my comments on being pro-science

edit: I came in this morning with the intent of taking this post off since it's so awfully fluffy, but Mare had already commented on it so I'm leaving it. Take this as it is - written after a few glasses of wine and after seeing a lovely rainbow.

In hindsight, I suppose it is really no surprise that I ended up as a scientist.

There is one incident from second grade that I clearly remember, and it was certainly suggestive of the fact that I'd end up where I am now. We were learning multiplication and our teacher, Mrs. England, was using flash cards to drill the class. She was sitting in front of the class on her wooden stool and was rapidly flipping through the fact cards, her thin lips pressed into the persistent grimace that was her teacher face. I was not a happy girl. You see, Mrs. England never explained the concept of multiplication to us. We had been asked to simply memorize the facts and the class was collectively reciting them back to her. I felt like a fish out of water. While the rest of the class was dutifully, if more than an little monotonously chanting multiplication facts in unison, I was determined to figure out HOW this new math was working. Unfortunately she and the rest of the class were zipping through the rote memorization too quickly for me to work it out. I was so frustrated that I started to cry. When Mrs. England asked me what was wrong, I told her I was sick, so I was sent down to the nurse's office. I can acutely remember the combined medicinal and musty smell of that primary school's nurse's room as I lay there on the little white cot waiting for my mom to come pick me up. The sick feeling in my stomach was a combination of frustration at not being able to figure out why multiplication worked like it did, and the abject worry about what my mom would say to me when she realized I was faking it. In fact, my mom did immediately know that I wasn't sick. Her response was to give me a big hug and take me home.

At that point in my life, I was only just beginning to realize that beneath every action, there lay a series of logical steps. Cracking the code of logic beneath something magical like why the stars twinkled or why the sunsets are so beautiful only heightens the sense of awe for me. It is what makes me gaze at a rainbow (I saw a 4/5 full one tonight!) and is what makes me hold my breath in reverence at the simple movement of the wind.
I am not an excellent scientist. I'm merely an adequate one, but I do know enough to understand that explanations - logical explanations - exist if you know where to look for them.

I also understand that there is an amazing and wonderful variety of kinds of people in this world. There are many who are not as fascinated by science and logical explanations as I am. Many are quite willing to accept life as it is without feeling the need to search for the "why." And that's fine - that's great. No problem. Variety is the spice of life and all that.

However, I do add the caution that the fact that one does not feel the need to search out and understand the science behind our world does not eliminate the fact that it is there. With a little time and experience, most children figure out that even if they close their eyes, others can still see them. You see, science is not a religion. It is not close to anything remotely resembling a religion. It is not even mysterious. Science is the result of the collective knowledge that is the result of thousands of years of billions of thinking humans. It didn't come about by accident.

There are a couple of things that I've read about Sarah Palin's take on science that are, ehm, confusing.

1) She believes that both evolution and creationism should be taught in the classroom.
One of these is backed by the previously described years of collective knowledge and supported by factual scientific evidence and theory. The other is written in the Bible. One should be presented in the academic environment from which it was born . The other should be presented in the religious environment from which it was born. I do not understand the confusion here. If you do not believe that scientific fact is compelling enough, why on earth would you insist that your religious beliefs be presented as, um... scientific fact? Pick one or the other, and keep it in its respective home. Or, like most of the country, allow for the fact that both can co-exist, but keep each in its respective home (Personally, I do not subscribe to this latter suggestion but realize that the majority of people do.)

2) Governor Palin also seems confused on the issue of climate change.
From the Associated Press:

She has told the Internet news site Newsmax, "A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location.... I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made."

In an interview with a Fairbanks newspaper within the last year, Palin said: "I'm not an Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our climate on human activity."

But in a recent interview with Charles Gibson, she said:

Show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change. I have not said that," said Palin to Gibson.

and

I believe that man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change.

While vague, and only slightly less worrisome from the persepective of a scientist, these last statements seem awfully out of line with her earlier stance. Politics, anyone?

In case you are wondering, I did finally figure out that multiplication was only a fancy way of doing addition. I honestly don't remember if Mrs. England taught me this (doubtful) or if my parents did, or if I just figured it out on my own at last. In any case, I'm glad I did, because I use it an awful lot these days.