So I wanted to do something fun and topical for Easter, like about eggs or something. But then my windshield gave up. And I got sick. So here’s some news about the intelligence of reptiles from the New York Times!
Coldblooded Does Not Mean Stupid
Tag Archives: science
Eye-Saving Witchcraft
Time to learn about some magic folks, but first! A story.
So! Knowing me and my love of sleep, most of my friends are surprised when I tell them my favorite job was a research position that involved waking up at 4:30 am. But it was really the best: I got to stomp all over the prairie and wrangle critters (for science!) and everything. I only stumbled over a rattlesnake once. It did require some special equipment on my part, however. Namely cacti-resistant boots, cargo pants (tip: if you’re doing field work, get a pants with pockets big enough to hold a Nalgene. It’s worth it and you’ll thank me later) and sunglasses. I couldn’t get just any sunglasses, though. I was working outside for up to 11 hours, that is a LOT of sun exposure and my eye sight is bad enough without throwing sun damage into the mix. The solution for me was polarized sunglasses (also a hat).
If you’ve lived in a place with any significant amount of sun, you’ve probably seen polarized sunglasses at the store. If you grew up in a place that’s as damp, grey and dark as if it were being swallowed by a giant oyster, you probably haven’t. Or you didn’t until you moved to a place with sun and got a job that had you working outside all day (COUGH COUGH). To understand polarized lenses, you need to understand light.
Light has electric fields that move in waves and these waves acan be oriented in all different directions. Light from a lamp or the sun is like this and thus is unpolarized light. Reflective surfaces can polarize light so that it all travels in one orientation: horizontally. Besides being damn bright and annoying, this light can damage your vision. To combat this, you can get polarized lenses. Polarized lenses have a coating of polymers all aligned parallel to one another. This coating only allows light to pass through that has an electric field perpendicular to the orientation of the polymers.
Scary diagram, but I want you all to see the important bits the official way, first. Namely, the orientation of the wave (the transmission axis of energy) and the direction it flows in.
Simplified diagram
You would think that the light would need to be oriented parallel to the polymers, but such light waves actually get absorbed by the polymers. Anyway, the result is that half of unpolarized light is blocked, while polarized light from glare is virtually eliminated.
Eye saving MAGIC.
Although polarized lenses are expensive, they are very much worth it for protecting your sight if you spend a lot of time in the sun.
Oh, FACT: lots of companies can say they sell polarized lenses even if they don’t. To tell for sure, find a highly reflective surface or a monitor screen and tilt your head to the side. Looking at it normally, it won’t be very bright, but after you tilt your head all the way to the side, the surface should be almost black.
Sources
–. 2012. “Polarization of Light.” Physics. Whitman College. Walla Walla, WA. Lecture.
Tyson, Jeff. “How Sunglasses Work” 14 July 2000. HowStuffWorks.com. <http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/everyday-innovations/sunglass.htm> 02 April 2015.
Image Credits
Prof Josh (seriously cannot remember his name, someone HELP) for 1st.
Heartland Optical for 2nd.
CTS Wholesale Sunglasses for 3rd.
Seaweed Revelations Part 2
I know you were all right on the edges of yours seats waiting to hear about the life cycles of seaweed so I will get right to the point. Here is also where I get to clarify things I learned way long ago but didn’t look at again because I’m not a botanist.
I know many of you are still reeling from yesterday’s revelation that algae are not and have never been a member of the Communist party Plant kingdom. But you’ll have to sit down and clutch your pearls again because I have more news (“news”). Now I must tell you that all plants and many algae display alternating generations. “What is that?” you ask, “Where did I get these pearls I am now clutching??” you exclaim. All will be answered in due time. The phrase ”alternating generations” indicates that the plants or algae alternate haploid and diploid generations. So one generation has double chromosomes (one set doubled, like you’re supposed to) the next has only half/one set of chromosomes (like gametocytes, that is, cells like sperm or eggs, are supposed to). So you have one organism with the appropriate number of chromosomes (2n, with n being one set of a given number) that produces spores to grow into ANOTHER organism with half the chromosomes of its parent (n chromosomes), which in turn produces sperm or eggs to help produce a new, diploid generation. The haploid generation producing the sperm and eggs may be a distinct organism or it may be closely associated/attached to its diploid parent (although subsequent diploid generations will not be). OK, this explanation is all well and good for biologists, but how can everyone else understand it?
First, look at this diagram:
LOOK AT IT.
This will give you an illustration of things to come.
Now stick with me for a very bizarre analogy. Imagine your reproductive bits are not an organ. You produced them, they are a part of you (they’re attached to you, anyway), but you can’t control them directly. They are their own entity. Creepy, huh? That is how MANY plants and algae function, they grow their haploid generation on the diploid generation. Now for the REALLY weird part: imagine those reproductive bits DO NOT remain a part of you. Once you have grown them, they live freely. That is how other plants and algae live. To summarize both: the children are like the sexual organs and the grandchildren are new organisms. This system seems confusing, but it does help weed out deleterious genes (haploid generations being more vulnerable to the effects of bad genes) while still allowing for either self-fertilization or non-self-fertilization (plants and algae can effectively mate with themselves or other, unrelated plants and algae). Advantages to self-fertilization would be preventing introduction of bad genes while non-self fertilization means the possibility of BETTER genes being introduced. Basically, all the options are still available, so it’s a win-win situation.
I hope that all makes some (albeit VERY WEIRD) sense. Let me know if it doesn’t. I’d like to do another algae-related thang, but I just had some projects come up so WE SHALL SEE.
Source
–. 2010. GRE Subject Test: Biology 5th Ed. Kaplan, New York.
Photo credit Pearson Education.
Seaweed Revelations Part 1
Continuing with my topic suggestions, here is one from my sister from another mister who’s doing top-secret research in the North Pole (probably spying on Santa Claus) which you can read about on her blog here–> Snow Kidding
“I want to know more about macro algae… life cycle, what it needs to live, where it grows etc.”
That is not actually a question, Angie-bear, but I will let it slide cause you’re cute.
The term macroalgae encompasses the many species of large, multicellular algae found in marine and freshwater environments. For now I am going to focus on the marine species, but most of the information is applicable to freshwater species.
Now, before I go any further I need to say something important: algae are not plants. Sorry to shatter all y’all’s dreams (assuming you dream of algae-plants), but it’s true, ALGAE ARE NOT PLANTS. Don’t feel bad if you didn’t figure this out before, I only learned this when I took marine biology. Even college-level high school science classes can have gaps (I would say this is a pretty tiny one, anyway) and besides, algae are just not a thing most people think about.
Algae actually belong in the kingdom Protista, along with the animal-like protists (protozoans) and the fungus-like protists (slime molds). Because algae photosynthesize using chlorophyll, we say they are plant-like protists. Besides seaweed, this includes diatoms and dinoflagellates. Seaweed are divided into three main divisions (term for taxonomic rank equivalent to phylum but used in for plants, fungi and protists) that are defined by their photosynthetic accessory pigments. These divisions are chlorophyta (uses chlorophyll a and b), phaeophyta (uses uses chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and fucoxanthin) and rhodophyta (uses chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, phycoerythrin and phycocyanin). Algae in these divisions are called green, brown and red algae, respectively. Why? Because, well, they are green, brown and red, respectively.
See?
In general, the structure of macroalgae includes leaf-like blades (for photosynthesis), a gas-filled float (to raise the blades closer to the light) and the stipe (basically a stem, it’s not present in all species) that leads down to the holdfast (which anchors macroalgae to the seafloor). Although many of these structures seem analogous to those in plants, realize that the holdfast is NOT an algal root system. Macroalgae do not uptake nutrients from the seafloor so the holdfast is really just an anchor. Besides that important difference, the leaves and blades of plants and macroalgae are very different on a cellular level. Plant leaves, besides having more complex and complexly arranged tissues (includes vascular system, spongy layer and palisade layer, besides epidermis), have distinct functions for their different sides. The top side of the leaf takes in light and have a waxy cuticle to limit water loss, while the under side only takes in CO2 through the stoma (openings in the leaf). Conversely, macroalgae blades are composed of simple layers of epidermal, cortex and medullar cells with zoospores on theoutside surface. Furthermore, the blades are double-sided so that macroalgae can take in light, nutrients and H3CO from both sides.
Macroalgae also have some life cycle similarities to plants, but I will be getting to that tomorrow. So sit tight, folks.
Sources
-. 2010. GRE Subject Test: Biology 5th Ed. Kaplan, New York.
Yancey, Paul. “Macroalgae adaptations.” Marine Biology. Whitman College. Walla Walla, WA. 5 4 2011. Lecture.
Photo credit
–. “Marine Algae” Marine Education Society of Australasia. Jan 13, 2014 < http://www.mesa.edu.au/marine_algae/default.asp>
–. 2013. “Canadian Aquaculture R & D Review 2011.” Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Jan 13 2014 <http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/enviro/aquaculture/rd2011/cimtan-rcamti-eng.html>
Q & A
Like I said yesterday, I’ve got a lot of suggestions for topics. Because some of them have pretty short and sweet answers, I’m going to post them all here.
“How does ink come out of pens?”
Depends on the pen! I have calligraphy styluses that draw ink up grooves in their metal tips via capillary action (motion of liquid in a tube as a result of surface tension) and then pressing them to paper (which is at least a little absorbant) similarly draws ink out.
Ballpoint pens on the other hand, have a tiiiny ball at the tip that rolls as you write or draw. It brings a little air into the ink reservoir as you push the tip against paper. Then, some of the ink in the reservoir sticks to the ball and is rolled out and onto paper. Ta da!
“Have you done bioluminescence?”
BAM: Bioluminescence.
“Do jellyfish dream?”
There’s no way to know for sure, considering they don’t talk or even make sounds (besides SQWSSSH when you step on them), but I highly doubt they dream, or even sleep. Jellyfish have no true organs, so instead of a brain, they have a simple nerve net that allows them to react to their environment. Besides box jellies, most don’t even have eyes.
“Bananas. They constantly confuse me.”
What about them?
“Everything! WHY ARE THEY YELLOW?!?!? AND BANANA SHAPED?!?!”
BECAUSE THEY’RE BANANAS. PLEASE STOP YELLING.
EXHIBIT A. WILL YOU STOP YELLING NOW.
“Volcanism!”
Volcanism is anything involved in the processes or formation of volcanoes. Volcanoes are formed as a result of subduction, in this case, the movement of oceanic tectonic plates beneath continental plates. This occurs near underwater spreading centers, where magma from the earth’s core moves up, is cooled by the water and spreads out to form new section of plate. The subducted plate pushes magma toward the surface and explodes from volcanoes formed by the buckling of colliding plates. Mt. St. Helens is one such volcano.
You can also find volcanoes at “hot spots”, non-moving magma chambers away from plate margins where magma has risen to the surface and explodes out, rather than form a spreading center (Ex: Hawaii). Subduction of oceanic plates can also lead to volcano formation, as in the Aleutian and Japanese island volcanoes.
“Vulcanism!”
Another word for volcanism. Not a Star Trek reference, sorry.
“What are the most common chemical reactions in cooking?”
The chemistry of cooking merits a long post, if not an entire class. However, there are a few common chemical reactions I can think of right off the bat: denaturation of proteins (with heat or acid), osmosis, diffusion and controlled burning (of non-proteinatious things). Also controlled spoilage, as with cheese.
Hope this answered all y’all’s burning questions that keep you up at night. I know I will rest easier.
Sources
“volcanism”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2014. Web. 09 Jan. 2014
<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/632078/volcanism>.
Laidler, Keith. 2009. Animals: A Visual Guide to the Animal Kingdom. Quercus Publishing Plc, London.
Yancey, Paul. “Environmental Factors- Tectonic Factors.” Marine Biology. Whitman College. Walla Walla, WA. 5 4 2011. Lecture.
Schrodinger’s Cat- Now You See Me…
Finally got some topic requests! Some of which are pretty brutal and some are just full of it (you know who you are). First up is Schrodinger’s Cat.
This one is brutal for me because I am not a physics or quantum anything sort of person. However, a lot of people like talking about Schrodinger’s poor, pent up kitty, so I’m going to try and clear things up a little. If anyone has any questions or corrections, please let me know; I am by no means an expert.
First of all, here is the original scenario by Schrodinger, translated from German:
“A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of the hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed.”
Although it may not be clear immediately, this is a model intended to describe the state of sub-atomic particles, such as electrons. Schrodinger used the cat to make a point and to get people thinking about applying the existing modes of thought to something from “real life”. At least as “real life” as a cat in a box with acid and radioactive matter can be.
Anyway, one of the existing modes of thought was the “classical model”, which said you could predict whether the cat is alive or dead based on models. However, Schrodinger points out that people made these models and you can’t expect reality to conform to a man-made model. The cat’s conformity to the model’s prediction would be arbitrary (as would that of the subatomic particles), that is, it may or may not follow the prediction and whether it does or not is random. So the classical model is not helpful.
Another idea follows the concept of the wave function, also called the psi-function. This would say that the cat’s state is blurred between all possibilities, “mixed or smeared out in equal parts” between living and dead, as Schrodinger put it. You could say the cat is undead, but that would have to encompass a complete range, from completely living to completely dead. So whether or not you believe in zombies, that’s a pretty hard concept to envision (let alone accept). Schrodinger invented the cat because he agreed: this isn’t how life works. Psi-function assumes the blurring of states is confined to a sub-atomic scale, when in reality, sub-atomic particles affect macroscopic objects and systems. A particle can no more be in two places at once than a cat can be dead and alive at once.
Schrodinger’s solution is simply that the cat is dead or alive. The only way to discover its state is to open the box and observe it. In a similar way, sub-atomic particles may be anywhere, but we only know where when we try to observe them.
So how is any of this useful? Consider the various models of the atom. The first models you see of atoms show sort of an onion, with protons and neutrons at the center, and electrons arranged in layers surrounding them. Getting into college chemistry, you understand that electrons have “atomic orbitals”, regions in which you are most likely to find the electrons. Diagrams show the orbitals as specific shapes, but that’s just the shape of the area the electron moves around in. So while you have a certain probability that the electron will be in a given location, you can’t predict it. Neither can you say the electron is smeared around its orbital. It is the cat, but rather than alive or dead, it is in this spot or somewhere else, and you won’t know until you look at it.
Hope that helps a little. Now that I’m done, I think I’ll have lunch, maybe draw, or return some books. You won’t know which unless I’m observed.
But that would be creepy, so please don’t.
Sources
Kramer, Melody. 2013. “The Physics Behind Schrödinger’s Cat Paradox.” National Geographic. Jan 8 2014. < http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/08/130812-physics-schrodinger-erwin-google-doodle-cat-paradox-science/>
Schrodinger, Erwin. Trans. John D. Trimmer. 1996. “The Present Situation in Quantum Mechanics: A translation of Schrodinger’s ‘Cat Paradox Paper’.” Technical University of Hamburg-Hamburg. Jan 8, 2014. <http://www.tuhh.de/rzt/rzt/it/QM/cat.html>
Diagram credit to Dhatfield, Wikimedia Commons.
Writer’s Block
Once more I must call upon you, my readers, for topic ideas. I’m just finishing up with biochemistry so I’m hoping to do a lot more writing in the coming weeks. But I need ideas! The biochem I’ve been looking at lately is…not so interesting to write about. Unless y’all want to hear me talk about this enzyme oxidizing this, which is modified by that, and so on and so forth.
Here’s a cute leopard cub to sweeten the deal:
Frozen Fish-Men
If you know me, chances are you know of my love for the Hellboy comics by Mike Mignola. You’ve probably also heard me gush about how I met him and he signed a postcard for me and I got the postcard free and HE WAS JUST SO NICE. Ahem. Anyway, I’d been recommended that series for years but never listened to wisdom until I saw Ron Perlman punching Nazis on the big screen. I’ve been hooked ever since. This is all relevant because I recently bought one of the short story anthologies (Odder Jobs, in case you were curious) set in the Hellboy universe. One of the stories involves Abe, the less tough, but equally awesome fish man that occasionally helps Hellboy and has adventures of his own. He’s also voiced by Niles from Frasier.
Notice the resemblance? Neither do I.
So the relevant part is when the team is gathering to fight bad guys and everyone is bundled up against the cold except Abe, who seems surprised that everyone is so chilly. Hellboy has to point out that Abe is cold-blooded (ectothermic) and the rest of them are warm-blooded (endothermic). Except that isn’t correct. If Abe were just like an ectothermic lizard, he’d be even worse off in the cold. He’d be lethargic and miserable and useless for anything. If it were cold enough, he’d literally freeze; the water in his tissues would turn to ice because he can’t keep himself warm. However, Abe is a fish man, not a lizard man, so his body must have a strategy to prevent turning into a fish-sicle. Yes, I realize I’m questioning the biology of a fish-person, but it’s my blog and I do what I want! Work with me here, jeez.
There are actually a few strategies that ectotherms use to deal with dropping temperatures. For less extreme changes, such as between seasons or locations, ectotherms can adapt by restructuring membranes (to maintain proper fluidity even in the cold), regulating pH (to support enzyme function), adjusting enzyme concentrations and regulating isoforms (alternate forms of protein, with some better adapt to the cold than others). In cases of extreme cold, ectotherms have physiological methods to avoid or even tolerate freezing.
Some ectotherms that avoid freezing utilize organic osmolytes, carbon-based compounds that help regulate fluid balance. In this instance, the osmolytes are antifreeze proteins (often glyco-proteins, protein-sugar complexes), they lower the freezing point of bodily fluids, without damaging tissues. Thus they are called “compatible cryoprotectants”. Within the body and its cells, they cling on to and prevent the growth of ice. Other ectotherms can super-cool. This means that the body temperature will drop below freezing, but ice will not form because there is no trigger for it. However, external ice can act as a trigger for internal ice formation.
Ectotherms that are freeze tolerant do not avoid freezing at all. They will literally freeze solid, some animals will experience freezing of as much as 80% of their bodily fluids. The really miraculous thing is that they can survive this! CRAZY. They’re like winter zombies. A popular example of freeze tolerance is the spring peeper frog (which also has an ADORABLE name, I might add), which uses glucose as an antifreeze. Glucose floods the blood stream (450 times normal concentrations) and keeps the circulatory system pumping while the other 65% of the frog freezes. When the peeper thaws in the spring, the glucose doubles as quick energy
Now what does this all mean for Abe? Since he’s up and active in the winter and not frozen solid, it’s likely his body is filled with antifreeze proteins to keep active.
This also means Dark Horse Comics needs a better editor. Get it together, people!
Source
Sherwood, Lauralee, Hillar Klandorf and Paul Yancey. 2005. Animal Physiology: From Genes to Organisms. Thomson Brookes/Cole, Belmont, CA.
Yancey, Paul. “Subtidal Habitats- Polar Subtidal.” Marine Biology. Whitman College. Walla Walla, WA. 5 4 2011. Lecture.
Photo credit 2004 Hellboy movie, directed by Guillermo del Toro. Abe Sapien voice by Niles Crane David Hyde Pierce, with Doug Jones performing. Also photo credit from Frasier.
Snakes in Spaaaaace
BAM. Thanks to the skilled investigations of a friend, we have a video of a rat snake in space/microgravity.
Enjoy.
The Scientific Method (Plus Ponies)
I am a bad teacher, everyone. Absolutely terrible. For there is one topic with which I should have covered in my very first post. A topic that is essential for the study of science but has universal applicability. I am referring to the Scientific Method (which I am going to put in capitols cause it is just that important).
Besides providing a framework for research in the hard sciences (biology, physics, chemistry, etc) the Scientific Method is applicable in many other, squishier sciences (psychology, sociology, etc). Furthermore, an understanding of it can help you think critically in everyday life.
First step is asking a question. This can be just about anything. How much blood is in my body? What stressors affect protein formation? Are ponies ticklish? This step is the “get the juices flowing” step. It doesn’t need to be very specific, but it should be asking a question for which you don’t already know the answer.
Now you do some research. Read up on your topic; articles on past experiments, textbooks, anything. Just get a feel for what is already known. This will refine (or possibly change) your topic, narrowing the focus until you have a manageable chunk to work with. It should also lead you to…
…your hypothesis! Any science teacher will start off by explaining that this should be an “if…then…” statement. Not a question, or a suggestion, a STATEMENT. With your background research you should know what you want to do and have an idea of what will happen. “If I tickle the pony, then it will twitch and whinny; displaying ticklishness.” HOWEVER, the statement does not necessarily need to include the words “if” and “then”. But it should be implied. Some hypotheses are also very long statements and can get cumbersome if you’re a stickler about the “if…then…” phrasing. For instance, I could write my pony hypothesis like this: “By rapidly scratching a pony behind the foreleg, I will induce an immediate, impulsive twitch and excited whinny, as a result of the pony’s ticklishness.” Same hypothesis, but different phrasing. It also has a better explanation of what I plan to do next.
That next step is the experiment! This is the good part; it’s where the action is. Your research should have helped you develop an experimental plan and some of it was explained in your hypothesis. You will have independent variables (variables you have control over, such as pony tickling) and dependent variables (variables in response to the independent variables, like pony whinnies). A good experiment should also consider different factors that are potentially influencing your subject (EX. could the pony be reacting to pests or other ponies?) and address them. Compare these factors separately (EX. Observe pony’s response to flies in isolation vs. response to other ponies sans flies) and ALWAYS include a control (Ex. Observe pony in isolation without any stimulus). Every experiment needs a control to show the significance of the response to your independent variable. If I tickle a pony and it twitches and whinnies I can show doesn’t do so in response to any other kinds of stimulus, I do not have good results until I can prove that ponies do not just twitch and whinny spontaneously. Furthermore, I need a large enough sample size to prove this is typical pony behavior. If I just choose one or even five or ten ponies, those samples are too small to be considered representative. They could all just be weird ponies. So pick a sample that’s large enough to represent to population in question, but easy enough to manage experimentally (100 ponies out of a 400 pony herd would be representative and manageable). Deciding on a sample size is difficult, not only should it be as large as possible, but also random (to prevent selection bias). I could pick out 100 ponies to sample, but if I didn’t draw the names out of a hat, or something, someone reading my paper could say I picked ponies based on their ability to confirm my hypothesis.
Now my pony example is great for many experiments in biology, but how does this translate to subjects in which you do not sample clearly individual things? Samples can be a given volume or mass of a substance. An experiment in water quality may use multiples vials (of the same volume) of water and the number of vials would be the sample size. In chemistry, the sample size may be the number of trials you perform (say, distilling samples of a certain chemical multiple times).
Once you’ve sampled enough/repeated the experiment enough times, you can analyze your results. Use appropriate statistical tests to compare the results of from testing each independent variable and the control. Find their significance. Does this support or destroy your hypothesis? Additionally, was there anything that could have affected results? How well were variables controlled? Was there something you only realize now you should have tested? Explain.
Finally you can report your results. Tell the world what you found! But tell them everything. Show your raw data, your statistical test results, photos of your experimental set up, explain your methods, your background research, EVERYTHING. If you leave things out, this weakens the strength of your conclusions. It looks like you’re hiding something. Even explain the weaknesses of the experiment or potential problems with results. Especially if you can explain why you didn’t do this or that thing (EX. did not observe response of ponies to non-fly bugs because none were present around the herd). Maybe explain that you realize there’s an experiment you can do as background research for the topic as a whole. Admitting weaknesses, particularly if you’re going to follow up on them, can only give you more credibility as a scientist. It also allows other researchers to follow your lead, researching related topics with your suggested improvements.
Understanding the Scientific Method helps you understand new research and see how trustworthy it is even if you’re not a scientist.
Here’s a little life example: In 2005, some folks decided to see how reptiles and amphibians react to microgravity. I kid you not, they sent 53 snakes, lizards and frogs into a parabolic flight to see what they’d do during the zero gravity portion of the flight (sorry, no actual herps in space). It sounds hilarious (and looks hilarious, I’ll post the videos if I can find them) but it also answers a very interesting question about how these animals orient themselves in relation to gravity. The analysis was also very thoughtful, regarding explanations for behavior, lifestyles of each species &etc. But these were only 53 animals from 23 different species and there are thousands of reptile species in the world. Also, only random in the sense that they used whatever they could get their hands on for the experiment. Some regard for a balance of snakes vs. lizards vs. amphibians, but they were restricted by what they could access for the experiment. All in all it was a great idea, with great reporting, a good set up, but a weak sample and thus weak results. But even though you can’t trust the results, you can see how to repeat and improve upon this experiment. Future snakes in space!
Of course, you can also use the Scientific Method in everyday life. Reading the news or looking at a new product, you know to consider where assertions or statistics came from and how they were collected. Maybe it’s not necessary for everything you hear or learn, but isn’t it empowering to know HOW to trust what you hear and learn? To be serious for once (I know, HEAVEN FORBID), I think true intelligence is based less on education, than inquisitiveness. Just that. Want to know more and wanting to know what exactly you do not know. Never let anyone tell you you’re dumb for asking a legitimate question. How else will you learn?
And now, because I can’t sustain the serious, a pony in a sweater:
Sources
Daily Science (blog) 