What about 2018?
Over the break, I had a chance to rethink the purpose or revisit if you will the purpose of my blog site. I am spread out over the main objective of 'demystifying science'. That spans from decoding how I look at large numbers written in the popular news (by using dimensional analysis -- example here) to discussing emerging news which impacts the public by threatening science. We are inundated with an enormous amount of news arriving at our 'inbox' online daily. How does one make sense of all of this information?
Good question! I do not have a good answer. Although, I try to highlight a few important issues surrounding the need for greater engagement in science by the public at large. There is a lack of love for science as we grow older. Few people decide to pursue the 'young love' for science into their adult careers. Which is unfortunate in cases where the person is genuinely interested in doing so. Life happens - right? Directions change with regard to each of our career landscapes. I can say that is definitely the case for myself.
With this in mind, that does not mean that our thirst for understanding science needs to diminish with age. Especially, if our careers are not directly tied to science. Each of us is responsible at the ballot box (voting booth) to uphold the responsibility to vote into office elected officials who will provide clean and healthy natural resources to each citizen of the United States. Further, we should be engaged in the inclusion of science into policy making at all levels of government (local, state, and federal) to say the least. After all, we do live in a democracy - right?
I will try to continue to highlight important aspects of science in the news which are relevant to the public. And in doing so, I will try to communicate the importance through demystifying the concepts using 'open access' sources -- so that the reader may double check (or verify) my work. That I my standard at the very least. Each of us should be able to verify developments which affect us (and the world) easily online.
Parameters?
Over the course of my short winter break, I was catching up on some leisurely reading. Specifically, a few issues of both "The New Yorker" and "Harper's" magazines. I enjoy long form (i.e. long reads) journalism to say the least. Although, not everyone has the time to devote the time necessary to digest the long form journalism which is complete. Usually, I read an article spread over a couple of days -- a few minutes on each pass.
Not all of us have the time to devote an entire 1/2 hour to over an hour to read long form journalism. Anyways, while reading an article on horse racing, I discovered that the author did a wonderful job of highlighting a few very important parameters or considerations necessary when judging the sport. These few parameters were important and could really drive home important challenges faced by the horse racing business. Furthermore, highlighting the parameters distilled the article down a little more. This realization coupled with the time spent on a few articles spurred a thought for a new series on this site. The new series will be called "Parameters".
I would describe more in detail the parameters of the horse racing article from 'The New Yorker' -- except that the details will be the subject of the first post in the series. The purpose of the "Parameters" series will be just to highlight a single to a couple (okay, maybe a few) parameters of importance to a given subject -- i.e. horse racing. The hope is to inspire you (the reader) to either think about the parameters more deeply and have a different view point at the very least. Additionally, for those more interested in the parameters mentioned, the blog post will serve as a 'spring board' from which to start a deeper investigation into the subject matter.
Other new series....
You might be wondering why I am starting the new series "Parameters" aside from the obvious reasons stated above. I went over my blog posts for the last couple of years and noticed that most are pretty long. So long that the reader might not return to finish them. This does not mean that I am going to start only writing short pieces. I will start one other series: "Thoughts". Again, the purpose is to give a short thought -- highlight a quote or an excerpt from the media which spurred a thought in my mind which might be further investigated later. Or will be dropped but was important at the time. You might be wondering why I am doing this?
The reason is to give you more of an insight into my thoughts as a scientist. People stand at a distance and seem abrasive when they hear that I am a 'chemist.' The most frequent response is "...I failed chemistry". Well, being a scientist is not just about the job that we do. We are all scientists as children. Some of us continue onto pursue science into our adult careers. By writing down my thoughts or calling attention to items of interest to me, hopefully, the point will be driven home that scientists are human too.
I think that I have stated enough goals for the new year. Furthermore, I have exhausted your eyes and attention on this matter. I hope that the new year is productive and fun for each of you. Furthermore, I hope that you enjoy my content. As usual, if you have any suggestions, feel free to list them below in the comment section.
Until next time, have a great day!
Here is a link to an "Index of Blog Posts" with all of my past blog posts:
Where Do I Find That Post On "Mike Thinks" Blog Site? An Index of Blog Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment