My body is broken.
My tender skin whines at a light touch; my chapped lips crack painfully with a smile.
With each inhale my nose seems to crinkle in anticipation of the next bleed.
My tongue will not taste food, but wraps around the texture of morsels reminiscent of sand and twigs
Wounds of five weeks ago are arrested in time, red and refusing to further heal
My broken body refuses to take nourishment from food, hydration from water. It all passes quickly through.
When I want to move, my body is leaden and weary.
When I want to rest my body groans with aches or fidgets and races.
My body will not grow hair or healing cells, or taste buds.
My body replicates invasive unwanted tumor cells.
My body is broken, but my soul is strong.
My soul rejoices in the sunlight and the changing color of leaves.
My soul rests peacefully in the comfort of being surrounded by love.
My soul hums and sings and dances at the thoughts that can be thought, the ways we can understand.
My soul reaches out an aching heart to those hurting and afraid, and knows that it is strong enough to hold them and comfort them.
My soul is grateful for the sacrifices of those who allowed me education, sustenance, and comfort.
My soul adores the Lord who smiles down on me.
My body is a temple.
I will forgive my broken body so long as it fulfills it's most important task: housing and protecting my soul.
I will cleanse and nourish my body, though it rejects this supply.
I will gently stretch and strengthen the crying muscles.
I will rest the tattered limbs which refuse to heal themselves.
I will care for the brokenness knowing that my soul my soul my soul is safe and strong.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Teaching opposing "scientific" views
The introduction was easier to write than the second post. I have so many ideas floating around that I need to work out, I am not sure which to address first.
I have heard of legislation that science teachers treat controversial topics as just that... controversial, permitting students to thoughtfully consider multiple perspectives on an issue and draw their own conclusions. Now, as a scientist, the idea of testing a theory always has its appeal for me. I have always felt that institutions that forbid thoughtful examination or questioning of the institutions are inherently weak. The idea that a government should prohibit it citizens to question the actions or motives of the governing individuals is appalling to me, both as a scientist and as an american. I extend this to religion when learning of historical pushes by various churches to micromanage belief systems of the people. So part of me looks at this legislation and thinks, well, duh.
Yet part of me panics a little inside. Yes, that's the control freak throwing a fit in there. Why? Because there are some issues that are so inflammatory, I'm not sure I trust many people to provide honest evidence that is not dressed up and loaded to drive home a desired point. Yes, that's right, I don't trust teachers (or anyone really) to be unbiased.
Let's take the issue of climate change as an example. Now, there are many different kinds of evidence that are appropriate in different settings. Different kinds of evidence may carry different weight. For example, "My kindergartener believes in global warming" is generally not considered as persuasive an argument as "We've had the hottest few summers on record in the past decade!" However, neither is really an appropriate scientific argument. Al Gore put together a movie on the topic which was designed to educate and persuade. And perhaps it did persuade many people. But most of the evidence he provided was selected because it appeals to emotion, has a visual impact, or can easily be put into sound bits to be passed along.
Showing a picture of a mountain or glacier from 50 years ago and last summer shouldn't persuade any scientist. It should make that scientist start asking critical questions: Were these photos taken at the same time of year? Was the precipitation similar for each year? Was the glacier/mountain in a similar state in the years surrounding this photo such that this is "typical" of its era? There are so many variables! Circumstantial evidence may at times persuade a jury, but scientists should be persuaded by fair tests which are reviewed, repeatable, and reliable. A photograph does not fit the bill.
I believe it is a good exercise to help our youngsters to sort through the kinds of arguments presented to them so they can evaluate which are trustworthy. Help the students understand that appeals to our emotions, celebrity endorsements, and even hand-waving arguments should be viewed with skepticism. The problem is that no one wants to really look at scientific evidence, least of all school children (followed closely by elementary teachers I imagine!) There is a protocol in scientific research that a scientist should provide detailed descriptions of experiments identifying every possible variable. Chemists will often include manufacturers of chemicals and model numbers of equipment. There are statistical tests of validity, which means that valid tests may be run dozens, hundreds, or thousands of times. Then all of this detail must be combed through by other scientists (reviewers) whose job is to pick apart any claim with potential weakness. This all before the information is published to the community of scientists who further analyze, comment, compare, and yes repeat the same tests. So the source is important. It is hard for a school child to really appreciate that "I read it in the Newspaper" doesn't carry anywhere NEAR the same weight as "I read it in a highly cited article from a peer reviewed journal ."
Okay, so the point is that it is way more interesting and fun to teach about global warming using anecdotal evidence and pictures than using data from scientific journals. And yes, you can extract the data, dress it up and point out the source. But if we need to show the conflicting views on the topic, some views just don't have much beyond anecdotal evidence. Some views have published data, but not from peer reviewed journals. Most adults couldn't easily recognize the difference between a well respected and thoroughly reviewed scientific journal and a pseudo-scientific journal funded and published by a politically motivated group writing solely to persuade. At best a teacher is put in the position of presenting evidence as equally valid which scientifically speaking is not. In the hands of the stubbornly contrary teacher, the scientific evidence becomes the boring convoluted mess that is apt to be overlooked amongst the more persuasive brightly colored yet inherently weaker evidence.
The truth of the matter as I understand it is that:
The atmosphere is a complicated system and we cannot predict with great accuracy how our influence on it will manifest itself in the coming months, let alone the coming decades, with great accuracy.
The fact that we cannot know something with certainty is not a good reason to ignore possibility, or likelihood, that a devastating impact is being or has already been made.
The overwhelming majority (greater than 99%) of people who have spent the better part of their adult lives in thoughtful study of the atmosphere and climate either through graduate work or true scientific research, honestly believe that the Earth's atmosphere can be and has been altered by the exponential growth of carbon emissions (including carbon dioxide and methane) caused in part by the growth in human population and energy use.
We can talk about other influences (volcanos and forest fires produce CO2) and the reliability of temperature measurements (most of the thermometers in the world are in the northern hemisphere and near cities which are inherently warmer) and the consequences of warming temperatures (more hurricanes or droughts? Rising oceans from melting glaciers? Hotter temperatures or sudden freezing from changing ocean currents?), but to present evidence contrary to the research of the people who have spent their lives studying this in equal weight is irresponsible, confusing, and may end up doing more harm than good in the wrong hands.
I taught in the public school system. I hated having people (department heads, principals, the district, the state test, etc) micromanage the way I taught. It was insulting that I could not be trusted at times to provide quality content. As strongly as I may feel about this content being mis-delivered, I also feel quite strongly that we need to trust our teachers to do what they have been asked to do and provide them with the tools to do it.
I have heard of legislation that science teachers treat controversial topics as just that... controversial, permitting students to thoughtfully consider multiple perspectives on an issue and draw their own conclusions. Now, as a scientist, the idea of testing a theory always has its appeal for me. I have always felt that institutions that forbid thoughtful examination or questioning of the institutions are inherently weak. The idea that a government should prohibit it citizens to question the actions or motives of the governing individuals is appalling to me, both as a scientist and as an american. I extend this to religion when learning of historical pushes by various churches to micromanage belief systems of the people. So part of me looks at this legislation and thinks, well, duh.
Yet part of me panics a little inside. Yes, that's the control freak throwing a fit in there. Why? Because there are some issues that are so inflammatory, I'm not sure I trust many people to provide honest evidence that is not dressed up and loaded to drive home a desired point. Yes, that's right, I don't trust teachers (or anyone really) to be unbiased.
Let's take the issue of climate change as an example. Now, there are many different kinds of evidence that are appropriate in different settings. Different kinds of evidence may carry different weight. For example, "My kindergartener believes in global warming" is generally not considered as persuasive an argument as "We've had the hottest few summers on record in the past decade!" However, neither is really an appropriate scientific argument. Al Gore put together a movie on the topic which was designed to educate and persuade. And perhaps it did persuade many people. But most of the evidence he provided was selected because it appeals to emotion, has a visual impact, or can easily be put into sound bits to be passed along.
Showing a picture of a mountain or glacier from 50 years ago and last summer shouldn't persuade any scientist. It should make that scientist start asking critical questions: Were these photos taken at the same time of year? Was the precipitation similar for each year? Was the glacier/mountain in a similar state in the years surrounding this photo such that this is "typical" of its era? There are so many variables! Circumstantial evidence may at times persuade a jury, but scientists should be persuaded by fair tests which are reviewed, repeatable, and reliable. A photograph does not fit the bill.
I believe it is a good exercise to help our youngsters to sort through the kinds of arguments presented to them so they can evaluate which are trustworthy. Help the students understand that appeals to our emotions, celebrity endorsements, and even hand-waving arguments should be viewed with skepticism. The problem is that no one wants to really look at scientific evidence, least of all school children (followed closely by elementary teachers I imagine!) There is a protocol in scientific research that a scientist should provide detailed descriptions of experiments identifying every possible variable. Chemists will often include manufacturers of chemicals and model numbers of equipment. There are statistical tests of validity, which means that valid tests may be run dozens, hundreds, or thousands of times. Then all of this detail must be combed through by other scientists (reviewers) whose job is to pick apart any claim with potential weakness. This all before the information is published to the community of scientists who further analyze, comment, compare, and yes repeat the same tests. So the source is important. It is hard for a school child to really appreciate that "I read it in the Newspaper" doesn't carry anywhere NEAR the same weight as "I read it in a highly cited article from a peer reviewed journal ."
Okay, so the point is that it is way more interesting and fun to teach about global warming using anecdotal evidence and pictures than using data from scientific journals. And yes, you can extract the data, dress it up and point out the source. But if we need to show the conflicting views on the topic, some views just don't have much beyond anecdotal evidence. Some views have published data, but not from peer reviewed journals. Most adults couldn't easily recognize the difference between a well respected and thoroughly reviewed scientific journal and a pseudo-scientific journal funded and published by a politically motivated group writing solely to persuade. At best a teacher is put in the position of presenting evidence as equally valid which scientifically speaking is not. In the hands of the stubbornly contrary teacher, the scientific evidence becomes the boring convoluted mess that is apt to be overlooked amongst the more persuasive brightly colored yet inherently weaker evidence.
The truth of the matter as I understand it is that:
The atmosphere is a complicated system and we cannot predict with great accuracy how our influence on it will manifest itself in the coming months, let alone the coming decades, with great accuracy.
The fact that we cannot know something with certainty is not a good reason to ignore possibility, or likelihood, that a devastating impact is being or has already been made.
The overwhelming majority (greater than 99%) of people who have spent the better part of their adult lives in thoughtful study of the atmosphere and climate either through graduate work or true scientific research, honestly believe that the Earth's atmosphere can be and has been altered by the exponential growth of carbon emissions (including carbon dioxide and methane) caused in part by the growth in human population and energy use.
We can talk about other influences (volcanos and forest fires produce CO2) and the reliability of temperature measurements (most of the thermometers in the world are in the northern hemisphere and near cities which are inherently warmer) and the consequences of warming temperatures (more hurricanes or droughts? Rising oceans from melting glaciers? Hotter temperatures or sudden freezing from changing ocean currents?), but to present evidence contrary to the research of the people who have spent their lives studying this in equal weight is irresponsible, confusing, and may end up doing more harm than good in the wrong hands.
I taught in the public school system. I hated having people (department heads, principals, the district, the state test, etc) micromanage the way I taught. It was insulting that I could not be trusted at times to provide quality content. As strongly as I may feel about this content being mis-delivered, I also feel quite strongly that we need to trust our teachers to do what they have been asked to do and provide them with the tools to do it.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Introduction
So this is my initial post. I am mostly writing for me. As an introvert, I need a quiet place to sort out my thoughts. For those of you joining me from cyberspace, welcome to my quiet place! These moments are rare as any working parent will tell you. But I need this time, this space to sort out my understanding, beliefs, and ideas.
To understand where I am coming from I will provide a little background. I have found that I tend to forget that others may have different perceptions of the way the world works. When I remember, I become hyper-aware of them forgetting we are more alike than different.
I'll start with a pet peeve. I am Christian. I hate it when people throw that word around as if it means the same thing to everyone, as in, "I can't do that; I'm a Christian." or "How can you call yourself a Christian if you feel that way?" I come from the liturgical side of Christianity and we have a creed, or a written statement of faith. I always thought that all Christians subscribed to the Apostle's or Nicean Creed. I found out a few years ago that many of the more evangelical or pentecostal faiths do not adopt the creeds because (as I understand it) the adherents don't what others dictating what they believe. [That's not to say they wouldn't agree with the creeds, they just don't want others putting words in their mouths].
So what kind of Christian am I? Like most liturgical Christians, my faith is expressed through ritual (church attendance, standard prayers and hymns), traditions, and good works. Personally, I find service (to church, community, individuals, whatever) to be an important expression of my faith. Evangelism is not remotely part of my religious background. I always fear that being too "churchy" will drive people away from God rather than to him.
I am also a scientist. Another "personality" that gets stereotyped. I have never met a scientist that could be one of the characters on "the Big Bang Theory." (though most that I know love the show). Most are fairly normal looking. Some are geeky, some are beautiful. They all know how to comb their hair. Different personalities will be attracted to different fields, and to different types of employment (teaching, research, consulting, etc.). I don't have enough patience for research alone. I need feedback. I am also not aggressive or ambitious, so I'll leave the big research jobs to those who enjoy that. I love working with people and helping them to understand and enjoy science, so teaching is a perfect fit. But as I said, I need my quiet time, so middle school and high school teaching did not work out for me. Now I teach at a college, which I LOVE!
So 6 short years ago, after picking up my diploma at a research university I left a northern state to bring my family to a small Baptist liberal arts school in a southern state. I feel I am living on the edges of multiple worlds. I have always worried that my scientific coworkers secretly think I can't be a truly objective scientist because I am Christian. (Some have hinted at this). For me, it has never been an issue. (More on that in later posts). So now I am at a school where my science skills are appreciated and my faith is encouraged. But the culture of faith here is so different from what I am used to. It is so public, in your face. So evangelical! Do the people here think I am not Christian enough because I am more private with my faith? Also, there are many assumptions about what you must believe if you are Christian (both from Christians and Scientists). I am still sorting out "pervasive ideas" from "vocal minority opinions". I wonder what ideas about faith and science my students have, and how those ideas color their understanding and affect their beliefs about what I teach in class. Some professors chat easily with students coming to understand them. This has never been easy for me, so my quest to understand them is ongoing.
So why corundum? It is the juxtaposition of two unlike things. Corundum is a mineral composed primarily of aluminum and oxygen, but has properties very different from either. It is white, hard, brittle, and not at all shiny. I use it the lab because it is a ceramic material that can be heated to very high temperatures... it is useful. It is a crystalline material made from a regular repeating pattern... it is orderly. Yet it can be treated with (doped with) other elements; very small amounts of impurities can make white alumina (the pure form) change to bright red rubies or colored sapphires... it is beautiful. That is how my world feels... orderly, complicated, useful, unpredictable, colorful, blended and beautiful.
To understand where I am coming from I will provide a little background. I have found that I tend to forget that others may have different perceptions of the way the world works. When I remember, I become hyper-aware of them forgetting we are more alike than different.
I'll start with a pet peeve. I am Christian. I hate it when people throw that word around as if it means the same thing to everyone, as in, "I can't do that; I'm a Christian." or "How can you call yourself a Christian if you feel that way?" I come from the liturgical side of Christianity and we have a creed, or a written statement of faith. I always thought that all Christians subscribed to the Apostle's or Nicean Creed. I found out a few years ago that many of the more evangelical or pentecostal faiths do not adopt the creeds because (as I understand it) the adherents don't what others dictating what they believe. [That's not to say they wouldn't agree with the creeds, they just don't want others putting words in their mouths].
So what kind of Christian am I? Like most liturgical Christians, my faith is expressed through ritual (church attendance, standard prayers and hymns), traditions, and good works. Personally, I find service (to church, community, individuals, whatever) to be an important expression of my faith. Evangelism is not remotely part of my religious background. I always fear that being too "churchy" will drive people away from God rather than to him.
I am also a scientist. Another "personality" that gets stereotyped. I have never met a scientist that could be one of the characters on "the Big Bang Theory." (though most that I know love the show). Most are fairly normal looking. Some are geeky, some are beautiful. They all know how to comb their hair. Different personalities will be attracted to different fields, and to different types of employment (teaching, research, consulting, etc.). I don't have enough patience for research alone. I need feedback. I am also not aggressive or ambitious, so I'll leave the big research jobs to those who enjoy that. I love working with people and helping them to understand and enjoy science, so teaching is a perfect fit. But as I said, I need my quiet time, so middle school and high school teaching did not work out for me. Now I teach at a college, which I LOVE!
So 6 short years ago, after picking up my diploma at a research university I left a northern state to bring my family to a small Baptist liberal arts school in a southern state. I feel I am living on the edges of multiple worlds. I have always worried that my scientific coworkers secretly think I can't be a truly objective scientist because I am Christian. (Some have hinted at this). For me, it has never been an issue. (More on that in later posts). So now I am at a school where my science skills are appreciated and my faith is encouraged. But the culture of faith here is so different from what I am used to. It is so public, in your face. So evangelical! Do the people here think I am not Christian enough because I am more private with my faith? Also, there are many assumptions about what you must believe if you are Christian (both from Christians and Scientists). I am still sorting out "pervasive ideas" from "vocal minority opinions". I wonder what ideas about faith and science my students have, and how those ideas color their understanding and affect their beliefs about what I teach in class. Some professors chat easily with students coming to understand them. This has never been easy for me, so my quest to understand them is ongoing.
So why corundum? It is the juxtaposition of two unlike things. Corundum is a mineral composed primarily of aluminum and oxygen, but has properties very different from either. It is white, hard, brittle, and not at all shiny. I use it the lab because it is a ceramic material that can be heated to very high temperatures... it is useful. It is a crystalline material made from a regular repeating pattern... it is orderly. Yet it can be treated with (doped with) other elements; very small amounts of impurities can make white alumina (the pure form) change to bright red rubies or colored sapphires... it is beautiful. That is how my world feels... orderly, complicated, useful, unpredictable, colorful, blended and beautiful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)