What science isn't

In a later blog I'll tackle a definition of science. But first we need to understand what science isn't. Science is NOT the same as technology. Technology is designing, making and using tools. People who do technology are engineers, designers, inventors. Technology can be as simple as using a stick as a lever to move a boulder, or as complex as designing a nuclear power plant, or a lander to explore Mars.

By contrast a scientist observes and explains the world around us. More about this in a later post.

Are chemists scientists? Not necessarily! Many chemists do technology, including me. Chemists who try to synthesize useful compounds like drugs, pigments, adhesives, and a host of other uses are technologists at heart. Chemists who analyze samples for contamination or to determine the formula of a new compound are using tools for practical purposes, so they are technologists. Chemists who devise new methods of analysis are technologists because they are inventing tools.

Note that a technologist is not the same as a technician. A technician follows an established set of rules to accomplish a task. A technologist probably established the rules.

Please don't think I am denigrating anybody's role. Scientists, technologists, and technicians all play a vital role in progress. But they play different roles.

Obviously technology and science depend heavily upon one another, and often the same person does both science and technology. Nowadays technology depends heavily on the knowledge that scientists discover. Likewise, science depends heavily on the tools that technology delivers.

I'm guessing the formulation I have outlined here would be controversial. I'm sure some people I have decided are technologists would argue that they are true scientists. I disagree, but who am I to say? Any arguments?

Professors Profess

Why are we called "professors"? Because we love to profess! We love to impart our hard-won knowledge. We get so much pleasure out of learning new things, and we want to share that pleasure by telling our students what we have learned. We really want our students to understand what we already understand. What we aren't thinking about is HOW we learned it, by reading and studying and rereading and researching and questioning, NOT by having somebody else tell us.

It's the same with anybody else who enjoys working to perfect their crafts, from athletes to artists, singers, and actors. Nobody does all that work without wanting to share their accomplishments. Thus athletes want big crowds of spectators, and choirs give concerts for free if need be. Artists want to display their artwork; almost never do they hide their paintings. And, of course, actors want to perform in front of an audience. Similarly, professors need to profess.

Unfortunately, sports fans don't become athletes by watching a game. Neither do art, theater, or music fans gain a bit of talent by observing art, theater, or music. And students don't really understand their subjects better by just watching us profess. They need to study it themselves, as we did to learn it in the first place.

Some random thoughts and pictures

I'm listening to Najee, My Point of View. It's a CD one of you left here, so I copied it. I LIKE it!

I mentioned my Inorganic Chemistry course a while back. I'm teaching it for two students who needed it to complete their chemistry minors. Before I started teaching it, I only knew what little Inorganic Chemistry I learned in college lo those many years ago. So the three of us are learning it together. Obviously, the students are reading and learning from the text more than from any wisdom I impart to them. And believe it or not, they are learning a LOT, and they are amazed at how much they are learning by essentially teaching it to themselves (with some guidance from me of course). Furthermore, they seem to be enjoying it. Remember, these are not Chemistry Majors! The same thing happened when I taught Nuclear Chemistry twice to one student each time. I think all four students had an eye-opening experience. They learned that, yes they CAN read technical stuff, and they can learn best by really studying material (not "memorizing", which is what most students mean when they say "studying"). Those of who have taught know exactly what that is like, because most of us never really learned a lot until we started teaching ourselves, and we HAD to study the material.

I'm going to blog soon about what "professors" do (want to guess?) and what science really is.

I may attend a workshop this summer about writing textbooks, because I have a dream of writing a few books: one for General Chemistry, one for Organic Chemistry, one about learning and critical thinking, especially in chemistry, and one about the philosophy of scince, especially as it relates to chemistry. Probably just a dream, but who knows?

Here are a couple a pictures from our trip to the City Museum, taken at Denny's.

Greg and Sarah M

Dan and Sarah K

Last night as I was trying to organize the Summer Rep finances I started watching Star Trek: Nemesis. I assumed I'd seen it already, so I could just kind of glance at it as I concentrated on the checkbook. I quickly discovered that I had NEVER seen it! Then I remembered that when it came out, I never got around to it, and promised myself I'd see it on DVD, which I didn't, of course.

So I settled in for a long evening of Trek. And here's what I thought about it:

1. It was kind of fun. Janeway is now an admiral, played by Kate Mulgrew. Did this take place before, after, or in an alternate universe from Voyager? Did Voyager ever get home? I can't remember. Geordi has lost his hair-barette type visor and now has cool blue contacts. Riker and Troi are getting married, and the whole crew is invited to the wedding but betazoids are always naked at home, so the crew will have to get naked for the wedding. Worf worries about this, much to the hilarity of the crew. Fortunately (the cast is getting pretty long in the tooth), we never have to witness the nuptials due to the ensuing crisis. Apparantly Romulus has a sister planet called Remus (makes sense, right?). The Remans are subjugated by the Romulans. The Remans serve as slaves in the brutal dilithium mines on Remus. The Remans look nothing like the Romulans.

2. As stated above the cast is getting OLD. Data especially seems to have wrinkled rather badly. Do androids age? Hmmmm.

3. The plot is full of holes. (a) Would Janeway be made an admiral after having been lost in space all those years? (b) Would two alien planets actually be called Romulus and Remus? OR is that just what WE call them? (c) How can the Remans be both a subjugated race of slaves and a warrior race right up there with the Klingons? and would they be allowed to have an awesome warship like the Scimitar? By the way, their faces are totally mask-like, even more than most Trek aliens. Why is it that the powerful warrior Remans haven't risen and totally kicked the wimpy Romulans butts? (d) The Romulans steal some of Picard's DNA and clone him so the clone can replace him and become a secret agent. Like that doesn't have about 100 reasons it can't possibly work. (e) When a new regime takes over Romulus, they abandon the Picard-clone project, and throw the clone (named Shinzon) into the dithium mines on Remus, where he suffers terrible brutality (left to our imagination). Does this make sense? Wouldn't they either keep him happy and healthy in case they need him, or kill him if they are afraid of him? (f) The aforementioned clone somehow not only survives, but manages to take over the entire Romulan government???? Can you say Battlefield Earth? (g) Shinzon's loyal second-in-command (a Reman) has some weird telepathic abilities. Apparently he took Shinzon under his wing in the dilithium mines, where he was also a slave, and used his telepathic ability to raise Shinzon to the highest government post. The Romulans are terrified of Shinzon (a wimpy human). Right. (h) Shinzon, of course, identifies and allies himself to the Remans, and he hates the Rolulans. But why does he hate humans, Picard specifically, and why does he want to destroy Earth?(i) Apparently Dr. Soong made yet another prototype of Data, called B-4 (get it? B-4?). How in the world did Shinzon get ahold of it? (He says he "found" it.) So he scatters B-4's pieces on an abandoned planet, resting assured that the Enterprise (no other ship, just the Enterprise) will find it. He also somehow trusts that the Enterprise crew will reassemble B-4 (OK, that's likely) and download all of Data's knowledge and memories into it (Hmmm, you think?) before realizing that B-4 is programmed to escape and return to the Scimitar, where he will immediately give up all the info to Shinzon. Of course it works to Picard's advantage as he discovers the plot, and sends Data over to the Scimitar, disguised as B-4. (j) Oh, I forgot, Shinzon is, of course, much younger than Picard, so the Romulans put some kind of aging device in him when they cloned him. But now it's killing him, and he needs a transfusion with Picards blood. (k) Finally, what was with the Reman luitenant channeling Shinzon's intrusion into and violation of Troi's mind? It was carried out, most ludicrously, by the lietenant putting his hands on Shinzon's bald head and then telepathically targeting Troi. Why????? Oh, I know, so she can tune into HIM later, and find him even though he's cloaked!

4. By the way, Data dies in the movie. Awww, sad. But hey, remember how they downloaded all his knowledge and memories into B-4? Hmmmmm.....

5. OK, after rereading all of the above, it was a pretty bad movie. But here's the biggest plot hole of all: I really enjoyed it! Weird.