Chemisty, Reality, Indiana

08 December 2011

Today I visited Owen’s first grade class. As I mentioned earlier, I gave his teacher a brochure about having chemistry students from the U of M come to elementary school classes to give a demonstration and, well, today was the presentation.

I arrived at 1:00 and sat in the back in between Owen and a classmate. The presentation lasted exactly an hour, with the grad student spending most of her time demonstrating melting, boiling, and sublimation. She quick-froze flowers using liquid nitrogen, and walked around with a sample of dry ice. Before explaining the reasons and properties for the things she was demonstrating, she asked the students what their ideas were, and it was very interesting to hear the way off base and the spot-on explanations the various six and seven year-olds offered.

The coolest (pun intended) demonstration was when the grad student heated up some pop cans, and then quickly flipped them over into an ice bath. The cans crushed under the rapid pressure change. The kids were amazed and asked to see it again. Fortunately, she had the wherewithal to bring spare cans.

09 December 2011

I have now finished reading Richard Dawkins’ The Magic of Reality. I gotta say, it’s my favorite Dawkins book (though I’ve only read three or four of his books total).

His decision to call the bible stories ‘myths’ certainly did not bother me. He refers to other contemporary beliefs as myths as well, so it’s not as if he’s singling out Christian or Jewish myths for special ridicule. Dawkins begins most chapters with the retelling of myths from around the world. Some are funny, most are bizarre. In some cases, Dawkins actively wonders why specific details were included in a myth (e.g., “Why did the goddess cry for 22 years?”). I wish Dawkins would have stressed more that, at the time they originated, these myths were sincere attempts to explain the world. The book obliquely states this, I guess, but I would’ve preferred a more explicit explanation.

Nearly every page has illustrations by Dave McKean. I’d never heard of him before, but his work in the book is phenomenal; Owen sure liked looking at the pictures. I was a little disappointed to see the same old boring periodic table and the map of the world with Britain at the center…but other than those two lame cliches, McKean’s drawings were a lot of fun to gaze upon.

Speaking of Britain, Dawkins’ English might confuse some American kids. For one thing, he talks about treacle – a word I don’t believe I have ever heard said aloud. In fact, I’m not even sure how to pronounce it; I assume it rhymes with ‘fecal’…? Regardless, I doubt any American kids under 10 years old will have any idea what treacle is. I wish Dawkins would have used honey or syrup or some other viscous liquid to convey his point instead.

Worse, he twice talks about a football. The first time he talked about a football, I pictured this:

…and that was just fine, since Dawkins was simply trying to convey the difference in size between an atom’s nucleus and its electrons’ orbit (he compares it to a football and a stadium).

But later, he discusses how gravity pulls everything into the shape of a football. And that’s when I realized I had been picturing the ‘wrong’ football. Dawkins, of course, meant this:

…which is quite a different shape than the kind of football that the Minnesota Vikings catch one or twice a season. Again, too bad. I wish he would have chosen to use a baseball, basketball, volleyball, or something more universal for young English-speakers.

All in all, though, a tremendous book. I want to discuss it in an upcoming episode of Atheists Talk. So, if you’ve read it, and you got kids, let me know. We can critique it on stage together.

Saturday, 10 December 2011

Today, while at the gift-wrapping event, someone mentioned a fascinating gripe they have with the classic film Raiders of the Lost Ark. He said an aspect of this film that always bothered him was that even if Indiana Jones did nothing at all…the outcome would have been the same.

SPOILER ALERT!

In a way, this is true. Despite Indy’s efforts, the Nazis still capture the Ark. The still ferry it to a secret locale. The power of the Ark is what ultimately kills them. Indy, meanwhile, is cowering in the background with his hands tied and his eyes closed. If the movie was edited so as to remove all indications of the character Indiana Jones, how would the outcome have been different? I suppose the Ark would have languished there on the island instead of being boxed up by Dr. Jones and taken to Warehouse Gargantua, but that hardly is critical.

Another attendee at the gift opening noted that Indy killed several Nazis, and surely that counts for something.

I, meanwhile, was merely listening in on the conversation from across the table. Had I been an active participant in the discussion, I would have noted that it was Indy who correctly used the medallion, thereby revealing the location of the Ark.

I don’t know. I think that counts for something. Either way, awesome flick.