Episode 167 | It's Okay To Be Sort Of Smart | Science... sort of

livingthescilife:

image

In which we chat with Joe Hanson about the joys of spreading the science. You’ll like it.

I joined the Paleopals on Science, Sort Of… to talk about the new YouTube show, to enjoy a nice cocktail, and talk about how alien abduction stories might be just your brain’s wires getting crossed in a stressful experience.

Also, I am apparently He-Man. Enjoy my voice, in your ears! (also on iTunes)

…our society has become so technologically based that you really can’t be a fully operating citizen unless you understand basic science. How are you supposed to make judgements about the health of your children if you don’t believe in science? How are you supposed to make a judgement about a generation of fuel and power if you don’t believe in science? You can’t operate as a sensible voting member of a democratic society these days unless you understand fundamental scientific principles to a degree.
Brian Cox and Robin Ince interview the legend himself, David Attenborough: A life measured in heartbeats

Source: newstatesman.com

I’ve always felt there are a lot of people out there who have a strong desire to know what’s going on in science, but maybe they’re intimidated, maybe they aren’t around other people who care about the same things. Maybe they don’t have a place to get information they trust. This site is about showing people that it is OK to be interested in science, that this is a positive thing. You shouldn’t be intimidated or scared or nervous. And if you don’t have friends who are interested in it, go online, where there are thousands of people who are interested in science.
Oh, hey this is a (very) short interview with me

Source: charlotteobserver.com

A Conversation With Randall Munroe, the Creator of XKCD

“What I like doing is finding the places in those questions where normal people — or, people who have less spare time than I do — think, “This is stupid,” and stop. I think the really cool and compelling thing about math and physics is that it opens up entry to all these hypotheticals — or at least, it gives you the language to talk about them.”


Enlightening look behind the scenes.

Check out my EXCLUSIVE* Tumblr Science interview with Phil Edwards, the man behind Fake Science!  You’ve loved the Fake Science Tumblr for years (you have, haven’t you?) and now you can buy the book! Phil has a new tome coming out tomorrow called Fake Science 101, a textbook full of the not-so-factually sound science you’ve grown to love. You can order it on Amazon here. I got the chance to ask Phil a few real questions about what it’s like to be a fake scientist, how fake science can make you smarter, and which zombie scientist he’d like to meet. Check it out: Why Fake Science instead of real science? Do you hate real science? I had a running joke with a friend: whenever we encountered something we didn’t understand, we just said “some sort of science must be involved” and moved on. It made me think about how few things I understand at a deep level, so I vowed to dedicate my life to Photoshopping puppies tied to missiles. What made you start Fake Science? Did you see a void you wanted to fill online? I didn’t specifically set out to fill a science-shaped hole, but it happened. In retrospect, I think the scientific theme gave me the structure to keep the site going for two years and develop a textbook. Take us through the work to make one post. Do you do all the artwork or did you uncover a lost WWII science bunker somewhere? Do you have any artistic inspirations? For the site, it depends on the post. I usually mash-up a mix of altered photos, scans of old books, and my own graphs, overlaid with aged textures. I really like working with look of stuff from the 50s, 60s, and 70s, and acquiring new typefaces from the era. A real inspiration are the “Ladybird” books. Look them up if you can. Though I don’t modify their images on the site anymore—they are an active company—they have a great look to draw from. For the book, Fake Science 101, I had to develop a new aesthetic. It’s modern but timeless. I modified stock photos, made new ones, and included my own illustrations. The rigors of print quality, from resolution to color, made it a much more complex task than the site, but hopefully more rewarding. The slime-covered babies look even more real! Do you think your humor and artwork help people get in touch with real science? How have people responded? Do people use Fake Science to teach real science principles? I know for a fact they do! I repeatedly get requests from teachers, from the elementary school to college level, for reproductions of my images. It’s definitely a good way to teach because I think that even if students don’t find the fake facts aren’t funny, they always inspire a curiosity about the truth. Honestly, I think that Fake Science 101 would be a great way to teach a science class. It covers Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Earth Science, Physics, and science basics. I had to structure it as if I were actually teach science, so I think it’s pedagogically sound (except, of course, for all the facts). Can “real science” learn anything from Fake Science? Is this an effective means of science communication or does it stop with just being a joke? The last chapter of Fake Science 101 gets into the ways “real science” interacts with the larger world. At its best, science is the practice of constant skepticism and curiosity. At its worst, it’s yelling “SCIENCE” and barring further discussion. Of course, most real scientists encourage research, questions, and a deeper knowledge (I’m not just saying this to suck up—it has been true in my experience).  However, many non-scientists are content to act on a superficial knowledge of the data’s strengths and weaknesses. Hopefully, Fake Science reminds them that real science requires facts, not just a “sense” of authority. Of course, this weighty subject is addressed in the book by showing a scientist who isn’t wearing any pants. Who is the Fake Scientist? Care to let us peek behind the curtain? Of course, officially, I’m the transcriptionist for a lab of over 11,000 employees with offices around the world. Less officially, I’m a writer in Chicago who enjoys reading, improving at Photoshop, and the occasional pop science book. My science-book tastes probably skew a little lighter than most scientists, but I love reading Oliver Sacks or Dava Sobel, and I just finished Rebecca Skloot’s Henrietta Lacks book. My favorite humor books in the “fake” genre—from which I drew inspiration for Fake Science 101—are probably Stephen Colbert’s “I Am America And So Can You” and The Onion’s “Our Dumb Century.” What are your favorite Fake Science lessons ever? One of the nice things about the site and the book is that I can mix smart and dumb jokes. So my tastes don’t ge too oppressive. That said, my favorite posts from the site are probably:  Optical Illusions  High Fructose Corn Syrup  OMG Science Finally, you can meet zombie Albert Einstein, zombie Carl Sagan, or zombie Nikola Tesla … who do you choose and why? If they’re zombies, I have to assume they’re coming to kill me. I guess I’d pick whoever was weakest. Sorry, Einstein—you may have funny hair, but I think I could take you in a fight. *I heard this word looks good in headlines.
Pop-upView Separately

Check out my EXCLUSIVE* Tumblr Science interview with Phil Edwards, the man behind Fake Science! 

You’ve loved the Fake Science Tumblr for years (you have, haven’t you?) and now you can buy the book! Phil has a new tome coming out tomorrow called Fake Science 101, a textbook full of the not-so-factually sound science you’ve grown to love. You can order it on Amazon here.

I got the chance to ask Phil a few real questions about what it’s like to be a fake scientist, how fake science can make you smarter, and which zombie scientist he’d like to meet. Check it out:

Why Fake Science instead of real science? Do you hate real science?

I had a running joke with a friend: whenever we encountered something we didn’t understand, we just said “some sort of science must be involved” and moved on. It made me think about how few things I understand at a deep level, so I vowed to dedicate my life to Photoshopping puppies tied to missiles.

What made you start Fake Science? Did you see a void you wanted to fill online?

I didn’t specifically set out to fill a science-shaped hole, but it happened. In retrospect, I think the scientific theme gave me the structure to keep the site going for two years and develop a textbook.

Take us through the work to make one post. Do you do all the artwork or did you uncover a lost WWII science bunker somewhere? Do you have any artistic inspirations?

For the site, it depends on the post. I usually mash-up a mix of altered photos, scans of old books, and my own graphs, overlaid with aged textures. I really like working with look of stuff from the 50s, 60s, and 70s, and acquiring new typefaces from the era. A real inspiration are the “Ladybird” books. Look them up if you can. Though I don’t modify their images on the site anymore—they are an active company—they have a great look to draw from.

For the book, Fake Science 101, I had to develop a new aesthetic. It’s modern but timeless. I modified stock photos, made new ones, and included my own illustrations. The rigors of print quality, from resolution to color, made it a much more complex task than the site, but hopefully more rewarding. The slime-covered babies look even more real!

Do you think your humor and artwork help people get in touch with real science? How have people responded? Do people use Fake Science to teach real science principles?

I know for a fact they do! I repeatedly get requests from teachers, from the elementary school to college level, for reproductions of my images. It’s definitely a good way to teach because I think that even if students don’t find the fake facts aren’t funny, they always inspire a curiosity about the truth.

Honestly, I think that Fake Science 101 would be a great way to teach a science class. It covers Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Earth Science, Physics, and science basics. I had to structure it as if I were actually teach science, so I think it’s pedagogically sound (except, of course, for all the facts).

Can “real science” learn anything from Fake Science? Is this an effective means of science communication or does it stop with just being a joke?

The last chapter of Fake Science 101 gets into the ways “real science” interacts with the larger world. At its best, science is the practice of constant skepticism and curiosity. At its worst, it’s yelling “SCIENCE” and barring further discussion. Of course, most real scientists encourage research, questions, and a deeper knowledge (I’m not just saying this to suck up—it has been true in my experience). 

However, many non-scientists are content to act on a superficial knowledge of the data’s strengths and weaknesses. Hopefully, Fake Science reminds them that real science requires facts, not just a “sense” of authority. Of course, this weighty subject is addressed in the book by showing a scientist who isn’t wearing any pants.

Who is the Fake Scientist? Care to let us peek behind the curtain?

Of course, officially, I’m the transcriptionist for a lab of over 11,000 employees with offices around the world.

Less officially, I’m a writer in Chicago who enjoys reading, improving at Photoshop, and the occasional pop science book. My science-book tastes probably skew a little lighter than most scientists, but I love reading Oliver Sacks or Dava Sobel, and I just finished Rebecca Skloot’s Henrietta Lacks book. My favorite humor books in the “fake” genre—from which I drew inspiration for Fake Science 101—are probably Stephen Colbert’s “I Am America And So Can You” and The Onion’s “Our Dumb Century.”

What are your favorite Fake Science lessons ever?

One of the nice things about the site and the book is that I can mix smart and dumb jokes. So my tastes don’t ge too oppressive. That said, my favorite posts from the site are probably: 

Optical Illusions 

High Fructose Corn Syrup 

OMG Science

Finally, you can meet zombie Albert Einstein, zombie Carl Sagan, or zombie Nikola Tesla … who do you choose and why?

If they’re zombies, I have to assume they’re coming to kill me. I guess I’d pick whoever was weakest. Sorry, Einstein—you may have funny hair, but I think I could take you in a fight.

*I heard this word looks good in headlines.

Listen to me talk, about things!

I did an interview recently for a podcast called New Empire Builders (iTunes). I assure you it is not a show about global conquest, but rather a place that highlights people out to change the way things are done. I am one of those people, apparently!

I talked with Scott about what it’s like to write about science today, why I do what I do, the challenges facing us as scientists, and why we need more people engaged in science communication from both sides. If these are things that you think you might be interested in, give it a listen! I say the words “Neil deGrasse Tyson” and “Carl Sagan” in it if that helps.

Anyway, if you’ve ever wanted to be able to picture me reading to you as you peruse my blog, here’s a good reference point. For me, it’s like hearing my voice on an answering machine, only 1,000X worse. 

Much of the research confirms things we’ve always suspected. For example, in general people who are in good romantic relationships are happier than those who aren’t. Healthy people are happier than sick people. People who participate in their churches are happier than those who don’t. Rich people are happier than poor people. And so on.

That said, there have been some surprises. For example, while all these things do make people happier, it’s astonishing how little any one of them matters. Yes, a new house or a new spouse will make you happier, but not much and not for long. As it turns out, people are not very good at predicting what will make them happy and how long that happiness will last. They expect positive events to make them much happier than those events actually do, and they expect negative events to make them unhappier than they actually do.

Harvard Business Review interviews Daniel Gilbert, author of Stumbling on Happiness. (via curiositycounts)

(via curiositycounts)