Our Tithing Story

Just about anyone who has attended even a handful of LDS testimony meetings has heard a testimony from  a member of the congregation that goes something like this: "We were really struggling financially. It came down to a moment when we had to decide whether to pay our tithing or pay a bill. We decided to pay our tithing first. Then the day we had to pay the bill, a check for the exact amount we needed arrived in the mail. I know that this happened because we paid our tithing and put the Lord first."


I have always felt the Holy Ghost testify that these types of testimonies about the Law of Tithing are true, but I had never had this kind of experience. I have never doubted that the Law of Tithing is a commandment from Heavenly Father and that He keeps His promise made in Malachi 3:8. This has been a part of my testimony for a very long time. I have had moments where I could see the blessings of paying tithing throughout my life, but I hadn't had the financial blessing described in some many testimonies of others. 


Well, Juliann and I had reached that financial struggle. Our struggle was nothing in comparison to what many other people have had to struggle through, but for us it was still stressful and worrisome at times. 


It began with SUU deciding to make some big changes that have had a large impact on a lot of students. There was an 11% tuition increase for the 2011-2012 year. Coupled with this blow was a new policy that tuition would be due about a month before the start of a  semester. Failure to pay tuition before the deadline would result in a student being dropped from all the classes they were currently enrolled in with no guarantee for re-enrollment in those classes for that semester. (Sounds really greedy, right?)


 We are very grateful for the Pell Grants that we receive to attend school, but each year the amount that we receive gets smaller. Smaller Pell Grants plus increased tuition equalled a hard hit to our pocketbook for fall semester. We were pretty good at saving money throughout the semester, but as the deadline for spring tuition payment approached were realized that this could the time when we were the most poor that we had ever been. At one point we calculated that after paying tuition, we would have about $4 in our bank account. 


Then, the windows of heaven opened and our blessing began to pour out. As we began to save money on food by eating our food storage, our first little miracle arrived. There was an event at the stadium at the school called The Snow Bowl. It is basically an opportunity for kids from California to play football in the snow (Don't ask me why this is appealing to them). Well, the snow they wanted came; in very large quantities. 


I had put in extra hours at work so that we could paint a football field for this event, but snow tends to make football fields very difficult to see. To remedy this, after a full morning of clearing snow off the campus Eli, my boss, Sam, my coworker, and I spent a couple of hours freezing as we blew snow off every line on the football field. However, our hard work did not go unnoticed. The athletic director saw what we were willing to do for this event and rewarded each of us with $20 in Pizza Hut Pizza Bucks. 


The freezing continued as I then finished a long work day clearing snow off of all of the bleachers and seats in the stadium so that the parents could watch their precious little ones freeze their butts off playing football in the snow. Again, my effort did not go unnoticed. Once again as a gesture of gratitude, the athletic director gave me $20 in Pizza Hut Pizza Bucks. Those of you who know Juliann well can easily imagine her excitement when I told her that I was given $40 in Pizza Bucks that day and that we wouldn't have to eat just rice or pasta dishes for the next week and a half. 


The day after tuition was due, was a payday for us. Since that day is a Saturday, however, Juliann's work paid her the day before. The next little miracle happened when I found out that my work (which often pays me on the following Monday when this occurs) paid me the day before as well. Then, we were comforted by the fact that we would at least have a lot more than just $4 in our bank account after paying tuition.


Today was the dreaded day when spring tuition was due. It turned out to not be painful at all. The miracles continued. When we went to look at our final bills, prepared to drain our savings, our amounts that were due were substantially lower than what they were before. Today we were awarded Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants. According to Chapter 7: Financial Aid and Scholarships in SUU's general catalog, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants are awarded to students that have "exceptional need." FSEOG funds are very limited and are awarded to Pell Grant recipients, on a first-come, first-served basis. 


We had never even heard of these grants and therefore had not applied for them. Somehow the school just knew that we had an exceptional need and gave us these extra funds. With these grants added to our Pell Grants, our bills were easily paid. Now, we have little to worry about with money still in our savings account and $20 left in Pizza Bucks.  


Some people may say that this experience was all just good luck. Some people may call it good fortune. Others may say that it was all coincidence. I know though that it was a direct answer to prayers, a blessing from paying our tithing, and now our tithing story added to our testimonies.


    

  

Reflections From the Garden: Toma'to and Topa'to

This year has been a new experience for me; Juliann and I have started a garden. Well, two gardens actually: one that consists of two large pots from Walmart with strawberries (left over from my aphid experiment), a jalapeno plant, a serrano pepper plant, and two tomato plants which we call our patio garden, and another that we planted at one of the houses that SUU owns which for convenience I will refer to as el jardin magnifico. In el jardin magnifico we, along with three other people from the SUU Grounds, have planted pumpkins, cucumber, zucchini, lemon squash, butternut squash,  cantaloupe, corn, green beans, carrots, beets, radishes, onions, tomatoes, and a wide array of peppers. So far I have really enjoyed the gardening experience. There is a sort of thrill that comes with watching the plants grow.

As a part of this new experience, I have decided to post about thoughts that come to me while thinking about our gardens. These posts will be titled Reflections From the Garden.

When we began our patio garden, we chose one of our tomato plants because it already had a fairly large tomato growing on it. As we have been nurturing our little tomato buddy, it hasn't been growing very tall  or adding many more leaves. Instead, it has been focusing all of its effort on growing that tomato. That tomato will be used as its means of reproduction. By a loose comparison, that tomato could be considered its offspring or child. Some scientists would say that it is focusing on that means of reproduction in order to pass on its genes into the next generation. For me, however, it was a reminder of my parents. That little tomato plant was devoting nearly all of its energy into providing for its child. Rather than trying to grow and increase its chance of survival, it was trying to increase the chance that its offspring would be successful. Thinking of the devotion that this plant had toward its offspring brought me feelings of gratitude for my amazing Mom and Dad. They always put the needs and wants of my siblings and me above their own. They did a wonderful job nurturing us to be successful. They were our Toma'to and Topa'to. Thank you Mom and Dad. I LOVE YOU!      

The last of the History and Literature of Biology Posts

Using the website www.xtranormal.com, I made this video for my historical figure presentation.

Reaction Paper Series - Paper 10

Sexism in Science

 “It is complicated because they did not think of her as a thinker, but they did not think of her as a woman either. Because a woman must not think and a thinker must not be a woman!” This commentary by Paris University Physics Professor, Francoise Balibar, describes the society in which the most famous female scientist, Marie Curie, lived. Obviously, Marie Curie was in fact a woman, but almost as apparent as her gender was her brilliant mind.

Marie Curie is quite deserving of the recognition she received for her scientific advancements, but to consider her an oddity would perpetuate the same fallacious thinking that existed throughout her lifetime. Likely, there are equally as many brilliant female scientists as there are male scientists. Quite possibly, other women would have made important scientific advancements had there not been a prevailing sexism in science.

Besides her brilliance and determination, Marie Curie had another advantage: she was married. She wasn’t just married to any man; she was married to a renowned physicist, Pierre Curie. Pierre recognized the brilliance and persistence possessed by his wife. The 1903 Nobel Prize for Physics was originally proposed for Pierre Curie and Henri Becquerel only. It was Pierre who stood up for Marie to have her recognized for her vital work in the isolation of radium. The work was done regardless of who received credit, but because of her husband, Marie Curie was recognized for her abilities. This recognition allowed her to receive a second Nobel Prize on her own after Pierre’s tragic death.            

Hopefully, sexism no longer persists among the science community, if it does, the fact that scientific journals are filled with the work of great female scientists along with their male colleagues at least supports that sexism in science is waning. If it persists in the least, for the sake of scientific advancement, the world needs men like Pierre Curie who will fight sexism and give proper recognition to those who deserve it. Even more so the world needs women like Marie Curie who will overcome the odds and make their work known. The combined force of brilliant men and women makes the future of science full of possibilities.

Reaction Paper Series - Paper 9

Courage For Progress

            Whether or not they can tell you what the equation means or even what the variables stand for, if you mention E=mc² just about any moderately educated person could tell you that it came from Albert Einstein. Arguably, The Theory of Relativity is Albert Einstein’s greatest legacy. However, in the science community it is debated that Jules Henri Poincare almost developed the special theory of relativity at the same time as Einstein. Regardless of the debate, the fact remains that Einstein’s name is forever attached to this marvelous theory. According to Warwick University Professor of Mathematics, Ian Stewart, Poincare had similar ideas about special relativity on his mind and had written down pertinent equations, but he lacked something that Einstein had: courage. Stewart says, “Einstein was courageous enough to risk his reputation.” In Einstein’s case his courage really paid off.

            However, in science courage to risk your reputation does not always pay off like it did for Einstein. The mention of Lamark in a biology classroom immediately brings to mind his discredited hypothesis of heredity involving the inheritance of acquired traits. Since the evidence brought forth from Darwin and others discredited Lamark’s hypothesis, he is merely known for what is sometimes considered a laughable idea. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, like Einstein, had the courage to risk his reputation in order to introduce a hypothesis that could change the view of reality. Unlike Einstein, however, Lamarck’s hypothesis was discredited and he died in poverty and obscurity.

            Lamarck’s courage did not go completely unnoticed. He was recognized by some early evolutionists as a great zoologist and a forerunner of evolution. Charles Darwin himself said, “Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention…he first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all changes in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.” Lamarck’s courage to risk his reputation led to a noteworthy contribution to the evolution of the Theory of Evolution.

            The risk of publishing hypotheses is that a scientist could potentially become publicly known as an Einstein or a Lamarck, either a prominent scientific genius or a laughable scientific failure. Despite the personal risk, there is a greater risk to scientific progress if the fear of a damaged reputation persists among scientists. Potentially the Theory of Relativity could have been discovered sooner had Poincare presented his ideas or, conversely, the Theory of Evolution could have been delayed had Lamarck withheld his ideas. Great leaps in scientific progress are made because of scientists like Einstein and Lamarck who have the courage to risk their reputation for scientific progress.  

Reaction Paper Series - Paper 8

Stirring Rationally

            Antoine Lavoisier was an 18^th century chemist sometimes referred to as the father of modern chemistry and the executioner of alchemy. According to Professor of Chemistry Peter Atkins, irrational stirrer might also be an appropriate title.  In the book, On Giants’ Shoulder’s, Professor Atkins contrasts modern chemistry with the chemistry of the18^th century, “Lavoisier really heated and stirred and splashed blindly and we today, when we look at our splashings and stirrings and heatings, see in our mind’s eye the changes in the positions of the atoms that we are stirring around. So he stirred irrationally but hopefully; we stir rationally.” Rather than showing disrespect towards the great Lavoisier, Atkins simply points out that chemistry, and all sciences for that matter, are now done based on scientific knowledge.

            The great and notable scientists build the foundation of scientific knowledge for their respective fields. On that foundation, other great scientists were able to use that scientific knowledge, experiment with it, and explore new ideas that further built onto and expanded scientific knowledge. In this way, science has been built as a progressive stairway to truth and understanding about the natural world.

            The previous work of remarkable scientists thus places a responsibility on current and future scientists. Scientists now have the great responsibility to learn as much as possible from the available scientific knowledge. Then, that knowledge, must applied to explore more ideas, develop further experimentation, and add to the stairway. The legacy of science and the pursuit of truth must go forward as each generation of scientists work to be rational stirrers.   

Reaction Paper Series - Paper 7

The Lone Genius vs. The Collective

Eureka! The famous word associated with history’s legendary naked epiphany. However, once the image of a streaking Sicilian leaves the mind’s stage, the meaning behind the word and the awe of the legend are present. Whether it is true or not that a law of buoyancy was discovered in a bath tub, the fact remains that in ancient times a law that still holds true today (and always will on the planet we inhabit) was recorded in very clear terms by Archimedes. Its discoverer is so obvious that his law of buoyancy is commonly known as Archimedes’ principle. 

Archimedes’s principle is ingenious, but whether or not he can be described as a scientific genius is debated. In Melvyn Bragg’s book, On Giants’ Shoulders, the argument of the “lone genius” versus “the collective” is presented. On one side of the argument is the idea that there are rare human beings that have such brilliance that they are able to see the world or a problem in a very unique way. They can have completely original thoughts that influence vast amounts of people. These are the “lone geniuses.” On the other side of the argument is the counter idea that all scientific development comes from a group. Along with this idea is the notion that if the credited scientist had not made the discovery or invention, someone else would have. In “the collective” view there are not a few geniuses, but instead, a series of brilliant men and women.

If Archimedes was a “lone genius,” then he alone could have discovered this law of buoyancy during his time and it is rightly named after him. The recorded history of Archimedes illustrates that he was indeed a unique thinker. He made many more discoveries and invented many more things than just Archimedes’ principle. He seems that he does deserve the title of a genius. It doesn’t take a genius, however, to understand that history is often biased. The recorded history of Archimedes also shows that he was a man of prominence. “The collective” side of the argument presents the possibility that another unique thinker could have come up with the same buoyancy law. Imagine if instead a science student is taught Spandecles’ principle. There is the possibility that this imaginary Spandecles could have independently discovered the same buoyancy law before, at the same time, or after Archimedes. If Spandecles made his discovery before or at the same time as Archimedes his discovery could have gone unnoticed if he wasn’t as prominent as Archimedes. If he made his discovery after Archimedes, he could have realized that Archimedes had beaten him to the punch. As a side note, would Spandecles also have incorporated streaking into his publication of the buoyancy law?  The streaking could have contributed to Archimedes being known for this law of buoyancy discovery.

            There is strong support for both sides of the debate. Since the list of historical prominent scientists is fairly short (Bragg only discusses 12), it is reasonable to accept that there were “lone geniuses.” We have profound scientific developments because there were and still are today unique individuals who can think in a way that others cannot. Although, the existence of scientific journals and other means of communication of scientific knowledge demonstrate the power of “the collective” in scientific development as well. It is most likely that both sides of the debate are in harmony with each other. The discoveries made by ”lone geniuses” coupled with the work of other brilliant people working collectively can result in at least genius moments for any scientist. 

Reaction Paper Series - Paper 6

Roman Physicians

            Disease, sickness, and injury have surely been present in every society. The causes and treatments of such things in ancient societies often had a link to the beliefs within the culture. As history progressed, there seems to be a trend of belief slowly being replaced by knowledge-based practices. Although many Roman medical practices were still intertwined with superstition and mythology, A History of Science Volume 1 illustrates that Roman physicians through scientific principles also employed methods that are consistent with modern medicine. The Romans also had ideas about medical practice that could be useful in today’s society.

            Roman medical practices included the use of drugs by ophthalmic surgeons, which included some ingredients that still are used to treat certain eye problems, treating hemorrhage by ligatures and torsion, and the use of bandages. One of the most prominent Roman physicians, Claudius Galenus (Galen), understood that certain muscles were under the control of definite sets of nerves. He also understood that nerves conducted impulses to and from the brain. He was able to use this knowledge to help his patient’s recover from injury. The understanding of human anatomy and physiology and some of their medical practices are a result of their scientific study.

            Rather than just speculating some religious reason for how the body works or becomes injured or infected, the Roman physicians followed the example of the Greeks and investigated the body. During Galen’s time it was illegal to do human dissections (although Williams speculates that he might secretly have done so). This didn’t stop him from gaining understanding of the body. He used animal dissections to experiment with the nerves and try to understand the anatomy and physiology of the organs. It is amazing how Galen and other Roman physicians put such effort into understanding human health and how they were able to apply their understanding and develop effective methods to treat their patients.

            Physicians became necessary in Roman society. They gradually reached enough value in society that they were granted immunity from taxes and military services. The emperors even created city and district physicians, the archiatri populaires. These physicians treated and cared for the poor and gave medical instruction to students without compensation. Instead, they received their salary semi-annually and were allowed to receive fees and donations after medical problem was fully treated. There were also laws protecting physicians from insults. 

Physicians are equally if not even more necessary in modern society, yet modern society could benefit from some of the Roman ideas about medical practice. Although there is no need to grant immunity from taxes and military service, having more laws to protect well-intentioned physicians could change current health care costs. If there were less opportunities to sue a physician, malpractice insurance rates could be reduced and physicians wouldn’t have to charge so much for their services. Also, if physicians trained and instructed medical students for free or a low cost health care costs could also be reduced. Physicians would no longer need to be paid such high fees for their services in order to pay back very expensive student loans accrued from medical school. Although Galen recognized that even in his time there were physicians that were “lovers of money,” the Roman physicians’ desire to understand and effectively heal the human body and the Roman society’s later high esteem for their physicians produced quality physicians that were genuinely concerned for their patient’s well-being and practiced remarkable medicine for their time. 

Reaction Paper Series - Paper 5

It Wasn’t Big And It Wasn’t A Bang 

            Imagine empty space, space so empty that it doesn’t even contain space as we know it. Then a large explosion fills it with our universe. This is The Big Bang. Well, not quite. According to The Big Bang Theory, the universe didn’t actually begin with an explosion but instead it all started with an expansion and it wasn’t even a big expansion at first.

            So, where did this expansion come from? In this empty space there was a singularity, an infinitely hot, infinitely dense, infinitesimally small object. Apparently, this singularity at some point expanded. According to calculations by Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose, this expansion was the origin of space, time, matter, and energy. Everything that exists in our universe began as a singularity.

            What began as something very, very small and very, very hot expanded into the size and temperature of our current universe and continues to expand. The idea that our universe, something that seems infinitely large, was once the size of an atom (or even smaller) is difficult to comprehend. As difficult as it is to comprehend, however, it does have a lot of support. Discoveries in astronomy and physics going back as far as the ancient Greeks have led to the development of The Big Bang Theory. In the context of the evidence, it is reasonable for The Big Bang Theory to be broadly accepted as the explanation for the beginning of the universe. Although it is a plausible explanation, many questions also arise from this theory.

             

            What about the First Law of Thermodynamics? This law states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. If Hawking, Ellis, and Penrose’s calculations are correct then the Big Bang, or rather the big expansion, was a violation of this law. Does one have to be right and the other wrong? Or does the First Law of Thermodynamics really mean that energy cannot be created nor destroyed after its initial creation?

            What about Newton’s Third Law of Motion? This law basically states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. What was the equal and opposite force associated the expansion force of the singularity? It is likely that a very large force would result from the expansion of a singularity. Therefore, if Newton’s third law applies to the big expansion, there must have also been an equal and opposite force to the expansion.

Space, time, matter, and energy originated with The Big Bang, but where did life originate? At what point did energy and matter combine to form life? A complete theory of the beginning of the universe should have an explanation for one of the most important beginnings. Most importantly, where did the singularity come from? Why did it appear? These final questions seem out of reach for science to answer. To fully understand the beginning of the universe, either a better understanding of The Big Bang Theory or a belief in deity seem necessary. The idea of the universe beginning from a big explosion in space is a misunderstanding of The Big Bang Theory, but it is easier on the brain.  

Reaction Paper Series - Paper 4

Publish or Perish

            It is amazing to think how rapidly science is able to progress. With the opportunity to publish their work, scientists can share their findings with colleagues throughout the world. The information is spread quickly, especially since most prominent journals can be accessed online. Arguably the advent of scientific journals was one of the greatest historical events for scientific communication and advancement. However, ScienceDaily reported on April 22, 2010 that a study suggests that, “The quality of scientific research may be suffering because academics are being increasingly pressured to produce 'publishable' results.”

            According to the article, scientists’ careers are increasingly being evaluated by the number of papers they publish and the number of citations they receive. This creates a need for researchers to publish continuously in order to receive jobs and funding. The problem that arises is that journals are being accused of accepting papers depending on the results the scientists report. Daniele Fanelli, the man who conducted the study, says that, "Scientists face an increasing conflict of interest, torn between the need to be accurate and objective and the need to keep their careers alive.”   

           

             In the study, 1300 papers from all disciplines written by principal authors who were based in the United States were analyzed. Dr Fanelli checked to see if the conclusions in the papers were linked to the number of papers published on average by each scientist. He argues that his findings show that papers from states with higher averages of published papers per scientist were more likely to support the tested hypothesis. His conclusion suggests that in more competitive environments scientists are more likely to make their results look positive (some states had between 95% and 100% positive results). The article doesn’t speculate though whether the papers are being written with a positive spin or if the scientists are tweaking and selecting their data.

            Whether or not this study supports the idea that because of heavy demands to publish the quality of science is being lowered, it does raise some good questions. Is the number of published papers or citations received an accurate evaluation of a scientists’ career?  It seems obvious that quality should be better than quantity. Is there a trend in journals in which positive papers are more likely to be accepted? If so, there is a discouraging chance that something that has served to advance science has lost sight of the important principle that in science an unsupported hypothesis, that can be termed a negative result, can be just as important as a positive result. Hopefully, the current condition of science hasn’t really become publish or perish.             

Reaction Paper Series - Paper 3

A Biologist Needs To Learn Chemistry?

In The Double Helix, James D. Watson speaks of his time in graduate school at Indiana University stating, “It was my hope that the gene might be solved without my learning any chemistry.” The Double Helix portrays other scientists having hesitancies to branch out of their desired field of science as well. In subsequent chapters, however, it is clear that Watson’s hope was quickly dashed in his pursuit to better understand and model DNA.

In Watson’s process of becoming the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, he was required to delve into many more sciences disciplines and procedures than he initially wanted. In order to solve such a complex problem he needed to learn important scientific laws and theories from outside his field (especially chemistry) and to study the work of prominent scientists in various fields. His mosaic of knowledge that he acquired combined with that of Crick led to the identity of the fundamental genetic material.

It is interesting that Watson was able to obtain a PhD. while avoiding “any chemistry or physics courses which looked of even medium difficulty.” It seems now that though the resistance to learn other sciences than the desired field persists among students, they cannot graduate without taking al least some courses in other disciplines. This academic requirement likely stems from the fact that most scientific advancements require at least some interdisciplinary science knowledge. During a course it is not always apparent, but in retrospective it is obvious that every field of science has something to offer every scientist in some way. Each field has laws, theories, procedures, or viewpoints that could be applied to other fields to aid in discovery and understanding of the natural world.

At least in Watson’s case, even a renowned scientist was once a griping science student. That’s something that science students can appreciate. When taking a course (often a difficult one) that may seem pointless for future scientific plans, although it is not enjoyable it is necessary. Clearly, the current science curriculum reflects the need for science students to have at least some understanding of many scientific fields, not just the ones they like.  

Reaction Paper Series - Paper 2

An Educated Guess

            When the term hypothesis is entered into a Google image search many cartoons pop up along with various other images. Among these cartoons is one that, due to what is taught in many science courses, could be humorous even to the average person. Two ancient Greeks (a male and a female) are depicted planning a party. Their party list consists of several ancient Greek names. The female says to the male, “Why don’t we invite Hypothesis? It’s always a good idea to have an educated guest.” The average person gets the joke in the cartoon because it is likely that in at least one science class they have taken, they were taught that a hypothesis is an educated guess. For a scientist, the cartoon could be found comical because of the play on the overused, fallacious definition of such an important scientific term.

            For those who have developed a strong hypothesis, calling it an educated guess would be quite offensive. Would you tell Newton that he had a good educated guess when he started his work on gravity? An educated guess is something that is used while playing a trivia game and a player is unsure of the correct answer. It is something that can be done with little forethought in a very short amount of time. To the contrary, a hypothesis is often complex in its design and takes a good deal of forethought and time.

            McComas argues that the term hypothesis has at least three meanings. He suggests that the word could mean a generalizing hypothesis, which might become a law (like in Newton’s case), an explanatory hypothesis, which might become a theory, or a prediction. Regardless of which type a scientist is striving for, constructing a strong hypothesis is a process that takes development. Although there is no set method to formulating a hypothesis (like there isn’t really a set scientific method), hypotheses do seem to go through phases of development until they mature into something very refined. Here three phases of hypothesis development are proposed: the twinkle in the eye hypothesis, the fetus hypothesis, and the baby hypothesis. 

Twinkle in the eye hypothesis: Just as the phrase “When you were just a twinkle in your father's eye” means before you were born, this phase of the hypothesis occurs well before it is developed into anything a scientist would really consider a hypothesis. Instead, the hypothesis starts off as just an intriguing thought or idea that comes to mind while making an observation, reading about another’s work, or just pondering previous scientific knowledge. In order to further develop, this thought must prompt the scientist to consider correlations or want to look for patterns. In this phase, the hypothesis is a broad concept.   

Fetus Hypothesis: As the scientist considers their twinkle in the eye hypothesis, it often leads them to research the concept. They research to further their understanding of the concept, see what evidence has already been found, and most importantly check to see if someone else has tested the idea. As the scientist researches and considers how they might gather data for the hypothesis, the concept narrows and further develops into an exploratory force.

Baby Hypothesis: If a scientist has gone through the time and effort of really thinking through an idea and researching it, it must be something that they are really interested in. By this time, the hypothesis is born and is now a very specific possible explanation or prediction that can be tested. The hypothesis is the scientist’s baby. They have worked hard on developing it exactly how they want it. They will then strive to provide the best possible experiment, field study, or other method to test the hypothesis, knowing that regardless of whether the hypothesis is supported or not, their efforts have advanced scientific knowledge.  

Reaction Paper Series - Paper 1

McComas’ Myth 7: Science Is Procedural More Than Creative

            The lecture portion of science has always been enjoyable for me. I haven’t had a science course yet in which there wasn’t at least some portion of the subject matter that I found thoroughly fascinating. However, for me science has also been a pleasure-pain experience. While I looked forward to the lectures, I dreaded the mandatory laboratory sessions. The worst part about being a science major was knowing that with most classes I would take, I would also have to take a co requisite laboratory.

            The majority of the laboratory sessions I have had were as McComas described, verification activities. There were never any new scientific discoveries; instead the students were all expected to arrive at the same conclusions based on known scientific laws and theories. Arriving at any other conclusions meant that you did not properly follow the lab procedure and subsequently would receive a grade reduction. Laboratory sessions were often boring and very time consuming (they seemed to get longer and longer with more and more work to be done outside of class with each progressive course). They hardly seemed worth the credit they earned.

            The laboratory classes that did seem worthwhile were those that seemed to supplement the co requisite lecture course by providing another way of understanding the material. Some material can be very difficult to understand without practical application or experimental evidence. For this reason, I see why these verification activities are important enough to be mandatory. As useful as they are, however, they are the main perpetrators of the idea that science is procedural more than creative.

            Until just last semester, I admit that I had the view that science was in fact very procedural with little room for creativity. Ironically, it was during a procedural laboratory that I began to understand the creative element of science. Terri Hildebrand’s Plant Anatomy and Diversity Laboratory sessions mostly consisted of drawing microscope slides and labeling them. This was a necessary way to learn plant anatomy since it involved being able to correctly identify plant structures and cell types, but like other laboratory classes it was very procedural.

            With each of these procedural labs included a section that would really bother McComas, it was called the scientific method section. In this section, the students were required to develop three questions based on observations from the laboratory session, select one of the questions and generate a hypothesis, and finally write a prediction of the expected outcome from an experiment testing the hypothesis. Even though I would put off doing the scientific method sections until the day before the laboratory journal was due, I began to enjoy doing them. As I thought of questions and how I would design experiments to test my hypotheses, I realized that there was in fact a very creative part of science and I really enjoyed that aspect.            

            On top of my newfound enjoyment of the creative possibilities of science, my professor praised me for my curiosity and imaginative experimental designs. Before this experience, I thought of myself as someone who enjoyed learning science but was a bad scientist. Since I didn’t enjoy my previous procedural laboratory sessions, I felt like I couldn’t have been a good scientist. Now, knowing that creativity is an important part of being a good scientist, I have gained an even greater appreciation for science and want to actively take part in better understanding the world around me.  

                  

Reaction Paper Series

Last semester (Spring 2011) I took History and Literature of Biology taught by Professor John Taylor. I thoroughly enjoyed the class. It was a different format than any other biology course I have taken. We had assigned readings to read before class, then we would discuss whatever topics came up. Those who know me know that I really like discussions (and debates). In addition, we wrote ten reaction papers (based on the readings or what was discussed in class), two book reviews, and did two presentations. The class really gave me a greater understanding and appreciation of science. 


My only complaint about the class was that sometimes we got full credit just for writing a reaction paper. That means that sometimes Professor Taylor didn't always read them. I don't like putting time into writing then not having it read. So, I decided that I will post them here in hopes that someone might take the time to read them and make comments. Whether you agree or not, I would like to hear about it. If you don't want to read them, I understand. I take comfort in the fact that that my Mom will read them and be proud of me no matter what. 


Also, I have chosen to go with a color coded system to help those reading decide right from the start if they would care what I have to say or not about a particular post. This series will fall under science and religion. These two topics go hand in hand for me since they both work to explain the world and define truth. Many argue that they should remain separate, which they should in many instances. However, for me, most often when applied together they provide a harmonious explanation of many truths. I have decided that blue will be the science and religion color. Posts like my first post that have to do with what is going on in Juliann's and my life or don't really fit into another category will be white. Other colors will be introduced as new categories are introduced. 

New Powerade Flavor

Introducing the newest Powerade flavor...

 Bloody Urine!

On Thursday (May 12th 2011), this was the color of my urine. I have had some dark urine in my lifetime, but this is the darkest I have ever seen it. I have to admit it was a little disturbing when what looked like cranberry juice began to flow from my urethra, but I am calm and doing alright. For some reason, every time I have kidney pain that is severe enough that I am pressured enough to seek medical attention, when I am giving a sample it is fairly clear. Apparently, my urine gets a little shy when it is time for it to be tested. Then, the doctors treat me like I am faking it or don't have any idea what I am talking about. This time I wanted to be prepared. When I got the next urge, I grabbed a nearby Powerade bottle to collect a sample. I know it can't be tested (it would probably contain some extra electrolytes if it were), but at least when I am explaining what has been going on I will have an example. Not to worry though, I have an appointment at the community clinic for Monday. Plus, I did some internet research (the internet is always accurate, right?). Interestingly, there is actually a website called bloodinpee.com. It is very informative and mentioned that "most of the time hematuria is not caused by a serious issue." "Believe it or not, one of the most common causes is strenuous exercise." I guess lawn mowing is more strenuous than I thought.  

It is very important to note that I didn't post this to make anyone concerned or feel bad for me. I am doing ok. I know that a post on my urine isn't the best way to begin a blog, but I figured it was somewhere to start.