Tomorrow's Science Heroes?

An anonymous reader writes "As a kid I was (and still am) heavily influenced by Carl Sagan, and a little later by Stephen Hawking. Now as I have started a family with two kids, currently age 5 and 2, I am wondering who out there is popularizing science. Currently, my wife and I can get the kids excited about the world around them, but I'd like to find someone inspiring from outside the family as they get older. Sure, we'll always have 'Cosmos,' but are there any contemporaries who are trying to bring science into the public view in such a fun and intriguing way? Someone the kids can look up to and be inspired by? Where is the next Science Hero?"

Comments

Tyson

[melikamp]

I am currently going through a Neil deGrasse Tyson phase.

Re:Tyson

[Anonymous Coward]

Michio Kaku, physics professor, public speaker, writer and very entertaining to watch. I picked up his book, Hyperspace, while I was still in high school and later saw him a few times on Tech TV's Big Thinkers before G4 killed the network.

Re:Tyson

[WillyWanker]

I'd go with Neil too. While not as nerdy as previous generations' "science guys", he really does have a passion for science and seems genuinely interested in spreading the love.

And Nova Science Now is a great show for the kids.

Re:Tyson

[kjenks]

Tyson gets my vote, too, but my kids like: Bill Nye the Science Guy, Beakman (from Beakman's World), Alton Brown.

Re:Tyson

[skorch]

What I like most about Neil DeGrasse Tyson is how he's so deeply passionate about science, the scientific process, and the very philosophy of inquiry into the nature of the universe. He is able to evangelize science, and bring that often overlooked but much needed emotion to the conversation about what could otherwise be very dry and boring subjects.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ai-VvboPnA

Now if you can watch this and not be moved in some way, then I'm sorry, but it is my humble opinion that you are broken. This passion is a quality that almost every good preacher, salesman, or spokesman knows and yet so many science teachers can't seem to figure out: You need to engage your audience passionately, and make them feel the importance of what you're saying, not simply explain it to them.

Richard Dawkins

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm 19, and Dawkins has been an enormous influence on me. A few years back he was one of figures that helped me jetisson religion, and ever since I've had a greater curiousity about science.

Re:Richard Dawkins

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, there are a lot of people who don't have a problem combining religion and science... so I don't see how that part of your comment has anything to do with anything...

Re:Richard Dawkins

[Bearhouse]

Perhaps (I hope) the parent meant reconciling rather than 'combining'. Combining or mixing science with religion has often produced - for centuries - very scary results. But many eminent scientists have managed to reconcile their faith with their job. Einstein, for example. I sure you'd agree that he was capable of 'thought'...

Re:Richard Dawkins

[sFurbo]

[...] many eminent scientists have managed to reconcile their faith with their job. Einstein, for example. I sure you'd agree that he was capable of 'thought'...

Could we please put this myth to rest now? Einstein wasn't religious, at least not in a form most people would label as such:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
There a plenty of religious scientists out there, they are capable of thought, why not use one of them as an example?

Mythbusters does it

[gurps_npc]

They teach the heart of the Scientific Method and show it as being FUN. Test the hypothesis - then retest it, just like Jaime and Adam do every episode.

Re:Mythbusters does it

[LBArrettAnderson]

Yes. Mythbusters is perfect! Teach them to jump to conclusions based on extremely small data sets and horribly designed/non-existent control objects.

Re:Mythbusters does it

[Weedhopper]

It still generates interest and gets kids thinking so Mythbusters gets a thumbs up from me but let's not pretend like they're rigorous. I wish they'd do more end of the show disclaimers ; things they did right/wrong, etc. Science isn't science if you're not considering all the faults and sources of error in your experiments.

Re:Mythbusters does it

[hansamurai]

There's an XKCD for that:

http://xkcd.com/397/

Re:Mythbusters does it

[wisty]

In Australian (specifically the state of Queensland) high schools, they like to teach kids to think "scientifically", and "design their own experiments", then write a 60 page report, plus a log book, and sometimes a poster. The kids just don't have the scientific maturity to design a correct experiment (i.e. statistically significant), but they do a bang-up job on the report. All neat, good grammar, pretty graphs and diagrams.

They don't enjoy it much (a 60 page report is honors thesis territory) and they aren't really learning any more science than if they watched Mythbusters, but at least they are able to generate a lot of paper for their teachers to mark.

A word of warning - never let education academics with no teaching or real world experience take control of the education system.

Re:Mythbusters does it

[TubeSteak]

At least they GET data rather than just basing their opinions what they're fed. Honestly, when was the last time you did a thorough scientific experiment in your personal life?

I gather scientific data every time I get in the car.
My hypothesis: I won't get pulled over for speeding
Conclusion: False
Note: the hypothesis has been rigorously tested and the conclusion has been confirmed multiple times.

Or is that not the kind of scientific experiment you meant?

Re:Mythbusters does it

[mckinnsb]

At least they GET data rather than just basing their opinions what they're fed ... personal science involves questioning the status quo, not accepting everything at face value, and figuring out how to answer your questions. Simply because your methods wouldn't stand up to rigorous testing doesn't mean that you can't use it to make good decisions. Ultimately I think that is the role of science in peoples lives, to answer questions and aid in decisions ... While I don't always agree with the mythbuster's methods, at least they don't sit around waiting for the talking heads to hand down the truth from on high. The scientific spirit of the program is strong if the flesh is sometimes weak.

You have just accurately described the higher, philosophical purpose of science. Well done.

I feel you have also accurately summarized why MythBusters is so popular - it captures the scientific spirit without diluting it in rigor, while catering to an audience that is constantly seeking for its own answers and the associated reasons behind them. In a popular culture that provides fewer clear messages as information becomes more partisan, the individual reacts naturally in their own self interest by becoming more individual in the acquisition of their own information. MythBusters might be the lowest common denominator of this process among the 'technically minded', but how the hell are you going to accurately test 'if a playing card can actually kill a human being?'. Seriously.

Re:Mythbusters does it

[bigstrat2003]

I think you've horribly missed the point. The goal isn't to find a good way to teach kids science... get a textbook for that. The goal is to find a way to get kids interested in science, and Mythbusters can do that very nicely. Once their interest is captured, then teach them how it actually works.

BILL BILL BILL

[sherl0k]

Bill Nye.

Sorry, No.

[gbutler69]

Religion and Science are 100% incompatible. Religion = "I Believe", Science = "I can show/demonstrate/repeat". These two ways of looking at the world are not, and never will be, compatible. Those who "combine" the two really are saying, "I believe this or that, but, I can't completely ignore this incontrovertible evidence over here, but, for anything else, I'll just BELIEVE!" Horse-Puckey!

Re:Sorry, No.

[DNS-and-BIND]

It's really sad how ignorant of theology people are today. Sigh. I bet you can't even name the school of thought that you're advocating.

And unsurprising about the intolerance shown, too. Ignorance and bigotry go together like peanut butter and jelly.

Re:Sorry, No.

[infaustus]

Einstein's belief in God is what lead him to make his stupid "God doesn't play dice" comment. If one of the greatest scientific minds ever to exist can be crippled by religion, then I have good evidence science and religion are incompatible.

Re:Sorry, No.

[tnok85]

Science is no more incompatible with say, Christianity, than Buddhism is with Judaism. Or cars are with submarines.

People are incompatible. There is no scientific proof (that I know of) that proves there is a god or that there is no god. There is no reason that I cannot believe in evolution and still believe in a god, or believe that we have souls.

Yes, it is a belief, it is not the proof/fact of evolution, it is STILL referred to as the Theory of Evolution. Not getting into that debate, even though a theory does have a lot of evidence, unless it's provable it's still a theory and it takes a belief system to have an infallible trust in something that is a theory. (Yes, some aspects of evolution are considered fact by the scientific community, but not the retarded monkey fish frog aspect)

I think the major incompatibilities come when trying to force a belief on somebody. It is no more right to force a theory as fact as it is right to force your god on me.

Frankly, I think it's our right to believe that the earth is flat, gravity is caused by invisible silly putty, and Slashdot is a place to get reliable and up to date unbiased news.

However, it is insulting to people when instead of just saying "I believe this", you say "I believe this so your belief is wrong" - which both sides of the debate do. Just let people be... you'll never change them.

Re:Sorry, No.

[TiberSeptm]

No, it was an outright refusal to accept quantum physics as a anything but a curiosity - an interesting but ultimately fruitless dead end. Unto the day he died Einstein refused to accept that the quantum physics explanation of the sub atomic world was any more science than aether. He even coined the term "sooky action at a distance" before it was observed in an attempt to derride the ridiculousness of that particular consequence of the quantum model. While his extrapolation on the idea of entanglement and quantum teleportation were meant to demonstrate how ridiculous quantum theory was, it ended up being the basis for experiments that proved the theory valid. It was not a simple "lament" as Einstein never considered the non-quantum past of physics to be "the past." He was quite blinded by this refusal.

Re:Sorry, No.

[riprjak]

BZZT. False. Science rests on the belief that order and rationality exist in the universe.

You got the order wrong... Science has nothing to do with faith. It is about choosing the absence of faith. It matters not how strong your faith in an ordered universe is if there exists data that it is not so; as soon as out hypothesis is falsified, we must analyse it with a view to discarding it, no matter how much we want it to be true. If you have faith in science then it has become as dangerous as every other crackpot dogma. Simply, a superior approach to explaining observations rationally to our existing scientific method has yet to be discovered, our current hypothesis remains sound.

Science is about being willing to be wrong (well, it used to be... these days it is about getting published in A journals, sadly). It is about suggesting other than absolutes, about being willing to discard opinions and hypothesis as soon as there exists evidence which falsifies them. The instant your hovering apple is observed, repeated and verified; then we must consider changing or completely discarding the currently accepted hypothesis; if we had faith in this hypothesis, we could not.

To be clear, I have no problem with people having belief's in areas where it is not feasible to prove or disprove or where a falsifiable hypothesis cannot be constructed; I *believe* that is their right and freedom. Belief is not science and vice versa, although they can overlap. Faith is different, it is mutually exclusive, it allows us to justify ignoring data to retain flawed judgements. Faith is where idiots with explosives strapped to them and creationists come from.

**start rant
It is one thing to personally believe in the existence of a god, it is another thing to have faith that an anthropocentric supreme being shat out the universe in a 6 day marathon and turned people into salt and gave immaculate birth to a magical resurrection fairy so strongly that no evidence of the human tendancy to make up stories and write them down and speak falsehoods to maintain power will dissuade you from it.

Faith is the most dangerous thing a human can have, because it involves blinding ourselves to other views and evidence.
**end rant

I don't have faith in an ordered universe, for all I know there may be a deranged supreme being fiddling with everything we do for their own jollies; but I cannot offer data which supports such a hypothesis nor form an exclusive null hypothesis. However, the hypothesis that the universe is amenable to observation and measurement is supported by reams of data showing repeatable results from controlled methodologies.

Of course, this doesn't consider retrocausality! :)

Just my $0.02.
err!
jak.

Re:Sorry, No.

[clarkkent09]

Can you elaborate why the GP is wrong, rather than engage in name calling? What he is essentially saying is that religion is all about blind faith in certain propositions (God exists, he created the universe, he created humans in his image etc etc) even in the face of complete absence of evidence, actually even in the face of very strong evidence contradicting those propositions (such as the evidence for evolution). On the other hand, science is about finding out about the world through scientific method (somewhat inaccurately summarized as show/demonstrate/repeat, but I get the point). Why is that a "dumb-ass comment" and why does it prevent any "dialog from happening"? It's a simple and obviously truthful statement and I am really curious why you, as well as couple of other posters, appear to be offended by it?

Re:Sorry, No.

[spire3661]

It is ENTIRELY possible to believe in a creator and still accept the true wonder of the universe. Religion does not mean the same thing as faith. Organized religion as set forth by the religions 'clergy', for the most part is tailored to control the populace. People LIKE to be controlled, its comforting to some. Why have police when you can force your people to police themselves through guilt?

Re:Sorry, No.

[twostix]

I spent 18 years attending an evangelical church before figuring out all by myself that at best it's a complete corruption of the movement that the figure known as Jesus began, at worst just a slowly dying culture. I certainly was not alone though and thousands of people do it every day.

The stereotype that many "atheists" describe for quite a few religious people is correct. The sad thing is though in *them* (people such as the grandparent) I see exactly the same type of mindless, blathering, "*I* know the one truth and if you don't see it your crazy", HIGHLY ignorant, paint the opposition as evil whackos ranting and mindset that I used to see in the more fevered members of the church.

Different side of the same bent coin.

If they were born into the church they'd probably be the very people that they rant and rave about - the fanatics.

The rest of us, the moderate religious, agnostic and atheists just get on with it and don't particularly care for holy wars from anyone no matter what they believe or don't believe.

Re:Sorry, No.

[SQL Error]

Because at the root, science is based on faith.

Wrong.

Science has not provided a robust explanation for the origin of the universe.

But it doesn't claim that it has, and no faith is needed, because the Universe exists.

It cannot explain the four forces.

Explain? It certainly describes the four fources, very accurately. And no faith is needed, because the four forces exist.

It cannot explain time.

Again, what do you mean by "explain"? It certainly describes time, and its interrelation with space, in ways that religion never even guessed at. And no faith is needed, because time exists.

All of those are taken as given without explanation or identifiable cause.

What, are you asserting that the Universe, the four forces, and time don't exist?

For all that some people act smug about being enlightened and scientific, the fact of the matter is, their beliefs are as faith based as the beliefs of the unsophisticated religious types they are mocking.

Nope, sorry, wrong, wrong, completely and irredeemably wrong.

There is no faith involved at any point. There is a method. The scientific method, sometimes described as methodological naturalism. You don't have to believe in metaphsyical naturalism. You don't need to believe in science at all. You just need to follow the method, and you get results.

This is precisely the opposite of religion.

Re:Sorry, No.

[The_mad_linguist]

Dude, Gideon is the first example of someone using the scientific method.

I suppose, though, you are unable to appreciate the irony of your statement.

Re:Sorry, No.

[Khashishi]

Einstein used "God" to make a expression, nothing more. According to your train of thinking, anyone who says "oh my god" is suffering from religion.

Re:Sorry, No.

[Khashishi]

It's people like you who put apologetics in a bad light. Einstein didn't believe in a personal god, and the case has been so clearly settled that there are only a few excuses for you to make this sort of error:

1. You are repeating what other apologetics have said without doing any due diligence to confirm that the statements were in any way accurate. This is a big problem, because religious folks pretty much listen to these authorities who don't really have any grounds for their veracity.
2. You are trying to deceive people.
3. You don't think critically. You somehow can completely dismiss any evidence against your case and cherry pick evidence for your case, no matter how large the imbalance of evidence. (e.g. evolution)

Re:Sorry, No.

[TiberSeptm]

? Science and religion ARE incompatible. Science investigates the real world, while religion 'investigates' mostly itself - religion is not linked with reality.

Perhaps you are confusing some of the definitions of compatibility with synergy because you have just pointed out one of the only ways religion and science can be compatible and claimed it as evidence of the opposite. The fact that they, at their core, are concerned with entirely different things is exactly why they can coexist harmoniously. It's just when religion tries to muscle in on the physical world that incompatibility comes about.

Re:Sorry, No.

[bronney]

dude did you even read your parent? Whatever you called "faith" in science is, it's NOT! It's hypothesis and the difference is, if somebody found a hovering apple and it's repeatable, or falsifiable, your "faith" in gravity and or relativity CAN be discarded. Hence, science isn't based on faith.
.
Religion is real faith, because Adam ate the apple. It's not hypothesis, it's absolute faith. Nobody saw him eat it and it's not repeatable or falsifiable. Jesus resurrected. Same deal. Absolute, unchangeable, and we won't lose our Easter holidays! Get it?

Re:Sorry, No.

[Aceticon]

There is no way that you can be absolutely sure that every atom always decays at the same rate. You need faith for a good chunk of science in 2009.

And yet, if somebody showed that the speed of decay changed over time and that observation could be repeated, then the whole building of knowledge done on top of it would shift and change to adjust to the discovery that a basic law of physics is actually not what we thought.

That's the core difference between Science and Religion - in Religion, faith is supposed to absolute and unshakable, no proof required, no falsifying possible. In Science there is no faith - at best you have a "I'll go with this until it's proven wrong" posture - a mental artifact of which, in some people's minds, could be confused with "faith". (If you're approaching any Scientific theory, no matter how basic in a faith-like way, you're doing it wrong)

As with everything, in Science to do any work you have to assume (until proven otherwise) that some basic laws are as we think they are. If you start challenging everything all the time then you end up in the domain of Philosophy (the father of Science) where you ultimately challenge that reality is as we perceive, down to challenging one's own existence.
[Reality as we perceive is something we believe are aware of through our senses. However, it's perfectly possible that "true" reality is something like the Matrix (we all live in an illusion) or even further, that nothing is as we perceive it and we ourselves are but a dream of an unfathomable alien conscience. Consider that there hasn't been much "work done" in solving that specific question since "Cogito ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am", Descartes, 17th century)]

Re:Meteorologists

[100_Monkeys_Typing]

Sorta makes me sad that Carl Sagan isn't around anymore and apparently no one noticed. Some pop star kicks the bucket and the world comes to a grinding halt. :(

5 and 2 years old?

[Clover_Kicker]

How about Elmo and Curious George?

You've got years before they give a rat's ass about Cosmos or David Attenborough wildlife documentaries. It's OK, they're little kids.

Say NO to celebrity science

[Kohath]

Science should be practical. It's good when it helps people. Any individual scientist who has done science to help people is worth looking up to. That also goes for anyone else of any profession.

You're asking for celebrities. Celebrities are not famous for helping people, they're famous for appearing on TV. Do you really think it's wise to teach your kids to look up to whoever the TV producers want to put on TV? Are TV producers wise?

Why not teach them to value practical virtue rather than vanity?

Re:LOL Carl Sagan....scientist? not

[joocemann]

... the creator of what? If you demand Carl use science, you do the same. Let me guess, I'll have to place faith in repeated memes instead...

I'll bank on evidence and hold to theories backed by substantial evidence.

Re:LOL Carl Sagan....scientist? not

[TinBromide]

I don't think the submitter was asking for a Sunday school answers to a request for science instruction. While it is perfectly acceptable to use God to fill the holes in knowledge for the time being (if a society must because it has a sever phobia of areas of uncertainty and doubt), it is not acceptable for a society to refuse to acknowledge scientific findings, or refuse the future possibility of what science may find simply because it has already answered that particular question with the stock "The Creator did it."

Its a matter of preference...

[damn_registrars]

Each science has its own heroes in the current day. If you really want to establish a science hero for your kids, choose which science you want to teach them about first. Much as Einstein isn't a great hero to evolutionary biologists, Darwin isn't a great hero to modern physicists. You could, of course, try to cover a wide variety of scientific disciplines (and their respective heroes) in a short amount of time, but you would probably do better to start with more approachable subjects and bring up the heroes of those.

Re:Al Gore

[RightwingNutjob]

Also, he invented the internet. Sorry.

Re:Smirking Pluto Killer - Not My Favorite

[spire3661]

Ignorance is bliss? He was dead on about Pluto, people got all emotional about a LARGE HUNK OF ICE. Would you rather scientists just ignore stuff like that and play up to popular opinion? He was smirking because he knows how stupid the 'debate' is. I liked it even better when he kind of put what Branson does into perspective and how the two of them really arent relational in anyway. LEO is a joke compared to what Tyson thinks about in terms of space travel. Im not disparaging Sir Richard Branson or the work he does in ANY WAY, but it was a good perspective.

Re:Smirking Pluto Killer - Not My Favorite

[arb phd slp]

I dislike that Neil deGrasse guy, he was quite the smirking "I'm smart and you're not" during that whole Pluto isn't a planet anymore crap. I'm with Michio Kaku as my favorite science enthusiast and speaker. He's smart, he's enthused and he didn't go around on the Tonight Show smirking about how Pluto isn't a planet. I'm also looking to punch whoever it was that decided Brontosaurus wasn't a proper name for the Brontosaurus too. (shakes fist in fury)

You're a little late on that one. The peer-reviewed paper that showed that the "brontosaurus" was really an apatosaur was published in 1903.

I'm a Michio Kaku fan, too and have been since I read his book Hyperspace 15 years ago.

Sagan != science hero

[myowntrueself]

Sagan used to be my science hero, when I was a kid and I watched a regular show of his on TV.

Then one show I was watching there was some topic about visits from extraterrestrials, interstellar travel etc.

Carl came out and said "There is no possibility of visits from other worlds. The distances involved are so great that it would take thousands of years for them to get to our solar system."

My jaw dropped at that statement. Up to that point I had thought he was an imaginative and intelligent guy.

Evidently he could not conceive of alien beings for whom thousands of years was a very short time and who could even make such a journey 'just for the hell of it'.

For him this was completely impossible, inconceivable.

Thats pretty sad for a guy with his reputation.

Re:Sagan != science hero

[bersl2]

I'm listening to the portion I think you're talking about. If I am, then you as a child did not pick up the nuances of what he was saying.

What he said was this:

• On the one hand, we have reason to believe that there are other "technical civilizations" living in this galaxy right this very second, and probably a very large number of them.
• On the other hand, we have no credible evidence that they have visited (or even contacted) our civilization on Earth.
• Nevertheless, it's feasible that they could have visited the Earth during the time of Humanity. How can we explain this apparent contradiction?
  • Maybe we are the first technical civilization.
  • Or, perhaps all such civilizations are practically doomed to self-destruction.
  • Maybe something we have not yet experienced renders interstellar travel impossible.
  • Or maybe they are already here but are unnoticed by humans.
  • "But there's another explanation that is consistent with everything else we know, and that's that it's a big cosmos." The only things that would indicate our presence to them are our radio, TV, and other broadcasts; but these have not yet even reached a distance where it is likely that another civilization has hear them! "From their point of view, all nearby planetary systems might seem equally attractive for exploration." It's simply a matter of infinitesimal probability.

So you see, he did not say that it is impossible; that was a product of your own mind.

Carl Sagan was not a mere science hero; he was a science super-hero.

Re:Sorry, Yes

[Chris Kamel]

The main difference between science and religion is not that one is true and the other is false. It's that one is falsifiable and the other is not.

Tim Flannery and Dr. KArl

[riprjak]

Dr. Tim Flannery is someone whose work I have introduced all of my young relatives too. He may not be as well recognised outside of Australian and I can honestly say I don't always share his viewpoint; but he conveys the points well and with great passion.

Dr. Karl Kruszelnicki has been doing a scientifically credible, entertaining and honest version of what the mythbuster's do on radio in Australia for donkeys years and is pure gold when it comes to making science fun and accessible.

err!
Jak.

David Attenborough

[Ginger_Chris]

I know he's not a scientist per se, but David Attenborough had a huge influence on me as a child, along with BBC nature as a whole. As a child I'd watch them over and over and that interest passed over to the other sciences as a whole. He's the perfect person to get your kids into science as a whole. (I teach physics now).

think younger

[v1]

I got the privilege of appearing on stage with Mr Wizard way back in gradeschool. Now there's someone that will be missed. He got us hooked on science in like 4th grade. That's what we need, not more people to fascinate us in college, we need to build interest in science in our youth much much earlier.

RIP Don Herbert

Re:think younger

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

The Mythbusters may not always be rigorous about operating in a controlled environment, with a well-designed experiment ... but they certainly can get children interested in science and mathematics.

Actually, xkcd sums it up pretty well.

Re:Sorry, Yes

[Animaether]

"God wants us to learn these things, that is why we are here"
If only more people believed in that same God.. or at least that said same God wants these same things, there'd be a whole lot less problems.

However, I take issue even with that statement, due to the second half. It seems like it is meant to be an answer to the question "Why are we here?"

To illustrate why I take issue with that.. I saw a cute little German book about gemstones earlier today. I opened it up somewhere in the middle, only to find references to where the gemstone is mentioned in the bible and whatnot (something about 12 breastplate stones? my memory of The Bible is entirely too vague to recall the details). So I flipped to the first page of text and it had this question and answer (from iffy memory from a translation from German):

Q. Why do gemstones exist?
A. God put them on the Earth for mankind to admire them.

That answer seemed silly to me (I'm agnostic-ish) at first... it doesn't answer the question of why they exist, it answers the question 'why did God put them on Earth', which wasn't asked. But then I realized that I wouldn't ever ask the original question anyway. I would ask what gemstones are made of, how they are formed, chemical composition, color ranges, any special characteristics (asterism? chatoyance?) etc. and simply admire the photos in the book taking them for what they are.. pretty sparklies. I wouldn't ask -why- a gemstone exists any more than I would ask why a grain of sand exists.

Similarly, no scientist would ask -why- we are here any more than -why- a gemstone exists; that's material best left to philosophers and, indeed, theologians.

When you say that "there is a lot of science that cannot be shown/demonstrated/repeated", you're not really talking about science - although there are certainly elements that we can't just 'show' (such as stating that a certain star contains much iron though we're not able to just scoop some up and show you), we can certainly scientifically infer them with high probability (spectral lines etc.) and more plausibility ("'cos God made it so").
Now if you move into the realm of where scientists say "we don't know (yet)", that's where you can certainly have room for "God did it"-type arguments. I'm not a big fan of those, but quite likely there's no way that we'll ever determine what caused the Big Bang event and saying "God did it" makes perfectly good sense to me - though it certainly doesn't mean I think we shouldn't try and figure it out anyway... which is where I'm glad your University taught you "God wants us to learn these things", even if I disagree with the second half.

Alton Brown

[grasshoppa]

Seriously. His show good eats does a wonderful job of investigating the science behind the food. He does so in such a way that makes you want to know more, which renders his detractor's accuracy claims moot. His show has helped me inspire my 5 year old daughter to question how things work the way they do. What better hero could you ask for?

Re:Good luck with that

[Zarlan]

Today's kids are being taught that feelings are more important than logic, that 'social justice' is more important than the actual kind, that there's no difference between winning and losing, and that causality is just a conceit of the rich. They'll grow up and become government housing administrators, or city employees, or socialized/unionized construction workers. They'll grow up with a hatred of science, of objectivity, and of individuality, it will all be replaced by compassion, empathy and team spirit.

Sorry for your loss.

That is the complaint of every generation to the succeeding. I am growing up now, one of today's kids as you call us. Of my friends from high school, most of them are studying hard sciences. I go to a small liberal arts college and we have a larger grant for our sciences and more people interested in those subjects than any other department in the school. I don't see my peers growing up to be any of the things you mentioned. Just sayin'.

Re:I assure you God is real, Jesus is Lord! I know

[Cassius Corodes]

I don't understand the thinking behind several parts of your last paragraph - but I am deeply interested in why you think they are so:

- If god is omnipotent / all powerful etc - why do you need to tell others about him? Can he not do this himself if he felt it was the thing to do?
- If god is generous rewarding etc. - why is there evil in the world>=? Why does he allow situations to occur that turn good people into bad people? (trauma, post-traumatic stress etc.)
- Why heaven - why not just make the real world nice.
- Why do you believe you know the mind of god? (sorry if I read that wrong - but from your post you seem convinced you do). You may believe that god cannot be mistaken - but do you believe that you cannot be mistaken for thinking you know his mind?

I am deeply interested in hearing what you have to say on this.

Re:Good luck with that

[Eli Gottlieb]

Lemme guess, There Is No Alternative to right-wing objectivism? Because everyone should be Rugged Individualists Working for Science for Profit so that the Free Market might Solve All Problems. Actually attempting to care about others makes us Dirty Pinko Commies.

Kaku's a barking moron

[Man On Pink Corner]

He tried his damnedest to kill the Cassini/Huygens mission that has given us knowledge about Saturn and Titan second only to the Voyager program. ("OMG teh evil Plutonium is going to be magically smushed up n an asplosion and kill us all!")

Never mind that the risks were virtually nonexistent, even if you didn't bother to weigh them against the knowledge we stood to gain. He's no different from the tin-foil hat crowd who tried to shut down the LHC with lawsuits because we might all get swallowed by a black hole.

Michio Kaku has little credibility in my book, because I have no idea whose side he's on... science's, or woo-woo Earth First nutcases.

Re:Kaku's a barking moron

[Man On Pink Corner]

The link I posted would be amusing if it weren't so dumb. Kaku spends paragraphs explaining in detail how the scientists and engineers designing RTG-equipped missions were a bunch of reckless morons, and how a launch accident with an RTG would bring a catastrophic civil disaster on the scale of those depicted in zombie movies. Then, at the height of the wharrgarbl, he tosses in the point that such world-ending accidents had already occurred several times. Um, OK, I guess the RTG encapsulation wasn't so flawed after all, seeing as how we're mostly still here.

As I recall, after President Clinton irresponsibly failed to step in and abort the Cassini launch, Kaku turned his attention and that of his PR agent towards warning us of the OMGWTFBBQ scenarios that would no doubt follow the probe's gravitational-boost flyby of Earth.

He may have done some good work in the past but this sort of lameness needs to be seen as a career-limiting move for a professional scientist. I'm all in favor of being really, really careful with radioactive stuff, but the fact is, it's not dignified for a PhD physicist to go full retard. What will the creationists think?

You're asking the wrong question

[Hojima]

Going back on topic here, what you really want is a way to get them into science. Kids are already curious and easily amused, so you've already won half the battle. Just get them science toys, videos, and equipment, and take trips to aquariums, science museums, and planetariums. I remember my first microscope. I was eight and I wouldn't put the damn thing down. You'd be surprised how much people get inspired by the sheer beauty of science. And if you really want to geekify them, get them Lego Mindstorms. A science hero to look up to usually comes after they start learning more and see who discovered what.

Videos and books

[zoeblade]

In addition to names of the people themselves, can anybody recommend any good science documentaries/talks/books? I'd recommend the following:

• David Attenborough
  • Life In... series (TV shows, 1979 - 2008)
  • Planet Earth (TV show, 2006)
• J. Bronowski
  • The Ascent of Man (TV show, 1973)
• Bill Bryson
  • A short History of Nearly Everything (book and audiobook, 2003)
• Brian Cox
  • [Various documentaries] (TV shows, 2005 - present)
• Richard Dawkins
  • The Royal Institution Christmas Lectures: Growing Up in the Universe (TV show, 1991 - 1992)
  • Root of All Evil? (TV show, 2006)
  • The Enemies of Reason (TV show, 2007)
  • The Genius of Charles Darwin (TV show, 2008)
• Neil deGrasse Tyson
  • Death by Black Hole (book and audiobook, 2007)
• Michio Kaku
  • Visions of the Future AKA 2057 (TV show, 2007)
• Carl Sagan
  • Cosmos (TV show and book, 1980)
  • Pale Blue Dot (book, 1994)
  • The Demon-Haunted World (book, 1996)
• Various
  • The Amaz!ng Meeting (symposium, 2003 - current)
  • Beyond Belief (symposium, 2006 - current)

  If anyone can add to this list, I'd appreciate it. It'd be nice to seek out more science shows and related things.

  I'd also recommend the following on YouTube:

  • Neil deGrasse Tyson - Stupid Design
  • Tim Minchin - Storm
  • Dawkins vs. Tyson

  (And now I need to ramble on for ages because Slashdot's software claims I have too few characters per line... A curious requirement. Just ignore this paragraph, it contains absolutely no meaningful information at all. Seriously, though, check out the above YouTube clips if nothing else. Really, Cosmos and A Short History of Nearly Everything should be given to everyone at birth...)