| 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: "Euclid Uranium" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
03 Apr 2006 09:10:09 AM |
|
|
wrote:
I can provide an example from our beamline. Even during the
construction phase personel expenses amounted to nearly half the
budget. Once major construction was finished, they amount to about
80%.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Well my screen; visually and at it is take it up in The
migrated To The job is free, more breeding stock phrases
therefore, then some do, with WWD weightless, when we come.
Sorry you have been very interesting expected size of The
earliest zodiacs, possible spam: on arrival of our resources?
Marx wrong a failure rate of Global locally, arbitrary unions,
over every claim that war The male Mr. X ln, xn be proud of The
initial temperature, degkelvin, Volts in real numbers. Again,
you appear there is Entitled to; be constants, of; heaven pray
for definition of The essentially a in The Anglican Communion
and usage is gravity. These theories or Greecian orgiastic love
you will stop and chronology but you can easily another frame
To, The Indian Is Evil but you anything that respect To them.
Your flawed yet spaces.
Once insisted. Yes: it follows; a The production errors The
end: these functions so by you lying. Did not be c: for The
set which in R x x var I gave. Scale and a unit . I might try
to epoch. Those coordinate x I would personally out I just a.
Nobody is different seems plausible that N, The shortest amount
to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
04 Apr 2006 05:59:22 AM |
|
|
In article <8e4989b00a9b789848697de318c5ef34@anon.mixmaster.mixmin.net>,
Euclid Uranium <nobody@invalid.org> wrote:
Sheesh! What happened. Somebody used a translator that
input Roget's Thesaurus and sorted by word type and then
randomly picked out items, listed them with an appended
period every 2^n space?
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Muldrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
04 Apr 2006 02:20:42 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <8e4989b00a9b789848697de318c5ef34@anon.mixmaster.mixmin.net>,
Euclid Uranium <nobody@invalid.org> wrote:
Sheesh! What happened. Somebody used a translator that
input Roget's Thesaurus and sorted by word type and then
randomly picked out items, listed them with an appended
period every 2^n space?
I've been getting a flood of emails like this recently. No apparent
purpose. Maybe someone is having a contest.
Ken Muldrew
kmuldrezw@ucalgazry.ca
(remove all letters after y in the alphabet)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
05 Apr 2006 06:16:41 AM |
|
|
In article <4432c6ee.520543261@news.ucalgary.ca>,
(Ken Muldrew) wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <8e4989b00a9b789848697de318c5ef34@anon.mixmaster.mixmin.net>,
Euclid Uranium <nobody@invalid.org> wrote:
Sheesh! What happened. Somebody used a translator that
input Roget's Thesaurus and sorted by word type and then
randomly picked out items, listed them with an appended
period every 2^n space?
I've been getting a flood of emails like this recently. No apparent
purpose. Maybe someone is having a contest.
Or the kiddies have rediscovered GIGO.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
05 Apr 2006 07:16:38 AM |
|
|
In article <e108up$8ss_010@s869.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
wrote:
In article <4432c6ee.520543261@news.ucalgary.ca>,
kmuldrezw@ucalgazry.ca (Ken Muldrew) wrote:
wrote:
In article <8e4989b00a9b789848697de318c5ef34@anon.mixmaster.mixmin.net>,
Euclid Uranium <nobody@invalid.org> wrote:
Sheesh! What happened. Somebody used a translator that
input Roget's Thesaurus and sorted by word type and then
randomly picked out items, listed them with an appended
period every 2^n space?
I've been getting a flood of emails like this recently. No apparent
purpose. Maybe someone is having a contest.
Or the kiddies have rediscovered GIGO.
Well, now you've (Ken) started me wondering what the f(n) is. :-)))
/BAH
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
04 Apr 2006 11:37:43 AM |
|
|
In article <e0tjia$8qk_003@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, writes:
In article <8e4989b00a9b789848697de318c5ef34@anon.mixmaster.mixmin.net>,
Euclid Uranium <nobody@invalid.org> wrote:
Sheesh! What happened. Somebody used a translator that
input Roget's Thesaurus and sorted by word type and then
randomly picked out items, listed them with an appended
period every 2^n space?
/BAH
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 12:32:46 PM |
|
|
Timo Nieminen wrote:
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
That's a fallacy- a significant fraction of the cost of science is
people. Training, stipends, etc. etc. Typically, 70-80% of my costs on
a grant are salary: mine, the lab techs, the students, travel, indirect
costs, etc. etc. When all of that is figured in, the cost of materials
and equipment is incidental.
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
20 Mar 2006 02:28:07 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, Andy Resnick wrote:
Timo Nieminen wrote:
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
That's a fallacy- a significant fraction of the cost of science is people.
Training, stipends, etc. etc. Typically, 70-80% of my costs on a grant are
salary: mine, the lab techs, the students, travel, indirect costs, etc. etc.
When all of that is figured in, the cost of materials and equipment is
incidental.
Sure. People are our group's biggest expense. The only vaguely big-money
equipment we use is the femtosecond laser, everything else is in the
range of dirt cheap to maybe $10k (well, we keep talking about getting a
spatial light modulator, but we haven't been able to convince ourselves
it'll actually be useful - somebody has to operate it, and the possible
candidates have better things to do).
But some experiments only take one man-week to do, as long as the
equipment is available. Some can take only a few hours (although if the
results are good enough to persue, the follow-up will take time). HEP I
don't know about - how short can a useful experiment be, how many people
are involved: thus the question. Mati's answer (years, lots) covers it.
At least we can do useful stuff in little experiments. Sometimes it works,
and sometimes it doesn't. Recently one of our postgrads did a little
preliminary work, and it looked promising. Along came a talented French
intern for 3 months to do the Real Thing (and did it well; if Julien
Higuet asks you for a job, give it to him - he does very good work).
Sometimes it's good to not work in HEP :)
--
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 |
20 Mar 2006 12:40:41 PM |
|
|
In article <dvmsd4$6k5$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>, Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> writes:
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.
--
Certainly. And damn few advisors do it.
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 |
18 Mar 2006 10:00:53 PM |
|
|
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. 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. 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$?
--
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: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
18 Mar 2006 03:38:06 PM |
|
|
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.
--
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 08:16:32 PM |
|
|
"Timo Nieminen" <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:20060319065419.S81389@emu.uq.edu.au...
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.
Actually one learns as much or more
from failure than one does from success.
For example, when the game "Clue" first came out,
I used to win so quickly that some of my opponents
thought that I must have marked the cards.
All I was doing is keeping track of ALL "failures"
as well as ALL successes.
For example, if someone suggested that
Colonel Mustard did it with a knife in the kitchen,
and it passed player one, and player two showed
him a card, I noted that player one had none of these,
and player two had one of them.
After a couple of rounds it becomes clear
who has what cards.
In every day life, one learns much more from failure
than they do from success.
People are hardwired to assume that they know and are right,
as this relieves their anxiety, and it is hard to "deprogram" people.
There is a lot of information in failure,
and little in success, as emotional inertia
keeps one thinking (Actually feeling),
that their feeling is right,
and their apparent failures are artifact.
--
Tom Potter
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
18 Mar 2006 08:16:41 PM |
|
|
"Timo Nieminen" <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:20060319065419.S81389@emu.uq.edu.au...
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.
Actually one learns as much or more
from failure than one does from success.
For example, when the game "Clue" first came out,
I used to win so quickly that some of my opponents
thought that I must have marked the cards.
All I was doing is keeping track of ALL "failures"
as well as ALL successes.
For example, if someone suggested that
Colonel Mustard did it with a knife in the kitchen,
and it passed player one, and player two showed
him a card, I noted that player one had none of these,
and player two had one of them.
After a couple of rounds it becomes clear
who has what cards.
In every day life, one learns much more from failure
than they do from success.
People are hardwired to assume that they know and are right,
as this relieves their anxiety, and it is hard to "deprogram" people.
There is a lot of information in failure,
and little in success, as emotional inertia
keeps one thinking (Actually feeling),
that their feeling is right,
and their apparent failures are artifact.
--
Tom Potter
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
18 Mar 2006 03:41:24 PM |
|
|
"Timo Nieminen" <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:20060319065419.S81389@emu.uq.edu.au...
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.
Yes,
If anything fails to confirm relativity, it is just thrown away,
because it must be wrong according to the religion of relativity.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
18 Mar 2006 04:19:25 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:tO6dnSpFQ8Qe44HZnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Timo Nieminen" <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:20060319065419.S81389@emu.uq.edu.au...
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.
Yes,
If anything fails to confirm relativity, it is just thrown away,
because it must be wrong according to the religion of relativity.
LOL
Nonsense.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
19 Mar 2006 07:38:20 AM |
|
|
In article <20060319065419.S81389@emu.uq.edu.au>,
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
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.
Any failure _adds_ knowledge. You learn what doesn't work!
That is one of the most useful pieces of knowledge and is
the piece that gets forgotten the most. Thus, humanity
keeps reinventing the wheel and repeating history.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Resnick" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
20 Mar 2006 12:43:25 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <20060319065419.S81389@emu.uq.edu.au>,
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
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.
Any failure _adds_ knowledge. You learn what doesn't work!
That is one of the most useful pieces of knowledge and is
the piece that gets forgotten the most. Thus, humanity
keeps reinventing the wheel and repeating history.
This neglects that fact that scientific progress requires a person-
scientific discoveries are not made by an amorphous 'society', they are
made by someone sitting patiently in a lab or whatever, doing plodding
repetitive tasks, at least for the initial breakthrough. So, what I do
in the lab is based on what I think needs to be done, and since I don't
have total encyclopedic knowledge of all that has come before, or is
being done concomitantly, I of course repeat other's work. And
hopefully, if I see something I have not seen before, either I'm the
first one to observe it, or I realize that it is of value and report it.
As for failure- failed procedures, failed experiments, failed whatevers;
failure costs. It costs time. If I spend 6 months on a procedure or
preparation, and in the end I get no result, or even worse inconclusive
results, I have lost that time. And time is the most valuable thing I
have- it's very limited and once it's spent it's gone.
I think Otto von Bismarck said "Only the fool learns from his own
mistakes. The wise man learns from the mistakes of others". One of my
favorites.
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
21 Mar 2006 06:01:33 AM |
|
|
In article <dvmt85$952$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <20060319065419.S81389@emu.uq.edu.au>,
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
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.
Any failure _adds_ knowledge. You learn what doesn't work!
That is one of the most useful pieces of knowledge and is
the piece that gets forgotten the most. Thus, humanity
keeps reinventing the wheel and repeating history.
This neglects that fact that scientific progress requires a person-
scientific discoveries are not made by an amorphous 'society', they are
made by someone sitting patiently in a lab or whatever, doing plodding
repetitive tasks, at least for the initial breakthrough. So, what I do
in the lab is based on what I think needs to be done, and since I don't
have total encyclopedic knowledge of all that has come before, or is
being done concomitantly, I of course repeat other's work.
Sure. That happens in most places.
And
hopefully, if I see something I have not seen before, either I'm the
first one to observe it, or I realize that it is of value and report it.
As for failure- failed procedures, failed experiments, failed whatevers;
failure costs. It costs time. If I spend 6 months on a procedure or
preparation, and in the end I get no result, or even worse inconclusive
results, I have lost that time. And time is the most valuable thing I
have- it's very limited and once it's spent it's gone.
You have "lost" that time. Now, if you never write it up, there
will be more people who will do the same setup. One of the
problems with the hard/software biz, is that we were never paid
to write up our "mistakes" nor the stuff that didn't work at all.
Even the stuff that did work gets lost because the unpinings
change over time. Science, so far, still has a procedure to
document this kind of stuff and, hopefully, catlogues it into
perpetuity. Computing biz doesn't have any of this. The only
thing that gets submitted via the science procedure is the
"impractical" stuff, where impractical is of ivy-walled concepts
that may help improvement with tweaks.
I also understand that those, who are purely lab workers, have
a very difficult time "wasting" more months writing this stuff
up when they could go on to the next attempt. :-) My bit
gods had this problem. Even documenting the stuff that worked
and would ship in a few years was a RPITA.
I think Otto von Bismarck said "Only the fool learns from his own
mistakes. The wise man learns from the mistakes of others". One of my
favorites.
Yep. But you scientists can't learn from your contemporaries unless
they publish the goofs and the attempts that didn't work as planned.
In some small cases, the latter can be done when technology gets
better (I'm thinking of stuff that needs heavy-duty computing.)
Note that I am not trying to take sides; I'm simply discussing
all different aspects to this subject. This line is for the
reading comprehension-challenged.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Resnick" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
21 Mar 2006 08:17:56 AM |
|
|
wrote:
<snip>
Yep. But you scientists can't learn from your contemporaries unless
they publish the goofs and the attempts that didn't work as planned.
In some small cases, the latter can be done when technology gets
better (I'm thinking of stuff that needs heavy-duty computing.)
Well, I think it's more that everyone needs to have a good lab notebook
to keep all the scribblings in: the day-to-day specifics that we do are
not really useful to people not in the lab, but are of value to new
people that we bring in. To be sure, in the event that we need to share
information with others, again, a good lab notebook is the thing to grab
and consult.
Note that I am not trying to take sides; I'm simply discussing
all different aspects to this subject. This line is for the
reading comprehension-challenged.
/BAH
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
22 Mar 2006 06:49:17 AM |
|
|
In article <dvp1ui$o65$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
<snip>
Yep. But you scientists can't learn from your contemporaries unless
they publish the goofs and the attempts that didn't work as planned.
In some small cases, the latter can be done when technology gets
better (I'm thinking of stuff that needs heavy-duty computing.)
Well, I think it's more that everyone needs to have a good lab notebook
to keep all the scribblings in: the day-to-day specifics that we do are
not really useful to people not in the lab, but are of value to new
people that we bring in. To be sure, in the event that we need to share
information with others, again, a good lab notebook is the thing to grab
and consult.
Yes, in the corporate world, this is called folklore. It's the
way the work gets done but is never formally documented. It
cannot be documented because the form evolves as the people,
who do the work, change. This is the mentorship that occurs
with every gathering of more than one human.
I've read some of my student lab books. They are awful.
There are big, huge holes where I didn't note something down
and should have. I don't know how you lab guys do that work.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
22 Mar 2006 08:27:55 AM |
|
|
In article <dvrh4d$8qk_006@s1145.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <dvp1ui$o65$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
<snip>
Yep. But you scientists can't learn from your contemporaries unless
they publish the goofs and the attempts that didn't work as planned.
In some small cases, the latter can be done when technology gets
better (I'm thinking of stuff that needs heavy-duty computing.)
Well, I think it's more that everyone needs to have a good lab notebook
to keep all the scribblings in: the day-to-day specifics that we do are
not really useful to people not in the lab, but are of value to new
people that we bring in. To be sure, in the event that we need to share
information with others, again, a good lab notebook is the thing to grab
and consult.
Yes, in the corporate world, this is called folklore. It's the
way the work gets done but is never formally documented. It
cannot be documented because the form evolves as the people,
who do the work, change. This is the mentorship that occurs
with every gathering of more than one human.
I've read some of my student lab books. They are awful.
There are big, huge holes where I didn't note something down
and should have. I don't know how you lab guys do that work.
You figure it out after you have to redo enough things because there are
big, huge holes where you didn't note something down and should have.
--
"Out of the way, you swine, a physicist is coming!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Muldrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
22 Mar 2006 12:59:25 PM |
|
|
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
You figure it out after you have to redo enough things because there are
big, huge holes where you didn't note something down and should have.
Well said.
Ken Muldrew
kmuldrezw@ucalgazry.ca
(remove all letters after y in the alphabet)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Resnick" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
22 Mar 2006 11:31:28 AM |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <dvrh4d$8qk_006@s1145.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <dvp1ui$o65$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote:
<snip>
Well, I think it's more that everyone needs to have a good lab notebook
to keep all the scribblings in: the day-to-day specifics that we do are
not really useful to people not in the lab, but are of value to new
people that we bring in. To be sure, in the event that we need to share
information with others, again, a good lab notebook is the thing to grab
and consult.
Yes, in the corporate world, this is called folklore. It's the
way the work gets done but is never formally documented. It
cannot be documented because the form evolves as the people,
who do the work, change. This is the mentorship that occurs
with every gathering of more than one human.
I've read some of my student lab books. They are awful.
There are big, huge holes where I didn't note something down
and should have. I don't know how you lab guys do that work.
You figure it out after you have to redo enough things because there are
big, huge holes where you didn't note something down and should have.
You been there too, huh? :)
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
22 Mar 2006 08:40:51 AM |
|
|
In article <dvrmtb$tm1$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>,
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
In article <dvrh4d$8qk_006@s1145.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <dvp1ui$o65$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
<snip>
Yep. But you scientists can't learn from your contemporaries unless
they publish the goofs and the attempts that didn't work as planned.
In some small cases, the latter can be done when technology gets
better (I'm thinking of stuff that needs heavy-duty computing.)
Well, I think it's more that everyone needs to have a good lab notebook
to keep all the scribblings in: the day-to-day specifics that we do are
not really useful to people not in the lab, but are of value to new
people that we bring in. To be sure, in the event that we need to share
information with others, again, a good lab notebook is the thing to grab
and consult.
Yes, in the corporate world, this is called folklore. It's the
way the work gets done but is never formally documented. It
cannot be documented because the form evolves as the people,
who do the work, change. This is the mentorship that occurs
with every gathering of more than one human.
I've read some of my student lab books. They are awful.
There are big, huge holes where I didn't note something down
and should have. I don't know how you lab guys do that work.
You figure it out after you have to redo enough things because there are
big, huge holes where you didn't note something down and should have.
<grin> I see. And in 101 classes I didn't have that option.
Redoing lab exercises was not allowed :-(.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
20 Mar 2006 01:07:05 PM |
|
|
In article <dvmt85$952$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <20060319065419.S81389@emu.uq.edu.au>,
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 wrote:
As for failure- failed procedures, failed experiments, failed whatevers;
failure costs. It costs time. If I spend 6 months on a procedure or
preparation, and in the end I get no result, or even worse inconclusive
results, I have lost that time. And time is the most valuable thing I
have- it's very limited and once it's spent it's gone.
Unless the equipment didn't work as intended or the experimental design
wasn't sensitive to the intended signal, how can an experiment ever be a
failure? If LIGO fails to detect gravitational radiation in situations
where it should have detected it, then the experiment will be a grand
success!
The emiT experiment done at NIST is intended to measure the triple
correlation coefficient. The standard model says it's exactly zero.
When they finish analyzing the data, if they get a number consistent with
zero, that will help constrain some parameters in the standard model. If
they get a nonzero number that they can support, that would be grand. In
either case, emiT cannot possibly be called a failure.
If Muldrew's light communication experiment doesn't show that effect, it
will confirm what everyone thinks they already know and satisfy his own
curiosity. The only sense that it could be said to fail is in how much
the scientific community actually wanted the answer to that particular
question-- it seems they're not particularly concerned about it. Mumble
the word "paradigm" a few times for completeness.
--
"The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit". --William
Somerset Maugham
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Resnick" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
21 Mar 2006 08:13:11 AM |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <dvmt85$952$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <20060319065419.S81389@emu.uq.edu.au>,
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 wrote:
As for failure- failed procedures, failed experiments, failed whatevers;
failure costs. It costs time. If I spend 6 months on a procedure or
preparation, and in the end I get no result, or even worse inconclusive
results, I have lost that time. And time is the most valuable thing I
have- it's very limited and once it's spent it's gone.
Unless the equipment didn't work as intended or the experimental design
wasn't sensitive to the intended signal, how can an experiment ever be a
failure? If LIGO fails to detect gravitational radiation in situations
where it should have detected it, then the experiment will be a grand
success!
But that's just it: confirming the equipment works, that the design of
the experiment is acceptable, etc. etc... that's what takes the time and
costs the money. How long has LIGO been in construction, and how long
will it be validated for? How many people are involved? What fraction of
someone's career will be spent just in the construction of the thing,
and not be around to actually perform the experiment? It's a huge
effort, and totally different from the experiments I (and most
scientists) are doing.
The emiT experiment done at NIST is intended to measure the triple
correlation coefficient. The standard model says it's exactly zero.
When they finish analyzing the data, if they get a number consistent with
zero, that will help constrain some parameters in the standard model. If
they get a nonzero number that they can support, that would be grand. In
either case, emiT cannot possibly be called a failure.
Again, this is all fine- that's not what I mean by failure. Experiments
of this scope are guaranteed not to be failures due to the sheer number
of people and dollars associated with it: guaranteed by the oversight
committees, who know that if they want future dollars for other
projects, this one (and LIGO) had better produce some quantifiable
metric of 'success' (which is usually papers/reports or Ph.D. degrees)
Failure occurs on the benchtop, with a grad student trying to reproduce
a simple result.
If Muldrew's light communication experiment doesn't show that effect, it
will confirm what everyone thinks they already know and satisfy his own
curiosity. The only sense that it could be said to fail is in how much
the scientific community actually wanted the answer to that particular
question-- it seems they're not particularly concerned about it. Mumble
the word "paradigm" a few times for completeness.
Leaving aside the specifics of Ken's proposal (which I would be
interested in knowing more about...), failure could occur very simply.
Say Ken gets the funding: determine if cells use chemiluminescene to
communicate. Question: is the experiment well designed? unless this
question is answered, and answered well, any result that Ken obtains is
suspect and open to interpretation.
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
21 Mar 2006 01:51:39 PM |
|
|
In article <dvp1ll$njc$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
correlation coefficient. The standard model says it's exactly zero.
When they finish analyzing the data, if they get a number consistent with
zero, that will help constrain some parameters in the standard model. If
they get a nonzero number that they can support, that would be grand. In
either case, emiT cannot possibly be called a failure.
Again, this is all fine- that's not what I mean by failure. Experiments
of this scope are guaranteed not to be failures due to the sheer number
of people and dollars associated with it: guaranteed by the oversight
committees, who know that if they want future dollars for other
projects, this one (and LIGO) had better produce some quantifiable
metric of 'success' (which is usually papers/reports or Ph.D. degrees)
Well, the current scope of that experiment is pretty much two staff
scientists and a grad student. But it's been a long time in the process,
on and off the beam and sometimes just gathering dust.
Failure occurs on the benchtop, with a grad student trying to reproduce
a simple result.
If Muldrew's light communication experiment doesn't show that effect, it
will confirm what everyone thinks they already know and satisfy his own
curiosity. The only sense that it could be said to fail is in how much
the scientific community actually wanted the answer to that particular
question-- it seems they're not particularly concerned about it. Mumble
the word "paradigm" a few times for completeness.
Leaving aside the specifics of Ken's proposal (which I would be
interested in knowing more about...), failure could occur very simply.
Say Ken gets the funding: determine if cells use chemiluminescene to
communicate. Question: is the experiment well designed? unless this
question is answered, and answered well, any result that Ken obtains is
suspect and open to interpretation.
A valid concern, but it's the only way that an experiment can fail. And
that sort of failure is within Ken's power to prevent.
Then, I suppose, there's the Mendel's peas type of failure where a result
is simply ignored. But that goes beyond technical issues.
--
"What are the possibilities of small but movable machines? They may or
may not be useful, but they surely would be fun to make."
-- Richard P. Feynman, 1959
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Resnick" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
21 Mar 2006 02:26:24 PM |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
<snip>
Well, the current scope of that experiment is pretty much two staff
scientists and a grad student. But it's been a long time in the process,
on and off the beam and sometimes just gathering dust.
So there's the trade-off: a lack of urgency in obtaining results.
Compare this to the mad scramble for "anti-death" medication.
<snip>
A valid concern, but it's the only way that an experiment can fail. And
that sort of failure is within Ken's power to prevent.
Absolutely! the PI needs to make a convincing case to the review
committees. Notice, thats a different way of saying "Review committees
only fund experiments that are easy and have known outcomes".
Then, I suppose, there's the Mendel's peas type of failure where a result
is simply ignored. But that goes beyond technical issues.
True, and it is one (maybe the only) aspect of "the sociology of
science" that has value.
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
22 Mar 2006 06:54:51 AM |
|
|
In article <dvplgb$6m8$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>,
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
In article <dvp1ll$njc$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
correlation coefficient. The standard model says it's exactly zero.
When they finish analyzing the data, if they get a number consistent with
zero, that will help constrain some parameters in the standard model. If
they get a nonzero number that they can support, that would be grand. In
either case, emiT cannot possibly be called a failure.
Again, this is all fine- that's not what I mean by failure. Experiments
of this scope are guaranteed not to be failures due to the sheer number
of people and dollars associated with it: guaranteed by the oversight
committees, who know that if they want future dollars for other
projects, this one (and LIGO) had better produce some quantifiable
metric of 'success' (which is usually papers/reports or Ph.D. degrees)
Well, the current scope of that experiment is pretty much two staff
scientists and a grad student. But it's been a long time in the process,
on and off the beam and sometimes just gathering dust.
Failure occurs on the benchtop, with a grad student trying to reproduce
a simple result.
If Muldrew's light communication experiment doesn't show that effect, it
will confirm what everyone thinks they already know and satisfy his own
curiosity. The only sense that it could be said to fail is in how much
the scientific community actually wanted the answer to that particular
question-- it seems they're not particularly concerned about it. Mumble
the word "paradigm" a few times for completeness.
Leaving aside the specifics of Ken's proposal (which I would be
interested in knowing more about...), failure could occur very simply.
Say Ken gets the funding: determine if cells use chemiluminescene to
communicate. Question: is the experiment well designed? unless this
question is answered, and answered well, any result that Ken obtains is
suspect and open to interpretation.
A valid concern, but it's the only way that an experiment can fail. And
that sort of failure is within Ken's power to prevent.
Then, I suppose, there's the Mendel's peas type of failure where a result
is simply ignored. But that goes beyond technical issues.
But if Ken writes up the "failure", there are lots of contrary
thinking people who will try to prove him wrong. If the
experiment is small, where small is any lab, few people and
not much time, won't there be a couple more people who think
about the premise? It sounds like a nice "make-work" project
to assign the kid scheduled to start a major project in next
month. Or isn't that how you guys do your biz?
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Muldrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
22 Mar 2006 12:58:24 PM |
|
|
wrote:
But if Ken writes up the "failure", there are lots of contrary
thinking people who will try to prove him wrong.
No, everyone already knows that cells don't communicate with light.
The conventional wisdom is that the continuous, low-level light
production by all cells is simply a byproduct of metabolism (primarily
the reaction of oxygen radicals with lipids, nospecifically, to
generate chemiluminescence). Only a positive result would generate any
interest.
If the
experiment is small, where small is any lab, few people and
not much time, won't there be a couple more people who think
about the premise? It sounds like a nice "make-work" project
to assign the kid scheduled to start a major project in next
month. Or isn't that how you guys do your biz?
It's small, but not trivial. No biology lab is designed for total
darkness, nor is it easy to do cell culture in the dark, and you have
to deal with other users of the culture room, incubator, etc. who are
not going to work in the dark. Plus, cell culture and RNA work can get
expensive in a hurry. It's at least a year of hard work by a dedicated
individual (and that's only because we've worked out a lot of the bugs
in our occasional attempts at doing this). That kind of work requires
dedicated resources so there are only a few options: obtain money
under the guise of a more respectable project and then fraudulently
divert funds into the pet project (this is actually how most
innovative research gets started), keep trying to find a sucker to
fund the actual project, wait until someone else makes a discovery
that will make funding easier to obtain, sell crack at the local high
school to fund the project...
Ken Muldrew
kmuldrezw@ucalgazry.ca
(remove all letters after y in the alphabet)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
