Page 1: read topic: Pick a chapter from A Century of Nature: Twenty-One Discoveries that Changed Science and the World First, read the actual scientific article at the end of the chapter, and then read the narrative written by another writer(s) at the beginning. How did the narrative helped you to understand the scientific article? How do you think it could be improved?
Then 2 peers responses to topic: was truly interested or not. The truth is that based on the content and the level of mathematical principle applied into the article, it is very difficult to follow and especially understand the overall direction of the article.
After completing the article and switching to the narrative, it is immediately apparent that it is written with the interest of the reader in mind. The author (Walker) does a wonderful job at ensuring the reader knows the elements of the research as well as the major discovery that is being presented. Throughout the narrative Walker uses various figures and explanations to represent the research performed and ensure it`s thoroughly explained.
I did feel that Walker tended to use opinions, especially on his beliefs and stance on the topic. This information was irrelevant to the research and could have been omitted.
peer 2: Other than the two explanations given by Schmidt for what he had observed at the end of his article, I had no idea what I was reading. I couldn’t even begin to make since out of all the scientific jargon along with the different units of measurement. Conservatively, I was probably able to make sense out of about every fifth or sixth sentence in the article. I had no idea what he was talking about when he mentioned red-shift, but I’m pretty sure that was the most important aspect of the information he was providing.
Although still a lot to take in, Longair did a good job of explaining the concept of something being “redshifted.” The analogy of stretching a rubber sheet to explain how the galaxies are moving away from each other was particularly helpful in giving me a mental image to help me comprehend what he was talking about. I was finally able to understand what red-shift meant when he compared it to the lowering of the frequency of a receding siren. Redshifting is when a galaxy’s light frequency is lowered by its movement. I think if Longair would have used more analogies and metaphors like he did in Figure 9.1 I would have gained a better grasp of the material.
What you write: tell what you liked about what each writer had to say. If you have any questions or experiences with what they said then tell. Use 1/2 page per peer. keep separate.
Page 2: read topic: Which of the science popularizations would you defend as most effective in communicating science?
Then my response: In this scenario, the scientific journal by Dart is the most effective means of communicating science among scientists. The article contains vital information that is useful in aiding research initiatives and for practical purposes. For example, Dart explains the facial features of his discovery, the bone formation, the state it was during discovery and how to treat it in order to remain with a clean specimen. This information is vital for a newbie in the field of paleontology especially in practical matters. Additionally, the article provides procedures for identifying and differentiating an ape’s skull from a human being’s by comparing the teeth, the cranium, the jaws, and brain size. In general, Darts article is informative for a scientific purpose.
Contrary to that, Brain’s narrative employs a first person approach with an informal type of information presentation style. The article contains historical, personal encounters and work experiencing, while at the same time adhering to the aim of delivering scientific information. I regard Brain’s narrative as a better scientific popularization means as compared to Dart’s works, since it is simple to read and comprehend, and appeals to a wider audience. As a scientific popularization tool aiming to pass around scientific information and draw interest from scientific discoveries, Brain’s works seems more effective to a wider audience. Additionally, Brain’s Raymond Dart and our African origins provide a reader with an opportunity to skim through the article and get a feel of the thought of the writer. This is more difficult with Dart’s article. Generally, Brain’s works has a wider audience and presents information in a simpler and common manner that makes it a better scientific popularization method.
Brain’s narrative provides a simpler way of understanding Dart’s scientific article. However, Brain’s works is better at scientific popularization as it appeals to a wider audience.
Then 2 peers responses:
peer 1: I would have to say that annotated articles are the most effective in communicating science. Personally, while doing the M6D1 discussion assignment on Longair`s narrative about Schmidt`s article on quasars, I was able to get a better understanding of what Schmidt was talking about from Longair`s use of metaphor and analogies to describe redshifting and how the universe is isotropic. Although I was still left with some confusion from the amount of technical information still prevalent in the Longair`s narrative, I was at least able to have a general idea of the concepts presented by Schmidt after reading over the article a second time after having read the narrative. I believe that if Longair had limited his use of jargon a little bit more as Gould did in his ethnography the material would have been easier to understand. However, his explanations of concepts and terms in the figures provided helped a great deal with making sense of the original article. I think the greatest advantage of the annotated narrative is in allowing the reader to gain the background information relevant to the topic being discussed in the article so that a not-so-scientifically-inclined individual, like me, can better disseminate the information being conveyed by the article’s author.
Of the science popularizations studied I would defend the Science Ethnography Popularization when compared to Annotated Article and Armchair Scientist Popularizations. The annotated article although an excellent popularization may still be intimidating since it contains the original research article with the unadulterated scientific language and terminology. In contrast the armchair scientist popularization presents the most generalized information but has the tendency to introduce a scientific research from a biased perspective; and since there is little mention of the original research article or articles, a factual evaluation from the reader’s perspective is both improbable and impractical.
The science ethnography popularization I believe is the ideal selection for the average reader. It still is not as complex as the scientific research article when relevant this popularization will present direct quotation and facts from the research when relevant and in a limited format that is intended not to be off-putting to the casual reader. Thus, the popularization carries an adequate amount of descriptive and narrative information. In addition, the ethnography popularization accounts for the characteristics of the people that conduct the research as well as the influence that their culture has over their work. Bringing this element into an article brings the pathos into the scientific research resulting in humanizing the work and increasing its appeal.
what you write: tell what you liked, agreed with, keeping in mind of my response to topic;
Page 3: Based upon what you may know or have observed about weight loss practices in the United States, do you think the Chi Kung approach would work here? Why?
page 4: With this Discussion Board Exercise, you will have the opportunity to read and review a role playing scenario based on stem cell research. First, read the material and then answer the questions. (in attachments) Second, pick one of these biography cards (in attachments named Stem cell scientist). These are the people who are on the Research Ethics Committee and who must decide if this proposal is allowed to proceed. Then, pick one of these people who are in the audience:(A scientist working on Adult Stem Cells). WRITE: First, write about your two biography cards and how you would feel about participating in such an activity. Do you think that such a role playing scenario would be effective? How do you think that Americans would respond to it? Why?
Responses and Discussions Student`s Name Institutional Affiliation Responses and Discussions Response to Peer One I agree with the peer on the fact that the author of the article has used advanced level of mathematical principles which are not easily understood. This makes the reader skip some sections without proper comprehension and affects the understanding of the next chapters. I like how Walker simplifies the language that was used in the article. The mathematical principles are broken down into simple English that is easily understood. I took a very short time to capture the whole concept of the article when reading from the narrative unlike when I was reading the actual article. What I found interesting is the way Walker interprets the article and brings in own ideas and responses to the concepts. It is making the narrative appear more life, and one can see how people react to scientific concepts from their point of vie