Fossil

Attended the 3-day International Science Education Conference (ISEC) in NIE.

Refreshing! Superbly wonderful. Learnt a lot from just 3 days. Particularly impressed with educators from other countries. They have done so much for their students. Was humbled. An eye-opener.

Attended a workshop on teaching Science Inquiry using fossil. The lecturer brought some fossil for hands-on session.

Getting our hands dirty. Literally. But the point about learning science is letting students (in fact anyone, including adults) to explore, conduct experiments, analyse results, evaluate , and then communicate and discuss the findings ... That's the way to learn science, to make the subject interesting. It is a sad fact that students who take physics as a subject is decreasing.

It is not just about learning from textbook, isn't it?

Then you may ask where does the role of textbook comes in?

Comparing

This is when we compare our findings with what other people have done. By comparing, I mean critically compare and evaluate.

Science Inquiry

Science Argument: The Toulmin Model

1. Claim: the position or claim being argued for; the conclusion of the argument.
2. Grounds: reasons or supporting evidence that bolster the claim.
3. Warrant: the principle, provision or chain of reasoning that connects the grounds/reason to the claim.
4. Backing: support, justification, reasons to back up the warrant.
5. Rebuttal/Reservation: exceptions to the claim; description and rebuttal of counter-examples and counter-arguments.
6. Qualification: specification of limits to claim, warrant and backing. The degree of conditionality asserted.

More videos on getting the hands dirty for science. Mythbusters in the Discovery Channel! Here is a link to one of the youtube channels:

http://www.youtube.com/user/mythbustersuncut

Isn't this science all about?

Lies on lipids?

I'm quite sure most of us would have heard about the benefits of omega-3s fats. How can we not? The advertising is so rampant; foods from soya milk to margarine boost themselves fortified with omega-3s fatty acids, claiming all sorts of health benefits.

What the advertisers don't want you to know is that there are actually 2 types of omega-3s:

• the long chain fatty acids, the goods ones, from fish (and of course more expensive), and
• the shorter chain counterparts, the less beneficial ones (and cheaper) from flax seeds and soya.

Of course they will not tell you which type of omega-3s is used to fortified their product. The claim that the food is fortified with omega-3s is of course not wrong, but this half-truth, this purposeful withholding of information is , in my opinion, morally worse. It is because it intentionally misleads people to buy their products. In order to increase their sales, they disregard the whole truth and compromise the health of the consumers.

To complicate things further, the benefits of omega-3s can be offset by the increase intake of omega-6s. If you were to remember, we consumers are also asked to replace the saturated fats, such as butter and lard, with the healthier omega-6s unsaturated fats from maize and sunflower oils. The story is not that simple. See details below. It is an abstract from the recent article from The Economist.

You can get the full article at:

http://www.economist.com/node/14743783

and

http://www.economist.com/node/14743757

Eating healthily is sometimes not that simple. But, that does not give the advertisers an excuse to 'simplify' the information given to consumers. We must demand more rigour in their testing and research, and more accurate reporting of information.

On a more general note, it is not uncommon to see people 'simplify' information when disseminating or communicating it to others. We have to ask ourselves are we truthful, sincere and accurate about the information communicated; or, do we have an intention to hide and mislead, packaged in innocent pretence?