 one o'clock. Time to go here. My first slide is Aristotle. I'm just kidding. I thought it would be kind of humorous to show a busy slide and say one word and go on. I'm a Monty Python moment. At any rate, I wanted to make a couple points about my viewpoint of science and human knowledge. It's experiential. Experiential knowledge has become more in the forefront, I think, since around 1975 and the 1980s. My son went to a very nice college in North Carolina called Elon, which experiential knowledge or experiential learning tops with him and hands-on involvement, engagement, not just passive lecturing and that sort of thing. But a couple points I'd make about Aristotle is he encouraged observation. He noted that the mast, the top of the mast, was the last thing seen on ships and used that to argue that the world is round, which I don't think he was the originator of that idea, but he was using observation for his arguments in contrast to Socrates. Socrates was more of a in-the-gut, feel-it-in-your-gut type guy who would make arguments based on pure philosophy and devoid of experience. And another experiment that Aristotle encouraged or did, I guess, was hens laying eggs. And he actually took the eggs on different days out from under the hens. And opened them up and saw how the chick developed in the egg white feeding off the yolk. And it was imagine trying to explain how chicks develop in an egg by pure philosophy without observation or experience. So one last point I'll make about Aristotle before we go on is that he died one year before his most famous student, who was Alexander the Great. Alexander the Great died in 321 before the Common Era. So I thought this was an interesting idea I wanted to emphasize. It's in human nature to explore and be curious, not just humans, I mean most any animals, you know, cats or primates, bears, any creature that moves about, they'll want to explore their environment and try to figure out what they're seeing. It needs to be kind of controlled. You can see in this collage that there's guidance indicated in this lower center where an adult is explaining a story with a book and with pictures and the children are just fascinated by it. And just above you see some of the dangers of curiosity and hazardous environments. Now I grew up somewhat feral and wandered about from age four on a 220 acre primitive farm and without supervision basically. If I wanted supervision I would go find someone, but I wasn't really watched over much. But I did a lot of exploration, which I think benefited me, but when I looked back on it I'm lucky I didn't get killed in a lot of ways. It's also once exploration and curiosity about their own physical makeup as with the little boy on the right looking down, what's that down in my pants? Is it still there? And the second question is does it still feel good? As I've heard people say before. Okay, I wanted to make a point that I think art is an incredibly important aspect of human talent and of the ability to document and the most striking and useful documentation of observations began with art. It requires knowledge of materials and you have to have a medium to represent like your stone wall and your pigments and a way of applying them whether you use your fingers or a stick or whatever. And it requires perception and internal validation of memory dexterity in order to carry out the depiction and convergent stereoscopic vision and being able to put that out through your thumb and fingers. It's really quite a remarkable thing that humans are able to do. Birds will gather up colorful things and decorate an area trying to attract a mate so I don't think that humans are sole providers of art in the world but at any rate I wanted to emphasize that I think it's really important to science. Now one of the things I wanted to talk about how science even happened I think it depended on population growth. With population growth you get growth of language and first verbal and language with gestures that mean something. As you may or may not know you can point to a certain area with various animals and some will know what your point that you're pointing at something to look for and most of them will just say what's in your hand. But the ability to share ideas depends on social interaction and that involves language and you have to admit that being able to write required art. The character is a drawing, the character for letters and I thought this was a brilliant cartoon to illustrate that. This is from Wiley Miller, a non sequitur. It's a wonderful imaginative cartoon and so further how did it take what did it take for science to happen? Britain language had to develop progressively. I think it developed as a spinoff of art and manual dexterity and so much of the motor cortex of the brain is involved with control of the hands and if you look at a homunculus which is a picture that's projected on the cortex the amount of cortex for control of the hands is pretty remarkable. The amount for control of the tongue and vocal tract is also pretty remarkable. So we need critical thinkers. I have some side notes here I'm looking here to see okay. You know science began there I don't want to go into great detail about ancient history. There are biblical descriptions in the Old Testament of experiments that were conducted and descriptions of experiments conducted by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and it basically happened all over the world I think in large part but then you had with higher population and subspecialization in population centers you had the emergence of situations in which people that were very gifted could contribute more and Avesina was Persian polymath that was a good example of this who was in the golden age of Persia and this is an example of some of his output from what was called canon of medicine it was a drawing of viscera it's sort of a primitive drawing but the things I'd ask you to look at is well you can see it's it's like a drawing of a homunculus like it was mentioning that's used in medicine to describe neurological projections but this shows mostly vestularity and probably heart and lungs and the digestive tract is shown in kind of a simple form right from the tongue debung as they say in medicine and one of the points I would make about this is imagine to reproduce this science to develop required communication between people and to have books they had to be hand copied and the pictures had to be hand copied yes I was trying to indicate that I think India and China and I mean scientific activities were being conducted by modern man all around the world and it's not just Eurocentric my knowledge of it is mostly from the culture in which I grew up and so one of the points I want to make is if you had to just copy if you were trying to make copied manuscripts to share with other scholars or individuals to share your information you can make a few drawings a day and maybe a few pages of hand copied manuscripts but it would be very limiting well things things sped up around 1440 with the production of Gutenberg's screw press it was derived they think from the wine press and he advanced the ideas and figured out a way to put movable type on and in the height of the renaissance the a single printing press could produce 3,600 pages 3,600 pages or so a day of printed material and if they did hand printing like with a plate or wood blocks or anything like that it would maybe 40 pages a day would be the most they could do so this increased the availability of information and dissemination of information when it is brought about is really important and I think science was really limited to verbal and visual learning in direct contact with a source until this came along of course you had the development of communications by letters I'll just tell a quick story the main markets or that you had if you had some something that looked promising then you might get the patronage of a nobleman with great wealth because of land or of the church the Catholic church was interested in the printing press because indulgences they could sell indulgences which they can be bought in a Roman Catholic church to forgive a person for their sins on earth or to forgive someone that's already died to help help a friend who's passed away who's to get out of purgatory and all that sort of things so there was a market there for that but mostly Gutenberg printed Bibles let's see yeah okay I'm in the room okay well who invented data data that's kind of an interesting point oh I wanted to say one last thing about Gutenberg uh he got sued he he ran out of money he couldn't he couldn't make money fast enough to pay for his needs and one of the creditors named Foust forced him to give up his printing press his type and his ink so he gave him up to Foust to get out of his debt so like Prometheus in my vision he found himself chained to the rocks by debt his liver ripped out by creditors ain't it a nice world I did restore his position and made another press and did go on to print more Bibles in his life and that sort of thing but data comes from a Latin word meaning fact given or granted from 1897 on it's basically been seen as numerical facts collected for future reference the origins of data really relate to human society and population densities where there was wealth and concentrations of wealth and people wanted to know how many people they controlled and how much they were worth and what they could get out of them and so census data was taken in back China 2300 BCE and 3050 BCE ancient Egyptians did it the Greeks and the Romans and a lot of the beginnings of well day boy that's brilliant Gutenberg he's just he should have invented counterfeiting the only trouble I think back in those days all the money was metal and it was essentially worth the metal that it contained metal coinage if they had coins any rate statistics was born of actuarial information and census data like actuarial meaning by insurance companies and in the 16th century probability theory was first investigated by an Italian looking at games of chance and then 100 years later for Matt and Pascal corresponded and started to work on how to how to regard problems with figuring your odds of getting a certain outcome with dice one thing I'd like to say is Galileo is considered the father of experimental science but Francis Bacon is usually granted the and most of the things you read the position of having prescribed the structural approach to modern scientific method now Bacon is an interesting guy in that he was not a math guy he was more of a lawyer he was a word sky and he had administrative responsibilities in England and he was a procedural sort of person and he had curiosity and so he figured out a way to explore curiosity in kind of a formalistic way and that's what was the beginning of the scientific method so my point here is that I think it's kind of interesting that a guy that was not mathematical as Galileo was was seen to be the founder of the scientific method the although experimental science was first done in a really sophisticated way by Galileo once you had printing and communications and you had better communication between groups that could form like societies that would be interested talking about ira militias or men of letters which is paternalistic that is from the Latin men of letters which is a major way that scientific communications were carried out up into the Renaissance really up to the 17th century in large extent and you had the emergence of journals and the first academic journal was in this mid 17th century and out of this little country in Europe so I think it's called France and you've probably heard of it and and then you had others follow and the let's say I guess it's on the next slide yes first peer reviewed journal was out of Scotland and medical essays and observations 1733 and I couldn't help but throw in that the Lancet which is an important historic and still existing medical journal was founded in 1823 it's getting to where it's not so long ago so at any rate standards emerged and peer review is an important definition of it back then it would be different from it what it is today I'm sure and they very well might have known who was sending in the ideas that modern peer review is blind where the reviewers don't know the individuals that are sending in the article or what institution they are affiliated with or often don't now I used to do peer review for the laryngoscope which is the journal of the Trilogic Society which I joined in 1995 after I did a thesis that took me for years to write but most most of my real understanding of scientific method in pragmatic terms is based on medical background so this is a an image I got from Shantung I guess or or a Jess that was put on my abstract in the website so I used it in the talk it's quite nice the the scientific method as I learned about it when I was young was really rigid and very linear and if you become an elite scientist or a professional science person where you're publishing you have to really look at the format by which things are published by which things are done and there is a parallel usually in the format of the structure of or layout of your ideas starting with abstract and then an introduction as to what you're studying and why and then methods and materials and findings and then conclusions and there are often other aspects of it but that would be sort of typical for medical journals in any case what I just described there per second I was looking here since I've got both slides the board to the right looks the same as the slide I thought I had double vision for a second this has progressed to a more organic concept of science where you're making observations and really should be making observations all the time you develop questions when you wonder about why did that happen or what would happen if you did something different or that sort of thing and you can figure out maybe proposed answer based on what you think you know about it and then figure a way to test it science that can't be tested is is pretty close to science fiction that's debatable and when you get into theoretical physics and modern physics some you can't experiment and study things without changing what you're studying and as in quantum theory and you end up talking about things you can't get a handle on like string theory or whatever it it really gets extraordinarily abstract and mathematical medical research tends to not be some mathematical they rate you look at all your data the the information you've gathered and try to make assessments of it I'm meant to say something about statistics the original term statistics was first used by a German scholar Gadafried Aachenwald in the middle of the 18th century and it was in 10 it was entirely focused on statecraft and collection of and management of data for use by the state now in English it was first used by Sir John Sinclair who was a Highlander Scotland a man of Scotland and wrote a 21 volume statistical account of Scotland which was largely agricultural agriculture was considered the basis of wealth of a nation that was a big part of Adam Smith's the wealth of nations in 1776 he saw agriculture as the primary determinant of wealth and so that was the focus of 18th century economics in particular and I don't know I like Sir John Sinclair and reading about him he's a very interesting guy and he was wealthy and didn't need to work he had a legal background and he was really not a mathematics kind of guy either but he was using his abilities for something useful and impactful rather than just acquiescing to the life of the useless rich or the idle rich to any rate I thought the beginning of the very word statistics that dates to the end of the 1700s 1797 it was used in encyclopedia Britannica and in let's see oh Sinclair traveled in northern Europe and that's where he picked up on it the idea of the word statistics instead of using an English word in his writings now once you get into statistics you got a lot of data that you can accumulate easily you start off with qualitative measurement in human history we're based on the senses and eventually you start measuring off your thumb or your foot or a measuring rod or you develop instruments for measurement and then you start gathering up numbers or some representation of numbers and then you got to figure out what do you do with this one of the major things is to look for central tendencies so I wanted to get just in part one idea I've talked to a number of people that were educated and they did not have a clear idea of the difference between precision and accuracy and I want audience participation in this reading the definition there if you have say a marksman and he's got his sights off as telescope on his rifles off and he shoots and he gets a good clustering of of his holes and the target he's pretty precise but if they're off skewed then that's not accurate accuracy implies that there is a like the x files there the truth is out there and so you look for something representative of a valid number that represents reality so I've got a couple questions this image right here would you say it's accurate precise both or neither answers okay one says both to say both one says bot I am not a bot and one says precise definitely is precise because you have every shot is right on top of the other think of Robin Hood he was precise and accurate he hit the bull's eye and then he split his arrow okay it's both accurate and precise so now Robin Hood had his arrows off to the upper right and then he split his arrow that he'd already shot he's got maybe something about his vision or his technique or the wind or something that's making us an error maybe it's a systematic error or whatever and the more samples you get the more you could be sure but he would be precise but not accurate so let's look at another sample is this accurate precise both or neither precise precise but not accurate that's right and I note I left the definition above so that people could refer to it because I'd really like for everyone here to hold on to this and carry it away with them today if they don't already know it so it's precise but inaccurate because they're they missed it they missed the bull's eye can't say that's accurate the bull's eye exists they missed it but their data which is where they hit looks like well there's a those are my numbers that looks like that's pretty good tight measuring so well it just shows you you never know how here we are this this is the same one I made a little larger it's neither accurate I'm sorry it's not accurate but it is precise so does that make sense but data can data by itself cannot tell you for sure if you're accurate you got to be careful about that how about this one is it accurate precise both or neither well it certainly isn't precise because the hits are pretty spread out but you you know you don't have to do statistics a statistic is a piece of data a factoid and you take them together and you look for some parameter that represents all that data and measurements of central tendency like average is um that's statistics and you can look at this and see the statistic the statistics of these hits would be average out about in the center so this one is accurate but not precise so that makes sense I think that's maybe the trickiest to finally how about this one is this accurate precise both or neither yes you can you can eyeball these distribution of the data and see where the center is and you can also get that arithmetically so and part of having good number sense which is what developed in science is being able to look at things and look at the data and look at the graphs and the pictorial representations the art that is created from the data and see if your mathematics fits well this one is neither precise nor accurate it's certainly off center and it's pretty widespread they're just kind of sprayed bullets they happen to be up there in the right hand if they were it'd be easier I think if a bullet hole was off on the other side somewhere but you know a few more shots and you probably would have one so to summarize those are the ways you look at it the accurate and precise precise but not accurate in the second from the left and centering geometric center is on the bull's eye so that's accurate but it's kind of spread out a wide distribution wide standard deviation so it's not so precise and the final diagram is intended to show neither situation well that's the trouble in this you can see where the bull's eye is in science much of the time the bull's eye is not seen now I want to tell you one quick vision I have I want to move toward wrapping this up and going to our experiment I kind of see science having developed imagine someone sitting a long time and their legs go to sleep and your right foot is your qualitative foot and your left foot your quantitative foot and your shoelaces are tied together you first get up you can't feel your legs your right foot doesn't know what your left foot is doing so you can make your steps little steps you can't make big steps without being able to manage the data well and you can't tell us where well where you're going and your legs wake up and every time a new mathematical technique is arrived at you are able to spread your feet stretch the strings that are tying your your shoes together better and you're able to take longer and longer steps so you're taking qualitative steps and mathematical steps that are quantitative and pull quantitative science out of your observations and I think that my point is that I think that science grew with the aid of and limited by mathematical development mathematics has its own history and much of its the discoveries have been spurned on by scientific need but not all of them and often a mathematics has led the way especially in the recent centuries like Riemann's geometry becoming useful to Einstein so okay I wanted to mention medical research we talk about clinical trials of like taking a drug and trying to figure out if it's useful for human disease and we have phase one phase two and phase three and there is a concept of a phase four trial that's a better scientific study than an observational trial but medicine has been really hampered by if you you can't treat human beings like experimental subjects without regard for their their rights and not letting them know what was going on as was not so unusual traditionally but the physicians who were doing research or observations they knew what they were looking for and they believed that they the observations had to be made and sorted by someone who understood the field but that of course would introduce observational bias you have bias that you have to deal with in finding your way in all of this one way you can have single blind studies where you have the patients not knowing if they're getting a placebo or getting the real deal and that tends to remove things that would they do that would or their reports that would bias the study this especially is important in psychology or you know studies of human behavior people know their behaviors being observed then you get a lot of difference double blind studies the researcher doesn't know which group they're observing at any one time or which if any participant of either group or measurement of either group is they so you don't get observational bias and the person that analyzes this the you can be a statistician often science has grown to the point that it requires a lot of self subspecialization and support from multidisciplinary approaches and if statistics blows you away then don't sweat it get a statistician it's a huge huge field but the statistician is more easily trusted if they don't know the differences or what's being looked at in if they get raw data without knowing what it's representing then they won't try to spin it one of the problems is that that using normative type distributions for instance you throw at you you have justification to throw out outliers but you can have rare events that are seem statistically insignificant but are significant as with uh medicine if somebody gets um transverse myelitis of the spine from a vaccine it's a rare event but if you say well it's an outlier and you just ignore it you may end up exposing a lot of people to problems when the vaccine becomes generally available so open trials on the bottom there that's uh where everybody knows what's going on and it really um laden with bias and people avoid those as much as they can wanted to say just generally science is a culture if you think of medicine think of music and how big it is you may be just appreciate music you want to ask where do I fit in with science what can I do with science well like you enjoy music you can be a science enthusiast or appreciate it if you have enough drive and curiosity and you can do some exploration start playing guitar play violin if you're naturally driven and creative and maybe like um uh fair day uh there's been lots of important amateur scientists and mathematicians too you can be like these guys these two lads in the upper right hand corner there uh John Lennon Paul McCartney uh who just saw it just write some songs change the world uh if you're more trained uh you can be an elite musician like um Philip Glass or Leonard Bernstein at the top or even here's another Robert Johnson there and came out of the uh Delta uh untrained some said he was trained by the devil he went down the crossroads anyway there's all kinds of ways to fit in and think of it like music you can appreciate and love music and get a lot out of it uh and contribute to it by supporting it or by producing it so I thought it was a nice metaphor I wanted to share it with you and one of my favorites up in the left left hand corner Marian Anderson that's Marian Anderson singing uh at the um Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC to an open open-air audience after the um uh Daughters of the American Revolution uh refused to let her sing for them and uh Eleanor Roosevelt arranged for her to perform and she had a marvelous voice and that down in the lower right below a picture of me playing violin and my son playing guitar myself playing guitar on the left that's uh Camus Chuchon Camus Chuchon um like Carnival of the Animals and Don's Macabre and such anyway just for your information data science huge cool field that uh deals with big data it pays great what is it it's a buzzword it deals with all kinds of stuff um domain experience is a word that comes up and that's knowledge and understanding of of specific field of inquiry and great depth programming skills are good and knowledge of mathematics and statistics if you want to get involved in science or you have a family or a member or a friend or someone you're mentoring get them to go volunteer in the laboratory and to work with someone who's doing research and to try to keep their eyes open and learn everything they can in a vertical sense about um what's being done in the lab and what it takes to be able to set up a lab um trying to go it alone and doing serious sciences almost impossible and just again just for uh your information uh if you want to know what to look at uh and try to learn about or at least be aware of uh for background in data science operations research which deals with optimization problems linear algebra um multivariate calculus function theory statistics and probabilities the top thing and discrete mathematics has a role in this too that's all i'm going to say about that there's also this uh you should know in 1935 this book was published by um the design of experiments that changed all of experimental science by ronald fischer he's an englishman and you can have that as a free download um of google books and he had a famous experiment about a lady tasting tea so i want to encourage you maybe to explore that book please know about uh ronald a fischer um and um he was so nearsighted he was nearly blind but uh he was an absolute genius fascinating individual and then the idea of the null hypothesis where you think oh i think something works this way when you say let's say it doesn't work this way and you do an experiment uh with two groups and you have ways of testing to see if those two groups come from different populations and when he joined it was his contribution to england really arose from working in agriculture and trying to figure out how to produce food the best for um great britain and um he had all kinds of data that went back to 1840 and so he developed an ova or analysis of variations to be able to look at three or more populations and see if they were from the same um population or not and by saying that they were to see what the probability of them being from the same population would be okay failings in science well there's fallacies of logic we've all seen these and i just found this was a kind of an interesting one there's failure to plan ahead one way i would emphasize one thing it's not uncommon and people that come into a field and then they start doing research in something but they really don't master all the past literature and they end up reinventing the wheel and reinventing terms and uh i saw this some when i was doing of literature and i had a chairman at the university of pennsylvania and he was just brutal to people who would get up at a conference and they'd gotten in and um you know have to go through a little bit of a gauntlet to get to present and they would present this stuff and he would get up and point out to them how this had been done and how the terms were just a little different and they hadn't done their homework so planning ahead and having a good basis for what you're doing is really important there are conflicts and from the beginning like gallileo being taken over to look at the machines of torture to see if he wanted to read recant his scientific theories because it was embarrassing to theologists who wanted to extend their religious authority to physical universe or overextend so um i thought this was a brilliant uh wiley miller uh caricature about uh an inherent difficulty it depends on what culture you're in and it's not just the theologians but also just the public with their dog dogmatic point of view at times can be disruptive and who is paying for the research is important being transparent about it and you know and um i can't think of the guy's name right now but he determined the age of the earth but he also determined that lead from leaded gasoline was poisoning the world and the industry took him on and they cut off his research funds and he went on to keep studying but they he did a um yeah claire paterson um from iowa i think um and um the first person he let know who how old the world was uh 4.5 billion years or 4.3 billion years he went and told his mother so she was the first other person in the world to get to know that um 4.55 right thank you expand correct it but yeah you you need to be objective and you shouldn't contrive your research to fit a conclusion one of the problems with proprietary research is um um they will hold back information if it hurts them hurts their bottom line so um one thing about science we got to be careful we don't lose our audience somehow we got to make it uh accessible and a fun part of the culture and uh people get discouraged just like people can get discouraged about uh voting and um by disruptive society uh or a disruptive uh situation in government and people think well my vote's not going to matter or they're just making it too hard uh people looking at the uh newscasts or the popular literature they will usurp and take some spectacular sounding article and make a big deal out of it and it hasn't even really been uh made the rounds with other scientists to see if it's uh uh uh reproducible and uh also you gotta realize that uh research can seem pretty primitive at first and uh uh the techniques and such can be pretty pretty um unimpressive but if you keep working at it you can find uh reindeer that fly i suppose according to this picture okay one last one is uh i used it was a i met this man once is uh proxmire senator proxmire of uh of uh wisconsin and he would give the golden fleece award for uh it was it was kind of a uh political spectacular thing that would make it in the news about some useless research and i thought it was often unfair this is this cartoon seems a little bit hostile towards science but uh some of it is going to be useless but so are kids you know fair day had this generator even do is a demonstration and or i guess an electric motor i believe uh at uh uh christmas demonstration and some lady said sir what earthly use is that and he said madam of what earthly use is a newborn baby so you gotta you know just doing something you'll develop things to observe in new directions okay let's see i think i'm ready for my this is going to be quick it's almost miller time except we're going to do poly girl i had a couple of uh potential um experiments like i noticed spinners i had a little cup of water and a cutting of a plant and i was trying to get it to root and had spinners we got mosquitoes in the house from opening the door and they laid eggs uh in the water and then we had mosquitoes developing in a cup of water and there's really that's the sort of situation where you make the observation you see these little spinners you could do a lot of uh studies of that but the study i thought i would do is this some years ago i i had a warm beer i i can't drink beer now because i can't tolerate wheat uh i've discovered but uh explained a lot of things but um at any rate i took it and put it in the freezer because i like it cold i don't actually like warm beer and i took it out uh it had uh not frozen but uh i let it thaw a little bit and it was slushy and uh i enjoyed it although it had a kind of a chunk of ice in the center it had to thaw and it wasn't quite right so i did it again and uh did it for a shorter time and uh i ended up getting a beer one time and i was kind of casually looking at the clock and i popped the lid off the um or the cap off the bottle and it was liquid at first and fresh out of the freezer and it suddenly turned to slush it just had crystallization crystallization take place and in a large part of it and i drank it and it was absolutely wonderful and just between you and me if you want to try this i do i did i i prefer dark german beer um the uh i found in my particular freezer just open it put one bottle in and close um because if you open the freezer a lot you'll have the temperature change and if you put more than one bottle in you'll have two warm things to cool see uh just one bottle 13 minutes and it would turn to this wonderful slushy beer it was really a treat what kind of experiments that's a and that's an observation this beer turned to slush from a liquid in an instant so yeah there's theories when the can draw on what sort of um uh hypothesis can you make about what happened there that's what i thought too vick i thought that the carbon dioxide in the beer some of it was released it it depresses the freezing point and and when you pop the cap off um it uh um would lose some of the carbon dioxide and the freezing point would go up above um i'm i'm sorry the yeah the freezing point would go up above the temperature at which it was and so it would suddenly have precipitous formation of these crystals um and uh i think the bottle was strong enough that it could tolerate uh the freezing and a little bit of expansion one it's a good question why it didn't explode but uh how could you test that let's take that as your you know the thing you want to test that uh say you think it's the carbon dioxide that uh made the difference any ideas how one would test that simple experiment you could freeze flat beer could freeze a water bottle yeah this wine has a lot of solute too but it wouldn't be and that would wine would uh help separate the idea of it being the carbon dioxide versus uh the solute and you could use a sparkling wine versus uh yes a regular wine wine and each as you go along you can make observations you could also do experiments to see how long the beer was left in the freezer and what the changes were that's interesting jamming a cork into a champagne bottle i have always had to trim the cork with a sharp knife if i wanted to re cork a champagne or um you're supposed to just drink it and what happens happens so any other ideas about that leftover champagne there you go not a concept that's not going to happen right so my point in this slide is that i i thought back on my own experience in day to day life and i thought that was kind of one of one that was neat and reproducible i could reproduce those conditions and i had something that was sort of standard these kinds of bottles of beer that one could get and experiment with it and i did that and i drank slushy beer i developed a procedure for producing it based on you know kind of trial and error experimentation that was sort of organic following this um uh cycle on the scientific method that you see to the right so um uh i hope that um you'll keep your eyes open for unusual things that may come up and in your own day to day life and explore them and for many things you don't have to have a mass spectrometer or you know a chemistry lab to do a lot of basic qualitative experiments particularly or simple experiments for where you can things like weights and uh or sampling how you would sample giving it to different people to see if they like it there's a lot of ways you could create experiments and results that you could describe to somebody then probably get their attention if you showed them a bottle of polygurl because i bet everybody woke up when i showed this okay one last look i want you to remember accurate precise versus not accurate not precise and accurate not precise and not accurate precise not in that order i went out of order there but uh i want you to remember that concept i think it'd be a good fundamental concept for everybody interested in science that no citizen science i think it's great it needs to one one concern in citizen science you can end up with pseudoscience and um it uh it can go astray more readily i think in professional science with it it you have this organic scientific method often going on but in the presentation of it in journals it's presented as though it were a more rigid uh exploration and handling of the data and such as though you had a perfect uh hypothesis at first and but often that's taken from a larger body of experience that's one reason why some of the most productive labs are exploring a topic and they'll come up with lots of projects in that topic just like industry with a product will come up with a lot of discoveries and exploration related to that so any other comments questions you know i would be interesting to know what the structure of them or the orientation of the molecules in beer are because i don't know that they would be like water you can't assume it i don't think at any rate that concludes my talk i left out a lot of things but it's a huge subject and i'm only six minutes past that's the best i've done thank you right it's so much ground to cover i thought that if i could in stimulate thought about it uh that would be that would be cool i'll thank uh synergy uh wants me to analyze my talks well i did practice it synergy and you had suggested i do that earlier on oh i just got a message that someone has experimented on beer and cocktail crystallization interesting i'll have to look at that vick sent me a message about that well this was a talk for all ages so it's a good point cb i think it's not just understanding the scientific method but i wish that they were receptive to it but you have so many gestalts and belief systems where people think that they're preconceived notions or their dogma to which they intend to adhere are going to be challenged and so they start out a priori rejecting science i think science is going to have to do a better job of selling itself and reaching people it's become it's extraordinary what it can achieve but it's even for people that are in science i i i have a pretty good understanding of mathematics i feel like in uh like from the data science list and there's a lot of things i can read where i wonder really what in the hell are they talking about the science of the mathematics they're using it can be so arcane but i don't know how we can compete with people that are towing people simple stories that they want to believe but we're going to have to figure out a way yes sciencia sciencia means knowing from latin i don't know peerless is sort of like the number one it's the loneliest number you know thank you day thank you for coming thank you nicky appreciate it vick and thank you shilo i guess i'll turn my microphone off i really appreciate everyone's attendance and interest and i hope everyone has a great weekend thanks santa id