Auf ein Miniaturbild klicken, um zu Google Books zu gelangen.
Lädt ... Space at the Speed of Light: The History of 14 Billion Years for People Short on Timevon Becky Smethurst
Keine Lädt ...
Melde dich bei LibraryThing an um herauszufinden, ob du dieses Buch mögen würdest. Keine aktuelle Diskussion zu diesem Buch. I think even very complex ideas can be communicated at some level to most adults. It’s just that most scientists lack the particular and valuable ability to do so without dumbing down. I recall a lecturer at a public event at Gulbenkian - so a pretty savvy public audience - who put up Maxwell's equations on Powerpoint and said, these are beautiful and fundamental but too complicated to explain so I'll move on. Shame on him. I think the problem is not scientists telling people what to do. I think the most common issue is that the press take a statement out of context from a research paper, then hype it up and misrepresent what the scientist or research said, so that it makes a more fun story. And then it looks like scientists are telling you to stop eating apples, drink more red wine, or whatever, when they never even said that. This is not helped by the fact that most mainstream media do not seem to have presenters with a science background. In Portugal, for example “5 Minutos com um cientista” (5 Minutes with a Scientist”) - I've often heard the presenters asking 'that's nice, but what the point of the research?' They never seem to ask what the point is of artists, sports people, etc. And another thing... Using the term 'scientist' to cover the while of science. They should be more specific, and refer to biologists, physicists, etc. There are problems with science communication, but what Smethurst did is right; the problem is that she didn't go far enough. For example, showing a graph is not enough; you have ask if that person understands the graph, and then whether they accept the data as being true. This sets a baseline for conversation. If you want to reach out to how people feel, that's great, good and necessary, but it has to be built on a foundation, and that foundation (in the case of climate change for example) is establishing the understanding and acceptance (or not), of the data. My suggestion: STEP 1 - This is the graph. STEP 2 - Do you understand it? Can you tell me what it is showing? (Repeat as long as necessary, do not go onto step 3 before step 2 is complete, otherwise there will be no context to the conversation) [As an aside it's often a good idea to remind the person you are speaking with that understanding something is not the same thing as agreeing with something, and you are not trying to trap them] STEP 3 - Do you accept the data as being true, if not why not? The onus is then on them to prove that NASA or whoever is wrong. Some people won't get past this point, for those that do... STEP 4 - DO NOT jump up and down "IN YOUR FACE, DENIER!!!" STEP 5 - This is the winning of hearts and minds space, be gentle and understanding of the change in worldview that might be occurring. Help them to not feel bad about not understanding this issue. Talk about vested interests, power and Exxon wanting to continue to sell oil. It's tribalism I know, but a tribe which anyone with an open and enquiring mind can join. Zeige 2 von 2 keine Rezensionen | Rezension hinzufügen
"Oxford University astrophysicist and popular YouTube personality Dr. Becky Smethurst presents everything you need to know about the universe in ten accessible and engagingly illustrated lessons. In Space at the Speed of Light: The History of 14 Billion Years for People Short on Time, she guides you through fundamental questions, both answered and unanswered, posed by space scientists. Why does gravity matter? How do we know the big bang happened? What is dark matter? Do aliens exist? Why is the sky dark at night? If you have ever looked up at night and wondered how it all works, you will find answers--and many more questions--in this pocket-sized tour of the universe!"-- Keine Bibliotheksbeschreibungen gefunden. |
Aktuelle DiskussionenKeine
Google Books — Lädt ... GenresMelvil Decimal System (DDC)523.1Natural sciences and mathematics Astronomy Astronomical objects and astrophysics UniverseKlassifikation der Library of Congress [LCC] (USA)BewertungDurchschnitt:
Bist das du?Werde ein LibraryThing-Autor. |
Two fascinating and sobering facts I learned from this book:
1.) The nearest planet possible of sustaining life (or producing life) is 640 light years away. So, we need to figure out how to make Mars work.
2.) There's at least 100 billion galaxies in the universe. It's likely there are more. And there is a hundred sextillion stars in the universe (estimating). Then, that means, there are, at least, a hundred thousand planets out there in the vastness of space that might have the right conditions to develop intelligent life. The chances are high, that we are not alone in the universe.
Whoa!
Pick up this book. It has math in it. But trust me, Dr. Smethurst makes it easy to understand. ( )