TheBiologySpace.BioBlog

As a person who honestly has never really gotten in touch with how a lab result can change a whole way of thinking, Angier put the concept into my head that maybe what little experiements we do in our classroom is to better prepare us for the world outside of our school. She describes how everyday people, simple, with no care in the world type people can make up their own hypothesis and procedures and results just by conducting their everyday activites. For instance, if a dog is sick, you wonder why it is sick, point out possibilities, try different remedies to try and cure it and then obtain your results by the dog either getting better or steadily worse. Angier has now labeled for me that everyone is a scientist. It is within our creative minds to be experimental and therefore I do believe that I and every other person in this world is a scientist, because our humanly curious nature forces us to be.

I do agree with the statement that everyone is a scientist even if they are not aware of it. We were built to be curious and solve the problems that we encounter on a daily basis, from trying to figure out why the plants are dying to finding cures for cancer. Before reading this chapter, my perception of a scientist was someone who was isolated in a laboratory performing experiments 24/7. It never really dawned on me that everyone I see is a scientist trying to solve a problem, no matter how big or how small it may be. Scientists can be Nobel Prize winners or they can just be laypeople. Science is practically around every corner and it should be appreciated by the public more.

The first chapter of Angier’s book tried to break the stereotypes of the typical scientist that people usually think of. I learned that anyone can be a scientist no matter if they are aware of it or not. We as humans are always trying to find answers to the everyday mysteries we encounter. Angier taught me that scientists always need strong evidence to prove thier point and that I should always dig deeper for the answers. School teaches us how to approach an experiment using the scientific method but I think students limit their scientific skills to only the laboratory. School should enhance one’s perspective of science and give them a chance to apply it to real life. Science is truly everywhere that one looks and we as students should become more aware of its presence.

I thought that overall her witty and sarcastic tone gave a different perspective on scientists and that scientists can communicate with other people.
Also with her view that science just doesn’t take place in a lab or classroom showed me that science is going on everywhere constantly and all it takes is an effort to observe the occurances around you.

With her sarcastic and witty tone she broke the stereotypical scientist barrier and allowed the reader to connect. She also talked about science being all around and not just in a lab or classroom so with a tweak of perspective and observation you can observe science everyday.

Honestly, before I read Angier’s book, I believed a true scientist was a person who was isolated in a laboratory doing experiments 24/7. But after reading the first chapter, I began to believe that every human is a scientist. Life throws us challenges and problems everyday and it is up to us to solve them. We address the issue, form hypotheses, gather data, and form conclusions. We solve problems ranging from why the garden plants are dying to finding a cure for cancer. Every single person is a scientist and one doesn’t always have to be in a lab to make an incredible discovery.

I can’t say that this chapter changed my perception, but served as more of a reminder that science is not just a subject and applies to everyone, not just those who claim science as their occupation. The major thing I got out of this chapter was that science is based on the unknown. Sometimes I find myself clinging to facts and figures because they are concrete and I can wrap my head around them. But really, science is abstract and always changing. Every “fact” should be challenged and tested, not just blindly accepted by the masses as pure truth. This acceptance is evidence that we don’t get enough training in solving problems scientifically. I guess sometimes we’re afraid what we might not be able to explain.

Angier wanted her readers to know that anyone can be a scientist and that anyone can make a discovery regardless if they are formally trained or not. Our brains are naturally inquisitive and we are programmed to question the world around us. I believe that we always want to try and find answers to the unfamiliar. Angier opens her readers’ minds to the vastness of the field of science and challenges the idea that science is only science if it’s in the laboratory.

Prior to reading The Canon, I viewed scientists as individuals in lab coats eager to conduct experiments by using beakers and microscopes. After reading the first chapter, I discovered that experiments and scientific reasoning occur in our daily lives without us realizing it. Angier’s references to books and movies that we experience in our daily lives gave me the idea that everyone is a scientist conducting their own “experiments” no matter how small they may be. I believe this daily exposure to science has prepared me to some extent to think scientifically, but I will now build on this knowledge by focusing more on critical thinking skills and less on intuition.

This book really highlighted my previous perception of science class. During science it was great to find facts, but with every new chapter accepted values always seemed to concrete to be true. The fact that Natalie Angier is investigating this universal nexus of science is comforting to me(I really wanted to use that word). Related to this, labs always seemed obscure to me, becuase of the many seemingly unrelated observations that were required. They also seemed irrelevant to the overall lesson. Seeing life as a parallel to these labs stems new interest to every sitution to come.

Reading the first chapter of Angier’s book was really eye-opening in that she personalized the field of science. To me, science has been a kind of foreign concept that never really made an impact on me. After absorbing what she wrote, I believe that I have a better grasp of science and can view myself as a scientist now. Everyone, as she put it, can be a scientist and our minds, being naturally inquisitive itself, cannot help but solve everyday problems using the scientific process. No matter what we’re solving–why we’re ill or finding the cure for cancer–we all form hypotheses, gather our data, and interpret our results to form a conclusion. I believe that after reading the entire book, I will appreciate the experiments we perform in school more. Science can be applied anywhere in our lives, not just in the laboratory, and anyone can relate to it. After I threw out the stereotype of scientists only being trained professionals in a lab, I finally understood what science is all about and I have begun to open my mind and accept science as a part of my daily life.

I completly agree. It was an eye opener for me to see that even those who havn’t been trained in science go through scientific methods of thinking every day. Even toddlers learning basic necesseties of life.

Angier I think reaffirmed my concept of science and scientists. My perception of a scientist would be Bill Nye the Science Guy. An ordinary man with passion to make science more understandable and more entertaining to younger students. In my mind, science has always been about being thrilled about how things work, move, and survive. Science isn’t always about learning facts and formulas, it is more about applying it to everyday living. Bill strips science concepts to a basic level and lets the kids decide to what height their scientific reason can take them to. So many probabilities and options, the brain has to imagine and become attached to ideas much bigger than mere man. Science is meant to be ordinary. All things that have been discovered has been by men and women that were just plain curious, and with looking into things came data and then theories and then explanations. Science could never be exclusive, and will never need formal training. Science for me has always been about discovering little things in everyday life, by everyday people. Whether it be curing cancer or medicating yourself for a common cold, science is unavoidable. Just open your eyes and embrace it, and do all that you can with it.

Before reading this chapter, my perception of a scientist was narrowed down to the exclusive intelligent scientific community that receives endless Nobel prizes for their astounding research while donning white lab coats and observing cells in a microscope. After I read this chapter my perception of a scientist changed because Angier’s definition is something that I had never thought of before. Science is in our daily activities. It plays a role in everything we do — this is something that I’ve never paid attention to until I read Angier’s point of view. I now consider myself a scientist according to Angier’s definition because we all experience science in our simple daily routines. Our experiences allow us to hypothesize and observe just as we would in a lab, and this phenomenon by Angier’s definition makes us scientists. Being a scientist doesn’t have to be something that is reserved for the elite with formal training in the field, but in utmost respect it can. If we think in terms of Angier’s definition, being a scientist is not something exclusive to those who have formal training in the field. However if we think in terms of the career of a scientist, then it is reserved for those who have the proper training. Angier’s definition of what it means to be a scientist has changed my views, and I will certainly enjoy this new twist where I can observe and analyze everything on my palate that the world has to offer.

Natalie Angier sheds some light on the roles of scientists, which are sometimes interpreted to be cynically for grants from government/private beneficiaries. Ms. Angier argues that science is all around us, that like it or not, we cannot live without science. I think, in being a scientist, one must not be biased by previously held opinions, and also never stop questioning the unknown. Also, anybody can be a scientist, as scientists come from all walks of life (not just from the labs of Harvard). Science is everywhere, and we do it everyday, as we manipulate the independent and dependent variables of life.

After reading The Canon by Natalie Angier, my perception of scientist did not necessarily change but broaden. Before I thought that every scientist was professionally trained and sat in a lab all day everyday researching the broad unknown. Now I know that some scientists do sit in a lab all day and research while others are everyday citizens who want to find out information and figure out how everything works on their own. Scientists are people who want to make things function by themselves. I consider myself a scientist because I explore new things everyday and when I make a mistake I learn from it. Formal training is not necessary in becoming a scientist. Scientists take knowledge and facts they read about in books and apply them to hands on circumstances.

Orginally, the word “scientist” made me thinks of stark white lab coats, petri dishes filled with colonies of bacteria, Bunsen burners and test tubes. Having read The Canon, I’ve realized science isn’t as structured and formal as previously thought- that it can be found and used on a daily basis. Also, the book helped me realize that you don’t have to be in a lab to be a scientist- that a scientist is simply someone on the constant hunt for answers to his ever-changing questions about the world.

It was a knock on the head for me to realize that everyday things that we do in our lives are mostly being controlled by ideas that surface to the public and are believed to be true. We have to become more engaged in understanding facts around us and look beyond the what the majority thinks and find truth.

after reading chapter one, i found out that scientists at universities across america and history follow the same formulae of trial and error. ms angier alludes to a game of mastermind, comparing the pegs of the game to the variables of science. her words describing the other scientists reaffirms my approach to science, trial and error while trying to balance a well thought out procedure. while it is true that we will never receive enough training to solve our problems scientifically, we have the resources that we shall ever need in our head, uninspired.

Before reading, my perception of a scientist was a person wearing a white lab coat and goggles performing experiments in a laboratory using technologically advanced equipment, only available to scientists. However, I perceive a scientist as anyone who has a problem, wants to and does find strategies to solve this problem, and then makes assumptions based on these findings. Angier gives the reader a specific example of trying to fix a DVD player. The person first assess the problem with the DVD player, then thinks of strategies to fix the problem (hypothesizes), then tests these strategies (experiments), finds the best strategy to solve the problem (makes observations), and makes a decision based on these findings (conclusion). Scientists are everywhere because science is everywhere. The world around us is full of science and experiments waiting to be performed. I would even consider myself a scientist, for I too perform everyday tasks that require the use of scientific strategies and problem-solving techniques. I will now approach labs for class with an open mind. I will not look at them as an assignment, but rather a chance to learn more about the world. I will assess each and every variable and problem solve to the best of my abilities to find the best solution to the problem.

To me, being a scientist means having the courage to test the untested while using your own personal mistakes as the biggest way to acquire new knowledge. Being a scientist does not mean being right or being the best, it is the enthusiastic and passionate heart that drives the scientific brain.

Fergy I miss you. Have a good year.

Before ever knowing about “The Canon”, my perception of a scientist and of science itself was rather simple: a thought process centered around variables and necessities needed to keep the balance of the world and create innovations to improve both the present and the future. The formal definition of “scientist” is; Sci”en*tist\, n. One learned in science; a scientific investigator; one devoted to scientific study; a savant. [Recent] (provided by the Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary on dictionary.com). Science is too narrow a field for most people to accept in their everyday nature- it’s much broader than that. Science defines the problems and progess around us. Because science is such a broad field, everyone is a scientist. To solve everyday problems in our lives, we think according to past experiences- mistakes learned from- logical deductions and practical assumptions, taking into account variables and obstacles. Our brain does this without giving the energy spent a second thought. We solve our problems in a scientific manner without even realizing it. Before actually realizing that science was every day activity, my approach to formal labs was very stiff, ruled by the intimidation that I would be recieving a grade. There might be some universal procedure for that particular lab and I might screw it up! But now I think I’ll just face it logically- as I would approach a writing assignment or how I would work out a weekend schedule around a myriad of activities; with logic and reasoning taking into account the things that could change and the things that are fact. Overall, though, the way Angier presents the mind of the scientist is much easier to understand than trying to explain it to someone- it’s like having the obvious taken out from under your nose and placed on your dinner plate.

Before reading this chapter I viewed being a scientist as a job. Scientists being a limited specific group of people who worked on things like DNA and space shuttles. After reading I am convinced that science is not neccassarily a profession, but a thought process that everyone uses not to learn facts, but to understand as well as possible what is going on around us, how, why, and how to solve/fix problems. With Angier’s perception of scientists everyone is a scientist in the way that they think and go about their lives. Lastly, she proves that science is not always fact, but a forever changing view on our world. For example, we once thought the world was flat and you cold fall of the edge. Now we now that it is a sphere however, both ideals were accepted as fact at different times.

Before I read this chapter I thought that scientists were a spcecific proffesional group within society. They study biology, space, or other science topics. However, after reading this chapter I see that everyone is a scientist, even me. Science is not neccassarily based on what you study, but how. Science is not based on fact, but on understanding how and why everything everythings works in the world. It is used to understand what goes on around us better and how to manipulate and control wat we learn. Also science is more of an ideal that constantly changes. For example, we used to think the world was flat, but now we know that it is a sphere. At separate times both ideas were accepted as fact. Science is not black and white facts, but a colorful rainbow of different views and technologies throughout the universe. Lastly, we use science everyday. We use it to figure out the fastest way to school and to solve other problems on multiple scales.

Before opening the pages of the Canon, I thought scientists were more based on finding facts and reaffirming those facts through experimentation. I never knew I was so wrong. The scientific community is completely unique in that it is dynamic and constantly changing. Almost everyone is a scientist in everyday life, constantly finding problems or questions, and , through rigid practice and experiments, clarifying those questions the universe presents. Another thing that struck me is that Scientists have taken it upon themeselves to thouroughly study the universe and render it knowable, while at the same time allowing anyone into the scientific community. The scientific society the world, unlike the other ones, is not so rigid as to allow everyone into the community to present hypotheses. It is, however, stringent in the sense that you expected to constantly prove your data and presume it is wrong. Science is also full of language, where you may use various means to define what you need to define. It can be like beautiful prose or tight, concise mathmatics, the choice is yours as long as you present data and submit to the rigors of the scientific world. With labs, I will attempt to act more like a scientist, rather than a student achieving a grade. I will act more with a lack of information than a wealth of it and try to discover and deduce beyond the proper means. I will treat the labs more like problems to the universe, rather than a simple set up. Moreove, I will analyze the results rather tham lamely write them down and will use the proper problem solving skills to answer the world’s questions.

My perception didn’t really change after reading the first chapter. I’ve always looked at things in a scientific way, so that chapter just repeated what I knew. I am a scientist in Angier’s definition; I do look at things and calculate the better route or choice using comparision and trial and error and such. I can’t say that the chapter will help me the lab activities; truthfully, it seemed given, most of the things. I always like to think that the solutions we come up in labs are originally undiscovered, and I might be providing a cure to a new disease by providing information about how pillbugs can’t find grip on sandpaper.

This chapter has showed me that my labs need to be geared to testing if something is right or wrong and continually testing it till a result occurs over and over again. If my first result mathces my hypothesis it isn’t necceasarilly right. No result is neccasarily right because anything can interfere. Instead only repeated results can prove an answer to a problem or atleast a very close one in quantitative data. I think I get more than enough training in solving problems scientificaly. I use the scientinfic method alot. Everyday I figure things out by trying one thing and another till I get it right such as fixing the lawnmower.

Before I read chapter one my perception on what a being a scientist is was just a visual of an old man in a white coat mixing chemicals. Now that I’ve read it though, I see it from Angier’s point of view. When you think about it we are all scientists performing experiements on a daily basis. For instance, I was about to do an experiment by not doing this assignment to see what it does to my grade. So for the last question no, it’s not restricted to only those that have training.

haha, before i read chapter one, i thought the job of a scientist was merely to collect and analyze data. but, after reading it, i realized they expand the understanding and knowledge of the world around us through studying, analyzing, and proving many of the big questions in our culture. the environment of experiments in a professional laboratory is very controlled, unlike many of the labs i’ve done prior to this year

haha, before i read chapter one, i thought scientist’s jobs were merely to collect and analyze data… that’s it. But, after reading it, i realized that the experiments they perform are not just some filler observations to give themselves a better chance to win the nobel peace prize, but they dedicate their entire career for the sole purpose of solving the many theories, objects (whether its the quark, or a planet with the possibility of life on it) and mysteries that plague our culture. angier states that professors at any given university, and at any given time period, use the same usage of trial and error.. i thought that was interesting

Before reading the first chapter of “The Canon” I always thought of people in white lab coats bending over beakers and chemicals, as scientists. The first chapter made me redefine my definition of what a scientist is. Everyone is a scientist in someway because even if we don’t notice or realize it – science is all around us, all the time. I think this chapter gave me a different perspective of what it means to conduct scientific experiments and this different view will definitely help me conduct better lab activities I don’t think there’s a limit to how much training we need to improve ourselves scientifically because science is just a huge learning process which never quite ends.

Modern society has skewed the laity’s perception of what a scientist is. Ever since I was a kid, I had always seen books with the stereotypical scientist imprinted in them–big glasses, white coat, and some type of lab equipment in their hands. Scientists seemed like foreigners to me, confined to labs and never exposed to the public. Angier really combatted this stereotype and spread the word to people that anyone is a scientist, no exceptions. Humans cannot help but solve everyday challenges scientifically. We form hypotheses, gather data and look at our results. Science is not just a profession, it’s a way of living. Angier wants her readers to embrace science, accept it into their lives and incorporate it into their everyday activities.

The first chapter emphasizes the importance of repeating thoughtfully planned and precise procedures. Before reading this chapter, science, for me, was platformed on the concept of right or wrong. However, the concept of trial and error is much more significant and is stressed to such an extent in science. And now, that concept too, is instilled in my approach to lab activities. Also, I do not think that I can literally get enough training in how to solve problems scientifically seeing as how there is no limit on science. The end result is not as important as the knowledge and information gained, along with the actual journey towards it. In other words, the whole purpose of training for scientific problem solving is to become accustomed to the proper procedures, to constantly learn new things, and to improve.

White lab coats, microscopes, and protective goggles – that was the image I had about scientists prior to reading this chapter, along with believing scientists to be people who remained isolated in laboratories for days on end. However, Angier highlights the idea that simple people living simple lives are scientists as well. In our everyday lives, whether we realize it or not, we analyze data and interpret information presented to us, making us all scientists to certain extents. There is no limit on science, and consequently, there is no limit on the amount of formal training in the discipline needed to be a scientist. Training is only a part of constant learning and improving.

Usually when you think of a scientist, what comes to mind appears in the form of an ultra intelligent ubergeek, unsocial and maybe even a tad akward. After reading this chapter, a stereotype was shattered and I was able to percieve scientists in a new way. The measure of a scientist doesnt amount to the number of books ravished by an inquiring mind, or the number of science courses taken as a result of a curious nature, but those of that nature and mind instead. Being a scientist isnt so much a physical aspect, as it is a state of mind: constantly questioning the world around you and how everything works. I believe I am a scientist; I’ve always had questions that others deemed odd and irrevelant but a curious nature, in my opinion, is what science is constructed upon.

Angier reiterated the fact that science is everywhere, whether we acknowledge it or not. Everyone thinks scientifically and uses scientific methods to solve problems in every day life as well as academically. I did have the common, inaccurate view of scientists shared with my peers before reading this chapter, but afterwards I realized that science embodies so much more than I thought. Angier wishes to break the scientist stereotypes and help everyone to accept that science is universal.

I cannot remember ever having met a scientist, but the image I had conceived of a scientist was what I saw from media and general public perceptions. After all, I only had Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton to refer to when science was mentioned. That perception has definitely changed after reading this book, I see that scientists don’t have to be limited to a lab to be researching and discovering wonders. Science is everywhere and the mentality that I share with many others that science is limited to a lab was demolished after reading this book. Angier said that people behave scientifically all the time, when fixing a DVD player for example, they think through the steps. I think this bit of info can help me a lot in labs, by going through the process step by step, dissecting each step to get to a conclusion or solution. I do not think critically or do quantatative reasoning very often, so these are some skills i hope to hone in my training.

I always used to picture an old man with crazy white hair in a white lab coat standing in a lab full of chemicals when someone would say the word scientist. I guess I basically thought of Einstein in a lab coat. Angier stated what I felt like I already knew, but just never realized which was that we use scientific skills in almost every aspect of our lives each day. I suppose then that would make me a scientist since I use skills like forming hypotheses and observing things that go on around me and other problem solving skills all the time. Anyone can be a scientist as long as they’re curious and want to learn more about the world around them. This view however makes me feel like there’s nothing special anymore about being a scientist. Since Angier is asserting EVERYONE can be one. I feel like that means any plain old Joe can walk into a lab and discover the cure for cancer.

My perception of a scientist was a person that had to be well qualified, been to many years of college, always works in a lab and never sees the light of day…. obviously a long lists of things that I didn’t see myself doing (except the school part). After I read this chapter, it really opened my eyes about how I should perceive everyday problems and questions, such as why should people be engaged in science, how society perceives science and how science is intertwined with other subjects: history, physics, global economics, politics, and especially current events. By Angier’s definition of science, it means that the person can think scientifically, no matter what problem they are trying to solve, be it a math problem, a logic problem, how much to cook, if your HIV test results are really accurate, or how many buses there are in your county, her point is that science needs to be included in today’s society, whether if the person is young or old, our culture should not be scientifically ignorant.

Before I read the first chapter, I thought a scientist was a person who worked in a lab, all day, never seeing the light of day, never living in the real world, when after having read this chapter, I realized my perception was the opposite from the truth. To live in society, and comprehend it you must in some way, be a scientist, to reason, go through logical deduction based on our observations, otherwise wouldn’t we be making poor choices? (Well maybe I should speak so quickly….) But nevertheless I realized that I think like a scientist everyday. Scientists don’t come to a conclusion without having contemplated their observations and use other resources to back them up (to corroborate) otherwise we could get away with saying “the sky is pink” or the ever famous “the earth is flat!”, (which some scientists did think- no but the earths tangents are!) well anyway not to get off on a tangent ……… People are scientists everyday, using logic and evidence to validate their hypothesis, and that is what Natalie Angier is trying to convey in this chapter, that society should not over look science, even though they use it everyday.

When I was younger, it was the Big Bang and bubbling beakers, then digging around a pig’s innards and dropping heavy objects off a roof. Later I found out it was much more work and more complex, and got turned off the subject altogether. However, now I see you don’t have to be hunchback over a microscope for days or brilliant-beyond-brilliant to be a scientist; it can be the average knowledge-seeker curious about their surroundings. Also, I used to believe science was all about facts, straightforward, rigid, and taking the mystery out of everyday wonders. Turns out, it’s actually the research that puts wonder in to common phenomena- why every human is unique, how the weather changes, or what makes fireflies glow. This chapter definately opened my eyes to how truly all-encompassing science is and rethink my stuffy image of what a scientist should be.

Before reading the book, I thought a scientist was a professional job. I thought scientists had a specific routine they did for every experiment. I always had an image of a white coat with flasks and test tubes in this elaborate machine mixing liquids and what not. I know this is one extreme, but I still thought you had to be an extreme nerd to be a scientist. After reading I came to realize that you didn’t have to be this all out science geek, you could just be an ordinary guy and still be a scientist. Just a thought, a scientist could even be a little boy playing with the ant pile in his back yard. He doing “experiments” with it. As previous people have explained, everyone thinks scientifically, even every once in a while.