Vivat Libertas

Popular perception The public perception of the sciences and the humanities is that they're separated by some endless gulf. The scientists work nine to five jobs, and often longer, researching cures for cancer and string theory and all sorts of boffin-y stuff, while the philosophers and classicists either really think and feel , unlike those cold scientists, or they piss around pretending to look clever, depending on your viewpoint. Scientists do things boringly; philosophers and classicists have deeper insight. And of course, scientists think the humanities are too soft, while professors of the humanities think the sciences are soulless. Frankly, I think anyone who thinks that has a brain full of bullshit and, if they're a scientist or working in the humanities, pretty piss-poor at their job. It doesn't look like it, but both rely on the same skills of linking things together while also being able to analyse things deeply. It also doesn't look like they can help ...

I really hate it when TV presenters are the face of science programmes. You might be wondering why I actually care enough to make an entire blog post about that. Firstly, I should probably put things into perspective and combat the ills of society, and secondly, I should probably get a life. That said, this post (hopefully) develops into something vaguely important. The thing is, as a general rule TV presenters know nothing, or very little, about science. A programme may try to remedy this by interviewing actual scientists working in the field, but it still seems to come off as some Z-list media personality talking to the token egghead that they have to put in because it's about science and they have to make sure that it's factually correct, if grossly oversimplified. This does really not help public understanding of science - which is already sorely lacking. It's absolutely infuriating: people who know nothing about science get to show off some "gee whiz!" ...

Because equations are awesome. So, as most people might not know were it not for the Google Doodle, today's the 127th anniversary of Niels Bohr's birthday. I'm not going to talk about his life (mostly because I'm lazy, partly because the internet's got a wealth of information about him already), but I am  going to talk about the influence him and the other greats of physics have had on me. You might wonder how a bunch of dead white males from the first half of the twentieth century could possibly influence a sixteen-year-old girl - a sixteen-year-old girl, mind you, who hasn't even gone to university yet and whose knowledge of theoretical physics, and the maths behind it, is thus very limited. Moreover, that physics is relatively old - even the positron, the first evidence of antimatter, was discovered in 1932; the modern theory of antimatter itself originates in a 1928 paper by Paul Dirac . Even something as exotic as antimatter is ancient (not that it...

I don't really talk about this much. I probably should do, since it's quite interesting. I came across this tweet from Alom Shaha , talking about how having female role models doesn't make a difference to girls' appreciation of physics. Now, this is a massive problem - the ratio of men to women in physics is still quite skewed, but I'm getting off topic. He asked for thoughts, and since I have a big mouth and fairly good typing skills here's what I came up with . It sparked off a little bit of commenting, particularly when I mentioned the role of the media in telling girls to "shut up & look nice" . Two women, @RedRubia and @Queen_Claire , told me that nobody had ever told them they couldn't do maths and that they were very proud of being presentable lady geeks who had never thought that they should shut up, in which case, more power to them. @Original_Cindy  then claimed I was wrong (but hasn't actually put any evidence forth for th...