his General and Specific Theories of Relativity that gave birth to many hypotheses related to what may, in fact, happen, if we were to experience the practical applications of a very complex calculus. What if that wormhole that would transport you far and wide exists, but due to its invisible nature you cannot see, right outside of your front door in a weird, surreal sort of Alice in Wonderland experience?
Theoretical physics, believe it or not, allows for just this kind of unbelievable scenario. It is only our free will, scholars postulate, that restricts us from accepting and experiencing our past and our future. It is an entirely different matter, however, as to whether or not you might be able to affect the outcomes of your past. It is widely hypothesized, however, that you simply cannot change what has already happened to you and, similarly, cannot affect what will happen to you in the future. This is a matter of reasoning and logic. That ought to be, in my humble opinion, rather calming. After all, what will be will be; sit back and enjoy the ride.
The lesson here is, then, that the possibilities when given four, at least that we know of although string theory might change that, dimensions in which to play. So, next time you are sitting in a room with familiar people and suddenly feel as though you have been here, doing the same things you are doing, experiencing the same sensations you are experiencing, think maybe you have been here before. Because, my friends, you might well have been here before. Knowing you could fall past the event horizon of a black hole into a wormhole into an alternate universe, what will you do next?
Monday, February 22, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
SOCIAL BOOKMARKING
www.Faves.com is a social bookmarking site much like Diigo(www.diigo.com) and del.icio.us(www.del.icio.us). It contains many of the elements that would exist in most social bookmarking sites. It contains thousands of bookmarks with many more tags notated by popularity (in votes) and stars beside individual articles. Each tag and article leads to the author of the tag so that interested individuals can look further into topics that tagger is interested in and in which you too, as a reader of their tags, might be interested. I have found many interesting articles through this mechanism. It also establishes a link between the article and the author of the article’s other articles of interest in that particular field. Furthermore, it incorporates as a sidebar “Related Topics”,“Related Faves” and “Related Content from Around Faves”(www.faves.com) which link you to tangential fields of interest both tags and articles alike. This helps to formulate a community of individuals interested in similar topics and makes it more readily available to a visitor of this site to navigate to their particular search topic. A tagger summarizes an article so that one, much like an abstract, can discern whether or not they want to read the entire article or move on. Beside the abstract, as I said earlier, the tagger’s main tags are noted so that, in the event of great interest in one of their tagged articles, one can search the rest of the articles highlighted by that tagger.
It is unique, however, for my research in several ways. First, one of the most prominent (that is, most widely read) is the physics tag in which many fascinating articles pertaining to the field of physics are highlighted. These articles are of an academic and scholarly nature and highlight articles in peer-reviewed, highly reputed journals and magazines such as New Scientist. Mike (http://faves.com/users/mike/dot/153591241887), one of my favorite taggers on this site, gives a solid account of an article in New Scientist entitled “Memristor minds: The future of artificial intelligence” (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327151.600-memristor-minds-the-future-of-artificial-intelligence.html?full=true). His decision to tag this article tells me several things about him as a tagger: one, his is of an academic nature in his choice of article but, more importantly, in his choice of magazine. Second, it tells me that his has an interest in cutting-edge technology which relates to my blog and third, it tells me he has some substantial knowledge in the fields of physics and technology. He is clearly a good reference in my blog. Second with regards to the tags on Faves.com, it is relatively easy to link from one science related tag (physics,http://faves.com/users/mike/tag/physics ), such as Mike’s Physics I Classical Mechanics: A MIT Video Course (http://academicearth.org/courses/physics-i-classical-mechanics), to another science related tag of Gr8rrrry's, Large Hadron Collider, in which I find a multitude of fascinating articles including this one, (http://www.motherboard.tv/2009/12/1/the-large-hadron-collider-also-the-largest-fastest-emptiest-hottest-most-complex-machine),on high energy particle collisions and future scientific endeavors in the fields of particle physics and quantum mechanics. This indicates to me that the connection between taggers is one of a solid academic and intellectual nature and can be trusted as a relevant source(s).
It appears to me as though Faves.com does, in fact, live up to its subtitle: “Sites you’ll love, from people like you.” There are a number of taggers who tag worthwhile material for the academic reader and there are a number of articles readily available through a simple search of keywords (which, I might add, encompass a broad spectrum so as to give the searcher the widest amount of potential material) which are published in, for the most part, reputable, scholarly journals and magazines. It was, for instance, quite easy, for me to search the “ethics of stem cell research” and the results would begin with the Harvard Law Review (http://www.harvardlawreview.org/index.php). That certainly indicates to me an intellectual tagger and a site interested in promoting such an individual.
I will definitely utilize this site! And, friends, you should too!
www.Faves.com is a social bookmarking site much like Diigo(www.diigo.com) and del.icio.us(www.del.icio.us). It contains many of the elements that would exist in most social bookmarking sites. It contains thousands of bookmarks with many more tags notated by popularity (in votes) and stars beside individual articles. Each tag and article leads to the author of the tag so that interested individuals can look further into topics that tagger is interested in and in which you too, as a reader of their tags, might be interested. I have found many interesting articles through this mechanism. It also establishes a link between the article and the author of the article’s other articles of interest in that particular field. Furthermore, it incorporates as a sidebar “Related Topics”,“Related Faves” and “Related Content from Around Faves”(www.faves.com) which link you to tangential fields of interest both tags and articles alike. This helps to formulate a community of individuals interested in similar topics and makes it more readily available to a visitor of this site to navigate to their particular search topic. A tagger summarizes an article so that one, much like an abstract, can discern whether or not they want to read the entire article or move on. Beside the abstract, as I said earlier, the tagger’s main tags are noted so that, in the event of great interest in one of their tagged articles, one can search the rest of the articles highlighted by that tagger.
It is unique, however, for my research in several ways. First, one of the most prominent (that is, most widely read) is the physics tag in which many fascinating articles pertaining to the field of physics are highlighted. These articles are of an academic and scholarly nature and highlight articles in peer-reviewed, highly reputed journals and magazines such as New Scientist. Mike (http://faves.com/users/mike/dot/153591241887), one of my favorite taggers on this site, gives a solid account of an article in New Scientist entitled “Memristor minds: The future of artificial intelligence” (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327151.600-memristor-minds-the-future-of-artificial-intelligence.html?full=true). His decision to tag this article tells me several things about him as a tagger: one, his is of an academic nature in his choice of article but, more importantly, in his choice of magazine. Second, it tells me that his has an interest in cutting-edge technology which relates to my blog and third, it tells me he has some substantial knowledge in the fields of physics and technology. He is clearly a good reference in my blog. Second with regards to the tags on Faves.com, it is relatively easy to link from one science related tag (physics,http://faves.com/users/mike/tag/physics ), such as Mike’s Physics I Classical Mechanics: A MIT Video Course (http://academicearth.org/courses/physics-i-classical-mechanics), to another science related tag of Gr8rrrry's, Large Hadron Collider, in which I find a multitude of fascinating articles including this one, (http://www.motherboard.tv/2009/12/1/the-large-hadron-collider-also-the-largest-fastest-emptiest-hottest-most-complex-machine),on high energy particle collisions and future scientific endeavors in the fields of particle physics and quantum mechanics. This indicates to me that the connection between taggers is one of a solid academic and intellectual nature and can be trusted as a relevant source(s).
It appears to me as though Faves.com does, in fact, live up to its subtitle: “Sites you’ll love, from people like you.” There are a number of taggers who tag worthwhile material for the academic reader and there are a number of articles readily available through a simple search of keywords (which, I might add, encompass a broad spectrum so as to give the searcher the widest amount of potential material) which are published in, for the most part, reputable, scholarly journals and magazines. It was, for instance, quite easy, for me to search the “ethics of stem cell research” and the results would begin with the Harvard Law Review (http://www.harvardlawreview.org/index.php). That certainly indicates to me an intellectual tagger and a site interested in promoting such an individual.
I will definitely utilize this site! And, friends, you should too!
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
TRIFECTA
TRIFECTA
Hello, World
Welcome my fellow science lovers and aficionados to my humble blog ! I feel as though I must preface all that is to come with a warning of sorts. Although I come from a long line of scientists, I am not one myself. In fact, I am an Anthropology major with a particular interest in Biological Anthropology and primatology. I am merely intrigued by, drawn into really, the force of the scientific universe and the principles by which it exists and functions. I have, since I was a young child, been taken by the wondrous worlds of physics, biology and chemistry and all the amazing applications that are derivative of these fields. In particular, I take great interest in those theories and relevant applications that are of an outlier nature. I examine here an assortment of cutting-edge and, at times, what some may call “fringe” topics in science and technology. It is my intention here to have some hearty academic fun; to, in effect, combine serious academic rigor with light hearted possibility. These topics, subject to your review, may include nanotechnology, the search for extraterrestrial forms of life whether that be carbon-based or otherwise (alla Ray Bradbury’s The Martian Chronicles), string theory with a tangential view of the multiverse theories that are floating around out there in the ether, sensory deprivation tanks (alla “Altered States”), the missing link in human evolution (an area in which I have some legitimate knowledge), biochemical weaponry, stem cell research, cloning and many other fascinating journeys to the realm of the unknown! It is my hope that we can posit, discuss and, at times, challenge the merits of certain hot spots, so to speak. As a community of academics, intellectuals and seekers of the receding horizon, I look forward to discovering the truth (or some version of it for those of you philosophical relativists) in a logical environment in which we lack presumptions and encourage diverse degrees of personal opinion and discovery.
Arthur C. Clarke, the late great science fiction writer and inventor of satellite technology, once noted that the entire scientific community wrote off Luis Alvarez’s discovery of an asteroid impact as the culprit in the demise of the dinosaurs. What, then, he posited might be a more forward facing approach to cold fusion. So, too, as we all know, was the case with continental drift, which required nearly a century to gain momentum, and Darwin’s (and Alfred Wallace, although seldom given equal credit) evolution by natural selection. The truth is, my friends, the most controversial of scientific notions ought to be given the most amount of attention. Although, I suppose, the institution is not set up in such a manner. It is, after all, very hard to let go of your traditional point of view and very scary to venture out there. Few are willing to do it and we know each and every one of them. Courage is a rare commodity, but an irreplaceable commodity nonetheless. After all, excuse the rambling, it wasn’t long ago that we thought flying was a ludicrous notion and Einstein’s curvature of spacetime was of the realm of a Twilight Zone episode when, in fact, both are of concrete scientific principle that stand strong in the face of experiment after experiment, verifiable and replicatable. Cornerstones of scientific theory. So, then, what are we to say of a tenth dimension or silicate based microbes on Europa? Should we, in a traditional setting, discard it as heretical nonsense or seek to examine its underpinnings in order to determine if, in fact, there is good reason for such claims?
We are all, after all, looking at the stars (further, made of the stars); gazing into that dark abyss not knowing whether, as Nietzsche so eloquently put it, “when you look into an abyss, the abyss looks into you.” We are searching and longing for the answers to age-old questions. Let us journey together into the ultimate pursuit of knowledge; to discover that of which we are capable and are purpose and, in doing so, come to understand our universe just ever so slightly better. And then, maybe, we can learn to venture outside of our self-constructed boxes to see that there is far more beckoning to be known. We must step boldly. Let it challenge us and let us, in turn, challenge it. Then, maybe, we may come to some knowledge of that ever elusive world in which we inhabit. Maybe we can reach out and touch that void and come to acknowledge that we are, in fact, merely a speck on the surface of that which lies out there; a speck, friends, but a speck indeed.
Profile
Observations of a Nerd (http://observationsofanerd.blogspot.com) is a blog written by Christie Wilcox, a PhD student in Cellular and Molecular Biology at the University of Hawaii. She majored in Marine Science and minored in Chemistry in her undergraduate career and has interests in molecular biology, marine science, biochemistry and conservation biology.
I was immediately attracted to her blog as it has a number of stimulating graphics, among them YouTube videos (www.youtube.com), images of specific things to which she is referring and intriguing graphs which are completely legible to the average reader. This is the case with the majority of the content; despite the fact that she is an academic and a scientist, she makes that which she writes about comprehendible to the layperson. Each post is fascinating and rich in detail, both of a scientific nature and of a fun article in Discover magazine (www.discover.com). Her posts are frequent (every week at least) as current topics require and appears to be quite popular with peers in the scientific research consortium. She also notes that her blog, indicated by a checkmark image at the top of the page, is comprised of writing about peer-reviewed research and is registered with www.ResearchBlogging.org, a site that collects information from blogs about scientific research. This certainly validates her blog as being of legitimate scientific content and of reliable information for the peer and public alike. Her use of tagging individual topics discussed in a post contributes to her formation of an online community within her blog.
The individual posts are quite fascinating as well. For instance, she has a regular thematic post entitled “A Weekly Dose of Cute”. These posts exemplify her innate ability to amalgamate scientific research and terminology with fun, easily read conversation. For example, in her post about White Terns of the Hawaiian Islands (http://observationsofanerd.blogspot.com/2010/01/weekly-dose-of-cute-baby-tern.html), she says:
In yet another fascinating recurring post, “Carnival of Evolution”, she illustrates discoveries of an evolutionary nature and many times she incorporates discoveries from another post. She also involves what she calls “Fun Reads” such as a post from another blog entitled “ Southern Fried Science Ethical Debate; Endangered Species on the Menu?” Such a “Fun Read” can be found on her blog roll which also incorporates what she calls her “nerdy affiliations”: Open Laboratory 2009(http://scienceblogs.com.neurotopia), a publication whose panel chooses the “50 best science blogging posts of the year” in which “Observations of a Nerd was recognized; Nature, an academic journal dedicated to topics of a scientific nature (http://natureblognetwork.com); and http://labspaces.net.
Christie Wilcox’s blog is a perfect template for my own as it incorporates scientific and personal viewpoints in a manner that is reader friendly for both the scientifically trained and otherwise. Her ability to combine a professional and academic persona with a relaxed and light discourse makes the blog an enjoyable adventure. I hope to achieve a similar goal in aesthetic appearance, intriguing content and reasonable opinion. Of course, my blog will differ in that I am not of a scientific background. I can, however, offer a critical distance that I believe is necessary for some degree of objectivity.
Voice Critique
Andrew Jaffe’s blog Leaves on the Line (http://www.andrewjaffe.net/blog) possesses a voice that is highly academic and intellectual in nature (Jaffe himself is a cosmologist and it is quite apparent throughout his blog that he intends to remind you of this fact) and is clearly geared toward an audience of comparable status. This is apparent in his diction and detailed complexity of knowledge. This level of intellectual rigor is noted in his post “Doctors, Deep Fields and Dark Matter” (http://www.andrewjaffe.net/blog)
It is quite apparent that Jaffe is interested in appealing to his peer group and has less interest, by mere complexity in explanation, in the layperson. There are, as well, several interesting choices worthy of pointing out. For one, as I have pointed out above, it is clear by his discussion of complex scientific theory and principle with no explanation accompanying them that he assumes his audience is familiar and proficient in said topics. Second, it seems to me as though he is not engaging of the audience as much as he seems to be making an argument in a formal research paper on the topic. I say this because it appears as though there is a complete lack of diction that would indicate interest in dialogue. For instance, we never see the phrases: Right? Any interest? Thoughts? or any other solicitation of opinion or advice from others. It seems, in this post, that the precise nature and matter-of-fact tone does not request, or require for that matter, open dialogue. Third, his use of parentheses seems to serve two distinct purposes. One, it serves to notify the reader of a tangential thought as in “I should point out”. Second, it serves to reference something he is talking about but choosing not to explain as in “the so-called Jeffreys prior”; the use of the words “so-called” is interesting here as it seems to indicate some question as to whether the subject in question is fact or opinion. Lastly, there is the use of italics. Here, it appears to create emphasis on a particular thought, to, in essence, notify the reader that a concept is being mentioned that is important and to which attention ought to be paid. It must be noted here, I think, that he chooses to pick apart meticulously his own research. This is indicative of good scientific research in which one must be extremely critical of work, including one’s own work, and subject that work to strict standards of peer review in which one of like status in the community may affirm or refute that which is being claimed.
In another post, “Cuts” (http://www.andrewjaffe.net/blog), Jaffe stays true to structure while incorporating some other distinct features:
First, it must be noted, this is followed by an extensive list of the tabs open. This is certainly to serve two purposes. One is to show the reader just how well versed he is in current affairs related to his particular concern in budget cuts and second to create an online community, links in this case, that draws attention to his blog. There are, as well, several distinct differences in this post as compared to the previous one noted. For one, he utilizes the words “ I presume”, this is an acknowledgment that, in fact, he is gearing his blog toward his like kind, those that are knowledgeable within his field. We cannot ignore, as well, his decision to say “the great unwashed masses of UK astronomers” as a strong personal opinion that seems to be rather bold in nature; he makes a generalization about a group of his peers that will almost certainly bring about strong responses. Secondly, he utilizes commas in order to specify and clarify a point he makes, “reasons, some clear and others manifestly not..” This is to specify the nature of the reasons to which he is referring and to remove any culpability for his having referenced these “reasons”. Thirdly, he uses “a.k.a” as a means by which to point out the difference between his point that they are “cuts” and the term used officially “managed withdrawal”. There appears to be a kind of sarcasm involved in the diction as he uses quotation around the official term, managed withdrawal, as if to question its validity as an official term. Finally, he inserts a bit of his emotional self into the blog, “ I was selfishly relieved…” We come to find, as readers, that in fact Jaffe is not an android but a human with distinctly human emotion. Admittance of a certain feeling leaves the writer vulnerable and, as a result, respected for that gutsy call.
Although Jaffe’s voice is not of the same genre, if you will, of my own, it is certainly a valid and worthwhile voice to be heard. Be wary, however; of extremely complicated reasoning. Sometimes, as Occam’s Razor will tell you, the simplest explanation is the right one.
Hello, World
Welcome my fellow science lovers and aficionados to my humble blog ! I feel as though I must preface all that is to come with a warning of sorts. Although I come from a long line of scientists, I am not one myself. In fact, I am an Anthropology major with a particular interest in Biological Anthropology and primatology. I am merely intrigued by, drawn into really, the force of the scientific universe and the principles by which it exists and functions. I have, since I was a young child, been taken by the wondrous worlds of physics, biology and chemistry and all the amazing applications that are derivative of these fields. In particular, I take great interest in those theories and relevant applications that are of an outlier nature. I examine here an assortment of cutting-edge and, at times, what some may call “fringe” topics in science and technology. It is my intention here to have some hearty academic fun; to, in effect, combine serious academic rigor with light hearted possibility. These topics, subject to your review, may include nanotechnology, the search for extraterrestrial forms of life whether that be carbon-based or otherwise (alla Ray Bradbury’s The Martian Chronicles), string theory with a tangential view of the multiverse theories that are floating around out there in the ether, sensory deprivation tanks (alla “Altered States”), the missing link in human evolution (an area in which I have some legitimate knowledge), biochemical weaponry, stem cell research, cloning and many other fascinating journeys to the realm of the unknown! It is my hope that we can posit, discuss and, at times, challenge the merits of certain hot spots, so to speak. As a community of academics, intellectuals and seekers of the receding horizon, I look forward to discovering the truth (or some version of it for those of you philosophical relativists) in a logical environment in which we lack presumptions and encourage diverse degrees of personal opinion and discovery.
Arthur C. Clarke, the late great science fiction writer and inventor of satellite technology, once noted that the entire scientific community wrote off Luis Alvarez’s discovery of an asteroid impact as the culprit in the demise of the dinosaurs. What, then, he posited might be a more forward facing approach to cold fusion. So, too, as we all know, was the case with continental drift, which required nearly a century to gain momentum, and Darwin’s (and Alfred Wallace, although seldom given equal credit) evolution by natural selection. The truth is, my friends, the most controversial of scientific notions ought to be given the most amount of attention. Although, I suppose, the institution is not set up in such a manner. It is, after all, very hard to let go of your traditional point of view and very scary to venture out there. Few are willing to do it and we know each and every one of them. Courage is a rare commodity, but an irreplaceable commodity nonetheless. After all, excuse the rambling, it wasn’t long ago that we thought flying was a ludicrous notion and Einstein’s curvature of spacetime was of the realm of a Twilight Zone episode when, in fact, both are of concrete scientific principle that stand strong in the face of experiment after experiment, verifiable and replicatable. Cornerstones of scientific theory. So, then, what are we to say of a tenth dimension or silicate based microbes on Europa? Should we, in a traditional setting, discard it as heretical nonsense or seek to examine its underpinnings in order to determine if, in fact, there is good reason for such claims?
We are all, after all, looking at the stars (further, made of the stars); gazing into that dark abyss not knowing whether, as Nietzsche so eloquently put it, “when you look into an abyss, the abyss looks into you.” We are searching and longing for the answers to age-old questions. Let us journey together into the ultimate pursuit of knowledge; to discover that of which we are capable and are purpose and, in doing so, come to understand our universe just ever so slightly better. And then, maybe, we can learn to venture outside of our self-constructed boxes to see that there is far more beckoning to be known. We must step boldly. Let it challenge us and let us, in turn, challenge it. Then, maybe, we may come to some knowledge of that ever elusive world in which we inhabit. Maybe we can reach out and touch that void and come to acknowledge that we are, in fact, merely a speck on the surface of that which lies out there; a speck, friends, but a speck indeed.
Profile
Observations of a Nerd (http://observationsofanerd.blogspot.com) is a blog written by Christie Wilcox, a PhD student in Cellular and Molecular Biology at the University of Hawaii. She majored in Marine Science and minored in Chemistry in her undergraduate career and has interests in molecular biology, marine science, biochemistry and conservation biology.
I was immediately attracted to her blog as it has a number of stimulating graphics, among them YouTube videos (www.youtube.com), images of specific things to which she is referring and intriguing graphs which are completely legible to the average reader. This is the case with the majority of the content; despite the fact that she is an academic and a scientist, she makes that which she writes about comprehendible to the layperson. Each post is fascinating and rich in detail, both of a scientific nature and of a fun article in Discover magazine (www.discover.com). Her posts are frequent (every week at least) as current topics require and appears to be quite popular with peers in the scientific research consortium. She also notes that her blog, indicated by a checkmark image at the top of the page, is comprised of writing about peer-reviewed research and is registered with www.ResearchBlogging.org, a site that collects information from blogs about scientific research. This certainly validates her blog as being of legitimate scientific content and of reliable information for the peer and public alike. Her use of tagging individual topics discussed in a post contributes to her formation of an online community within her blog.
The individual posts are quite fascinating as well. For instance, she has a regular thematic post entitled “A Weekly Dose of Cute”. These posts exemplify her innate ability to amalgamate scientific research and terminology with fun, easily read conversation. For example, in her post about White Terns of the Hawaiian Islands (http://observationsofanerd.blogspot.com/2010/01/weekly-dose-of-cute-baby-tern.html), she says:
White Terns (Gygis alba rothchildi), or “Fairy Terns” as they are often called, are beautiful all-white seabirds with black rings around their eyes. They feed primarily on fish caught by diving at the water’s surface. While they have to return to land daily, they can fly as far as 120 miles from shore.Her matter of fact speech in which she states opinions and facts simply and with very little jargon that would be incomprehensible to the general public, she gives the reader information that is fascinating and easily digested. Similarly, she has a monthly “Sci-Fi Worthy Parasite” in which she discusses a species of parasite that possesses unusual qualities (http://observationsofanerd.blogspot.com/2009/12/this-months-sci-fi-worthy-parasite.html). In one particular post she discusses the Arceuthobium species that is a form of mistletoe whose qualities are quite distinct:
Recently, scientists have found that the little parasitic plant has even greater effect than just killing its hosts. When biologists Ken Cullings and Julie Hanley from the NASA Ames Research Center at Moffett Field, CA measured the amounts of carbon dioxide emitted from the soil surrounding trees infested with Arceuthobium americanum, they found that the average rate of carbon dioxide emission was more than 70 percent higher than the rate emitted from the soil around trees nearby that were free of the parasitic plant.
In yet another fascinating recurring post, “Carnival of Evolution”, she illustrates discoveries of an evolutionary nature and many times she incorporates discoveries from another post. She also involves what she calls “Fun Reads” such as a post from another blog entitled “ Southern Fried Science Ethical Debate; Endangered Species on the Menu?” Such a “Fun Read” can be found on her blog roll which also incorporates what she calls her “nerdy affiliations”: Open Laboratory 2009(http://scienceblogs.com.neurotopia), a publication whose panel chooses the “50 best science blogging posts of the year” in which “Observations of a Nerd was recognized; Nature, an academic journal dedicated to topics of a scientific nature (http://natureblognetwork.com); and http://labspaces.net.
Christie Wilcox’s blog is a perfect template for my own as it incorporates scientific and personal viewpoints in a manner that is reader friendly for both the scientifically trained and otherwise. Her ability to combine a professional and academic persona with a relaxed and light discourse makes the blog an enjoyable adventure. I hope to achieve a similar goal in aesthetic appearance, intriguing content and reasonable opinion. Of course, my blog will differ in that I am not of a scientific background. I can, however, offer a critical distance that I believe is necessary for some degree of objectivity.
Voice Critique
Andrew Jaffe’s blog Leaves on the Line (http://www.andrewjaffe.net/blog) possesses a voice that is highly academic and intellectual in nature (Jaffe himself is a cosmologist and it is quite apparent throughout his blog that he intends to remind you of this fact) and is clearly geared toward an audience of comparable status. This is apparent in his diction and detailed complexity of knowledge. This level of intellectual rigor is noted in his post “Doctors, Deep Fields and Dark Matter” (http://www.andrewjaffe.net/blog)
(I should point out a few caveats in my microanalysis of their data. I don’t take into account the uncertainty of their background rate, which they say is really 0.8+_0/1+_0.2. Second, I’ve only plotted the likelihood above, but true Bayesians will want to apply a prior probability and plot the posterior distribution. The most sensible choice (the so-called Jeffreys prior) for this case would in fact make the probability peak at zero signal…)
It is quite apparent that Jaffe is interested in appealing to his peer group and has less interest, by mere complexity in explanation, in the layperson. There are, as well, several interesting choices worthy of pointing out. For one, as I have pointed out above, it is clear by his discussion of complex scientific theory and principle with no explanation accompanying them that he assumes his audience is familiar and proficient in said topics. Second, it seems to me as though he is not engaging of the audience as much as he seems to be making an argument in a formal research paper on the topic. I say this because it appears as though there is a complete lack of diction that would indicate interest in dialogue. For instance, we never see the phrases: Right? Any interest? Thoughts? or any other solicitation of opinion or advice from others. It seems, in this post, that the precise nature and matter-of-fact tone does not request, or require for that matter, open dialogue. Third, his use of parentheses seems to serve two distinct purposes. One, it serves to notify the reader of a tangential thought as in “I should point out”. Second, it serves to reference something he is talking about but choosing not to explain as in “the so-called Jeffreys prior”; the use of the words “so-called” is interesting here as it seems to indicate some question as to whether the subject in question is fact or opinion. Lastly, there is the use of italics. Here, it appears to create emphasis on a particular thought, to, in essence, notify the reader that a concept is being mentioned that is important and to which attention ought to be paid. It must be noted here, I think, that he chooses to pick apart meticulously his own research. This is indicative of good scientific research in which one must be extremely critical of work, including one’s own work, and subject that work to strict standards of peer review in which one of like status in the community may affirm or refute that which is being claimed.
In another post, “Cuts” (http://www.andrewjaffe.net/blog), Jaffe stays true to structure while incorporating some other distinct features:
I presume that anyone reading this blog knows that today is the day when the great unwashed masses of UK astronomers heard about our financial fate from the STFC, the small arm of the UK government responsible for Astrophysics, Particle Physics and Nuclear Physics…For various reasons, some clear and others manifestly not, STFC is something like 70 million in the red…I was selfishly relieved to see that our work with the Planck surveyor satellite is rated “alpha 5”…However, STFC has “requested” (not sure what that means in this context) that even these projects reduce their cost…The cuts (a.k.a “managed withdrawal”) include…I’ve got 11 browser tabs open just to keep myself up to date…
First, it must be noted, this is followed by an extensive list of the tabs open. This is certainly to serve two purposes. One is to show the reader just how well versed he is in current affairs related to his particular concern in budget cuts and second to create an online community, links in this case, that draws attention to his blog. There are, as well, several distinct differences in this post as compared to the previous one noted. For one, he utilizes the words “ I presume”, this is an acknowledgment that, in fact, he is gearing his blog toward his like kind, those that are knowledgeable within his field. We cannot ignore, as well, his decision to say “the great unwashed masses of UK astronomers” as a strong personal opinion that seems to be rather bold in nature; he makes a generalization about a group of his peers that will almost certainly bring about strong responses. Secondly, he utilizes commas in order to specify and clarify a point he makes, “reasons, some clear and others manifestly not..” This is to specify the nature of the reasons to which he is referring and to remove any culpability for his having referenced these “reasons”. Thirdly, he uses “a.k.a” as a means by which to point out the difference between his point that they are “cuts” and the term used officially “managed withdrawal”. There appears to be a kind of sarcasm involved in the diction as he uses quotation around the official term, managed withdrawal, as if to question its validity as an official term. Finally, he inserts a bit of his emotional self into the blog, “ I was selfishly relieved…” We come to find, as readers, that in fact Jaffe is not an android but a human with distinctly human emotion. Admittance of a certain feeling leaves the writer vulnerable and, as a result, respected for that gutsy call.
Although Jaffe’s voice is not of the same genre, if you will, of my own, it is certainly a valid and worthwhile voice to be heard. Be wary, however; of extremely complicated reasoning. Sometimes, as Occam’s Razor will tell you, the simplest explanation is the right one.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Voice Critique
Andrew Jaffe’s blog Leaves on the Line possesses a voice that is highly academic and intellectual in nature (Jaffe himself is a cosmologist) and is clearly geared toward an audience of comparable status. This is seen in his word choice and within that the levels of complexity and detail in his post “Doctors, Deep Fields and Dark Matter”.
In another post, “Cuts”, Jaffe seems to stay true to his structure while adding some distinct features.
He includes, which I found extremely fascinating a book review in one of his posts, “Physics vs Poetry”, of Ian McEwan’s “Physics vs Poetry: New Fiction by Ian McEwan” in which he shares, in contrast to previous posts, a great deal of opinion.
(I should point out a few caveats in my micro-analysis of their data. First, I don’t take into account the uncertainty in their background rate, which they say is really 0.8+0.1+_0.2…Second, I’ve only plotted the likelihood above, but true Bayesians will want to apply a prior probability and plot the posterior distribution. The most sensible choice (the so-called Jeffreys prior) for this case would in fact make the probability peak at zero signal….)There are several interesting choices worthy of pointing out. For one, it is clear by his discussion of complex scientific theories and principles with no explanation accompanying them that he assumes his audience is already familiar with and proficient in these topics. Second, it seems to me as though he is not engaging of the audience as much as he seems to be writing a formal research paper on the topic. I say this because there is a complete lack of diction that would indicate interest in dialogue; we never see What do you think?, Right? or any other solicitation of opinion or advice from others. Despite this fact, however, it is important to note that this blog is of a serious and precise nature that does not require as part of its message open dialogue. Third, his use of parentheses seems to serve two distinct purposes. One, it serves to notify the reader of a tangential thought as in “I should point out.” Second, it serves to reference something he is talking about but not directly stating, in this case “the so-called Jeffreys prior”; the use of the words so-called is also interesting here as it seems to indicate opinion rather than absolute fact. Lastly, there is the issue of italics usage; here it appears to create emphasis on a particular thought, to, in essence, notify the reader that a concept is being mentioned that is important and to which attention ought to be paid. There is also something to be said about his choice to analyze his own research and rather meticulously at that. He, like most good scientists, is allowing for peer reviewers to pick apart his argument and, ultimately, to reaffirm or reject what is being posited. Ultimately, the explanation of his analysis helps to orient the reader to his thought process.
In another post, “Cuts”, Jaffe seems to stay true to his structure while adding some distinct features.
I presume that anyone reading this blog knows that today is the day when the great unwashed masses of UK astronomers heard about our financial fate from the STFC, the small arm of the UK government responsible for Astrophysics, Particle Physics and Nuclear Physics…For various reasons, some clear and others manifestly not, STFC is something like 70 million in the red….I was selfishly relieved to see that our work with the Planck surveyor satellite is rated “alpha 5” …..However, STFC has “requested” (not sure what that means in this context) that even these projects reduce their cost…The cuts (a.k.a. “managed withdrawal”) include…..I’ve got 11 browser tabs open just to keep myself up to date…This is followed by an extensive list of the tabs open. It appears to me to be a great way to link and create a community of fellow interested bloggers and individuals scanning the information. In this particular post, there are several differences to the post previously. For one, he acknowledges his presumption that his audience is well versed in his field. Second, use of commas clearly indicate he nature of specific diction as in “reasons, some clear and others manifestly not,…” Third, he uses “a.k.a.” and purposefully puts quotes around “managed withdrawal” to indicate someone else’s terminology and his attention to that fact. Finally, he puts a degree of himself, his perceived character into the blog “ I was selfishly relieved..” The fact that he admits to a certain emotional state is a nice tool, in my opinion, to draw readership in by appealing to their like emotion.
He includes, which I found extremely fascinating a book review in one of his posts, “Physics vs Poetry”, of Ian McEwan’s “Physics vs Poetry: New Fiction by Ian McEwan” in which he shares, in contrast to previous posts, a great deal of opinion.
What makes McEwan’s portrayal so unappealing is the backhandedness of the compliment behind it: yes, he’s smarter than everyone around him. But somehow even he doesn’t quite get the poetry, even if that’s almost a distinction that doesn’t make much of a difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
