SCIENCE

A few thoughts on the changing world of science.
I currently am in a lab, a physical chemistry lab in which most of our 'data' comes from computational means. We manipulate and analyze the data, look at the area under the curve and the slope of the line and find physical parameters to describe what is going on in the system. It doesn't sound like it should be too hard, but I am certainly struggling. I came home today after working for four hours on a lab that I am only a little further to understanding, and thus a little-bit a lot discouraged, but knowing that I need to get done SO much over the break that I have to just keep working. And therefore I decided to leave that homework for a time and move onto my reading for my Exploration of Teaching Science class..... a much more enjoyable experience. Yet, I was not able to leave the lab behind really at all, and the two thoughts together were the inspiration for this blog.
Let me go back to my thoughts as I was walking home from school today...... I came home thinking: how in the world can I expect to be a science teacher when I can't do science myself. I am NOT a scientist and I cannot do this, this is hard, and I don't see the point in it. I am so inadequately prepared to be a scientist, there is no way that I can teach the RISING generation, they are going to be heads and heels past me. I can't do the science, I don't understand, I am not dumb, and this isn't THAT hard, what is this?!?! Thus I was trying to get rid of my negative thoughts and went to reading for Exp of Sci. Teaching, figured that would be a self-esteem booster.
Yet, ironically, the reading was on changing world and how as science teachers we have to face this. It talked about "the standard laboratory experiments that students encounter - rolling balls down inclined planes, for example - help them understand the relatively simple world of Galileo, [while] they won't get students very far in the brave new world of computational science." OHH, the IRONY. That is exactly what I was/am struggling with. In my class, it is the computational analysis that is killing me.... "the simple predict-observe-confirm scenario..... isn't going to help us much in the global warming debate" or any other real world issue that we deal with. When I teach the reality is that the "simple yes or no answers to scientific questions are going to be harder to come by in the future than they were in the past." And as a scientist, it is becoming more and more important that you are able to do computational science to explain the complexities of the world. Here is one example, “Since the 1980s, [the] ability to find numerical solutions to complex equations has revolutionized many fields of science. In the 1970s [Trefil] got involved in the field called fluid mechanics, the branch of physics that deals with problems like the flow of liquids or gases. At the time, the frontier of computation with the computers [they] had was the calculation of the flow of air over a thick airplane wing moving near the speed of sound. In those days, new airplane designs had to be tested by putting models into massive-and expensive- wind tunnels. By the end of the 1980s, computers had improved to the point where an entire airplane could be designed by using the kind of numerical techniques outlined above (in the book, WHY SCIENCE? that I am quoting here). The stresses and strains on every part of the plane in any kind of situation could be worked out, and this told the engineers how much strength was needed in each part of the structure. The Boeing 777 was the first commercial aircraft designed completely by computer. In the design of this aircraft, all plans were stored in computers, and many were tested by having engineers, and even airline customers, take virtual walk-throughs of the plane before any pieces of metal were ordered or cut."
This leaves you thinking that everything CAN be solved by computational means, but to do so, you still have to think of all of the complexities involved to solve the systems. There are MANY things that affect a given parameter. In Physical Chemistry we pretend to press the pause button and calculate the total wavefunction of a molecule by taking the nuclear portion of the wavefunction and multiplying it by the electronic portion of the wavefunction and multiplying it by the vibrational portion of the wavefunction and multiplying it by the rotational portion of the wavefunction and multiplying it by the translational portion of the wavefunction and multiplying it by the gravitational portion of the wavefunction and multiplying it by the ….. well, you get the point….. But now you have to take your finger off the pause button and let the molecule start to move, as they continuously are, and the wavefunction just calculated will have changed due to the movement. ALL OF THE WAVEFUNCTIONS HAVE CHANGED. “To deal with this, we have to hit pause again, recalculate the forces, find the new [wavefunctions], and let things go forward again. By stepping forward this way alternating pause and go, we can, in fact predict the future [parameters] of every object in the system.” Therefore it is easy to see that there are a LOT of factors just to get the wavefunction (which is an important thing to determine, for me at least, because the wavefunction contains all information according to the postulates of quantum mechanics). There are parameters that are solvable despite all of the complexities that go into it, it just takes a long time to solve and involved a lot of calculation, which is why a computer is such a necessary part of science these days. Now don’t start thinking that this is just physical chemistry that has to deal with these issues, my reading brought up paleontology, biology and mapping the human genome, mechanics which was already mentioned, and meteorology. Yet, I know that my father’s research as a chemical engineer is similar in that they model pool fires, and also that my brother’s research in modeling how quickly reactants are mixed and how that plays a role in driving a reaction involve intense computational analysis.
Yet, because of the complexities involved in calculations, sometimes it feels like you input the information and out of the black box (yes my computer is black) comes the answer, as scientists, and as a society that relies on these predictions we have to ask how much we really trust the results of a given model. Because of this scientists have to deal with “the problem of validation of the model,” which can be difficult. Validation can come either by observing in the real world the behavior described by a given system on the computer, by changing the parameters (the inputs) and seeing how it changes the final result and analyzing to see if it is reasonable. But even then it could be a fluke of a fluke that you got the right answer, is it ALWAYS going to give the right answer, is it just a one-time thing? Are all of the given things that could change the outcome factored in, in any given simulation? Well, we have to realize that no, there is no possible way that everything that could ever affect the system is taken into account, therefore we then have to decide what error there is associated to it, and make a judgment call as to how closely it describes the world that we live in.
WHAT a tall order to be putting on a scientist, it is daunting, to ask them to understand and then to verify all of that, I’m beginning to understand. I have only been asked to find a few parameters that don’t even deal with the perturbations of a real system, just while the pause button is pressed, and have had difficulty in it. I guess I’m just afraid that well, I am afraid of a few things: that it is scaring me away from science, and yet I love understanding and science so much that I still want to be a science teacher, but I feel even less qualified for the job than I felt before I read the chapter, and yet, I know that I can be a teacher, but then how is it that I am ever going to teach my students that they can do it, despite its difficulty, and what about teaching those students who don’t even care to ever be scientists, because you know that I will be teaching plenty of those. In my Exploration to Teaching Physical Science class we have been talking extensively about creating a body that is “scientifically literate” (one of average citizens that can deal with every day scientific issues) and how do I do that now that these issues have been brought up?!? Trefil (the author) addresses how he thinks this is best addressed, but I do not know if this is enough, maybe it is that I am just insecure in my own abilities, but I would not say that I am scientifically illiterate, and I am feeling overwhelmed by this. Trefil suggests that it is important as a teacher to make sure individuals, citizens, students, know what questions should be asked in a given situation, and that they should “know enough about the methods of science to understand that even though science may not be able to produce certain answers to important question right now, it nonetheless can provide guidance for decision making and eventually produce a picture with much less uncertainty.” And I guess I believe it, but oh man, I am so scared to be involved in this world of scientists.
Over the summer, my while at my brother’s dissertation, there was a long discussion about how we can’t put scientists up on a pedestal, but that anyone can be a scientist because it is just a way of observing and thinking about the observation. At the time I believed it but I guess I just fear that it is more than that. And that maybe not everyone can, internally I still believe that, but I have deeper doubts now. I don’t even know if I can do it. And despite the changing world of science, I hope that we continue to produce great scientists, and I hope to be an inspiration to some of them. Oh, wish me luck.