| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
22 Feb 2006 05:19:00 AM |
| Object: |
Teaching physics to biology students |
Hi,
I am currently in my first year of teaching an algebra-based
physics class to students who are primarily biology majors.
For whatever reason, most of the biology professors at our school tend
to "spoon-feed" these students, giving them review sheets that tell
them
exactly what they need to know. So they just memorize the information
on
these sheets. Most of these students do not put much effort into their
biology classes.
In the physics class, I am trying to emphasize the main concepts,
and then the students are expected to apply these concepts to novel
problems. My approach has been to assign
lots of practice problems, and to make the exam problems somewhat
different than any of the homework. The students need to put in much
more effort than their biology classes, and if they do not, they tend
to do poorly on the exams. I have had some low averages on class exams.
I am finding out the hard way this year that the students resent
this
approach alot. When they do bad, rather than concluding they need to
put more effort into the class, they think I am being unfair to them.
As a result, my teaching evaluations took a major nosedive this year,
and there was even a petition drive protesting my policies. So I was
hoping to get some advice on how I can improve my approach, or if I
just need to expect this kind of response as a result of making the
students think.
Thanks - Leon
.
|
|
| User: "Ken Muldrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
17 Mar 2006 09:01:37 PM |
|
|
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, Ken Muldrew wrote:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
I'm sure you're familiar with the Golden Rule, i.e. "he who has the
gold, makes the rules". Those who fund your research are in position
to dictate conditions and in the long run the temptation to do so is
to great to resist.
Yeah, if only they didn't use the metric of paper counting to evaluate
the success of their "initiatives" (My god, what progress we're making
in the fight on cancer!).
There are moves away from paper-counting. We're told it's coming in 2
ways: some journals will be "Tier 1", supposedly the top 20% of them, and
papers therein will count as worth 5 times as much. This appears a bit
crude, but it's a start.
I dont' think so. In fact, I *strongly* disagree. It reminds me of
zero-tolerance policies (any zero-tolerance policies really, you can
pick your favorite). This business of subtracting intelligence from
the process...it's just so ridiculous. Right now there are lots of
smart people spending huge amounts of their time trying to come up
with targeted funding intiatives, and evaluating grant applications
for quality. What a terrible waste! There is not a chance in hell that
they can predict the future well enough to decide who should get
funded (among the reasonable applications; obviously there are dogs
among the pile). What they can do, and do well, is evaluate what
people have done in the past. It isn't easy; one has to spend a lot of
time and effort to place someone's work into the context of their
field and judge the impact. But it can be done (and it has nothing to
do with paper counting). So why don't we do that? Instead of convening
panels of scientists to rank grant applications, get them instead to
rank the impact of the applicant's recent work, and dole out funding
on that basis (of course you can still ask for a proposal, budget,
timeline, etc., it's just that you base your decision on something
that might be relevant to the reasons for providing money in the first
place).
Then there is the upcoming "Research Quality
Framework", which is a serious attempt to actually estimate research
quality. Some trial research quality evaluations were held here last year.
I think it's a good idea
Could be. What are the criteria for judging quality? Do they actually
get people to put in the time and effort necessary to do it properly?
- as a research group, we're on the slow side
when it comes to emitting papers, because we sometimes work for a few
months to make them better, so Official PsOTB, with attached funding
gains, rewarding us for this look like a good thing.
I wish you well.
I saw a recent job ad inspired by fear of this kind of thing. "We want
physicists who publish in the highest impact journals" (with 2 positions
available) translates as "we are peeing ourselves in fear".
Sheesh!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
18 Mar 2006 04:37:39 PM |
|
|
Ed Green, violating primary law of Usenet, jumps into conversation
mid-stream with his unsolicited deathless opinions...
Ken Muldrew wrote:
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
There are moves away from paper-counting. We're told it's coming in 2
ways: some journals will be "Tier 1", supposedly the top 20% of them, and
papers therein will count as worth 5 times as much. This appears a bit
crude, but it's a start.
I bet Ken Muldrew will have something to say about this!
I dont' think so. In fact, I *strongly* disagree. It reminds me of
zero-tolerance policies (any zero-tolerance policies really, you can
pick your favorite). This business of subtracting intelligence from
the process...it's just so ridiculous. Right now there are lots of
smart people spending huge amounts of their time trying to come up
with targeted funding intiatives, and evaluating grant applications
for quality. What a terrible waste! There is not a chance in hell that
they can predict the future well enough to decide who should get
funded (among the reasonable applications; obviously there are dogs
among the pile). What they can do, and do well, is evaluate what
people have done in the past. It isn't easy; one has to spend a lot of
time and effort to place someone's work into the context of their
field and judge the impact. But it can be done (and it has nothing to
do with paper counting). So why don't we do that? Instead of convening
panels of scientists to rank grant applications, get them instead to
rank the impact of the applicant's recent work, and dole out funding
on that basis (of course you can still ask for a proposal, budget,
timeline, etc., it's just that you base your decision on something
that might be relevant to the reasons for providing money in the first
place).
And in fact he did! But not exactly what I expected him to say.
There is such a complex of ideas swarming around here, one hardly knows
where to start. But one is reminded of W E Deming's comments regarding
the futility of trying to manage by numbers. Now, of course, like all
great comments, this is sufficiently general to be useless. What kinds
of things can't be measured by numbers? I guess we know them when we
see them -- an evasive phrase taking us back to the necessity for
judgement by trusted agents in complex situations. One is also
reminded of K NMI Muldrew's recent comments about "gaming the system".
This is exactly what W E Deming said would happen when you tried to
manage the wrong kind of things by numbers: people will game the system
to get the numbers, not the results you wanted.
This is the angle I expected K Muldrew to take here.
I sense a great generalization inside struggling to see the right of
day: human systems are political. "Political" covers all manners of
decision making involving other human beings which are based in part on
the subjective opinions of the decision makers, and the shifting
alliances attempting to influence these decisions. Wow! The solution
is so obvious! Let's use only identified _objective_ criteria in
decision making! Well, OK for choosing paint based on Consumer Reports
Testing and price, but unworkable for complex situations involving
unknown factors: not to mention differing goals. What happens? People
game the system, and you don't get what you want or expected. People
may even game the "objective" goals -- after all, how to you choose the
"objective" criteria "objectively"!? Maybe the wrong paint won, and so
we should change our biased "objective criteria" until we get the
results we want.
I am reminded of a well-known example: there turned out to be an
unflattering correlation between performance on the NYC Police
Department Sergeant's exam and certain ethnic groups. This, certain
elements claimed in public without blushing, proved the test was
"discriminatory". I don't remember the outcome.
And the great solution to this dilemma? I don't know. People are
political and social systems are horrendously complex, full of
conflicting goals, power struggle, and gaming. As I think K Muldrew
said, the solution is obviously to write well crafted posts to Usenet,
galvanizing the community into action: or, failing that, impassioned
letters to the NY Times! That will show them!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
18 Mar 2006 01:52:33 AM |
|
|
In article <20060318132315.Y81389@emu.uq.edu.au>, Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Ken Muldrew wrote:
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, Ken Muldrew wrote:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
I'm sure you're familiar with the Golden Rule, i.e. "he who has the
gold, makes the rules". Those who fund your research are in position
to dictate conditions and in the long run the temptation to do so is
to great to resist.
Yeah, if only they didn't use the metric of paper counting to evaluate
the success of their "initiatives" (My god, what progress we're making
in the fight on cancer!).
There are moves away from paper-counting. We're told it's coming in 2
ways: some journals will be "Tier 1", supposedly the top 20% of them, and
papers therein will count as worth 5 times as much. This appears a bit
crude, but it's a start.
I dont' think so. In fact, I *strongly* disagree.
Ah, but consider what it replaces: counting number of papers.
It reminds me of
zero-tolerance policies (any zero-tolerance policies really, you can
pick your favorite). This business of subtracting intelligence from
the process...it's just so ridiculous.
But it's got to be doable by beancounters! Of course the intelligence
needs to be subtracted from the process. The alternative would be to hire
people who could think - but would managers tolerate underlings who can
_think_?
Not easily, for sure.
Right now there are lots of
smart people spending huge amounts of their time trying to come up
with targeted funding intiatives, and evaluating grant applications
for quality. What a terrible waste! There is not a chance in hell that
they can predict the future well enough to decide who should get
funded (among the reasonable applications; obviously there are dogs
among the pile). What they can do, and do well, is evaluate what
people have done in the past. It isn't easy; one has to spend a lot of
time and effort to place someone's work into the context of their
field and judge the impact. But it can be done (and it has nothing to
do with paper counting). So why don't we do that? Instead of convening
panels of scientists to rank grant applications, get them instead to
rank the impact of the applicant's recent work, and dole out funding
on that basis (of course you can still ask for a proposal, budget,
timeline, etc., it's just that you base your decision on something
that might be relevant to the reasons for providing money in the first
place).
The easiest way to get funded is to promise to do more of the same. It's
hard to get real innovation funded - why, you'd be doing something that
deviates from your past experience, and results won't be guaranteed. How
terribly risky!
Aha:-)))
Some portion of the government-provided research funding should go into
speculative research, even heretical research, with little expectation of
success. Doesn't look like there's much chance of that at the moment over
here - there's a trend towards having to justify research as "having
tangible benefits". Ah well, at least "pure" research still attracts
military funding, something that the quantum computing/information people
are probably grateful for.
Well, lets not forget that, weren't it for a superbly successful
military application (aka the Bomb) there would never have been much
funding to begin with.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
17 Mar 2006 09:43:11 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Ken Muldrew wrote:
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, Ken Muldrew wrote:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
I'm sure you're familiar with the Golden Rule, i.e. "he who has the
gold, makes the rules". Those who fund your research are in position
to dictate conditions and in the long run the temptation to do so is
to great to resist.
Yeah, if only they didn't use the metric of paper counting to evaluate
the success of their "initiatives" (My god, what progress we're making
in the fight on cancer!).
There are moves away from paper-counting. We're told it's coming in 2
ways: some journals will be "Tier 1", supposedly the top 20% of them, and
papers therein will count as worth 5 times as much. This appears a bit
crude, but it's a start.
I dont' think so. In fact, I *strongly* disagree.
Ah, but consider what it replaces: counting number of papers.
It reminds me of
zero-tolerance policies (any zero-tolerance policies really, you can
pick your favorite). This business of subtracting intelligence from
the process...it's just so ridiculous.
But it's got to be doable by beancounters! Of course the intelligence
needs to be subtracted from the process. The alternative would be to hire
people who could think - but would managers tolerate underlings who can
_think_?
Right now there are lots of
smart people spending huge amounts of their time trying to come up
with targeted funding intiatives, and evaluating grant applications
for quality. What a terrible waste! There is not a chance in hell that
they can predict the future well enough to decide who should get
funded (among the reasonable applications; obviously there are dogs
among the pile). What they can do, and do well, is evaluate what
people have done in the past. It isn't easy; one has to spend a lot of
time and effort to place someone's work into the context of their
field and judge the impact. But it can be done (and it has nothing to
do with paper counting). So why don't we do that? Instead of convening
panels of scientists to rank grant applications, get them instead to
rank the impact of the applicant's recent work, and dole out funding
on that basis (of course you can still ask for a proposal, budget,
timeline, etc., it's just that you base your decision on something
that might be relevant to the reasons for providing money in the first
place).
The easiest way to get funded is to promise to do more of the same. It's
hard to get real innovation funded - why, you'd be doing something that
deviates from your past experience, and results won't be guaranteed. How
terribly risky!
Some portion of the government-provided research funding should go into
speculative research, even heretical research, with little expectation of
success. Doesn't look like there's much chance of that at the moment over
here - there's a trend towards having to justify research as "having
tangible benefits". Ah well, at least "pure" research still attracts
military funding, something that the quantum computing/information people
are probably grateful for.
Then there is the upcoming "Research Quality
Framework", which is a serious attempt to actually estimate research
quality. Some trial research quality evaluations were held here last year.
I think it's a good idea
Could be. What are the criteria for judging quality? Do they actually
get people to put in the time and effort necessary to do it properly?
For the trials they did. If they keep doing so for the real thing, it
might be OK. Criteria included "objective" measures such as where papers
were published, citations, etc. And subjective measures such as what other
people in the field think of the quality of the work.
AFAIK, it's based on efforts in the UK to evaluate research quality. The
optimistic think it's a way for the govt to reward productive and useful
research; the pessimistic think it's a way to cut funding for universities
and research in general. There might be a bigger emphasis on research
performance vs teaching performance - some departments/schools that focus
on professional training (eg education, therapies etc) fear this. "If you
can get students, just charge them higher fees" will be the official
answer.
I saw a recent job ad inspired by fear of this kind of thing. "We want
physicists who publish in the highest impact journals" (with 2 positions
available) translates as "we are peeing ourselves in fear".
Sheesh!
1.5 weeks before closing date, I hear they had 177 applicants. I expect
they ended up with approx 200.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
18 Mar 2006 02:25:33 PM |
|
|
In article <1142701201.167598.12710@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> writes:
Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Ken Muldrew wrote:
The easiest way to get funded is to promise to do more of the same. It's
hard to get real innovation funded - why, you'd be doing something that
deviates from your past experience, and results won't be guaranteed. How
terribly risky!
Some portion of the government-provided research funding should go into
speculative research, even heretical research, with little expectation of
success. Doesn't look like there's much chance of that at the moment over
here - there's a trend towards having to justify research as "having
tangible benefits". Ah well, at least "pure" research still attracts
military funding, something that the quantum computing/information people
are probably grateful for.
I can't speak for other disciplines in physics -- especially places
like quantum optics where there still seems to be innovation encouraged
-- but this has become an epidemic in HEP. It is heretical anymore to
do any HEP proposals that are not part of a "mainstream" project, which
is why there are so few that are doing anything else other than
fretting about their LHC contributions.
Specifically, this discourages young collaborations with young
spokespersons, which used to be a stronger and certainly more
interesting faction than it is today.
That's an interesting and somewhat paradoxical situation that keeps
occuring in human affairs. You would think that, as more resources
become available in some area of activity, people will become more
daring, willing to take bigger risks for the chance to net a big
prize. In fact, beyond some point, quite the opposite occurs and a
conservative, risk averse attitude sets in. It is "we can't risk
failure, thre is too much to lose".
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
19 Mar 2006 07:36:18 AM |
|
|
In article <11_Sf.40$25.3099@news.uchicago.edu>,
wrote:
In article <1142701201.167598.12710@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, "PD"
<TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> writes:
Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Ken Muldrew wrote:
The easiest way to get funded is to promise to do more of the same. It's
hard to get real innovation funded - why, you'd be doing something that
deviates from your past experience, and results won't be guaranteed. How
terribly risky!
Some portion of the government-provided research funding should go into
speculative research, even heretical research, with little expectation of
success. Doesn't look like there's much chance of that at the moment over
here - there's a trend towards having to justify research as "having
tangible benefits". Ah well, at least "pure" research still attracts
military funding, something that the quantum computing/information people
are probably grateful for.
I can't speak for other disciplines in physics -- especially places
like quantum optics where there still seems to be innovation encouraged
-- but this has become an epidemic in HEP. It is heretical anymore to
do any HEP proposals that are not part of a "mainstream" project, which
is why there are so few that are doing anything else other than
fretting about their LHC contributions.
Specifically, this discourages young collaborations with young
spokespersons, which used to be a stronger and certainly more
interesting faction than it is today.
That's an interesting and somewhat paradoxical situation that keeps
occuring in human affairs. You would think that, as more resources
become available in some area of activity, people will become more
daring, willing to take bigger risks for the chance to net a big
prize. In fact, beyond some point, quite the opposite occurs and a
conservative, risk averse attitude sets in. It is "we can't risk
failure, thre is too much to lose".
Yes, people simply have too much money.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
18 Mar 2006 04:52:37 PM |
|
|
In article <20060319065419.S81389@emu.uq.edu.au>, Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 wrote:
That's an interesting and somewhat paradoxical situation that keeps
occuring in human affairs. You would think that, as more resources
become available in some area of activity, people will become more
daring, willing to take bigger risks for the chance to net a big
prize. In fact, beyond some point, quite the opposite occurs and a
conservative, risk averse attitude sets in. It is "we can't risk
failure, thre is too much to lose".
A funny idea to apply to science. If a research project fails, it just
fails to add to the body of knowledge - it can't destroy existing
knowledge. Failure is not loss.
I would say even more, any failed research project is a gain. In the
words of Edison, we learned of yet one more thing that doesn't work.
So it does add something to the body of science (granted, oftentimes
the addition is very slim, but sometimes it isn't).
But, when you're getting to projects which cost hundreds of millions
and employ thousands of people, considerations regarding the "body of
knowledge" are gradually pushed to second place and what moves to the
first are very much down to earth worries, along the lines of "we're
spending lots of public money here, it must yield something we can
show, else our standing and reputations are on the line, not to
mention the employment of many good people." And, no, these are not
frivolous concerns, they're important. Yet, when not balanced by a
sufficient dose of willingness to take risks for the sake of great
goals, they can gradually choke everything.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Resnick" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
20 Mar 2006 12:29:00 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <20060319065419.S81389@emu.uq.edu.au>, Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 wrote:
That's an interesting and somewhat paradoxical situation that keeps
occuring in human affairs. You would think that, as more resources
become available in some area of activity, people will become more
daring, willing to take bigger risks for the chance to net a big
prize. In fact, beyond some point, quite the opposite occurs and a
conservative, risk averse attitude sets in. It is "we can't risk
failure, thre is too much to lose".
A funny idea to apply to science. If a research project fails, it just
fails to add to the body of knowledge - it can't destroy existing
knowledge. Failure is not loss.
I would say even more, any failed research project is a gain. In the
words of Edison, we learned of yet one more thing that doesn't work.
So it does add something to the body of science (granted, oftentimes
the addition is very slim, but sometimes it isn't).
But, when you're getting to projects which cost hundreds of millions
and employ thousands of people, considerations regarding the "body of
knowledge" are gradually pushed to second place and what moves to the
first are very much down to earth worries, along the lines of "we're
spending lots of public money here, it must yield something we can
show, else our standing and reputations are on the line, not to
mention the employment of many good people." And, no, these are not
frivolous concerns, they're important. Yet, when not balanced by a
sufficient dose of willingness to take risks for the sake of great
goals, they can gradually choke everything.
Even for the individual researcher, who only has 5 or 6 grant periods in
his or her career, failure can be very costly. To use a metaphor, one
strives to pick a path that can be traveled along for a great distance,
surrounded by interesting and useful results along the way. Choose
poorly, and one loses (at least) a round of funding opportunities trying
to find a more fruitful line of research. Teaching graduate students how
to pick a path is one of the more useful things an advisor can do.
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
19 Mar 2006 12:38:36 AM |
|
|
In article <20060319111228.B79083@emu.uq.edu.au>, Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 wrote:
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 wrote:
That's an interesting and somewhat paradoxical situation that keeps
occuring in human affairs. You would think that, as more resources
become available in some area of activity, people will become more
daring, willing to take bigger risks for the chance to net a big
prize. In fact, beyond some point, quite the opposite occurs and a
conservative, risk averse attitude sets in. It is "we can't risk
failure, thre is too much to lose".
A funny idea to apply to science. If a research project fails, it just
fails to add to the body of knowledge - it can't destroy existing
knowledge. Failure is not loss.
I would say even more, any failed research project is a gain. In the
words of Edison, we learned of yet one more thing that doesn't work.
So it does add something to the body of science (granted, oftentimes
the addition is very slim, but sometimes it isn't).
Assuming that the "failure" is published. If it's just ignored, then
nobody not personally involved will know. It's harder to publish null
results.
Which is a pity because they're valuable. Need I remind that one of
the most famous experiments, Michelson-Morley, was a null result.
There have been attempts made to make such failed experiments
more publishable, especially in genetics. One computational EM journal
says they will publish reports of failures where useful. OTOH, I've seen
mainstream journals publish null results where they're written up as
"Although the improvement was not statistically significant, we think it
was really there. Really we do!"
:-))
But, when you're getting to projects which cost hundreds of millions
and employ thousands of people, considerations regarding the "body of
knowledge" are gradually pushed to second place and what moves to the
first are very much down to earth worries, along the lines of "we're
spending lots of public money here, it must yield something we can
show, else our standing and reputations are on the line, not to
mention the employment of many good people." And, no, these are not
frivolous concerns, they're important. Yet, when not balanced by a
sufficient dose of willingness to take risks for the sake of great
goals, they can gradually choke everything.
A lot of the possible innovative research isn't that expensive.
Oh, certainly. I was addressing myself specifically to PD"s comment
about HEP experiments. These are very expensive.
It's one thing to be wary about 100 M$ projects, especially when that's a
significant fraction of the total budget. Given a multi 100 M$ budget,
what's a few 10s of k$?
It is what we call "in the noise". And that's where the
spirit of innovation and adventure persists.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
19 Mar 2006 03:00:36 AM |
|
|
In article <20060319164149.N15310@emu.uq.edu.au>, Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 wrote:
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
A lot of the possible innovative research isn't that expensive.
Oh, certainly. I was addressing myself specifically to PD"s comment
about HEP experiments. These are very expensive.
HEP _facilities_ are expensive. Are HEP _experiments_ expensive? The
possible (much cheaper) analog in optics would be femtosecond lasers, good
examples of which are expensive ~ $200K, but once you have it, an
experiment only costs the labour and incidentals. OTOH, if the cost of
doing an experiment is high ...
In general the experiments are very expensive. Granted, not as
expensive as the facilities. Still quite expensive. Usually an
experiment involves some dedicated equaipment and a hell of a lot of
labor. "Labour and incidentals" may not sound like much but when
you're talking about hundreds of peopls involved for couple of years,
it is quite a lot.
I know that university people are used to think only about equipment
as "real cost" and labour as "hey, that's already paid for". But, it
still needs to be paid. Our long term experience at the APS is that
on the average the money breaks even between equipment and salaries.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
19 Mar 2006 05:24:47 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <20060319164149.N15310@emu.uq.edu.au>, Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 wrote:
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
A lot of the possible innovative research isn't that expensive.
Oh, certainly. I was addressing myself specifically to PD"s comment
about HEP experiments. These are very expensive.
HEP _facilities_ are expensive. Are HEP _experiments_ expensive? The
possible (much cheaper) analog in optics would be femtosecond lasers, good
examples of which are expensive ~ $200K, but once you have it, an
experiment only costs the labour and incidentals. OTOH, if the cost of
doing an experiment is high ...
In general the experiments are very expensive. Granted, not as
expensive as the facilities. Still quite expensive. Usually an
experiment involves some dedicated equaipment and a hell of a lot of
labor. "Labour and incidentals" may not sound like much but when
you're talking about hundreds of peopls involved for couple of years,
it is quite a lot.
In defense of HEP experiments, a collaboration like CDF or DZero will
publish a hundred papers or so and graduate a couple dozen PhDs, and so
they are arguably no more expensive per paper than other experimental
disciplines.
However, this makes the collaboration itself a *facility*, which is why
it has such inordinate weight in administration and infrastructure, and
why it's really not appropriate to advertise one of its students as
having gone the full round on an experiment -- which used to be a
requirement. At best, the experimental "design" involves arguing for a
unique trigger on the trigger list (a set of flags that determines what
kind of event will be recorded in stored data) and keeping the
equipment running during data-taking shifts.
Makes me *sigh* plaintively.
PD
I know that university people are used to think only about equipment
as "real cost" and labour as "hey, that's already paid for". But, it
still needs to be paid. Our long term experience at the APS is that
on the average the money breaks even between equipment and salaries.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
19 Mar 2006 09:01:26 AM |
|
|
In article <M%6Tf.45$25.3223@news.uchicago.edu>,
<> wrote:
In article <20060319111228.B79083@emu.uq.edu.au>, Timo Nieminen
<uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 wrote:
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 wrote:
That's an interesting and somewhat paradoxical situation that keeps
occuring in human affairs. You would think that, as more resources
become available in some area of activity, people will become more
daring, willing to take bigger risks for the chance to net a big
prize. In fact, beyond some point, quite the opposite occurs and a
conservative, risk averse attitude sets in. It is "we can't risk
failure, thre is too much to lose".
A funny idea to apply to science. If a research project fails, it just
fails to add to the body of knowledge - it can't destroy existing
knowledge. Failure is not loss.
I would say even more, any failed research project is a gain. In the
words of Edison, we learned of yet one more thing that doesn't work.
So it does add something to the body of science (granted, oftentimes
the addition is very slim, but sometimes it isn't).
Assuming that the "failure" is published. If it's just ignored, then
nobody not personally involved will know. It's harder to publish null
results.
Which is a pity because they're valuable. Need I remind that one of
the most famous experiments, Michelson-Morley, was a null result.
That has a lot to do with the implications of the failure. The
Michelson-Morley experiment wasn't supposed to give a null result. If it
had given a positive result it would still have been published, but not
nearly as much attention would have been given to it. But if Muldrew's
wonderful light communication produced a null result, the biological
community would have said "Of course it did, why did he even think to
perform that experiment?" Kuhn might have worked the word "paradigm" in
here a few times.
Years ago the Journal of Parapsychology, and possibly others of the kind,
recognized the "file drawer effect". That is, if a "significant" result
is expected to occur one in twenty times, and a hundred experiments are
performed, you'll get some significant results. If only the successes are
published while the others are locked away in the file drawer, the readers
will find a false level of significance in the published literature as a
whole. And so they'd resolved to publish all results, significant or not.
I wonder how important that is in medical and psychological research.
--
"The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit". --William
Somerset Maugham
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
19 Mar 2006 05:26:11 PM |
|
|
In article <dvjro6$6tg$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>, (Gregory L. Hansen) writes:
In article <M%6Tf.45$25.3223@news.uchicago.edu>,
< > wrote:
In article <20060319111228.B79083@emu.uq.edu.au>, Timo Nieminen
<uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 wrote:
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 wrote:
That's an interesting and somewhat paradoxical situation that keeps
occuring in human affairs. You would think that, as more resources
become available in some area of activity, people will become more
daring, willing to take bigger risks for the chance to net a big
prize. In fact, beyond some point, quite the opposite occurs and a
conservative, risk averse attitude sets in. It is "we can't risk
failure, thre is too much to lose".
A funny idea to apply to science. If a research project fails, it just
fails to add to the body of knowledge - it can't destroy existing
knowledge. Failure is not loss.
I would say even more, any failed research project is a gain. In the
words of Edison, we learned of yet one more thing that doesn't work.
So it does add something to the body of science (granted, oftentimes
the addition is very slim, but sometimes it isn't).
Assuming that the "failure" is published. If it's just ignored, then
nobody not personally involved will know. It's harder to publish null
results.
Which is a pity because they're valuable. Need I remind that one of
the most famous experiments, Michelson-Morley, was a null result.
That has a lot to do with the implications of the failure. The
Michelson-Morley experiment wasn't supposed to give a null result. If it
had given a positive result it would still have been published, but not
nearly as much attention would have been given to it. But if Muldrew's
wonderful light communication produced a null result, the biological
community would have said "Of course it did, why did he even think to
perform that experiment?" Kuhn might have worked the word "paradigm" in
here a few times.
Years ago the Journal of Parapsychology, and possibly others of the kind,
recognized the "file drawer effect". That is, if a "significant" result
is expected to occur one in twenty times, and a hundred experiments are
performed, you'll get some significant results. If only the successes are
published while the others are locked away in the file drawer, the readers
will find a false level of significance in the published literature as a
whole. And so they'd resolved to publish all results, significant or not.
I wonder how important that is in medical and psychological research.
--
I would say, very, very, very important. Sufficient to totally skew
the result once something becomes fashionable (or unfashionable). It
is even worse when people embark on "meta analyses" (a horrid idea
which should be totally banned) where data from multiple studies is
combined in order to improve statistics. Since said multiple studies
ae only selected from the subset which has been published, if there
was any selection bias to begin with, it'll get greatly enhanced in
such meta analysis.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
20 Mar 2006 08:59:46 AM |
|
|
In article <nMlTf.2$25.179@news.uchicago.edu>,
<> wrote:
In article <dvjro6$6tg$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>,
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) writes:
In article <M%6Tf.45$25.3223@news.uchicago.edu>,
< > wrote:
In article <20060319111228.B79083@emu.uq.edu.au>, Timo Nieminen
<uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 wrote:
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 wrote:
That's an interesting and somewhat paradoxical situation that keeps
occuring in human affairs. You would think that, as more resources
become available in some area of activity, people will become more
daring, willing to take bigger risks for the chance to net a big
prize. In fact, beyond some point, quite the opposite occurs and a
conservative, risk averse attitude sets in. It is "we can't risk
failure, thre is too much to lose".
A funny idea to apply to science. If a research project fails, it just
fails to add to the body of knowledge - it can't destroy existing
knowledge. Failure is not loss.
I would say even more, any failed research project is a gain. In the
words of Edison, we learned of yet one more thing that doesn't work.
So it does add something to the body of science (granted, oftentimes
the addition is very slim, but sometimes it isn't).
Assuming that the "failure" is published. If it's just ignored, then
nobody not personally involved will know. It's harder to publish null
results.
Which is a pity because they're valuable. Need I remind that one of
the most famous experiments, Michelson-Morley, was a null result.
That has a lot to do with the implications of the failure. The
Michelson-Morley experiment wasn't supposed to give a null result. If it
had given a positive result it would still have been published, but not
nearly as much attention would have been given to it. But if Muldrew's
wonderful light communication produced a null result, the biological
community would have said "Of course it did, why did he even think to
perform that experiment?" Kuhn might have worked the word "paradigm" in
here a few times.
Years ago the Journal of Parapsychology, and possibly others of the kind,
recognized the "file drawer effect". That is, if a "significant" result
is expected to occur one in twenty times, and a hundred experiments are
performed, you'll get some significant results. If only the successes are
published while the others are locked away in the file drawer, the readers
will find a false level of significance in the published literature as a
whole. And so they'd resolved to publish all results, significant or not.
I wonder how important that is in medical and psychological research.
--
I would say, very, very, very important. Sufficient to totally skew
the result once something becomes fashionable (or unfashionable). It
is even worse when people embark on "meta analyses" (a horrid idea
which should be totally banned) where data from multiple studies is
combined in order to improve statistics. Since said multiple studies
ae only selected from the subset which has been published, if there
was any selection bias to begin with, it'll get greatly enhanced in
such meta analysis.
One thought that passed through my head is that if, say, some drug under
study has such a small effect that it's not obvious on each and every
trial, such that there would be essentially no studies filed away, then
there would be little point in even continuing to develop it.
In the meta analyses, maybe "If the null hypothesis were true then the
number of unpublished experiments expected for this level of significance
is..." would have some meaning.
I've read a scathing review of obesity research ("The Obesity Myth" by
Campos) where, the author claims, most of it is done by companies that
develop related drugs, half of nutritionists have or have had eating
disorders, and basically nothing claimed about the health hazards is true.
Some authors have even come to conclusions that aren't supported by the
very data they publish.
I haven't studied the literature to the extent that I can say whether I
independently agree or disagree with the author. But from what I have
studied it seems being too skinny is worse than being too fat, and in at
least one study the optimum weight for longevity is higher than you'd get
from the BMI. There was one study where they measured health indicators
before and after liposuction of some women and found no difference at all;
they speculated that the wrong fat was lost, or maybe the fat was lost in
the wrong way, but the possibility that it had nothing to do with fat
didn't seem to occur to the researchers (a notion that Campos accused the
industry of not just rejecting, but not even occuring to them in the first
place so that it could be rejected).
My brother has been wanting me to read a book in the same vein about
cholesterol which points out, for instance, the low rates of heart disease
among people like the Masai whose diets have the highest levels of
saturated fats.
Regarding what to make of data, the parapsychologists have tried testing
hypotheses in previously published data. One is that psychic abilities
will be highest at the beginning of a run when interest is higher, wane as
boredom sets in, and return as it nears completion. I think it's
legitimate looking for a pattern like that in data that was taken before
such an hypothesis had occured to the field in general, or in data that
was taken without the intention of testing it. Because filed away or not,
if null then we could expect equal numbers of right-side up and upside
down U's.
I think there must be a lot to learn from parapsychology because more than
any other field they've faced continuing criticism from people convinced
that there was nothing to study and intent on figuring out why they're
wrong. I can only imagine what would result if medical science were held
to the same standards that CSICOP holds the parapsychologists to.
--
"I often think how wasteful it is that those with real capabilities should
doubt their abilities, while bunglers seem so damn sure of themselves." --
Gil Amelio, "On the Firing Line"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Muldrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
21 Mar 2006 01:25:31 PM |
|
|
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
My brother has been wanting me to read a book in the same vein about
cholesterol which points out, for instance, the low rates of heart disease
among people like the Masai whose diets have the highest levels of
saturated fats.
Another book your brother might be interested in is
The_Fat_of_the_Land by Vilhjalmur Stefansson. Briefly, Stefansson was
an iconoclastic anthropologist who spent about a decade living with
the Eskimo on an all-meat diet. Once back at Harvard, nutritionists
assured him that he had, indeed, been eating vegetables because
otherwise he would be dead, and since he wasn't dead, he was obviously
lying. So Stefansson and a friend went on an all-meat diet for a year
while being closely watched and supervised by a team of doctors and
physiologists from Mass. General. The two thrived under their all-meat
diet although they had to re-train the chefs in some restaurants to
stop cutting all the fat off their meat. He also has some hard words
for the military for buying into the nutritionists' crap and rejecting
pemmican as the most suitable food for battlefield conditions. All
around an enjoyable read laden with good-natured sarcasm and the
exposure of erudite frauds.
Ken Muldrew
kmuldrezw@ucalgazry.ca
(remove all letters after y in the alphabet)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
22 Mar 2006 08:27:41 AM |
|
|
In article <4420512d.97346806@news.ucalgary.ca>,
(Ken Muldrew) wrote:
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
My brother has been wanting me to read a book in the same vein about
cholesterol which points out, for instance, the low rates of heart disease
among people like the Masai whose diets have the highest levels of
saturated fats.
Another book your brother might be interested in is
The_Fat_of_the_Land by Vilhjalmur Stefansson.
Thanks :-). I'll look for it. I do know that, if I followed
the US daily requirements from that pyramid thingie, I'd be
a 500 pound blob. I find it very difficult to gain any weight.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
22 Mar 2006 08:59:49 AM |
|
|
In article <dvrmst$8qk_002@s948.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <4420512d.97346806@news.ucalgary.ca>,
kmuldrezw@ucalgazry.ca (Ken Muldrew) wrote:
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
My brother has been wanting me to read a book in the same vein about
cholesterol which points out, for instance, the low rates of heart disease
among people like the Masai whose diets have the highest levels of
saturated fats.
Another book your brother might be interested in is
The_Fat_of_the_Land by Vilhjalmur Stefansson.
Thanks :-). I'll look for it. I do know that, if I followed
the US daily requirements from that pyramid thingie, I'd be
a 500 pound blob. I find it very difficult to gain any weight.
Maybe you're not eating enough processed foods.
There is certainly biochemistry in obesity, involving hormones that
regulate appetite or the distribution of fat, for instance. But it's the
same now as a hundred years ago. Some people suspect a relation between
increasing obesity rates and decreasing exercise. Others relate it to
increasing consumption of hydrogenated oils, or of high fructose corn
syrup.
But we can get a lot more sinister than that. Breakfast cereals can have
more salt, per weight, that potato chips, although you can't taste the
salt through the sweet. Spaghetti sauce can have more sugar, per weight,
than chocolate ice cream topping, although you can't taste the sugar over
the salt and acid. But, as I understand the argument, adding these
additional flavor categories adds another component to sate before you
feel full, and people eat more (and buy more food). Food and tobacco
scientists have shared research on taste and addiction.
Now, if that's true, it adds a new dimension to suing McDonald's for
making one fat (why the heck do they put wheat products in their fries?).
If it was just food produced in the normal ways, I'd say it's all you, and
if you didn't want it to make you fat then you shouldn't have eaten so
much of it. But if it was specifically engineered for addictive
properties that go beyond obvious tastes, that goes beyond an implied
agreement between seller and producer that they're selling "just food".
--
"A few months in the laboratory will save a few hours in the library."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Resnick" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
22 Mar 2006 11:43:20 AM |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
<snip>
There is certainly biochemistry in obesity, involving hormones that
regulate appetite or the distribution of fat, for instance. But it's the
same now as a hundred years ago. Some people suspect a relation between
increasing obesity rates and decreasing exercise. Others relate it to
increasing consumption of hydrogenated oils, or of high fructose corn
syrup.
<snip>
But people want a pill to make <insert problems> go away. And the pill
should not have any side effects. Oh, and by the way? I still want to
do/eat the things I currently do. Stupid, yes. Idiotic, even.
Nonetheless, many people would gladly give their right arm for such a
miracle object, and why blame Merck (for example) for trying to supply
them what they want? Or RJ Reynolds? Or Budweiser?
Now, if that's true, it adds a new dimension to suing McDonald's for
making one fat (why the heck do they put wheat products in their fries?).
If it was just food produced in the normal ways, I'd say it's all you, and
if you didn't want it to make you fat then you shouldn't have eaten so
much of it. But if it was specifically engineered for addictive
properties that go beyond obvious tastes, that goes beyond an implied
agreement between seller and producer that they're selling "just food".
Did you see "Supersize Me"? The most interesting thesis (IMHO) was that
food is being increasingly marketed as a commodity, like any other
consumed object (cars, clothes, computers). And the marketing of food
is divorced from any nutritive value in food.
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
24 Mar 2006 05:51:33 PM |
|
|
In article <dvs28l$3g9$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
<snip>
There is certainly biochemistry in obesity, involving hormones that
regulate appetite or the distribution of fat, for instance. But it's the
same now as a hundred years ago. Some people suspect a relation between
increasing obesity rates and decreasing exercise. Others relate it to
increasing consumption of hydrogenated oils, or of high fructose corn
syrup.
<snip>
But people want a pill to make <insert problems> go away. And the pill
should not have any side effects. Oh, and by the way? I still want to
do/eat the things I currently do. Stupid, yes. Idiotic, even.
Nonetheless, many people would gladly give their right arm for such a
miracle object, and why blame Merck (for example) for trying to supply
them what they want? Or RJ Reynolds? Or Budweiser?
If anyone could put exercise in a pill they'd make billions, most of it
from insurance money. It does so many good things from obvious physical
benefits to brain growth and improved learning. The claims made for it
would be called preposterous if it wasn't such hard work.
--
"We need to remember that when we are faced with an unstructured problem
it is we who create the model in the form of a quantitative metaphor;
there is no correct model waiting in the wings for us to call onstage." --
Thomas L. Saaty, "Mathematical Methods of Operations Research" (1988)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Resnick" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
27 Mar 2006 08:12:45 AM |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
<snip>
If anyone could put exercise in a pill they'd make billions, most of it
from insurance money. It does so many good things from obvious physical
benefits to brain growth and improved learning. The claims made for it
would be called preposterous if it wasn't such hard work.
Exactly: and this is why there is so much crap products out there
advertising just that: exercise in a bottle. Youth in a cream. Infinite
health from ancient Chinese herbal practices, which the medical
establishment doesn't want you to know about, for fear of their
bottom-line profits. Separating morons from their cash isn't illegal.
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
26 Mar 2006 06:33:29 AM |
|
|
In article <e020m5$4d1$2@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>,
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
In article <dvs28l$3g9$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
<snip>
There is certainly biochemistry in obesity, involving hormones that
regulate appetite or the distribution of fat, for instance. But it's the
same now as a hundred years ago. Some people suspect a relation between
increasing obesity rates and decreasing exercise. Others relate it to
increasing consumption of hydrogenated oils, or of high fructose corn
syrup.
<snip>
But people want a pill to make <insert problems> go away. And the pill
should not have any side effects. Oh, and by the way? I still want to
do/eat the things I currently do. Stupid, yes. Idiotic, even.
Nonetheless, many people would gladly give their right arm for such a
miracle object, and why blame Merck (for example) for trying to supply
them what they want? Or RJ Reynolds? Or Budweiser?
If anyone could put exercise in a pill they'd make billions, most of it
from insurance money. It does so many good things from obvious physical
benefits to brain growth and improved learning. The claims made for it
would be called preposterous if it wasn't such hard work.
This fad w.r.t. exercise is so odd to me. And it's such a waste
of time and energy. Any farmer would gladly allow you to muck
stalls or weight-lift bales or run after loose animals.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
26 Mar 2006 09:51:36 AM |
|
|
In article <e061mp$8qk_004@s1014.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <e020m5$4d1$2@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>,
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
In article <dvs28l$3g9$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
<snip>
There is certainly biochemistry in obesity, involving hormones that
regulate appetite or the distribution of fat, for instance. But it's the
same now as a hundred years ago. Some people suspect a relation between
increasing obesity rates and decreasing exercise. Others relate it to
increasing consumption of hydrogenated oils, or of high fructose corn
syrup.
<snip>
But people want a pill to make <insert problems> go away. And the pill
should not have any side effects. Oh, and by the way? I still want to
do/eat the things I currently do. Stupid, yes. Idiotic, even.
Nonetheless, many people would gladly give their right arm for such a
miracle object, and why blame Merck (for example) for trying to supply
them what they want? Or RJ Reynolds? Or Budweiser?
If anyone could put exercise in a pill they'd make billions, most of it
from insurance money. It does so many good things from obvious physical
benefits to brain growth and improved learning. The claims made for it
would be called preposterous if it wasn't such hard work.
This fad w.r.t. exercise is so odd to me. And it's such a waste
of time and energy. Any farmer would gladly allow you to muck
stalls or weight-lift bales or run after loose animals.
Back when everyone was a farmer, they didn't need to "exercise". Cars and
desk jobs are still pretty new to human evolution, but the human body is
still built to move. And so it must move, or it atrophies. And it must
move as the individual's schedule allows, at locations that can be
returned to repeatedly and conveniently. Maybe you're happy to make
arrangements with the local farmer and give him four hours of free work
four times per week. But for some people it would be a long drive and a
lot of time to spend on it when they have a day job and interests off the
farm.
I have to say I don't really understand the people that drive out to the
gym to spend time in the aerobic theater, though. There's an endless
variety of exercises that can be done by a naked person in a bare room--
you don't need equipment to get your aerobics.
--
"It is the weak who are cruel. Gentleness can only be expected from the
strong." -- Leo Roskin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Resnick" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
27 Mar 2006 08:18:33 AM |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
<snip>
I have to say I don't really understand the people that drive out to the
gym to spend time in the aerobic theater, though. There's an endless
variety of exercises that can be done by a naked person in a bare room--
you don't need equipment to get your aerobics.
This may be true, but it's even more fun with *two* naked people in a romm!
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
27 Mar 2006 08:53:10 AM |
|
|
In article <e08s49$t4k$3@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
<snip>
I have to say I don't really understand the people that drive out to the
gym to spend time in the aerobic theater, though. There's an endless
variety of exercises that can be done by a naked person in a bare room--
you don't need equipment to get your aerobics.
This may be true, but it's even more fun with *two* naked people in a romm!
I thought that was what Gregory was talking about :-).
/BAH
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
26 Mar 2006 10:03:49 AM |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
I have to say I don't really understand the people that drive out to the
gym to spend time in the aerobic theater, though. There's an endless
variety of exercises that can be done by a naked person in a bare room--
you don't need equipment to get your aerobics.
Hmm... maybe this is a positive example of your "addiction engineering"
thesis. Aerobic machines at the gym encourage positive addiction -- I
can at least occasionally lose myself in reverie on the elliptical
machine. I had thought that the counterpoint to "drive out to the gym"
was going to be "run or bike there". A preference for going to the gym
might fall under safety as well.
I have noticed though that I tend to work harder when outside on a bike
then when inside a gym -- there is something about the stimulus of
moving fast and risking my neck. Though, as I get older, I move less
and less fast, and the feedback cycle seems to pass below some
threshold where the asymptotic value becomes zero rather than maximum
effort -- when you're moving slow, and it still feels lousy, it's just
too damn much trouble.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
26 Mar 2006 10:30:56 AM |
|
|
In article <1143389029.877497.211090@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Edward Green <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
I have to say I don't really understand the people that drive out to the
gym to spend time in the aerobic theater, though. There's an endless
variety of exercises that can be done by a naked person in a bare room--
you don't need equipment to get your aerobics.
Hmm... maybe this is a positive example of your "addiction engineering"
thesis. Aerobic machines at the gym encourage positive addiction -- I
can at least occasionally lose myself in reverie on the elliptical
machine. I had thought that the counterpoint to "drive out to the gym"
was going to be "run or bike there". A preference for going to the gym
might fall under safety as well.
Actually, I was contrasting that with just staying at home and working out
in your own living room. You could take it nice and easy with jumping
jacks, or goose the intensity with burpees, for instance.
But gyms have some advantages. One is social. Another is that it's a
special place and time that you have no other reason to be there for.
When I was going to the gym at NIST sometimes I didn't feel like working
out, but I thought that I'd at least get in the door and put my gym
clothes on. I'd plan to lift a few things, keep it light, and quit
whenever I wanted to. And then, as often as not, I'd start piling on the
weight and get some really satisfactory grunts out of the night.
I have noticed though that I tend to work harder when outside on a bike
then when inside a gym -- there is something about the stimulus of
moving fast and risking my neck. Though, as I get older, I move less
and less fast, and the feedback cycle seems to pass below some
threshold where the asymptotic value becomes zero rather than maximum
effort -- when you're moving slow, and it still feels lousy, it's just
too damn much trouble.
I've gone out before, planning just to go to the library or somesuch, but
kept on going. Too much fun to stop. I haven't had that experience on a
stationary bike.
If you're not careful, Ed, you're going to start showing up at the local
shopping mall at 7am to walk!
--
"Tell me, Dr. Einstein, at what time does Boston arrive at this train?"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
27 Mar 2006 07:41:23 AM |
|
|
In article <e06da8$ppf$2@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>,
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
In article <e061mp$8qk_004@s1014.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <e020m5$4d1$2@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>,
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
In article <dvs28l$3g9$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
<snip>
There is certainly biochemistry in obesity, involving hormones that
regulate appetite or the distribution of fat, for instance. But it's
the
same now as a hundred years ago. Some people suspect a relation between
increasing obesity rates and decreasing exercise. Others relate it to
increasing consumption of hydrogenated oils, or of high fructose corn
syrup.
<snip>
But people want a pill to make <insert problems> go away. And the pill
should not have any side effects. Oh, and by the way? I still want to
do/eat the things I currently do. Stupid, yes. Idiotic, even.
Nonetheless, many people would gladly give their right arm for such a
miracle object, and why blame Merck (for example) for trying to supply
them what they want? Or RJ Reynolds? Or Budweiser?
If anyone could put exercise in a pill they'd make billions, most of it
from insurance money. It does so many good things from obvious physical
benefits to brain growth and improved learning. The claims made for it
would be called preposterous if it wasn't such hard work.
This fad w.r.t. exercise is so odd to me. And it's such a waste
of time and energy. Any farmer would gladly allow you to muck
stalls or weight-lift bales or run after loose animals.
Back when everyone was a farmer, they didn't need to "exercise".
Right. The need was the opposite :-).
Cars and
desk jobs are still pretty new to human evolution, but the human body is
still built to move. And so it must move, or it atrophies.
I must be out of work too long; I had no idea that people were hog-tied
to desks. I had a desk job; I did a lot of walking.
And it must
move as the individual's schedule allows, at locations that can be
returned to repeatedly and conveniently. Maybe you're happy to make
arrangements with the local farmer and give him four hours of free work
four times per week. But for some people it would be a long drive and a
lot of time to spend on it when they have a day job and interests off the
farm.
I take a look at my neighborhood, which is a posh, wannabe snob
area, and it's a mess, other than the monocultured lawns. There is
lots of work that needs to be done.
I have to say I don't really understand the people that drive out to the
gym to spend time in the aerobic theater, though.
What is an aerobic theater? Please watch other people jump around?
There's an endless
variety of exercises that can be done by a naked person in a bare room--
{{{shiver}}}I just got cold.
you don't need equipment to get your aerobics.
I can understand the need for gyms and stuff. I usually
superimposed the face of certain bosses on my bread dough
before I punched it. I always had a cardbox that I kicked
in my office. Based on the count of the different kinds
of ads for this stuff, the exercise notion has become weird.
A guy down the street gets paid to do physical work; yet
he thinks he has to exercise.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
27 Mar 2006 09:22:25 AM |
|
|
In article <e08q23$8qk_001@s912.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <e06da8$ppf$2@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>,
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
In article <e061mp$8qk_004@s1014.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <e020m5$4d1$2@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>,
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
In article <dvs28l$3g9$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
<snip>
There is certainly biochemistry in obesity, involving hormones that
regulate appetite or the distribution of fat, for instance. But it's
the
same now as a hundred years ago. Some people suspect a relation between
increasing obesity rates and decreasing exercise. Others relate it to
increasing consumption of hydrogenated oils, or of high fructose corn
syrup.
<snip>
But people want a pill to make <insert problems> go away. And the pill
should not have any side effects. Oh, and by the way? I still want to
do/eat the things I currently do. Stupid, yes. Idiotic, even.
Nonetheless, many people would gladly give their right arm for such a
miracle object, and why blame Merck (for example) for trying to supply
them what they want? Or RJ Reynolds? Or Budweiser?
If anyone could put exercise in a pill they'd make billions, most of it
from insurance money. It does so many good things from obvious physical
benefits to brain growth and improved learning. The claims made for it
would be called preposterous if it wasn't such hard work.
This fad w.r.t. exercise is so odd to me. And it's such a waste
of time and energy. Any farmer would gladly allow you to muck
stalls or weight-lift bales or run after loose animals.
Back when everyone was a farmer, they didn't need to "exercise".
Right. The need was the opposite :-).
Cars and
desk jobs are still pretty new to human evolution, but the human body is
still built to move. And so it must move, or it atrophies.
I must be out of work too long; I had no idea that people were hog-tied
to desks. I had a desk job; I did a lot of walking.
Some people don't. Some do a lot of driving, or spend a lot of time in
front of the television. Vast tracts of America are built around a car
culture that places useful or interesting locations or work sites so far
from residential areas that it can be impractical to walk.
If your walking wasn't utilitarian, then you made time for "exercise".
And it must
move as the individual's schedule allows, at locations that can be
returned to repeatedly and conveniently. Maybe you're happy to make
arrangements with the local farmer and give him four hours of free work
four times per week. But for some people it would be a long drive and a
lot of time to spend on it when they have a day job and interests off the
farm.
I take a look at my neighborhood, which is a posh, wannabe snob
area, and it's a mess, other than the monocultured lawns. There is
lots of work that needs to be done.
Will it keep you at your target heart rate for 30 minutes and then be
easily abandoned?
Greg's second rule of humanity is that whatever your job, hobby, or
special interest is, it will be more important to you than it is to anyone
else. You have farms, or anything that looks like working on a farm. And
it's true that working on a farm will keep you fit. But that takes a long
time. And the work won't always match the goals of the individual.
Exercise has a long tradition. The Shaolin monks introduced exercise when
they realized their sedentary lives were leaving them unable to do their
chores, or so legend says. The ancient Greeks made barbell plates out of
stone. Roman soldiers, e.g., did a lot of jumping, in addition to
marching and drills.
I have to say I don't really understand the people that drive out to the
gym to spend time in the aerobic theater, though.
What is an aerobic theater? Please watch other people jump around?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
