&ot Journeys' End

Journeys' End

We walk many paths, many roads
Till death halts our steps.
Every day a new adventure,
A new journey of self discovery.

20080620

Sports isn’t the only thing we are good at

From the website:

“StarStuff is ABC NewsRadio's flagship Astronomy, Cosmology, Space and Science program. “

It is hosted by Stuart Gary and it is the only public program on TV or radio which is dedicated to science.

And it is about to be axed to make way for a 30 minute program about sport.

Now as Australians we are justifiably proud of our sporting prowess, but with more than 700 hours of programming on radio and TV already dedicated to sports, do we really need to replace a 30 minute show about science so we can find out more about sports?!

This country is bemoaning the lack of skilled workers and slumping enrolment in engineering and science , wringing its hands about the “brain drain” where our best and brightest go overseas to work - and here we are replacing the only dedicated science program available freely to the public with a sports program.

Australians are not just great sportsmen, we are great doctors, engineers, and scientists too. But if you were to read the news, watch TV or listen to the radio, you would be hard pressed to find evidence of this.

As a nation we need engineers and scientists working in this country to progress into the future. To do this we need to inspire children to be interested in science. We need to get the public interested in science and make it OK to be interested in science. The most effective way to do this is to make make science accessible. StarStuff does this all by its lonesome in the sporting crazed landscape of public programming.

So please please please the Powers That Be, at the very least save StarStuff. Expanding it wouldn’t hurt either.

Cheers, Steve

Labels: , , ,

posted by steve @ 11:21 AM  

20080302

Science, its not part of economics

The Australia 2020 summit is a great idea, but at the same time it goes to show why Australia isn't a great country for developing revolutionary technologies or making breakthroughs in science. There are 10 special interest groups in australia2020, and not one of them dedicated to Science/Technology. Sure it is within the scope of the Economics interest group, but only in the context of keeping and attracting highly skilled people - and throwing more money at them, the economics solution, isn't going to cut it.

This illustrates a fundamental problem within Australia - the economics driven agenda. We are not willing to do science for science's sake, nor develop technology which don't yield economic returns. Our universities are ran like businesses, responding to what business of today want, not what the world of tomorrow demands. As a result, most of what we do is refine current methods and ideas to increase the bottom line. Short term economic gain rules our thinking, blinding us to the shining prospects in the future.

No one body can be blamed for this. It is a fundamental attitude that needs to be changed from the bottom-up. Our government and universities needs to fund projects and courses that are revolutionary, support educators who are willing to explore new ideas and directions, and not merely respond to economics developments around the world, but act decisively to anticipate future trends.

An example of anticipating the future is MIT's Centre for Bits and Atoms. They are not reacting to the digital divide, but anticipating that it will heal itself and acting to anticipate a future where everyone has access to the internet and what it means for personal fabrication. To this end they have facilitated the development of fab-labs where one can make almost anything by manufacturing custom parts in one-off quantities. This is the kind of revolutionary technology Australia needs to nurture and develop in order to become a country to scientists flock.

Until then, we can only hope that those chosen for the economics specialty group realise this also, and push for an Australia whose science and technology centres are places where the future is built, not just places to making better mouse traps.

Cheers,
Steve

Labels: ,

posted by steve @ 3:24 PM  

20071113

A Rant about Cherries and Science.

There is a problem with science today. Actually, no. There is a problem with the people of today which makes them easily exploited by  detractors of science.

Science generates a lot of data. Most of that data is easily accessible. It is also  easily searchable. The consequence is that regardless of what you are trying to prove, you are  bound to find some data supporting you. This problem is compounded by the fact data is being continuously collect by ever more accurate instruments. As new data is integrated the context within which data is interpreted broadens. This sometimes renders previous interpretations. As a result, if you look back far enough, you are  likely to find data which supports you.

Similarly there are now more scientists than before, which is wonderful (or is it?  has the % of scientist risen?), but it also means you are bound to find a scientist in a field who lends you support. Often your supporting scientist isn't an expert in that field in which you are making your claims.

All of this means one can easily mislead a lazy and uncritical public (majority of the population) all you have to do is find studies which support your claims, and some sound byte from  a scientist who supports you, and viola! You now have a seemingly credible foundation for your claims! It is easy to pick rotten cherries when there are so many cherries to pick from.

Richard Feynman was once told America Army had great generals. When pressed for what is a  definition of a great general, he was told one who has won five battles consequatively. When asked how many great generals are in the American Army, he was told "a few". When he pressed, he was told a small percentage. He then asked what is the chance of a general winning a battle five times in a roll, if he had 50% chance of winning it. It came out to a few percent. He then asked if there were any generals who won ten battles in roll...


Cheers,
Steve

Labels: ,

posted by steve @ 3:14 PM