gmobus
The Basics
- Name: gmobus
gmobus’s Recent Comments
Click here to view comment in original post
speaking of how long we wait...
If we did get a cap & trade system in place, how long would we give it to see what kind of results? Ten years? Twenty? Forever?
When anybody wants to get serious about reducing carbon emissions, let me know. I'll be blogging about it over at Question Everything (including questioning C&T schemes).
George Mobus, Associate Professor, Institute of Technology, University of Washington Tacoma, and Professional Student for Life
On How awful does a bill have to get to lose your support? posted 9 months, 1 week ago 32 ResponsesClick here to view comment in original post
The way science is taught to the masses...
is turning the majority of kids off on science, even some who might well have gone into science in college and career.
We try so hard to do the one-size-fits-all turn them all into scientists. I've seen kids turn away from the subjects just because of the way it is crammed down their throats.
What we should be teaching the majority (after all, not everyone will be a scientist) is how to appreciate what science does and how it enriches our lives, what the nature of scientific knowledge is (as compared with uniformed beliefs and opinions), and how to read and interpret science news stories. On the latter point, we need to better educate the science press as well!
The true science courses (biology, chemistry, etc.) should be reserved for those students who really show an aptitude for the procedural and mental attitudes needed for real science.
What the majority of students need are courses in the philosophy and sociology of science. These can include examples from all of the sciences to introduce students to science-based knowledge, but not with an emphasis on the more quantitative aspects or requiring memorization of arcane facts.
In our zeal that everyone should know every science fact or theory we have literally shut down the avenues to producing citizens who appreciate science (and BTW can recognize when it is being inappropriately used for political agendas).
But I am sure that in our panic to produce more scientists to stay competitive with the rest of the world we will simply redouble our efforts to teach science to everyone and make matters worse.
I would rather have a citizenry armed with the understanding of how science works and the critical thinking skills needed to evaluate how scientific findings are being used than simply having once been forced to measure reagents in a chem lab and quickly forgetting everything they were forced to regurgitate on a test. I suspect that such a citizenry would pay more attention to what scientists report.
Of course there are always going to be that 13% or so who sincerely believe their ideology trumps all. You know, the ones who are still cheering GWB!
George Mobus, Associate Professor, Institute of Technology, University of Washington Tacoma, and Professional Student for Life
On Americans' climate change doubts aren't hard to understand posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 10 ResponsesClick here to view comment in original post
a small clarification...
In my above comment I mentioned "weathering" by which I referred to the weathering of the lithosphere. I didn't mean weather patterns.
George
George Mobus, Associate Professor, Institute of Technology, University of Washington Tacoma, and Professional Student for Life
On 'Climate change,' 'global warming,' 'climate chaos' -- what terminology fits best? posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 34 ResponsesClick here to view comment in original post
maximum emotional punch?
Scientist probably shouldn't be concerned with emotional punch when they go to name things. Some naming may be whimsical (quark, sonic the hedgehog) but not to appeal to the public.
In the current case I think you need two kinds of names. A scientific moniker probably ought to focus on the attractor basin switching of a chaotic system being driven. The chaotic system is the entire geochemical, geophysical, and climate regimes. This would include ocean acidification, sea level rise, weathering patterns, and, of course, climate change with its higher variances (greater extreme weather events).
And too there is the impact on social systems. We humans are still parts of nature, components in the world system, as it were. Our societies are going to be changed as a result of increased CO<sub>2</sub> in the bio-hydro-geo-atmo-sphere. If you are looking for a common name that will evoke emotional responses, that would be the image to convey, I think.
So a scientific term not unlike the binomial nomenclature terms (Homo sapiens) for scientific objectivity and a popular term (human) for broader consumption and agenda influencing might be in order.
I must note, in fairness, that in the case of the BN name for humans, the selection of the species name seems to have been emotionally motivated, wishful thinking. In having caused so much potential havoc (not to mention the historical havoc) humans don't appear to be particularly sapient.
George Mobus, Associate Professor, Institute of Technology, University of Washington Tacoma, and Professional Student for Life
On 'Climate change,' 'global warming,' 'climate chaos' -- what terminology fits best? posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 34 ResponsesClick here to view comment in original post
Something that might have changed...
since my day.
Or possibly several things. First I think is the overemphasis on astounding profits so as to pad CEO's bonuses. Indeed executive pay structures seem to encourage really poor decision making.
Another change is globalization where labor costs have been off-shored (to improve profit performance).
As I have thought about it, I realized that American business has changed since my days in industry. We were concerned with customer satisfaction, quality, and performance of product first (sometimes crossing fingers re: profits!) My pay rate and bonus came after the fact.
One of my main theses has to do with why humans consistently make poor choices, have bad judgment re: long-term, and take foolish risks. The answer is a lack of wisdom in our society. Unfortunately Americans don't have a monopoly on foolishness (most of these bad 'deciders' are not really stupid, they are just short on judgment) The neurological basis of wisdom is the competency of the prefrontal cortex (suspect Brodmann area 10) and early evidence suggests that the average person my not have a sufficiently well developed PFC.
Judgment gets harder in more complex, dynamic environments. Our modern industrial, globalized society has probably exceeded the capacity of even the brightest business people and political leaders (e.g. the fact that Obama WANTED to be president may put his wisdom in question!) Welcome to the new evolution. What will be the selection pressure?
George Mobus, Associate Professor, Institute of Technology, University of Washington Tacoma, and Professional Student for Life
On The economy is an ecosystem, and industrial policy will help that ecosystem posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 24 Responses