I just got off the phone with my mom. We discussed the state of affairs in the education world. I've found myself more and more interested in our education system considering my mom is a teacher and I am currently (and will be for several more years) a student at a university. To get to the point, the terrible nature of our education system blows me away; I have so many issues with how it is run from kindergarten to the collegiate level I have a hard time beginning. Here, now, I'd like to focus on our teachers our great nation has the privilege of housing.
Maybe I'm a sucker for the moment and environment, but it is becoming more and more apparent to me that our education system is using technology in the class room. Honestly, I misspoke - I should say that our education system has let itself become dominated by technology. I, of course, have zero qualms with technology in its own right, because its value can not be stated enough (although, trust me, the schools around here seem hell bent on running that statement into the ground).
Technology has almost definitively become less of a tool and more so a crutch (Skynet, is that you?) for the educational system. While I understand tech helps spread information, saves on paper, among other things, it does seem that teachers spend more time with their head buried in some gadget trying to communicate via apps to a class room equally enthralled in similar gadgetry when not a decade ago we focused more on what was directly in front of us rather than trying to conform our educational practices to the mighty dragon technology.
That is one of the major issues with the education system. It seems that we somehow went from a state of "this computer can help display your teaching material in an more efficient way" to "using this app you can communicate to the 6th graders sitting in front of you". Scarily, the joke that our generations are finding themselves so glued to their gadgetry that they may strain their necks from looking down is not only becoming a reality, but it seems our education system is feeding that mentality under the pretense that this habit is healthy - this is an almost comedic notion if it weren't so damn stupid.
Our educational administrators are taking charge of education by forcing this new, hyper tech model of education down the throats of their educational professionals. While some embrace the change, and in certain respects rightly so, others are finding transition difficult, if not repulsive. We know the benefits of technology (hell, printing double sided impressed me when I first saw it), but the repulsion doesn't get enough publicity although it exists for equally valid reasons.
Beyond the frightening reality that students are now equipped with their own personal tablets fitted with a series of supposedly helpful apps, I think idealism has completely brain washed the administration of many schools.
Let me spell this out: the administration is now teaching our kids, not our teachers.
The idea of tech is a cool one and again, it helps, but that's the extent of it. Aside from the added distraction, it seems that school administrators are more concerned with making their school seem "cutting edge", "ahead of the game", but the down sides are simply not discussed enough. Between "technology can help" to "only use technology" is a huge gap that we seem to be jumping over far too lightly.
While learning a few new tricks, a few new conveniences through computers is more than welcome, we need to re-acknowledge what the school system is and what it is not. Administration has turned schooling more into a business by which the imposition of idealist ideas is thrown at the educators themselves, even if those educators have a track record of excellence. Our greed for better is starting to walk the fine line with obsession to be the best system and less about the best school.
My biggest concern is the uniformity of it all. While uniformity can certainly have benefits, the uniformity brought through gadgetry comes off as sleek and intelligent, but as educators find themselves cut at the head trying to use this uniform system they worry more about how they can implement this new system (by pressure from the administration) rather than focusing on teaching.
Let me make one more thing clear: teachers are the professionals, they are the ones trained and passionate about their subject to a point that they can excite up and coming curiosities in their field of interest. In a sense, an educator is merely an audition by which to convince young minds that their subject is the best among all. This audition is absolutely stifled if the teacher is constantly trying to incorporate a seemingly sleek system (uniform tech) into a method of teaching that may be just the opposite of uniform.
The beauty of humanity is the uniqueness between us, especially apparent in our minds - the proof of which is found in our pursuit of passions, our curiosities. The mark of a good teacher is to be able to inspire students en mass, but also to strike the chords of inspiration in those seemingly immune from the general lesson planning. Our uniqueness as teachers, as well as students, is what allows for unrestricted creativity in the class room.
Technology is so set, so direct it fails to appreciate the magnificence of creative outlets. Besides our increasing focus on science, math, and less on foreign languages, creativity, literature, history, technology simply does more harm than good (distractions, more of our heads down instead of forward and up) in the hands of young students still trying to find themselves as rising men and women of our future society.
The free-er the system, the more ability the teachers have to grow in their instruction ability, the more variability kids have to express themselves, the better the system can be. Technology, aside from its obvious positives, is a dream of the administration that looks good on paper, but in the long run, it may just be the worst thing to ever be introduced to our education system.
We need entropy. Let the teachers teach again - do away with individual tablets, bring back some of the old methodologies, engage students with the eyes, inter personal communication (another facet that technology absolutely crushes), exploration of expression variability. We need help growing as humans, not more devices that rob us of appreciable elements of humanity.
I have so much more to write on the subject, but those are some initial thoughts. I really have a ridiculous amount more to speak on, but I have vented enough for now. Again, do away with the tablet communication and usher back in the eye contact, creativity, and fantastical education we used to have.
Listening to: Asking Alexandria, "Not the American Average".
Monday, June 1, 2015
Saturday, May 16, 2015
10 Reasons You Should Stop Disrespecting Science
10
Reasons You Should Stop Disrespecting Science
This isn’t an Elite Daily article; so, I will not be giving you a convenient list for lazy eyes to skip over the meat of an article to catch the bullet points. Why? The reason is twofold. First, science isn’t concerned with the short route, but rather, the truest route. Secondly, skimming is the first wrong in a list of issues when trying to bring forth the truth behind any subject. To be educated is to understand, and to understand is to study, and finally, to study is to put in effort.
Imagine this scenario: you are in a doctor’s office; you are sitting on those scratchy, paper overlays on the doctor’s chair. You are there because you have a problem, presumably, or you want to prevent a problem from occurring in your future. You do not take your health lightly, especially when it is already giving you issues. So, what do you do? You go to a person you and the community respects, a person who has proven they can help people in your situation time and time again. That much makes sense to you, otherwise you wouldn’t be here, sitting in the doctor’s office, waiting for the doctor for 20, 30, 45 minutes – you need their help and you expect them to deliver relief.
What is most telling is the fact that you went to your doctor for a health issue, not your plumber or a random person walking by on the street. It is an odd statement, isn’t it?
You’re likely thinking, “Well, of course I would go to my doctor!”
And you know why, you probably don’t overtly think about it, but you know why you are going to see your doctor, and that reason is the crux for this entire read.
Your doctor went to a school, and then another school, and then another for practical experience. All of these schools are certified by national and world standards in medicine. But why should you care? Well, these schools are a melting pot of ideas, expressions, and facts from the brightest minds our known universe has conceived. Now this is where this article is going to break into two different personalities, a little like Dissociative Identity Disorder (Psychology, 1).
The Past
These schools that your doctor has attended are institutions built from the foundations of science compiled from a vast array of brilliant minds extending hundreds of years in the past.
Without making this a book, and without getting into the debate on when science began, we can look at the past, say, 500 years for the birth and rise of modern science. Here is a minute taste of what was accomplished within these 500 years:
Heliocentrism (Astronomy, 2)
Applying Mathematics to Motion (Physics, Mathematics, 2)
Dualism (Philosophy, Psychology, 2)
Laws of Motion and Gravity (Physics, 3)
Ability to measure electricity, magnetism (Chemistry, 3)
Steam Engine (Engineering, 4)
Light bulb (Electrical Engineering, 5)
Invention of the Personal Computer (Engineering, 6)
The Internet (Computer Science, 7)
So, to put things in perspective, if you believe that humans have been around for roughly 200,000 years then for 99.75% of that time, modern science did not exist. During that time, humanity went from hunting and gathering to basic agriculture, from nomadic to settlers, from stones to steel swords. Then, once the scientific revolution took hold, we went from riding horses to flying in the sky faster than the speed of sound (Aerospace Engineering, 8), hunting and gathering our own food to having food delivered to an air conditioned house (Engineering, 9), in less than 500 years (0.25% of our existence).
Now, all this is probably familiar to you in one way or another, but you don’t see how this is getting you closer to finding out how anyone has been disrespecting science. Well, to answer that and to see how the nature of you going to the doctor is all related, we need to focus our attention on one incredibly important scientific idea; the modern scientific method (10).
You see, the scientific method is the basis for all scientifically sound experiments, and the basis for almost everything we test today (medicine, food, etc). Your doctor, when he or she went to their many schools was taught information (obviously). That information was all tested by the scientific method, so it is considered foundationally sound, because that method, being used for over 500 years now, has given us a platform with which we can advance our ideas; and more importantly, give a controlled, measurable analysis of our ideas in a way that is open, honest, and above all, repeatable.
What this all boils down to is the fact that this person (your doctor) you trust with your life has spent time at an institution that bases all of its information on a platform that has paved our way to our species’ sudden heightened success in the last 500 years, and that is the fundamental reason you trust them over your plumber or a stranger off the street when it comes to your health.
So, you trust your doctor, but is every doctor trust worthy? I think we can all agree that humans are not perfect, and as such, people make mistakes. So, should you rely on an expert in the field? In most cases, you’re safer doing so than asking a stranger, but that certainty can take a hit. So, what to do?
Enter the peer review (Philosophy, 11) process.
The peer review process takes science out of the hands of the single interpretation and opens it up to criticism from experts all around the world. So, while a doctor is generally reputable for the reasons mentioned before, a team of doctors from different origins across the world would make the science far more reputable (I would feel safer, wouldn’t you?). Essentially, where the faults of one would influence/bias one’s work, the melting pot of many creates an air tight system of checks and balances.
To finish, science has not only proven its incredible influence on our world through unfathomable advances in technology, medicine, agriculture, among others, it has also provided a system for it to work in a flawless, unbiased manner by implementing a platform to guard against faulty interpretation, pure bias, and deceit.
The Present
You now understand why science is not something to be taken lightly when finding the truth to any matter. It does not change; it remains stable, steadfast, and always delivers results in the truest fashion possible. Why, then, is it treated with little care by those outside of the scientific community?
Let’s paint a new scenario: you are looking to lose weight and you look to the internet to find some answers on how to go about doing that. You run across an article that mentions eating spicy peppers will boost your metabolism, effectively burning more calories, and as a result, you will lose weight. The article makes sense as it relates the spicy peppers to a South American culture and shows picture of that culture thin and happy consuming the same diet you are thinking of starting. Not only that, the peppers need to be organic and straight from a particular website, because the owners of that site import the peppers directly from the South American culture you have been reading about. Again, this makes a lot of rational sense; you’ve probably heard that organic food is pure and healthy. Not only that, receiving the same peppers this culture uses would be ideal as it has been working for them for centuries. You’re just about sold, but you want to make sure you’re making the right investment so you read up on the author and their background. They lived with said particular South American culture for several years and prior to living there, they lived in Los Angeles where they were unhappy and severely overweight. Intrigued and slightly excited, you read on. Before moving, the author was 70lbs overweight, but after moving to this village in South America and beginning this new nutritional regime, they lost 80lbs looking far trimmer, more energetic, and above all, happier! You are sold. You shell out the $40 and wait for your package. A few weeks later, it arrives and you begin eating these peppers with some slight adjustments to your daily food intake (more eggs in the morning, less pasta in the afternoon, but more vegetables and leafy greens, and of course, peppers with almost every meal!). Just as you anticipated, you begin losing weight - ten pounds in the first two weeks! The peppers work!
Wrong.
And here is where you have dissed the scientific community. You have made many mistakes throughout your reading that a person who practices the proven scientific method could enlighten you on.
To name a few:
1. The article doesn’t have any sources.
2. If the article does have sources, you need to do your due diligence and check them for respectability (Superfoodnews.com and the like are not respectable).
3. Always watch for author bias. If they have a stake in their selling point and swear up and down it worked for them, it still does not absolve them from scientific, educated reasoning explaining phenomenon.
4. Typically, a reader should be wary of absolutes unless, again, backed by real science.
5. You need to understand that although an explanation can sound rational and well thought out, if it is not backed with controlled, peer reviewed studies; it is just about worthless until proven otherwise in the correct environment (scientific method, peer review).
Quickly, why did you lose weight eating the peppers, then?
Based on actual evidence, it is more likely your change in eating habits lead to weight loss (12), not the peppers themselves. The peppers were the guise for the real reason, a scientifically, peer reviewed, and repeatable phenomena being masked by a product.
This brings about another warning: taking things out of context.
Articles written by crafty, well-spoken writers can be convincing (maybe I’m just mind fucking you right now), but even more so when they quote or manipulate science for their own vice. If an author mentions that the president of the United States Food and Drug Administration “admitted” beef is unhealthy, you should read up on the quote itself and make your own mind up.
For example, the FDA mentions this on their website about GMO foods, “…Foods from genetically engineered plants... that have been evaluated by FDA through the consultation process… have not gone on the market…”
Without manipulating the words themselves, it is possible to break a sentence up to make it sound worse than it is in reality. The above sentence sounds as if the FDA do not approve GMO foods, but in reality, the sentence reads:
“Foods from genetically engineered plants intended to be grown in the United States that have been evaluated by FDA through the consultation process have not gone on the market until the FDA’s questions about the safety of such products have been resolved.” (13)
Or, taking full sentences out of context can make the speaker seem incriminating when they are not surrounded by the rest of the original source.
So, as much as science has given us, and as much as it proves time and time again it is an accurate and reliable way of measuring our world for truth, people can be scumbags and will manipulate the truth for their own conclusions (almost literally the exact opposite of what the scientific method attempts to do).
In conclusion, we now know science’s track record, we know that experts are fantastic, but still aren’t as reliable as the scientific method or the peer review process (especially in conjunction). We can experience the innovations of science almost every second of the day (if you are reading this on a computer or you printed this out..), and for that alone, we should have faith that it will not fail you in your attempt to find the truth. However, there are still people who are quite convincing and to the untrained eye, they can get into your mind; so, that being the case, I know I promised no lists, but I want people to benefit as much as they can from this, so here are a few rules to follow when checking if a source is scientifically sound or not:
It may be an unsound article if…
1. If the title of the website or book supports or denies the view the article is writing about as the two will almost always be predictably congruent (for example: SaynotoGMO.com or GMOsaveslives.com)
2. If the article is only substantiated by anecdotes.
3. If the article does not have sources (just like the ones linked to this article)
4. If the article has sources, but the sources are not reputable (reputable sources: peer reviewed journals.edu, government agencies.gov, university websites.edu, pubmed studies.edu).
5. The article takes isolated quotes from seemingly reputable experts (for example: The head of the CDC even stated, “Ebola is definitely… a disease of epidemic proportions.”)
6. The author or the website is trying to sell you something (inherit bias).
7. The author speaks in extremes – now, this is not always the case, but it can be a flag to watch out for (for example: “This is always the case”, “Corn slowly kills you”)
8. Sometimes a gruesome picture is shown to elicit reaction (For example: pigs with huge growths from their intestines attributed, according to the article, to being force fed squirrel meat)
These are, of course, not the only things to look for, but they are a good filter to use to at least escape the worst of articles.
In the end, you can be pretty certain that almost all, if not all, university, government, and journals in your field of interest are accurate, reliable sources to follow with confidence. Sometimes, certain people are respected for doing their due diligence, but even in those cases, it is wise to check after them from time to time.
You need to form your own opinion, but that opinion cannot form clearly in the face of unreliable, deceitful literature and influence. I hope this article was helpful to you, and be sure to check my sources!
Citations
(1) http://www.fortea.us/english/psiquiatria/history.htm
(2) http://www.friesian.com/hist-2.htm
(3) http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/528771/history-of-science/29332/Newton
(4) http://www.egr.msu.edu/~lira/supp/steam/wattbio.html
(5) http://energy.gov/articles/history-light-bulb
(6) http://www.history.com/topics/inventions/invention-of-the-pc
(7) http://www.history.com/topics/inventions/invention-of-the-internet
(8) http://www.space.com/26204-chuck-yeager.html
(9) http://www.carrier.com/carrier/en/us/about/willis-carrier/
(10) https://explorable.com/who-invented-the-scientific-method
(11) http://teachingcommons.cdl.edu/cdip/facultyresearch/Historyofpeerreview.html
(12) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3432933/
(13) http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/Biotechnology/ucm346030.htm
In full disclosure, these should be in APA format, but as this is my blog and not my professional site, I'll spare myself the hour of work :P
This isn’t an Elite Daily article; so, I will not be giving you a convenient list for lazy eyes to skip over the meat of an article to catch the bullet points. Why? The reason is twofold. First, science isn’t concerned with the short route, but rather, the truest route. Secondly, skimming is the first wrong in a list of issues when trying to bring forth the truth behind any subject. To be educated is to understand, and to understand is to study, and finally, to study is to put in effort.
Imagine this scenario: you are in a doctor’s office; you are sitting on those scratchy, paper overlays on the doctor’s chair. You are there because you have a problem, presumably, or you want to prevent a problem from occurring in your future. You do not take your health lightly, especially when it is already giving you issues. So, what do you do? You go to a person you and the community respects, a person who has proven they can help people in your situation time and time again. That much makes sense to you, otherwise you wouldn’t be here, sitting in the doctor’s office, waiting for the doctor for 20, 30, 45 minutes – you need their help and you expect them to deliver relief.
What is most telling is the fact that you went to your doctor for a health issue, not your plumber or a random person walking by on the street. It is an odd statement, isn’t it?
You’re likely thinking, “Well, of course I would go to my doctor!”
And you know why, you probably don’t overtly think about it, but you know why you are going to see your doctor, and that reason is the crux for this entire read.
Your doctor went to a school, and then another school, and then another for practical experience. All of these schools are certified by national and world standards in medicine. But why should you care? Well, these schools are a melting pot of ideas, expressions, and facts from the brightest minds our known universe has conceived. Now this is where this article is going to break into two different personalities, a little like Dissociative Identity Disorder (Psychology, 1).
The Past
These schools that your doctor has attended are institutions built from the foundations of science compiled from a vast array of brilliant minds extending hundreds of years in the past.
Without making this a book, and without getting into the debate on when science began, we can look at the past, say, 500 years for the birth and rise of modern science. Here is a minute taste of what was accomplished within these 500 years:
Heliocentrism (Astronomy, 2)
Applying Mathematics to Motion (Physics, Mathematics, 2)
Dualism (Philosophy, Psychology, 2)
Laws of Motion and Gravity (Physics, 3)
Ability to measure electricity, magnetism (Chemistry, 3)
Steam Engine (Engineering, 4)
Light bulb (Electrical Engineering, 5)
Invention of the Personal Computer (Engineering, 6)
The Internet (Computer Science, 7)
So, to put things in perspective, if you believe that humans have been around for roughly 200,000 years then for 99.75% of that time, modern science did not exist. During that time, humanity went from hunting and gathering to basic agriculture, from nomadic to settlers, from stones to steel swords. Then, once the scientific revolution took hold, we went from riding horses to flying in the sky faster than the speed of sound (Aerospace Engineering, 8), hunting and gathering our own food to having food delivered to an air conditioned house (Engineering, 9), in less than 500 years (0.25% of our existence).
Now, all this is probably familiar to you in one way or another, but you don’t see how this is getting you closer to finding out how anyone has been disrespecting science. Well, to answer that and to see how the nature of you going to the doctor is all related, we need to focus our attention on one incredibly important scientific idea; the modern scientific method (10).
You see, the scientific method is the basis for all scientifically sound experiments, and the basis for almost everything we test today (medicine, food, etc). Your doctor, when he or she went to their many schools was taught information (obviously). That information was all tested by the scientific method, so it is considered foundationally sound, because that method, being used for over 500 years now, has given us a platform with which we can advance our ideas; and more importantly, give a controlled, measurable analysis of our ideas in a way that is open, honest, and above all, repeatable.
What this all boils down to is the fact that this person (your doctor) you trust with your life has spent time at an institution that bases all of its information on a platform that has paved our way to our species’ sudden heightened success in the last 500 years, and that is the fundamental reason you trust them over your plumber or a stranger off the street when it comes to your health.
So, you trust your doctor, but is every doctor trust worthy? I think we can all agree that humans are not perfect, and as such, people make mistakes. So, should you rely on an expert in the field? In most cases, you’re safer doing so than asking a stranger, but that certainty can take a hit. So, what to do?
Enter the peer review (Philosophy, 11) process.
The peer review process takes science out of the hands of the single interpretation and opens it up to criticism from experts all around the world. So, while a doctor is generally reputable for the reasons mentioned before, a team of doctors from different origins across the world would make the science far more reputable (I would feel safer, wouldn’t you?). Essentially, where the faults of one would influence/bias one’s work, the melting pot of many creates an air tight system of checks and balances.
To finish, science has not only proven its incredible influence on our world through unfathomable advances in technology, medicine, agriculture, among others, it has also provided a system for it to work in a flawless, unbiased manner by implementing a platform to guard against faulty interpretation, pure bias, and deceit.
The Present
You now understand why science is not something to be taken lightly when finding the truth to any matter. It does not change; it remains stable, steadfast, and always delivers results in the truest fashion possible. Why, then, is it treated with little care by those outside of the scientific community?
Let’s paint a new scenario: you are looking to lose weight and you look to the internet to find some answers on how to go about doing that. You run across an article that mentions eating spicy peppers will boost your metabolism, effectively burning more calories, and as a result, you will lose weight. The article makes sense as it relates the spicy peppers to a South American culture and shows picture of that culture thin and happy consuming the same diet you are thinking of starting. Not only that, the peppers need to be organic and straight from a particular website, because the owners of that site import the peppers directly from the South American culture you have been reading about. Again, this makes a lot of rational sense; you’ve probably heard that organic food is pure and healthy. Not only that, receiving the same peppers this culture uses would be ideal as it has been working for them for centuries. You’re just about sold, but you want to make sure you’re making the right investment so you read up on the author and their background. They lived with said particular South American culture for several years and prior to living there, they lived in Los Angeles where they were unhappy and severely overweight. Intrigued and slightly excited, you read on. Before moving, the author was 70lbs overweight, but after moving to this village in South America and beginning this new nutritional regime, they lost 80lbs looking far trimmer, more energetic, and above all, happier! You are sold. You shell out the $40 and wait for your package. A few weeks later, it arrives and you begin eating these peppers with some slight adjustments to your daily food intake (more eggs in the morning, less pasta in the afternoon, but more vegetables and leafy greens, and of course, peppers with almost every meal!). Just as you anticipated, you begin losing weight - ten pounds in the first two weeks! The peppers work!
Wrong.
And here is where you have dissed the scientific community. You have made many mistakes throughout your reading that a person who practices the proven scientific method could enlighten you on.
To name a few:
1. The article doesn’t have any sources.
2. If the article does have sources, you need to do your due diligence and check them for respectability (Superfoodnews.com and the like are not respectable).
3. Always watch for author bias. If they have a stake in their selling point and swear up and down it worked for them, it still does not absolve them from scientific, educated reasoning explaining phenomenon.
4. Typically, a reader should be wary of absolutes unless, again, backed by real science.
5. You need to understand that although an explanation can sound rational and well thought out, if it is not backed with controlled, peer reviewed studies; it is just about worthless until proven otherwise in the correct environment (scientific method, peer review).
Quickly, why did you lose weight eating the peppers, then?
Based on actual evidence, it is more likely your change in eating habits lead to weight loss (12), not the peppers themselves. The peppers were the guise for the real reason, a scientifically, peer reviewed, and repeatable phenomena being masked by a product.
This brings about another warning: taking things out of context.
Articles written by crafty, well-spoken writers can be convincing (maybe I’m just mind fucking you right now), but even more so when they quote or manipulate science for their own vice. If an author mentions that the president of the United States Food and Drug Administration “admitted” beef is unhealthy, you should read up on the quote itself and make your own mind up.
For example, the FDA mentions this on their website about GMO foods, “…Foods from genetically engineered plants... that have been evaluated by FDA through the consultation process… have not gone on the market…”
Without manipulating the words themselves, it is possible to break a sentence up to make it sound worse than it is in reality. The above sentence sounds as if the FDA do not approve GMO foods, but in reality, the sentence reads:
“Foods from genetically engineered plants intended to be grown in the United States that have been evaluated by FDA through the consultation process have not gone on the market until the FDA’s questions about the safety of such products have been resolved.” (13)
Or, taking full sentences out of context can make the speaker seem incriminating when they are not surrounded by the rest of the original source.
So, as much as science has given us, and as much as it proves time and time again it is an accurate and reliable way of measuring our world for truth, people can be scumbags and will manipulate the truth for their own conclusions (almost literally the exact opposite of what the scientific method attempts to do).
In conclusion, we now know science’s track record, we know that experts are fantastic, but still aren’t as reliable as the scientific method or the peer review process (especially in conjunction). We can experience the innovations of science almost every second of the day (if you are reading this on a computer or you printed this out..), and for that alone, we should have faith that it will not fail you in your attempt to find the truth. However, there are still people who are quite convincing and to the untrained eye, they can get into your mind; so, that being the case, I know I promised no lists, but I want people to benefit as much as they can from this, so here are a few rules to follow when checking if a source is scientifically sound or not:
It may be an unsound article if…
1. If the title of the website or book supports or denies the view the article is writing about as the two will almost always be predictably congruent (for example: SaynotoGMO.com or GMOsaveslives.com)
2. If the article is only substantiated by anecdotes.
3. If the article does not have sources (just like the ones linked to this article)
4. If the article has sources, but the sources are not reputable (reputable sources: peer reviewed journals.edu, government agencies.gov, university websites.edu, pubmed studies.edu).
5. The article takes isolated quotes from seemingly reputable experts (for example: The head of the CDC even stated, “Ebola is definitely… a disease of epidemic proportions.”)
6. The author or the website is trying to sell you something (inherit bias).
7. The author speaks in extremes – now, this is not always the case, but it can be a flag to watch out for (for example: “This is always the case”, “Corn slowly kills you”)
8. Sometimes a gruesome picture is shown to elicit reaction (For example: pigs with huge growths from their intestines attributed, according to the article, to being force fed squirrel meat)
These are, of course, not the only things to look for, but they are a good filter to use to at least escape the worst of articles.
In the end, you can be pretty certain that almost all, if not all, university, government, and journals in your field of interest are accurate, reliable sources to follow with confidence. Sometimes, certain people are respected for doing their due diligence, but even in those cases, it is wise to check after them from time to time.
You need to form your own opinion, but that opinion cannot form clearly in the face of unreliable, deceitful literature and influence. I hope this article was helpful to you, and be sure to check my sources!
Citations
(1) http://www.fortea.us/english/psiquiatria/history.htm
(2) http://www.friesian.com/hist-2.htm
(3) http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/528771/history-of-science/29332/Newton
(4) http://www.egr.msu.edu/~lira/supp/steam/wattbio.html
(5) http://energy.gov/articles/history-light-bulb
(6) http://www.history.com/topics/inventions/invention-of-the-pc
(7) http://www.history.com/topics/inventions/invention-of-the-internet
(8) http://www.space.com/26204-chuck-yeager.html
(9) http://www.carrier.com/carrier/en/us/about/willis-carrier/
(10) https://explorable.com/who-invented-the-scientific-method
(11) http://teachingcommons.cdl.edu/cdip/facultyresearch/Historyofpeerreview.html
(12) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3432933/
(13) http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/Biotechnology/ucm346030.htm
In full disclosure, these should be in APA format, but as this is my blog and not my professional site, I'll spare myself the hour of work :P
Thursday, January 8, 2015
Random Thought
Instagram people who post these ridiculously long quotes and inspirational words about how everyone is beautiful... LOL.
I follow fitness people; from researchers, strength athletes, bodybuilders, to models. I find it annoying when the models (and to be clear, I have ONLY seen it with the models) post the aforementioned quotes and "powerful words" in an attempt to inspire. Now, most of me sees this as a noble, positive endeavor, but this isn't called "CyNIC" for no reason. There is still a part of me, and admittedly I do not have it bad off - at all, that can't help, but think.. "it's pretty freakin' easy for you to say if you've reached such close to perfect physique already or you were born in a position to succeed". I was also born in a position to succeed, but I hate how people feed off the rabble of mindless drones that eat that stuff up like everything is peachy keen. Attractive people that try and sound enlightened are funny, because they come off as if they went through this great journey of trials and tribulations and came out of the other side hotter... and wiser. Now, of course, it is true of some people, but a good majority are just as intellectually stunted as when they began.
I guess, I sympathize more with people who started in a ditch and turned their life around to make a miraculous transformation. I think it is because I can respect their mental fortitude and their resolve, unlike someone who started in a good position and just took advantage of that position. Good for them, honestly, but to pretend you are some form of enlightened individual now is absolutely ridiculous. The main point being that most of these people's quotes are all the same reworded mumbo jumbo bull shit that you can pick up on a condolence card.
"If you believe in yourself, anything is possible!" - Brilliant.
"Focus on your life, not just your body." - Much wow, I'm blown away.
"Everything happens for a reason." - One of my all time favorites.
"It's not about physical beauty." - LOL.. says the model.
I could go on. This might not make sense to you, and that is fine, and again, I do not feel this way a majority of the time, but I truly am a cynical person at times; I just have to let it out sometimes.
Listening to: "White Washed" August Burns Red
I follow fitness people; from researchers, strength athletes, bodybuilders, to models. I find it annoying when the models (and to be clear, I have ONLY seen it with the models) post the aforementioned quotes and "powerful words" in an attempt to inspire. Now, most of me sees this as a noble, positive endeavor, but this isn't called "CyNIC" for no reason. There is still a part of me, and admittedly I do not have it bad off - at all, that can't help, but think.. "it's pretty freakin' easy for you to say if you've reached such close to perfect physique already or you were born in a position to succeed". I was also born in a position to succeed, but I hate how people feed off the rabble of mindless drones that eat that stuff up like everything is peachy keen. Attractive people that try and sound enlightened are funny, because they come off as if they went through this great journey of trials and tribulations and came out of the other side hotter... and wiser. Now, of course, it is true of some people, but a good majority are just as intellectually stunted as when they began.
I guess, I sympathize more with people who started in a ditch and turned their life around to make a miraculous transformation. I think it is because I can respect their mental fortitude and their resolve, unlike someone who started in a good position and just took advantage of that position. Good for them, honestly, but to pretend you are some form of enlightened individual now is absolutely ridiculous. The main point being that most of these people's quotes are all the same reworded mumbo jumbo bull shit that you can pick up on a condolence card.
"If you believe in yourself, anything is possible!" - Brilliant.
"Focus on your life, not just your body." - Much wow, I'm blown away.
"Everything happens for a reason." - One of my all time favorites.
"It's not about physical beauty." - LOL.. says the model.
I could go on. This might not make sense to you, and that is fine, and again, I do not feel this way a majority of the time, but I truly am a cynical person at times; I just have to let it out sometimes.
Listening to: "White Washed" August Burns Red
Thursday, October 9, 2014
Random Thought
The endless comparisons of who's school schedule, school day, or lack of sleep/stress.
Shits = none given.
Shits = none given.
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
No Title
I wrote this once before on my Facebook about 4-5 years ago and it has been in my mind for as much time. I always thought that the initial version was rather weak, and didn't do my mind's eye justice. My limiting factor was my ability to write; I have improved leaps and bounds over the person I was, and although i have room for improvement, I find myself in a good enough position to give this another shot. I have done little fiction writing int he past year or so, because I have been busy being productive in other avenues of my writing, but it was never forgotten. My creative writing is still a massive part of who I am, and although unexpressed for the last year, it probably shadows any other aspect of who I am - I am a writer, of which a large part is consumed with a larger dream of releasing full novels with some of the fleshed out worlds I have created over the past few years that I have yet to release for public consumption. I will explain further in the future, but for now, I'd like to preface this piece by explaining something.
This piece is a weird, twisted one sided story that I haven't bothered putting more thought into, because it is perfect the way it is - simply as a glimpse of a strange world, a fantastical growth from a deeper recess of myself. This piece is more of an exploration of what I find creepy, scary, and disturbing, and allows me to practice my situational writing. Basically, a situation that would be terrifying to find yourself in. I've modified it in my head from the original, but the same basic idea still stands.
The dog was barking again - nothing new there.
"Chester! Be quiet! No one's there."
Ever since they'd moved to the neighborhood, he'd been barking at every sound. It'll take him some time to get used to being so close to people. Travis sat by the computer, trying to refocus on his work, but Chester kept on hollering at the invisible enemy. After a minute of sporadic barking inhibiting reattempts to concentrate, Travis got up from his desk and walked into the living room where Chester was barking at something outside the window. Travis took a quick glance, and as he'd suspected, it was nothing; if anything, it was the neighbor working in the yard. Jon could be found out in his yard at any hour of the day, but as the sun set, he usually took one last stab at planting, fixing, or rearranging some aspect of the garden.
With a sigh, and a quick ruffle of Chester's ears, Travis turned to walk into the adjacent open kitchen. Chester remained ever alert, his tongue suspended between his teeth, panting lightly, staring out of the low hanging window. Travis, unconcerned, opened the fridge and grabbed a Pepsi, looked at it, and then put it back in favor of Pepsi Max - Sophie had gotten on him about soda causing cancer or some rubbish of the sort. He opened the 20 oz bottle, letting carbonation escape before taking a swig. Turning, he took a casual look into the living room - Chester, ever watchful.
Travis chuckled, "You show 'em, boy."
Chester shifted a bit, rearranging his jowls as he surveyed the land before him. He then honed in a new target to begin his mumbles and growls - the precursor to his usual barking sessions.
"Hey, that's enough, buddy, I think whatever you're trying to act tough for is probably scared off by now.", Travis said lightly as he approached the front of the house again and laid a hand on Chester's back. Chester let out a few barks, and then turned to his owner briefly.
"Okay, okay, I'm going to show you that there is nothing there, come here." Putting his drink on the mantle, and grabbing Chester's collar, Travis pulled him to the front door.
Opening the door, one hand remaining firmly on Chester's collar, they walked onto the front step.
"As usual, you're overreacting,", Travis spoke to his puppy as if he could understand him, "I think the score is about a million, me, and zero, you."
Charlie barked once more at something down the road, and Travis followed his sight line. A neighbor down the road was standing on his front step, as well.
"If you're going to bark at everyone that walks out of their house, Ches, I'm going to have to put you in the backyard - I can't do my work."
The dog began intermittently growling, his eyes peeled in the same direction as before. Travis kneeled down to ease the discomfort of being half stooped down to keep a steady hand on his puppy.
"Ches, stop it, seriously."
Taking a second glance, Travis noticed that another neighbor had emerged down the street and was standing oddly slumped over on his front step. He couldn't remember his name, but he remembered meeting him the other week. He looked at one of the closest houses to his own and saw Mrs. Samson doing the same thing, and upon further investigation, all of the neighbors were acting the same way - slumped over, arms sort of dangling by their sides, unmoving from their respective front steps, doors open behind them. Finally, Travis turned his gaze to Jon's house, his nearest neighbor, and the one he had gotten to know the best over the past few months since he and Sophie had moved into the new house; alarmingly, he too was acting strangely.
Half whispering, Travis pulled his dog closer, "Chester, what's wrong with them?", but Chester only growled, his muzzle crinkled up, ears half folded back in alarm.
Travis made a C shape with his free hand, cupping it around his mouth, and yelled across the street to Jon, "Jon, are you alright?", his voice cracking a bit.
No response.
To Be Continued...
This piece is a weird, twisted one sided story that I haven't bothered putting more thought into, because it is perfect the way it is - simply as a glimpse of a strange world, a fantastical growth from a deeper recess of myself. This piece is more of an exploration of what I find creepy, scary, and disturbing, and allows me to practice my situational writing. Basically, a situation that would be terrifying to find yourself in. I've modified it in my head from the original, but the same basic idea still stands.
The dog was barking again - nothing new there.
"Chester! Be quiet! No one's there."
Ever since they'd moved to the neighborhood, he'd been barking at every sound. It'll take him some time to get used to being so close to people. Travis sat by the computer, trying to refocus on his work, but Chester kept on hollering at the invisible enemy. After a minute of sporadic barking inhibiting reattempts to concentrate, Travis got up from his desk and walked into the living room where Chester was barking at something outside the window. Travis took a quick glance, and as he'd suspected, it was nothing; if anything, it was the neighbor working in the yard. Jon could be found out in his yard at any hour of the day, but as the sun set, he usually took one last stab at planting, fixing, or rearranging some aspect of the garden.
With a sigh, and a quick ruffle of Chester's ears, Travis turned to walk into the adjacent open kitchen. Chester remained ever alert, his tongue suspended between his teeth, panting lightly, staring out of the low hanging window. Travis, unconcerned, opened the fridge and grabbed a Pepsi, looked at it, and then put it back in favor of Pepsi Max - Sophie had gotten on him about soda causing cancer or some rubbish of the sort. He opened the 20 oz bottle, letting carbonation escape before taking a swig. Turning, he took a casual look into the living room - Chester, ever watchful.
Travis chuckled, "You show 'em, boy."
Chester shifted a bit, rearranging his jowls as he surveyed the land before him. He then honed in a new target to begin his mumbles and growls - the precursor to his usual barking sessions.
"Hey, that's enough, buddy, I think whatever you're trying to act tough for is probably scared off by now.", Travis said lightly as he approached the front of the house again and laid a hand on Chester's back. Chester let out a few barks, and then turned to his owner briefly.
"Okay, okay, I'm going to show you that there is nothing there, come here." Putting his drink on the mantle, and grabbing Chester's collar, Travis pulled him to the front door.
Opening the door, one hand remaining firmly on Chester's collar, they walked onto the front step.
"As usual, you're overreacting,", Travis spoke to his puppy as if he could understand him, "I think the score is about a million, me, and zero, you."
Charlie barked once more at something down the road, and Travis followed his sight line. A neighbor down the road was standing on his front step, as well.
"If you're going to bark at everyone that walks out of their house, Ches, I'm going to have to put you in the backyard - I can't do my work."
The dog began intermittently growling, his eyes peeled in the same direction as before. Travis kneeled down to ease the discomfort of being half stooped down to keep a steady hand on his puppy.
"Ches, stop it, seriously."
Taking a second glance, Travis noticed that another neighbor had emerged down the street and was standing oddly slumped over on his front step. He couldn't remember his name, but he remembered meeting him the other week. He looked at one of the closest houses to his own and saw Mrs. Samson doing the same thing, and upon further investigation, all of the neighbors were acting the same way - slumped over, arms sort of dangling by their sides, unmoving from their respective front steps, doors open behind them. Finally, Travis turned his gaze to Jon's house, his nearest neighbor, and the one he had gotten to know the best over the past few months since he and Sophie had moved into the new house; alarmingly, he too was acting strangely.
Half whispering, Travis pulled his dog closer, "Chester, what's wrong with them?", but Chester only growled, his muzzle crinkled up, ears half folded back in alarm.
Travis made a C shape with his free hand, cupping it around his mouth, and yelled across the street to Jon, "Jon, are you alright?", his voice cracking a bit.
No response.
To Be Continued...
Talk Less, Think More
I think I walk across campus 2-3 times a day, and in doing so I inevitably pass a large amount of college students. Something that has stuck in my mind for a few days now is how many people, even in the fleeting moments of my walk by, seem to be endlessly fascinated by "people". Now, I don't mean they are fascinated in "people" from a sociological, anthropological, historical, or even a particularly psychological point of view, but more of a general babble about other people's live without much intellectual dissection. Now, I'm not saying that everyone has to be so diverse that every conversation they have is about some worldly fascinating subject, but I do find it noteworthy that so few people discuss the happenings of life from any perspective other than life ending at the extent of what another person is doing with their own life.
What Brittany is doing with Brad, or why Ashley has been deciding to stay in more often than usual is, in 97% of cases, a worthless discussion. Now, I understand that to expect people to engage in fulfilling conversation on a daily, let alone constant, basis is unrealistic. People are interesting, I get that, and we're all quite adept at talking about them - even if we are substantially worse at talking to them about the things we're willing to talk about them. Still, when every conversation I hear is about the shallow world of someone else, I genuinely see no point in such talk. Now, if we were to talk about someone else and expound into a greater discussion based on that initial example, there is something of worth, but the likelihood is low that any of these conversations are ending in some level of revelation or progression apart from self satisfaction or mind numbing conversation.
I thought I was unable to find people in my immediate surroundings that have some level of interest about them, but it is coming forth to me that the majority of the university scene is not about growth, but rather to achieve, blindly, relatively unimportant grades while hoping the weekend approaches to relieve us of the "stupidity" of classes. Admittedly, I fell, in some degree, in that category as well when I first entered university, but the past year or so has been an awakening of how much I don't give a damn about Brad, Angelina, or whoever, but rather in espousing knowledge for furthering my own career and developing my creative exploits. Admittedly, by the same token, I would appreciate conversation with similar mindsets, because these people are interesting, I find - sadly, few opportunities have arisen thus far.
Anyway, maybe the problem lies, as is always a possibility, that I am too critical - yet, I always remind myself that eccentricity can lead to progressive thought and value. The question is, do I (can I) give up my innately alternative style of thinking for the norm to fit in: the answer will probably always be "no".
Listening to: Childish Gabino, "Telegraph Avenue"
What Brittany is doing with Brad, or why Ashley has been deciding to stay in more often than usual is, in 97% of cases, a worthless discussion. Now, I understand that to expect people to engage in fulfilling conversation on a daily, let alone constant, basis is unrealistic. People are interesting, I get that, and we're all quite adept at talking about them - even if we are substantially worse at talking to them about the things we're willing to talk about them. Still, when every conversation I hear is about the shallow world of someone else, I genuinely see no point in such talk. Now, if we were to talk about someone else and expound into a greater discussion based on that initial example, there is something of worth, but the likelihood is low that any of these conversations are ending in some level of revelation or progression apart from self satisfaction or mind numbing conversation.
I thought I was unable to find people in my immediate surroundings that have some level of interest about them, but it is coming forth to me that the majority of the university scene is not about growth, but rather to achieve, blindly, relatively unimportant grades while hoping the weekend approaches to relieve us of the "stupidity" of classes. Admittedly, I fell, in some degree, in that category as well when I first entered university, but the past year or so has been an awakening of how much I don't give a damn about Brad, Angelina, or whoever, but rather in espousing knowledge for furthering my own career and developing my creative exploits. Admittedly, by the same token, I would appreciate conversation with similar mindsets, because these people are interesting, I find - sadly, few opportunities have arisen thus far.
Anyway, maybe the problem lies, as is always a possibility, that I am too critical - yet, I always remind myself that eccentricity can lead to progressive thought and value. The question is, do I (can I) give up my innately alternative style of thinking for the norm to fit in: the answer will probably always be "no".
Listening to: Childish Gabino, "Telegraph Avenue"
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
Biology Class Fascinations
So, this post is going to just be me nerd-ing out over some facts I learned in the past few weeks in my classes: thou hath been warned.
I'm currently taking a "Human Biology" course that is simply ripe with fantastic information. When I get especially drawn in by unbelievably cool information, I have a tendency to smile and chuckle relative to the amount that I think about the information; needless to expound, I am smiling a lot. So, what could be tickling my fancy? Probably nothing you, the reader, will find all that interesting, but to me it is ridiculously impactful.
For example, I've learned a few things about cellular processes. Literally all cellular processes are astounding, but I was especially taken with infectious disease. My professor worked for the CDC so his level of knowledge on the subject is evident, to say the least. Anyway, apparently when a pathogen enters a cell - which is already extremely difficult, as each cell has a security "code" that is dependent on something called "Haemagglutinin", and if the pathogen does not contain said code, it can not enter the cell. Let us assume that the pathogen did enter the cell, well the cell immediately begins starving the pathogen, pumps it full of free radicals (which, if you're unfamiliar, those are detrimental to you - you can imagine a concentrated dose isn't the greatest for a small pathogen), and finally, the cell unleashes Lysosomes upon the pathogen, which create an acidic environment for the pathogen to squirm in. However, you'd assume that something would just leave if it were immediately bombarded with all these horrors. Well, it can't. Basically, once it is in the cell, the cell "locks the door" by requiring a different password to leave that is dependent on "Neuraminidase". If the pathogen doesn't have that "password", it is locked in to its fate. After the cell has finished eating the pathogen, it stores its information so that future break ins are dealt with even greater ferocity and effectiveness.
While you're eating a burger, sleeping, watching Netflix, etc, your body is basically waging mass genocide on 99.99% of the pathogens that find themselves into your system. In a way, you have to feel sorry for those bacteria, viruses, and whatever else might step foot. Meanwhile, as your body is killing countless viruses and bacteria, it is doing a plethora of other activities to keep you running optimally. It feels so unjust to put the body under undo stress when it is literally saving your life every moment of your existence.
To put it in perspective, by the shortest terms possible, if you did not have an immune system as you do, scraping your knee would kill you (this happened to a person who did not realize their immune system was completely gone).
Ok, done for now. SCIENCE.
Listening to: Parkway Drive, "Picture Perfect, Pathetic"
I'm currently taking a "Human Biology" course that is simply ripe with fantastic information. When I get especially drawn in by unbelievably cool information, I have a tendency to smile and chuckle relative to the amount that I think about the information; needless to expound, I am smiling a lot. So, what could be tickling my fancy? Probably nothing you, the reader, will find all that interesting, but to me it is ridiculously impactful.
For example, I've learned a few things about cellular processes. Literally all cellular processes are astounding, but I was especially taken with infectious disease. My professor worked for the CDC so his level of knowledge on the subject is evident, to say the least. Anyway, apparently when a pathogen enters a cell - which is already extremely difficult, as each cell has a security "code" that is dependent on something called "Haemagglutinin", and if the pathogen does not contain said code, it can not enter the cell. Let us assume that the pathogen did enter the cell, well the cell immediately begins starving the pathogen, pumps it full of free radicals (which, if you're unfamiliar, those are detrimental to you - you can imagine a concentrated dose isn't the greatest for a small pathogen), and finally, the cell unleashes Lysosomes upon the pathogen, which create an acidic environment for the pathogen to squirm in. However, you'd assume that something would just leave if it were immediately bombarded with all these horrors. Well, it can't. Basically, once it is in the cell, the cell "locks the door" by requiring a different password to leave that is dependent on "Neuraminidase". If the pathogen doesn't have that "password", it is locked in to its fate. After the cell has finished eating the pathogen, it stores its information so that future break ins are dealt with even greater ferocity and effectiveness.
While you're eating a burger, sleeping, watching Netflix, etc, your body is basically waging mass genocide on 99.99% of the pathogens that find themselves into your system. In a way, you have to feel sorry for those bacteria, viruses, and whatever else might step foot. Meanwhile, as your body is killing countless viruses and bacteria, it is doing a plethora of other activities to keep you running optimally. It feels so unjust to put the body under undo stress when it is literally saving your life every moment of your existence.
To put it in perspective, by the shortest terms possible, if you did not have an immune system as you do, scraping your knee would kill you (this happened to a person who did not realize their immune system was completely gone).
Ok, done for now. SCIENCE.
Listening to: Parkway Drive, "Picture Perfect, Pathetic"
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)