Author Archives: Bradd Anthony Dent

Do you want to build a Stonehenge?

Structures like Stonehenge and the pyramids are structures that have baffled scientist and archaeologist for generations. Figuring out how primitive cultures moved such large structures without modern technology enabled casual thinkers to accept supernatural explanations like aliens since a proper, grounded explanation did not exist. The first person to explain how the ancients may have moved such large stones was not an archaeologist, physicist, or a scientist, but a retired construction worker from Michigan named Wally Wallington.

To be clear, a number of viable theories existed before Wally’s efforts, but a lot of them were impractical, like using oxen and stone ball bearings to drag the stones across England or unsuccessful like an attempt to transport the stones via boat.

More recently, a professor at the University of London and his students developed their own method to move stones and also constructed their own Stonehenge, but it required more people.

Although Wally is not a scientist, he still developed a theory and tested it, and it holds up under the scrutiny of professionals. It still may not be the exact method used to create Stonehenge, but it proves ancient civilisations definitely had the capability to create great things without the help of aliens.

Image

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/science/2016/05/23/98890452_Volunteers_many_of_whom_were_undergraduate_archeology_students_take_part_in_an_attempt-large_trans++qVzuuqpFlyLIwiB6NTmJwfSVWeZ_vEN7c6bHu2jJnT8.jpg

Changing the World

If science is to be believed, climate change is real. If that is to be believed, the next thing to realise is that it is difficult to stop. It’s not like you can convince the world to stop driving or take shorter showers. Yep, saving the world is going to be an uphill battle, but as humans in the 21st century, the problem is not going to be solved by talking out the issues. It will be solved through innovation and technology. A major candidate comes in the form of geoengineering which describes a variety of practices that focus on changing features of the Earth.

One option we have is cloud brightening. According to this article, the process basically makes clouds more reflective to reduce the increase of heat created by the sun. Another radical method is to simply pluck the harmful CO2  gases from the air using machines in a process called carbon removal.

The question is if these processes make sense, why aren’t they in wide use, and why is this the first time I’m hearing about them (if you have heard about them, focus on the first question.) The answer is one of the best characteristics of science, scientific scepticism.

The article about cloud brightening explains that the process requires large ships travelling the ocean to launch salt particles into the air using a machine. It also explains that the machine alone produced 30 megawatts which can be double the energy the ship uses as it travels. Researchers have found that using this method at this point in time would actually increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

The critics of carbon removal note that it also uses an inefficient amount of energy, its potential is very limited, and that the method of compressing the carbon into liquid form works, but would require the large volume of storage to be effective.

While this is a victory for the sceptics, shooting down these ideas is still a major step forward. Yes, they would have caused more harm than good, but due to scrutiny, the problem areas have been identified, and one day in the future, new developments may make them the key to saving the world.

Image

https://centricdigital.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Clouds1.jpeg

What’s on the Earth?

Mankind is the dominant species on Earth. We have won the evolutionary race to the top, and because of this, we have certain responsibilities. One of these responsibilities includes finding every living species on Earth, identify them, categorise them, and let them know how great we are. The thing is, the Earth is a big place, a lot of theses creature are very small, and biologist doesn’t know where to look a lot of the time.

This article interviews Dr Worm and Dr.Mora who give their educated estimate of about 8.7 million, give or take. They explain that most big land animals have been accounted for, but counting or estimating what has not been found yet is the part scientist through history and a modern day has trouble determining. Worm and Mora have decided to use a method that involves placing categories of life on a taxonomic pyramid and noting the blanks to estimate what has not been accounted for yet.

While Worm and Mora’s method may be controversial, many scientists simply ignore parts of the world. According to this article, a major problem for taxonomy is that it focus on more developed parts of the word, and on what can be seen. The southern hemisphere is under classified despite its diversity of life. That said, a large part of that life includes insects and microbes, which can be hard to analyse without harming the environment around it.

A question that can be asked about estimating the number of species is if this is science admitting ignorance or preference. It is true that exploring the southern regions is dangerous, but at the same time, these zones are described as “hotspots” and are not as tampered with as the biomes in the developed regions. What I am suggesting is that since the existence of  under-researched data is known, is making these kinds of estimates valid when knowing the data you have is biased towards  the qualities of one section of the globe? Possibly, and just because accessing the southern hemisphere is problematic, it doesn’t mean researchers should stop.

Image

http://www.freakingnews.com/Pictures/5/Insect-Animals.jpg

The Dark Side

In class, we discussed the idea of using science to understand if animals can be gay and the political and social stigma behind that decision. I found this class interesting, not as much because of the animals, but how the science behind determining biological factors. This reminded me of one of the darker sides of science, which is when studies are unethical and use motivated reasoning to benefit political powers. The most famous example would be the eugenics movement in Nazi Germany that created the idea of racial superiority and caused a lot of heartache for the world. This misguided attempt at science could have been avoided  by properly using the lessons we learned in class, like scientific scrutiny, realising the difference between correlations and causation, the necessity of replacing experiments, the list goes on.

What interests, and disgusts me, is a similar circumstance where science is perverted in sick ways during the Apartheid era in South America concerning their military’s attempts to understand and “correct” homosexual behaviour. The details were gathered in this report called The Aversion Project. It contains details about research methods, goals, study design, and enough details to convince anyone that they performed with proper scientific discovery as a priority. The study outlines ridiculous tests and treatments like creating exclusively homosexual battalions to observe how they fight, electro shock treatment while looking at pornographic images. Even worse, about 900 subjects were forced to reserve sex change operations or chemical castration.

This soldier recounts his experiences of being forced into the project as humiliating, traumatizing, and described the doctors as confused. His experiences are consistent with the report, meaning his experiences were probably not unique to the soldiers in the studies.

These experiments demonstrates ideology masquerading as science. It is true that the doctors followed the scientific method in their minds, and were through in collecting data, but they knowingly ignored proper ethics. Any perceived breakthroughs found were either quickly thrown out, or made no sence  Cancer treatment at the time had a better record. Not only did this restrict proper peer review and the cumulative elements of science by hiding their work, they remove the human element that recognises what knowledge actually benefits mankind.

Image

http://revcom.us/i/324/ForFreedom76AP739947911229HiRez.jpg

Concentrate on Coffee

Waking up is hard to do. Eyes are heavy, the air is cold, and the body longs to retreat back to the warm embrace of a blanket. For many the only way to combat the curse of the morning is a good cup of coffee. As students, many of us rely on coffee, or more specifically caffeine, for a mild, relatively harmless jumpstart. Many of us even start to develop certain preference on how the beverage is made. Those who prefer flavour may order a cappuccino, others who need an immediate jolt of energy will order an espresso. The thing is, the former of this group has subjective taste and is not relevant to this blog, and the latter is wrong… kind of.

According to this study, the typical 8 oz cup of regular coffee will contain about 92.5 mg of caffeine on average, and an expression will contain about 40 mg. Simple numbers clearly demonstrates that the average cup of coffee can contain more than half the caffeine than an espresso (not accounting for variables like temperature, milk content, brew style, etc.) The thing is human intuition is lousy, even when the numbers are in front of us.

The way a person drinks their coffee makes all the difference, more specifically the size of their cup  is what changes things. You see, most people take their espressos in 2 oz shots. Per oz, regular coffee divides its caffeine content relatively evenly to about 8-15 mg/oz according to the same study. An espresso, on the other hand, contains 30-50 mg/oz due to the concentration of caffeine (again, not considering other variables.)

The question is, why do people believe espressos contain more caffeine? A possibility explanation is that the name sounds a little like “express.” A more likely explanation again comes from the way people drink their coffee. Espressos are consumed quickly in shots, and coffee is usually consumed slower. We assume the immediate feeling of energy must come from a high amount of caffeine, but that is only half correct. It is a correlation that does not match its causation.

The main lesson here reinforces what might as well be the class motto, our intuition is lousy, but straight numbers are not the cure. In terms of purpose, espressos do their jobs by giving people quick energy, and although caffeine content does not support that idea, caffeine concentration does.

Images

  • https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nobrowcoffee.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F04%2Fcoffee-wallpaper-1306-1433-hd-wallpapers.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nobrowcoffee.com%2F&docid=n-nxrQnMQeInaM&tbnid=gY9N7c3ErDisnM%3A&vet=1&w=1920&h=1080&bih=950&biw=1920&ved=0ahUKEwiX4cGa7NXQAhXG1IMKHdvgBK4QMwiLASgPMA8&iact=mrc&uact=8

Science is no use to me

Hey everyone. My name is Bradd, and I am from Albrightsville. I am a Junior here at Penn State and I transferred from the Hazleton Campus. Right now I am pursuing a major in Sociology with the ultimate objective of entering law school in mind.That goal is the main reason why I am not planning to be a Science major, but it is not as if I have no interest in science major. I recognize Sociology is a social science but Penn State does not see it as a natural science. I like to think that I keep relatively informed on the more important scientific developments happening right now, and some of my favorite video games revolve around understanding physics. I just feel like my better talents come from analyzing and interpreting writing and artistic sub-text. When I was a kid I enjoyed reading film reviews that deconstructed every part of a movie. I read a lot of classical literature (I should also mention I wasn’t great at making friends) and learned that most of them had fascinating messages and implications that were hidden, almost subliminal unless you were looking. I also watched a lot of videos like this that helped me understand more about the stuff I’ve read and made it much easier to absorb. When I took a Business Law class in high school, I realized that I was interpreting statutes, contracts, and case briefs better than some of the other people there, and I thought, “I guess I’ll be a lawyer.”

Image result for book
Why am I doing this course? I honestly can’t remember why I chose it has been a while since I selected classes. At the time of writing this, I am about 80% sure that it fulfills a course requirement. I am staying because it is very similar to a class I took in Hazelton that I enjoyed although it was a little less focused and much smaller. I also related to a lot of what Andrew said in his introduction of the course. Two of my science teachers in high school did downplay the more creative side of science in favor of the fundamentals, and, that did help to turn me off when it came to pursuing the sciences. I admit that I don’t think I’ll ever truly understand how a lot this stuff works, but I do know that knowing what is happening in the scientific community is important for observing the progress and potential of the human race, and that’s good to know.