Thoughts

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=women-tenured-science-professors

Christ women piss me off sometimes. The article is about the small proportion of researchers who are women, and the implication by most of the commenters seems to be that the employers (universities or other research organisations) should change what they're doing. What, exactly, are they doing wrong? Not providing support for women who want to start a family? Show me a profession that does. And not just for women, either. I bet if a guy started whingeing to his work about not having time to raise his children, they'd laugh in his face. Women get away with a lot more complaining about these things than men do.

Oh sure, you can say that it's because women are expected to be the child-rearers, and men are expected to be the providers, but that wind has been changing for a long time now, so much so that anyone who actually openly expects these things will be reprimanded. Leave the question of who should raise the children as a discussion between partners, and at work, expect the same of everyone. That's the only way equality will work.

Maybe the reason there aren't as many women in academia is because they get caught up in discussions like this, decide that the whole industry is male-dominated and they'll never get ahead, and then give up. Maybe people who decide to have a family but can't plan for contingencies, and seriously consider how much time they will have and how they will balance it, should suck it up.

Research takes a lot of work and dedication. That's the way it is. Some jobs are more work than others. If you can't, for one reason or another, including having children, dedicate yourself as fully to the job as other people, you will get left behind. If you can figure out how to dedicate yourself to the job and have children, then good for you. If you can't, then you have to choose.

If you find yourself giving more time to your children than your similarly research-addled husband, then maybe you should work something out with him. If it's respect you want, then earn it. Earn it by working hard. Only truly misogynistic old stick-in-the-muds won't respect that, and they are dying out, and don't really matter anyway.

No one but you is responsible for your happiness in life.

This thought goes in and out of my head, in waves with a period of about one and a half to two years. It usually comes about when I hear or see or think about news items about the quality of maths teachers in Australia. It seems that the majority of teachers of maths at a high school level don't know much about it, don't really care about it and are even members of that large group who are prone to say things such as 'I hated maths at school' or 'I was never really any good at maths'.

Why is this? Well, it seems obvious that the answer is that the people who liked maths in high school tend not to be the sort who want to go and teach maths. I know that in my case, the passion is for learning, and teaching would mean that I don't get to learn anymore. If I start teaching after my PhD, then no Post-Doc, after a Post-Doc, then no research career. And a research career seems to be the only path open to someone who just wants to learn more.

If, as often happens, someone in research wants to share what they've learnt with the next generation, while not giving up further learning, the perfect answer is to teach at uni. Still, there seem to be not enough people in this position either, and first and second year can end up being taught by people who don't care about teaching (hardcore researchers) and tutored by people with little to no teaching experience (students). This isn't so much a problem for third year and onwards, because people care more by then.

So most of the people who care about maths end up doing research, semi cut off from the rest of the world. Students in high school don't realise that there are people out there who love maths and do it for a career, and are only exposed to the boring, dry maths (maths for accountancy) that their teacher knows. As a result, one generation of people who hate maths teach maths to the next generation, teaching them to hate maths, and the circle of life goes on.

There are two solutions that I can see. 1, take all the maths teachers that are there at the moment and teach them so that they know enough about the beauty of maths to be able to communicate it to their students. 2, take the people who are already passionate about maths and teach them how to be good teachers.

I feel hypocritical when I think about these things, saying that maths teachers need to be more passionate and know more maths, when I already am and do and only need to become a teacher to do my bit. And that's why I'm thinking about doing it.


But then the doubts set in. I have tutored small classes, and I don't think I'm very good at it. I can communicate my passion to an audience of one, but more than that and i start to become self-conscious. Also, I don't feel like spending a year of my life doing a Grad Dip learning about all sorts of wank I don't care about. I think that these sorts of excuses and reasons are similar to the ones other mathematicians use to convince themselves not to teach. Then again, maybe the diploma will teach me something, maybe I will get something out of it, even if it sucks out my soul in the meantime.

Anthony: Where can I complain about people not using the word 'fora'?
Me: You can do that on the forums.

Teehee.

We've had a plug from the Bad Astronomer. It looks really good. If you've heard of this guy, then listen to our Episode 12. If you haven't, then listen to it anyway, then go and check out his blog. Either way, then go and listen to the rest of our episodes. Then send us praise, and leave a review on iTunes. This is your mission.

As I can be pretty sure that most of my readers (If there are any left after the long stretches I go without posting) are from sunny Queensland, I put to you a small questionnaire about Water Fluoridation In Queensland:

1. Do you know what it involves?
2. Do you think it is harmful?
3. Do you think it is helpful?
4. Do you think that it is a giant conspiracy and the people who are pushing it are doing it because they want to line their pockets and/or control the population through fear?
5. Do you think that fluoridation is one of the greatest achievements of modern health science and that Queensland is backwards for not bringing it in before?
6. Do you care whether your water is fluoridated or not?
7. (Optional question, not that they're not all optional) If you do think fluoridation is a bad thing, do you brush your teeth with non-fluoridated toothpaste?
8. Did you know that fluoride is spelt like that, and not flouride?
9. (Not a yes-no question) What do you know about the history of fluoridation in Australia?

For more information, go here, and don't forget to stay tuned to our podcast Cosmic Tea Party, because barring unforeseen circumstances, this topic will feature on Episode 11.

Now that the project by Alom Shaha has been completed, he has put together a video combining a number of the answers he received.

It really is a great video. Watch it all the way through, there are some good interviews near the end.



It has given me an idea of teaching science in schools as more of an arty subject than the strict fact memorizing it is at the moment. If, by the end of the term, a student can demonstrate that they understand, appreciate and can apply the scientific method - to any project they can think of - then they get the pass mark. After all, it is much more about creativity than knowledge. You can always look facts up in a book. If you understand the scientific method, then you'll have a better chance of being able to find out which 'facts' to trust. And even if you don't pursue a scientific career, that skill is important.

I don't know how many of you went and listened to the podcast when I first told you all about it, but now we are doing a mass mailout, so here's a reminder message:

Go to http://www.cosmicteaparty.org/ to find out what all the goss is about. We now have 5 published episodes, a sixth one on its way, and a seventh about to be recorded. We have a couple of interviews planned which will be interesting.

If, at the very least, you haven't listened to our Christmas episode, you should go and do that now.

Enjoy!

This is a very good video. I got it from this website. I think it's obvious what inspired him to make this video, but it makes some very good points, remembering that the examples are just examples and not the only cases.

It's basically a summary of what science is all about. At the end I think he could have put more of an emphasis on finding out more about a topic if you're interested in it. Science isn't a closed game. His last point refers only to those who say "No, you're wrong", without meaning "I haven't heard enough to convince me, but I'll be glad to find out more". His point about emotional persuasion is a good one, and the reason science debates don't really work.

Ever heard of Tauromancy? Don't get confused into thinking that it's genuine. The inventor is quite open about that.

Psychic readings for beginners.

But that is my only criticism so far. Granted I haven't looked at it very much yet.

This website looks like it has a lot of good stuff on it.

Yes, I understand that the second is very unlikely, but honestly, it took me a long time to see this picture as a crater. It's amazing that such straightforward photos can be optical illusions.

In case anybody out there reading this doesn't know, I am now officially a podcaster. The 'cast is called Cosmic Tea Party, and the website, inexplicably, is http://www.cosmicteaparty.org/. Please send any comments, suggestions, or questions, to contact at cosmicteaparty.org. Also let us know about any technical issues you come across.

Go! Download! Listen! Tell your friends! Tell your enemies! Tell anyone who cares to listen, and even the ones who don't!

Sciborg out.

This is a good article. It is the number two story on BBC right now.

Attempting to post a comment on Dave's LJ, I was given the following 404:

-------------------
Page Not Found

Narrator: In A.D. 2006, Web was beginning.
Captain: What happen ?
Mechanic: Somebody set up us the journal.
Operator: We get signal.
Captain: What !
Operator: Main browser turn on.
Captain: It's you !!
CATS: How are you users !!
CATS: All your base are belong to Frank.
CATS: You are on the way to 404.
Captain: What you say !!
CATS: You have no chance to reach your page. Make your spelling correct.
CATS: Ha Ha Ha Ha ....

If it's possible, I love David Tennant even more now...

Due to the non-zero positive feedback I received on my last post, I've decided to give you all some more pretty pictures.

http://www.skyfactory.org/

Maths time.

There is a series of pictures of various things taken with an electron microscope.

If you're into that sort of thing, I strongly suggest adding this website to your RSS feed list. The photos they put out are amazing, and there have been a number of astronomy pictures which are really cool.

The scientific method is not well-defined. This is ok, because if it were then possible methods of doing science may be ruled out a priori. The problem is that the scientific method is not the basis of science. It comes from the basis of science.

A friend and I have been trying to pin down what this is. We have come up with the following. A good scientific theory:

- Is based on sound and parsimonious assumptions
- Uses a logical or physical mechanism (and not an illogical or nonphysical mechanism)
- Fits with current relevant evidence, does not contradict any evidence, and is subject to tests against future evidence.

(A scientific model is able to not satisfy some of these and still be useful IF it comes with an outline of its shortcomings.)

The scientific method is then simply whatever method is used to arrive at a theory that satisfies these criteria.

Does anyone have anything to add?

Edit: I'm going to edit this as suggestions are made.