Blog U.: Open to Change: How Open Access Can Work - Library Babel Fish. Last week, when I challenged readers to think about how to make open access happen, Jason Baird Jackson had a ready answer: the Open Folklore project. This project is drawing a terrific map for societies unsure of how to proceed. Partnering with Indiana University libraries, the American Folklore Society is identifying where their literature is and how much of it is accessible, bringing attention to existing and potential open access journals, asking rights holders if material can be set free, digitizing gray literature so it will be preserved . . . these folks are sharp. And they're doing what scholarly societies should do: promoting the field and sharing its collective knowledge for the greater good. I just visited their site again after reading a thoughtful article by Ted Striphas on the bizarre blind spot that cultural studies scholars have about the system that they depend on for conveying ideas and (perhaps even in their wildest dreams) making a difference in the world.
Argument from Authority vs. Trusting Experts | Galactic Interactions. Some folks who argue against anthropogenic climate change argue that folks like me who accept the evidence that it's happening and it's something we should worry about are guilty of bad science. Specifically, that we're accepting arguments from authority, rather than evaluating the evidence. While argument from authority works in some lines of reasoning, it's anathema to science. Science usually proceeds by starting from a set of assumptions or postulates, and seeing what results-- but those assumptions and postulates are always subject to test, and if experiment or observations show that they're wrong, they have to be tossed out. We believe something is true in science because the experiments or observations have show it to be true, not because some designated authority has asserted that this is how things are.
However, if you perform reducto ad absurdum on this argument, most of us have no right to accept the vast majority of the scientific knowledge that the human race has amassed. The Zen of Presentations, Part 34: Lessons from the blind. I was lucky enough to do a post-doc with David Macmillan. David is a wonderful person, and a terrific scientist. He was very active, and the sort of person you could see wondering, “What will I do when I retire?” About two years ago, David got an unexpected answer: Learn to live blind. David lost his sight in one day from an autoimmunity problem. But thanks to the technology available now, he has barely slowed down. He continued to serve as department head and a editor of the journal Marine and Freshwater Behavior and Physiology. He jokes with fellow neuroethologists, “I reckon I have the visual system of a primitive mollusc.” Of course, being blind gives you a different perspective. Those who tell a story, and use slides as a supplement to their story.Those who make their slides, show them, and comment on them.
Or, to borrow from Educating Rita, can you do it on the radio? Again and again and again, like a drumbeat: Tell people a story. The Index of Banned Words (The Continually Updated Edition) | The Loom. Science Bloggers: Diversifying the news « CMBR. A typical blogger: Ready for Battle So you know that old, sorry debate about science journalism versus science blogging? The one where the mainstream media are the legitimate suppliers of news about the world, and bloggers are resigned to being snarky commentators? Or how about the one where blogging creates an echo chamber, where the diversity of sources withers, leaving people in a pool of ideology-reinforcing consistency. Well have I got some news for you! These arguments may not only be patently illogical, but rather, the opposite might be true.
In a recent study in the journal Journalism Studies, Gina Walejko and Thomas Ksiazek, both PhD students at Northwestern University, compared the sources that traditional journalists, political bloggers, and science bloggers each turn to when producing their posts. They found that science bloggers, unlike the other two camps, rely on a higher diversity of sources, particularly primary literature or other academic work. So how’d it all shake down? PartiallyClips - Science-Speak | WhizBANG. Last week one of my posts received some friendly corrections in the comments section. Are literary devices allowed? Every point PhysioProf made is absolutely true - in a technical sense. But when explaining science to laypeople, you often use imprecise terms and not-quite-right analogies. As a physician, I frequently have to describe the embryologic development of the kidney to parents using my hands and whatever I can sketch on a paper towel.
In my errant post, I stated the following: Cells are bags of fluid surrounded by membranes. It is true that membranes would not be freely permeable to water without aquaporins which form water channels; however, most membranes in the body contain sufficient water channels to allow water to move freely through them and maintain osmotic equilibrium throughout the body. Hard-Wired for Pictures & Stories As scientists, we need to better communicate facts to the general public. At the session's conclusion the students re-explain their research.
Scientific spectating. The peculiar subject line is to introduce a new series of posts I'll be making -- scientific spectating. My idea is that there is too much science in the universe for us (any of us) to be expert about all of it. On the other hand, same as there are too many sports to be expert at doing them all, we can all learn to be good spectators. And being an informed spectator is its own kind of rewarding activity. It can be helpful to keep Science Jabberwocky in mind. It was in this vein that I appreciated some papers and comments in the late 1990s and early 2000s, regarding the expansion of the universe. As a spectator, I knew to start looking for papers defending the slithy-ness of the toves, or attacking the claimed observations of the mimsy-ness, or both. It is this that the series will attempt to do -- help educate readers in how to be good spectators of science. Science Jabberwocky. Twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe.All mimsy were the borogovesand the mome raths, outgrabe.
Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch! ... Rather, it provides some suggestions on how to read science in areas that you're not familiar with. Still, even with most of the words being unfamiliar, we can read this can know quite a lot. 1) Twas brillig and the slithy toves a) Brillig probably means something about the weather. 2) did gyre and gimble in the wabe.a) normally gyre and gimble would mean something about spinning. 3)All mimsy were the borogovesa) Borogoves are things that can be mimsyb) Mimsiness occupies some kind of range, from not mimsy at all, to all mimsy. 4) and the mome raths, outgrabe.a) likewise, raths can be mome. 5) Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
6) Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch! I won't go through the whole thing.