Saturday, September 3, 2011

WEEK TWO


Microscopic one-celled organisms called radiolaria seen and drawn by the amazing Ernst Haeckl,  19th c scientist and artist who is the subject of David LeBrun's film Proteus (2004). LeBrun animates thousands upon thousands of the radiolaria and takes us on a journey down through alchemical forms and under the sea with Coleridge for company.   You may know of Haeckl from his books like Art Forms in Nature
We also enjoyed British artist Paul Bush's film While Darwin Sleeps (2004) where he animates the insect collection in a natural history museum in Luzern. More than 3000 insects appear in this film, each for a single frame--it seems like the genetic program of millions of years is taking place in a few minutes!

Next stop:  our field trip to the research microscope labs to see and draw for ourselves. But first here's a charming article by physicist Richard Feynman 

 “The Making of a Scientist”
Before I was born, my father told my mother, “If it’s a boy, he’s going to be a scientist.” When I was just a little kid, very small in a highchair, my father brought home a lot of little bathroom tiles—seconds—of different colors. We played with them, my father setting them up vertically on my highchair like dominoes, and I would push one end so they would all go down. 
Then after a while, I’d help set them up. Pretty soon, we’re setting them up in a more complicated way: two white tiles and a blue tile, two white tiles and a blue tile, and so on. When my mother saw that she said, “Leave the poor child alone. If he wants to put a blue tile, let him put a blue tile.”
But my father said, “No, I want to show him what patterns are like and how interesting they are. It’s a kind of elementary mathematics.” So he started very early to tell me about the world and how interesting it is. 
We had the Encyclopaedia Britannica at home. When I was a small boy he used to sit me on his lap and read to me from the Britannica. We would be reading, say, about dinosaurs. It would be talking about the Tyrannosaurus rex, and it would say something like, “This dinosaur is twenty-five feet high and its head is six feet across.”
My father would stop reading and say, “Now, let’s see what that means. That would mean that if he stood in our front yard, he would be tall enough to put his head through our window up here.” (We were on the second floor.) “But his head would be too wide to fit in the window.” Everything he read to me he would translate as best he could into some reality. 
It was very exciting and very, very interesting to think there were animals of such magnitude—and that they all died out, and that nobody knew why. I wasn’t frightened that there would be one coming in my window as a consequence of this. But I learned from my father to translate: everything I read I try to figure out what it really means, what it’s really saying.
We used to go to the Catskill Mountains, a place where people from New York City would go in the summer. The fathers would all return to New York to work during the week and come back only for the weekend. On weekends, my father would take me for walks in the woods and he’d tell me about interesting things that were going on in the woods. When the other mothers saw this, they thought it was wonderful and that the other fathers should take their sons for walks. They tried to work on them but they didn’t get anywhere at first. They wanted my father to take all the kids, but he didn’t want to because he had a special relationship with me. So it ended up that the other fathers had to take their children for walks the next weekend. 
The next Monday, when the fathers were all back at work, we kids were playing in a field. One kid says to me, “See that bird? What kind of bird is that?”
I said, “I haven’t the slightest idea what kind of a bird it is.”
He says, “It’s a brown-throated thrush. Your father doesn’t teach you anything!”
But it was the opposite. He had already taught me: “See that bird?” he says. “It’s a Spencer’s warbler.” (I knew he didn’t know the real name.) “Well, in Italian, it’s a Chutto Lapittida. In Portuguese it’s a Bom da Peida. In Chinese, it’s a Chung-long-tah, and in Japanese, it’s a Katano Tekeda. You can know the name of the bird in all the languages of the world, but when you’re finished, you’ll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird. You’ll only know about humans in different places, and what they call the bird. So let’s look at the bird and see what it’s doing—that’s what counts.” (I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.)
He said, “For example, look: the bird pecks at its feathers all the time. See it walking around, pecking at its feathers?”
“Yeah.”
He says, “Why do you think birds peck at their feathers?” 
I said, “Well, maybe they mess up their feathers when they fly, so they’re pecking them in order to straighten them out.” 
“All right,” he says. “If that were the case, then they would peck a lot just after they’ve been flying. Then, after they’ve been on the ground a while, they wouldn’t peck so much anymore—you know what I mean?”
“Yeah.”
He says, “Let’s look and see if they peck more just after they land.” 
It wasn’t hard to tell: there was not much difference between the birds that had been walking around a bit and those that had just landed. So I said, “I give up. Why does a bird peck at its feathers?”
“Because there are lice bothering it,” he says. “The lice eat flakes of protein that come off its feathers.”
He continued, “Each louse has some waxy stuff on its legs, and little mites eat that. The mites don’t digest it perfectly, so they emit from their rear ends a sugarlike material, in which bacteria grow.”
Finally he says, “So you see, everywhere there’s a source of food, there’s some form of life that finds it.”
Now, I knew that it may not have been exactly a louse, that it might not be exactly true that the louse’s legs have mites. That story was probably incorrect in detail, but what he was telling me was right in principle
Not having experience with many fathers, I didn’t realize how remarkable he was. How did he learn the deep principles of science and the love of it, what’s behind it, and why it’s worth doing? I never really asked him, because I just assumed that those were things that fathers knew. 
My father taught me to notice things. One day, I was playing with an “express wagon,” a little wagon with a railing around it. It had a ball in it, and when I pulled the wagon, I noticed something about the way the ball moved. I went to my father and said, “Say, Pop, I noticed something. When I pull the wagon, the ball rolls to the back of the wagon. And when I’m pulling it along and I suddenly stop, the ball rolls to the front of the wagon. Why is that?”
“That, nobody knows,” he said. “The general principle is that things which are moving tend to keep on moving, and things which are standing still tend to stand still, unless you push them hard. This tendency is called ‘inertia,’ but nobody knows why it’s true.” Now, that’s a deep understanding. He didn’t just give me the name. 
He went on to say, “If you look from the side, you’ll see that it’s the back of the wagon that you’re pulling against the ball, and the ball stands still. As a matter of fact, from the friction it starts to move forward a little bit in relation to the ground. It doesn’t move back.”
I ran back to the little wagon and set the ball up again and pulled the wagon. Looking sideways, I saw that indeed he was right. Relative to the sidewalk, it moved forward a little bit.
That’s the way I was educated by my father, with those kinds of examples and discussions: no pressure—just lovely, interesting discussions. It has motivated me for the rest of my life, and makes me interested in all the sciences. (It just happens I do physics better.)
I’ve been caught, so to speak—like someone who was given something wonderful when he was a child, and he’s always looking for it again. I’m always looking, like a child, for the wonders I know I’m going to find—maybe not every time, but every once in a while. 
































































































10 comments:

  1. i think i may be the only one who found this page, so i guess i'll start...

    I like this article because I can definitely relate to the author, having had a father (an engineer) who was constantly educating me and much the same way. I have a very practical approach to life now because I was taught the ordered nature of everything in our world. I guess a child who grew up with parents who were artists or athletes usually excel at the same things as their parents though, so maybe the moral here is that more parents need to start immersing their children in life at an earlier age rather than letting them play video games and watch tv; but you still have to let a kid be a kid sometimes… so who’s to say what the right way to parent is. Society requires heterogeny, that’s the way I feel.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The Making of a Scientist" is an interesting article because it shows how important teaching kids about the hands on aspects of life (artistic/scientific) can influence a child. I agree with what Guy said about how more parents need to start immersing their children in a practical/hands on approach to life at an earlier age. I liked what the author said about the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something. I can definitely relate to this statement.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I can relate to Guy and this article because my dad was also an engineer and pointed out the logistics of the world or often why a particular part in a movie was not scientifically plausible. But my mom was an actress, so I was likewise creatively inclined. A good balance like that is nice; science and creativity. I think they DO go hand in hand (which is the point of this class *cough*). People remember Einstein not simply because he was very good at math, but because he also had a really good imagination too. One compliments the other, like salt and pepper.

    ReplyDelete
  4. To validate what Sir Charles said:

    "Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Albert Einstein

    I agree and think it's really the curiosity and excitement of life that is what keeps us pursuing the unknown. Scientists/engineers are constantly pursuing new knowledge by 'creatively' exploring new methods; artists are constantly exploring the world around them and creatively manifesting it into a form of expression. The fusion of these ideas probably produces the most interesting and exciting discoveries of all.

    I really look up to my Dad just like the author looks up to his -- my Dad is a photographer and my Mom is an illustrator and they always encourage me to explore the world and question everything so I can make decisions for myself. They always tell me they support my interest in Film Studies... and then they mumble under their breath "...but you should really just become an ENGINEER..."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Guy mentions the need for parents to interact more with their kids (less tv and video games), and I completely agree. Engagement in everyday experiences with kids is an important part of their childhoods. I feel like a lot (though definitely not all) of adults these days are numbing their kids to real emotional expression and growth. Sitting a kid in front of a T.V. or computer for 6 hours a night is a lazy way to parent. Kids miss out on the world when they're living in Farm Ville. I mean come one, what 6 year old needs a Facebook? He should try just going outside and actually planting some flowers or corn (or whatever you plant in Farm Ville). These kids need to realize that their time would be better spent outdoors rather than in a virtual reality.

    ...Was that way off topic?

    ReplyDelete
  6. The reason we learn the wide variety of things we do through out our scholastic career is to develop the mind as best as possible. Human intelligence is part nature but great deal of it is nurture. We learn mathematics and music to develop particular functions of the brain. I thought the article treated the human brain like a muscle that has to be worked out and defined. So learning about science and specifically about art and how to make it helps to strengthen the frontal lobe of the brain.

    and when it comes to facebook, tv, outdoors, drugs, drinking, homework, video games, parents... experiences; all the good and the bad, it all kind of happens

    we're these kids

    ReplyDelete
  7. I appreciated Feyman's outlook on the essence of science. As he says, there is no pressure, no RIGHT answer to everything, but rather just appreciation of the mystery of existence and things. The other kid who was proud to know the name of the bird is a great example of the useless accumulation of knowledge and information shoved down our throats by the learning system we go through. In this system there are right answers and you are expected to know them. Except of course in Jeanne's class...

    ReplyDelete
  8. What this presents to me are questions of active observation. The idea that one can seek out knowledge, and achieve an education through aspects of life. I think what this article, The Making of a Scientist, is trying to argue is not the power of nature over nurture, or nurture over nature, but rather the importance of observational knowledge as opposed to knowledge acquired from somebody else's observations. Through the latter you may grasp concepts and ideas, and application. But it isn't really true knowledge unless you undergo the experience of discovery through observation.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes, and that's what we were all about today--observational knowledge ! And also the rather amazing feeling of discovery--even if you are discovering something other people already have, the thrill of discovering something for yourself thorough your own efforts is palpable and undeniable. When we looked at the SHALLOT skin and saw the CELLS it was as though we are inhabiting Leeuwenoek discovering them for the first time!
    http://www.vanleeuwenhoek.com/
    more to come...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well put Connor, it's all about seeing with one's own eyes... okay, okay. With so much informational media (particularly on the internet) I feel as if there will be a decline in the interest of discovery. I'm reminded of a line from The Truman Show; a teacher asks the class what they want to be when they grow up and a kid replies "I want to be an explorer!" The teacher pulls down a map and says "I'm sorry Truman, but there's nothing left to explore." If a kid wants to learn about the African savannah they can pull up a Wikipedia article and gain basic information. Then they'll search images and videos and pretty soon they've got a good sense of what it's like. If they do this for everything they're interested in (like I do) they won't feel the need to go out and see for themselves (also like I do). I'm worried that by having information so easily accessible kids might actually become desensitized to it and lose their sense of wonder and amazement at a young age. Things are just way cooler to experience first hand, so I think it's integral for kids to participate in lots and lots of activities rather than melt their brains out watching TV and surfing the web.

    ReplyDelete