Skip to main content

Big Think is Dumbing Down

Summer is here, the weekend in sight, temperatures around 30 degrees (Celsius that is. Do I have to calculate the Fahrenheit for you? Celsius=((Fahrenheit minus 32) divided by two) plus 10 percent. ok?!) - so, temperatures around 30 degrees centigrade slow everything down, nobody wants to move, and except for a few hours a day the brain is idling at best. What better to do with a useless brain than to click on BigThink? Go there and you will find an astonishingly perfect mix of bubbly scientoid superficiality and esoterics. Breathtaking dreamed-up scenarios of thinking robots, brain-transplants (whatch out, brain, I might swap!) and other huge topics dealt with in the typical absolutely mind-numbing mushyness.
'Hey Bill Nye, Could a Black Hole Have Created the Big Bang?'
Yeah, hey, Billy-boy-buddy, whaddaya think? Think Big! That's how physics is done, right? This is science communication - you bet. Think with your hormones, be awesome, wow me. So, could a black hole have created the big bang? hm? His answer: maybe yes, maybe no and "That'd be pretty cool, we think". 
(oh, right, Bill Nye is portrayed as 'Television host and science educator' - one more reason to trash your TV, and one very good argument to mistrust education).
Why is knowledge transfer so often misunderstood as actively dumbing down? The arrogance of such 'science educators' (in BIG air-commas) is unbelievable. The kids out there are much smarter than that and deserve better.
Now back to the beach.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

My guinea pig wants beer!

Rather involuntary train rides (especially long ones, going to boring places for a boring event) are good for updates on some thoughts lingering in the lower levels of the brain-at-ease. My latest trip (from Berlin to Bonn) unearthed the never-ending squabble about the elusive 'free will'. Neuroscientists make headlines proving with alacrity the absence of free will by experimenting with brain-signals that precede the apparent willful act - by as much as seven seconds! Measuring brain-activity way before the human guinea pig actually presses a button with whatever hand or finger he desires, they predict with breathtaking reproducibility the choice to be made. So what? Is that the end of free will? I am afraid that those neuroscientists would accept only non-predictability as a definite sign of free will. But non-predictability results from two possible scenarios: a) a random event (without a cause) b) an event triggered by something outside of the system (but caused).

Academics should be blogging? No.

"blogging is quite simply, one of the most important things that an academic should be doing right now" The London School of Economics and Political Science states in one of their, yes, Blogs . It is wrong. The arguments just seem so right: "faster communication of scientific results", "rapid interaction with colleagues" "responsibility to give back results to the public". All nice, all cuddly and warm, all good. But wrong. It might be true for scientoid babble. But this is not how science works.  Scientists usually follow scientific methods to obtain results. They devise, for example, experiments to measure a quantity while keeping the boundary-conditions in a defined range. They do discuss their aims, problems, techniques, preliminary results with colleagues - they talk about deviations and errors, successes and failures. But they don't do that wikipedia-style by asking anybody for an opinion . Scientific discussion needs a set

No theory - no money!

A neuroscientist I was talking to recently complained that the Higgs-research,even the Neutrino-fluke at CERN is getting humungous funding while neuroscience is struggling for support at a much more modest level. This, despite the undisputed fact that understanding our brain, and ultimately ourselves, is the most exciting challenge around. Henry Markram of EPFL in Switzerland   is one of the guys aiming for big, big funding to simulate the complete brain. After founding the brain institute and developing methods to analyze and then reconstruct elements of the brain in a supercomputer he now applies for 1.5 Billion Euro in EU-funding for the 'flagship-projects' of Blue Brain -and many believe his project is simply too big to fail. Some call the project daring, others audacious. It is one of the so very few really expensive life-science endeavours. Why aren't there more like that around? Why do we seem to accept the bills for monstrous physics experiments more easily? Is