Archive February 2010

Vandalizing bookstores and censoring Books! Ken Perrott Feb 15


This headline brings up pictures of Nazis ransacking bookshops during the Third Reich and throwing books onto fires.

But, no, it was just a bit of fanciful hysteria in an email I received from the Discovery Institute, the creationist/intelligent design “think tank” in Seattle, USA. And of course they had to blame Darwin! The actual headline was “Vandalizing Bookstores and Censoring Books in the Name of Darwin.”

This was their unbalanced reaction to a blogger who reported re-shelving  creationist books he found in the science section of his local bookshop into the religion section. I guess there are also offended Christians who re-shelve Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion from the religion to science shelves as well. There are certainly some who place religious pamphlets in copies of atheist books.

What a lot of hysteria about nothing. Their claim is silly: “his actions constitute censorship, pure and simple. Barton is trying to hide books he doesn’t like in order to prevent others from being exposed to views with which he disagrees. Indeed, he is apparently so insecure about the ability of Darwinists like Dawkins to make their case that he thinks he has the duty to vandalize private bookstores in order to keep the books of Darwin’s critics away from the public. Barton’s activities are not only juvenile, they may well be illegal.”

Just imagine the poor policemen who has to listen to that complaint!

Personally, I find bookshops shelve their books haphazardly anyway. I always have difficulty finding the books I am looking for. As for voluntary re-shelving – I must admit to hiding Eve’s Bite whenever I see it no matter the shelf (sorry, Ian, just joking). But why bother re-shelving. This is the way I see it:

  1. If creationist books are wrongly placed in the science section this should reduce sales as creationists usually don’t visit that section. They would sell better in the religion section. Just imagine how uncomfortable it would be if you were forced into the religion section when looking for a science book. Many science people would give up looking before that resorted to that.
  2. It’s not as if a non-creationist is going to buy the book while perusing possible science purchases. Unless they really want to anyway to use as a reference.
  3. If creationists are forced unwittingly into looking at shelves of science books in their desire to find a specific creationist book that can be only a good thing, surely.

So I say live and let live. It will all work out well in the end.

Mind you, it is fun watching the Discovery Institute foam at the mouth.


Similar articles

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


One for the kids Ken Perrott Feb 12

No Comments

Book Review: Evolution: How We and All Living Things Came to Be by Daniel Loxton

Reading level: Young Adult
Price: US$12.89, NZ$40.99
Hardcover: 56 pages
Publisher: Kids Can Press, Ltd. (February 1, 2010)
ISBN-10: 1554534305
ISBN-13: 978-1554534302

Today, February 12, is Darwin Day. The anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth 201 years ago. So I have decided to review a new book on evolution.

It’s a short book, but an important one. Important because it’s for kids – it’s aimed at children of ages 8 — 13. It’s about an important area of science, evolutionary science. I think kids will learn from this book, and they will enjoy the experience.

’Evolution’ is beautifully illustrated and clearly written. Important evolutionary ideas are well explained in brief sections, often illustrated with examples and metaphors as well as pictures. Daniel Loxton is the editor of Junior Skeptic and regularly writes and illustrates for children so he is the ideal author for such a book.

I like the way that many of these sections use questions as chapter headings.  ’What about us?’, ’Survival of the fittest?’, ’If evolution really happens, where are the transitional fossil?’, ’How could evolution produce something as complicated as my eyes?’ are a few examples. The sorts of questions kids will commonly hear. Loxton devotes the second part of his book to such questions, ones commonly raised by creationist critics of evolution. This is good technique for capturing the reader’s attention and encouraging them to read further.

Loxton uses many examples and metaphors, as well as pictures, to illustrate ideas. His illustration of mutations acting over time with the metaphor of the children’s’ game ’telephone’ is done in both words and pictures.

My main criticism is that he didn’t use a metaphor to illustrate the important idea of ’deep time.’  A simple description of rock layers and differentiation of fossils is inadequate — even for an adult. One needs to compare the immensity of time with something pictorial, like the distance between people, houses, cities, countries, planets, and so on. An illustration of the process of fossilisation could also have helped.

However, kids of this age are continuously learning. They are always confronting ideas and words needing further explanation. So I think it is great that this book includes a short glossary (which does include a description of fossilisation) and index. This helps encourage the young reader to explore further — especially when they come across unfamiliar words.

The religion question

Several reviewers have expressed reservations about Loxton’s short answer to the question ’What about religion?’ Perhaps it would have been better to leave this out — but on the other hand it is a common question which kids will have to confront. Loxton’s inadequate reply was unavoidable, given the unwritten social rule that religion has a special role in our society. That we are not allowed to criticise religion. Any properly adequate reply would have lead to people being ’offended’ and campaigns to exclude the book for schools.

So perhaps the best advice is that he gave — kids should discuss this with family and friends. I think there are many things in this book which will raise further questions in the reader’s minds. Maybe it’s religion, the way fossils are formed, how life began, the age of the earth or universe. If this leads to discussions with family, friends and teachers — great. It’s all part of education.

So, I can highly recommend this book. It will be a great gift for the target age group — but even some of us older ’kids’ could probably learn from this short clearly written and beautifully illustrated book.

That’s my opinion. Now I must pass it on to my 9 year-old granddaughter and get her reaction.

See also:
Evolution: How we and al living things came to be – available from
forgoodreason Interview with Loxton about the book
Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe Interviews Daniel loxton
Buy Now banner 240x52


Similar articles

rss_icon_glass48 Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Get your climate change science on the run Ken Perrott Feb 11

No Comments

Skeptical Science available on Itunes Iphone App StoreSomebody said that “lies are half way around the world before truth gets its boots on.” An underestimate, I would say.

With the current hysterical attack on climate science and climate scientists this is so true. It takes time to marshal the evidence needed to counter some of the claims being made. And most likely the perpetrator has moved on, in a Gish gallop, to a new issue and avoids facing up to the facts about the old one.

The internet is a great resource for people checking out some of the wild claims being made – providing you use reliable websites. One reliable site is Skeptical science, which has a byline of “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.” This site provides the actual scientific facts relevant to most claims made by climate change sceptics and deniers.

Now they have produced an application for the iPhone and ipod Touch. This will bring the much needed scientific information about climate change to your mobile device. Just imagine being able to check out a speaker during a lecture or debate – maybe even obtain the information of a sensible question.

Here’s a description of how to use the application taken from Skeptical Science now an iPhone app. at Skeptical science:

When you select one of the 3 main categories, a list of sub-categories pop up. You can then select any category to see the skeptic argument, a summary of what the science says and the full answer including graphs plus links to papers or other sources.

A novel inclusion is a feature that lets you report when you encounter a skeptic argument. By clicking on the red ear icon (above left, shown to the left of the skeptic arguments or above right, next to the headline), the iPhone adds another hit to that particular skeptic argument. At the moment, which arguments you report are only available in a My Reports page, shown below. Shine Tech are hoping to play around with the Reports meta-data in future versions of the app – the phrase “heat-map” gets mentioned often.

So if you have an iPhone or iPod, be sure to download the app and post any feedback or suggestions here. If you have friends with iPhones, be sure to let them know of the app. The more people use the app, hopefully the more versions will be developed in the future with snazzy extra features. If anyone encounters any technical problems with the app, please let me know.

UPDATE 11 Feb 2010: Thanks for the feedback so far (I’ve passed it onto Shine Tech who I’m sure will be reading this thread also). One other thing I forgot to ask – for those who are able to use the app, please be sure to post a review on iTunes :-)


Similar articles

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Can science solve all problems? Ken Perrott Feb 10

No Comments

First – I love this latest cartoon from Jesus and Mo. Certainly typical of some conversations I have had with creationists. (Currently, though, it seems to be even more typical of  the more extreme local climate change deniers).

But, my main message is about the question “Can science solve all problems?” Of course no scientist claims it can, although our critics sometimes attibute that hubris to us. Yet there are certainly some questions we won’t be able to solve.

This post from It’s Only a Theory (Tales in a subdued palette of chestnut and white) illustrates an important aspect. That just because we don’t believe that we can know everything using science (or anything else) doesn’t mean we should assume that knowledge in a specific area is impossible. I believe that is an arrogant claim. Anyway – read on:

“Charles Sander Peirce observed that it’s a poor bet to insist that science will never be able to solve some question. Make the bet, he says, and

“[t]he likelihood is that it will be solved long before you could have dreamed possible. Think of Auguste Comte who when asked to name any thing that could never be found out instanced the chemical composition of the fixed stars; and almost before his book became known to the world at large, the first steps had been taken in spectral analysis.*

Yet there are certainly some questions we won’t be able to solve. The problem, of course, is identifying which facts those are.

Traces of the past have been effaced, and so there are some facts about what the past was like that are unrecoverable. In explaining underdetermination to people, I use the colour of dinosaurs as an example. It may just be that the fossil record has not preserved enough for us to figure it out.

And yet researchers claim to figure it out based on microscopic bits responsible for extruding pigment; see the NYTimes article. The Sinosauropteryx, we are told, had “had a head-to-tail feathered mohawk in a subdued palette of chestnut and white stripes.”

The story goes on to indicate that other scientists challenge the result, that the data set is small, and so on. And I only ever used the example in a conditional way, to say that the relevant evidence might not exist in the fossil record. I only meant say that this kind of underdetermination will arise in historical sciences. Of course we can’t know with certainty which questions will be underdeterminated in this way.

Still, I need a new example.

* I give the full citation and more commentary in an old paper.”


Similar articles


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Spinning exoneration of Dr. Michael Mann Into ’Whitewash’ Ken Perrott Feb 09

No Comments

Dr Michael Mann, Penn State University

I have read the full report of this inquiry Concerning the Allegations of Research Misconduct Against Dr. Michael E. Mann and find the whole business interesting. Here are my reasons – quotes are from the report:

1: No specific charges for Mann to confront

Instead the University had received:

“numerous communications (emails, phone calls and letters) accusing Dr. Michael E. Mann of having engaged in acts that included manipulating data, destroying records and colluding to hamper the progress of scientific discourse around the issue of anthropogenic global warming from approximately 1998. These accusations were based on perceptions of the content of the widely reported theft of emails from a server at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Great Britain.”

So, all sorts of wild claims were being made as part of the hysterical fall out from “climategate” – the illegal release of emails in the UK. This was promoted by conservative bloggers and media outlets, by the deniersphere’s echo chamber.

“….. no formal allegations accusing Dr. Mann of research misconduct were submitted to any University official …the emails and other communications were reviewed [and] synthesized [into] the following four formal allegations.  …. The four synthesized allegations were as follows:”

1. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data?

2. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?
3. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar?
4. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community.

So – no formal charges or accusations. This forced the inquiry to synthesis their own from implied accusations from the deluge of hysterical emails and comments. They were not accusations of the inquiry or the University themselves!

2: No evidence to substantiate allegations

None at all. Not for any of the four allegations! The report discusses each accusation and detail and gives it’s clear finding that “there is no substance for this allegation.”

Naturally Dr Mann expressed pleasure at the result:

“I am very pleased that, after a thorough review, the independent Penn State committee found no evidence to support any of the allegations against me.  …. This is very much the vindication I expected since I am confident I have done nothing wrong.”

This does sort of expose the hysterical “climategate” beat up for what it was, doesn’t it. We can seriously discuss deficiencies in the way scientists at the University of East Anglia handled freedom of information requests, how they should be disciplined for this, etc.,  because there are specific charges and evidence. But the witch hunt against individuals like Dr Mann is exposed as hysterical hot air.

3: Further investigation by peers required

This was jumped on by some of the most biased commenters to claim a denier victory. Locally, conspiracy theorist Ian Wishart, claimed the inquiry was “widening “(Hockey-stick’s Michael Mann under deeper investigation). Blogger Poneke claimed Hockey stick fabricator Michael Mann to face further scrutiny in the wake of Climategate emails leak. Similar headlines appeared overseas and in the twittersphere.

However, this was simply a result of the inquiry committee finding itself unable to make a definitive finding on accusation 4 (deviation from accepted practices within the academic community for research). The decided this requited a “review by a committee of faculty scientists.” Clearly they saw that anything short of this would be seen as a whitewash saying: “Only with such a review will the academic community and other interested parties likely feel that Penn State has discharged it responsibility on this matter.”

Consequently an investigatory committee of five faculty members “with impeccable credentials” was set up and will report back within 120 days.

This will of course add extra reliability to Mann’s vindication. He commented “I fully support the additional inquiry which may be the best way to remove any lingering doubts. I intend to cooperate fully in this matter — as I have since the beginning of the process.

You can find the full report of the inquiry panel here: Concerning the Allegations of Research Misconduct Against Dr. Michael E. Mann

See also:
Climate change deniers’ tawdry manipulation of ’hockey sticks’
Breaking: Penn State inquiry finds no evidence for allegations against Michael Mann
Brendan Demelle | Climate Skeptics Try To Spin Penn State Exoneration of Dr. Michael Mann Into ’Whitewash’.
Michael Mann updates the world on the latest climate science and responds to the illegally hacked emails
Sorry deniers, hockey stick gets longer, stronger: Earth hotter now than in past 2,000 years
Human-caused Arctic warming overtakes 2,000 years of natural cooling, ’seminal’ study finds
Abandoning all journalistic standards, CBS libels Michael Mann based on a YouTube video – while reporting his exoneration!


Similar articles

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Self-exposure — a journalist out of depth Ken Perrott Feb 08


Book Review: The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur.

Price: US$16.50; NZ$35.oo
Perfect Paperback: 376 pages
Publisher: North Atlantic Books (February 9, 2010); Scoop Media Publishing
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1556439245
ISBN-13: 978-1556439247

Journalist Suzan Mazur created a small flurry several years ago with articles on a planned scientific meeting (The 18th Altenberg Workshop in Theoretical Biology Toward an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, ’ July 2008. Organized by Massimo Pigliucci and Gerd B. Müller). She managed to interview some of the participants, but then got offside with the science community because of the way she presented these interviews, and the nature of the meeting, in her articles.

Massimo Pugliucci, a key organiser of the meeting who had provided an early interview, roundly criticised her. He criticised journalists who ’make up stuff out of their fertile imaginations, like Suzan Mazur has most outrageously done with her inane ’Scoop series.’’ Several other evolutionary scientists were also critical (see for example PZ Myers comments in ’Journalistic flibbertigibbet” and Pigliucci’s Is there fundamental scientific disagreement about evolutionary theory?). At the same time her articles and this book have been warmly welcomed by creationists as being anti-Darwinian. At the blog Uncommon Descent O’Leary wrote Darwin skeptic Suzan Mazur is one fine journalist and William Dembski promoted the book in The Altenberg 16 – coming to a bookstore near you February 9th.’

The Altenberg Workshop — normal science

The Altenberg Workshop: From left to right: Sergey Gavrilets, Stuart Newman, David Sloan Wilson, John Beatty, John Odling-Smee, Michael Purugganan, Greg Wray, David Jablonski, Marc Kirschner, Eörs Szathmary, Günter Wagner, Werner Callebaut, Eva Jablonka, Gerd Müller, Massimo Pigliucci, Alan Love

The Altenberg Workshop brought together 16 evolutionary biologists and philosophers. They discussed the current status of evolutionary theory, including some recent exciting empirical and conceptual advances.  The new ideas included evolvability, developmental plasticity, phenotypic and genetic accommodation, punctuated evolution, phenotypic innovation, facilitated variation, epigenetic inheritance, and multi-level selection.’ (From the Workshop’s final statement — approved by all participants).

Like any healthy science, evolutionary biology and philosophy is living and healthy. Research produces new information. Scientists come up with, and promote, new ideas. There is active debate about these. However, scientific debate leads to advances, not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. This active discussion and new research is not a sign that evolutionary theory is dead and needs replacing. It’s not a sign of a ’new evolutionary theory to replace natural selection.’

But, of course, that is how many creationists, and some less ethical journalists, try to represent the science. Creationists latched on to the workshop as evidence for the death of Darwinism — much to the chagrin of the workshop participants. And Suzan Mazur effectively played this creationist ball — to the disgust of many of the scientists she had interviewed.

An ’industry’ exposed

The title’s reference to ’exposé’ and ’evolution industry’ gives you some idea of the books orientation. The response from scientists and creationists confirms it.

The book does not even try to describe an ’evolution industry’, let alone expose it. It implies that because funds are invested in evolutionary research and many papers and books result this somehow produces an establishment orthodoxy – a self-perpetuating ’industry’. That somehow evolutionary scientists refuse to look into or consider new ideas. They are stuck in a ’Darwinist’ mould of natural selection.

This is a common fall-back for critics of science. For example, climate change deniers will accuse climate science as being a self-serving ’industry,’ citing government funding as evidence. A handy way of avoiding the real issue which upsets them — the scientific evidence produced by the research.

Of course society funds evolutionary research, just as it does other useful scientific research. That doesn’t make it an ’industry’ in the derogatory sense. However, there is an ’evolution industry’ — or more correctly and ’anti-evolution industry’. Funded by conservative religious organisations and benefactors (as well as tax exemptions). Not involved in any research but concentrating on political and legal action. Producing tracts and books attacking evolutionary, and other, science. And even with a publicly declared aim of overthrowing scientific rationality (see wedge document). Now that is an industry journalists like Suzan Mazur, if they were honest, could usefully expose.

No evaluation of Workshop

Mazur makes the Altenberg meeting the central part of her book. However, she makes no real attempt to discuss the Workshop or the ideas in her own words. I get the impression that her understanding of the scientific and philosophical issues involved is not enough for her to risk comment. Instead she relies only on transcripts of interviews, reproduction of her articles (often including extensive quotes from interviews), a few of her notes and other material like the text of the Workshop invitation and abstracts from the scientific contributions.

Strangely, there is no evaluation of the workshop, its concluding documents or the ideas and research involved. The material written after the Workshop ignores it and instead promotes the central theme of exposing an ’evolution industry.’ She even includes emails outlining her attempts (largely unsuccessful) to pitch her articles to various publication.  Vanity Fair specifically requested something describing the outcomes of the Altenberg Workshop and science community reaction. There is not hint she even attempted this.

One could imagine a collection of interview transcripts could be useful. However, Mazur conducted these interviews according to her agenda, seeking to find evidence for an ‘evolution industry’ and the need for a ’new evolutionary theory.’ She tries to put words in mouths. Richard Lewontin remarked on her agenda in his interview telling her that ’every time somebody says I have a new theory, I suggest you turn off your hearing aid.’ Others had to correct her interpretations at times. Often she uses bold type in a transcript to stress comments useful to her cause. She has also extended her cast of interviewees to include a few real outsiders unconnected with the Workshop (and often considered cranks by the scientific community) who produce the text she needs.

I get the impression that she has thrown into this book everything she have ever written about evolution, not just material related to the workshop. So we get chapters like ’Richard Dawkins renounces Darwinism as a Religion’ and ’The Astrobiologists.’ Even abstracts from a different conference (’Biological facts and Theories’ held in Rome, March 2009 under the patronage of the Catholic Church).

Where is the discussion?

But none of this involves a discussion of the new ideas, new research, or current controversies in evolutionary science. Just a collection of interview transcripts, workshop invitations, collections of abstracts provided by authors at the various meetings and brief newspaper articles (for Scoop in NZ) she produced from the material.

While this did provide me with a collection of all her writings on the subject in one place I can’t imagine what other value can be derived from the book. Except of course to be used as ’evidence’ by creationists there is an ’evolution industry,’ that natural selection is out-of-date, disproven, and a ’new theory of evolution’ is arising.

The material in this book was previously issued as an ebook (as well as the original published articles). The paper version may satisfy the author’s ego but I can’t understand the publisher’s motives. A collection of existing material, no discussion, no editing! What were they thinking of!

Science publishing needs effort

Perhaps I expect too much from a book written from the perspective of a non-scientist journalist, rather than a scientific perspective. Mazur’s approach is similar to that of a political journalist. Treating the interviewees as invariably dishonest and duplicitous. As the subject essentially about opinions rather than facts. And using a distrusting, hostile approach — aiming to catch people out.

This is not fitting for a book which is about science. Such writing should be about evidence and ideas, research and real personalities – not about opinions and beliefs. A science writer should  attempt understanding and write to communicate this at an appropriate level.

There is much interesting research and ideas in evolutionary science these days. Much of it is controversial and hotly debated within the community. I would love to have read a book describing this. Describing the research, the new findings, the hypotheses and interpretations. Mentioning the personalities involved and providing access to some of the debate

This is not that book.

rss_icon_glass48 Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic

See also:

The Altenberg Workshop proceedings (published April 2010):  Evolution — the Extended Synthesis

Journalistic flibbertigibbet
Altenberg 2008: What Happened?
Is there fundamental scientific disagreement about evolutionary theory?
Notes from Altenberg, part I
Evolution at Altenberg
Altenberg 2008: What Happened?

Similar articles

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


A photographer’s dream Ken Perrott Feb 05

No Comments

Just imagine yourself as a photographer on the International Space Station (ISS). Constantly changing scenery – and most of it beautiful.

One of the astronauts, Jose Hernandez, has been sending back some lovely photos. Here are a couple below. Click on them to go to the originals – the one with the space station can be enlarged.

You can follow Jose on twitter – Astro_Jose

Sin palabras...Simplemente asombroso! Without words! Simply b... on Twitpic

La estacion y el horizonte de la Tierra. Una vista espectacul... on Twitpic

Thanks to Sin palabras…Simplemente asombroso! Without words! Simply breathtaking!


Similar articles


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Get in line — who is the odd one out? Ken Perrott Feb 04


Picked this up from The freethinker (Caption this picture — and win a copy of ‘God Hates You — Hate Him Back’). Apparently it’s a genuine, un-Photoshopped picture. A fella in Darth Vader gear who fell into step with a flock of ecclesiastical coves out for a stroll.

Well, they are offering a prize for a suitable caption. Closing date for entries is February 8.

I am a bit slow today so nothing brilliant comes to mind. But I am sure there will be some great captions produced.

Actually, I just find the get-up of the five guys in front hilarious. Sillier than that one bringing up the rear.


Came across a video of the procession – “Darth Vadar joins a cult.” (Thanks to Exploring Our Matrix).


Similar articles

I want one of these! Ken Perrott Feb 02

No Comments

Well, yes, I would love a bottle – or even the chance to taste some of these wines. But it’s the packaging that attracts me, this time. Washington State’s Wines of Substance, won the Seattle Magazine’s “Coolest Wine Label” Award in 2008 for these. The labels are presented in the format we are used to with chemical elements (Pg is pinot gris, Se for semillon, Gw for gewürtztramminer, for example).

But, as a chemist, what I would really like is the “periodic table” of wines this company has produced. I can just imagine it pinned up alongside Dmitri Mendeleev’s Periodic table of Elements on my office wall.

Substance justifies their table because “wine is as much an art as it is a science. What better way to express this basis than a Periodic Table of Wine with each varietal reflected as an element or substance?” Their interactive “periodic table” website is a great example of this art (see WINES OF SUBSTANCE – Washington State Periodic Table of Wines).

This table is obviously aimed at the American consumer. But I reckon someone could produce a similar things for New Zealand. A periodic table sumarising our wine varieties  and grape growing regions.

It would probably go down well with many consumers. Or at least the geeks amongst us.

Thanks to Bioephemera at The Periodic Table of Wine


Similar articles

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The ISSS used for teaching Ken Perrott Feb 01

No Comments

I can still remember one of the few practical demonstrations I observed in my first year university physics class many years ago. This illustrated conservation of momentum. It involved our lecturer climbing on to the lecture room bench and standing on a plank of wood resting on (empty) beer bottles laid on their side (to reduce friction).

When he jumped forward by a small distance, the plank of wood shot back by a larger distance (conserving momentum). It was a risky experiment and several beer bottles broke.

I am not sure how many students appreciated the physical law being demonstrated. Practical demonstrations were not common in teaching those days. I suspect for many it just reinforced in their minds that this particular lecturer was, if not mad, at least eccentric.

In these more enlightened day I hope teachers use every advantage to practically demonstrate physical laws. Some of the videos being recorded on the International Space Station ISS could be useful for this.

Last week Astronaut Jeff Williams demonstrated the acceleration experienced inside the cabin during a planned ISS reboost. The ISS is reboosted periodically to maintain its orbit, and to prepare for visiting spacecraft, such as the space shuttle (a launch planned this week) and Progress vehicles.

Jeff’s experiment demonstrates that objects will continue in motion unless acted on by a force. In this case he shows that a free-floating body will move relative to the station when the station is accelerating.

A simple demonstration of an important physical law.

via YouTube – Space Station Reboost.


Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer