Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T10:23:55.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

This is Science!

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2017

Jere H. Lipps
Jere H. Lipps*
Affiliation:
Department of Integrative Biology and Museum of Paleontology, University of California Berkeley, California 94720
Get access

Extract

Science is so exciting! Why? Because it is awe-inspiring, fun, and creative. Most scientists would not do anything else — they are truly dedicated to what they do. You can hardly get them to be quiet once they start talking about their work. Unlike most people, they usually love their jobs! However, this is not the common view presented of most scientists. They are commonly thought of as nerds, freaks, weirdoes, or evil-doers as portrayed in movies or television. These are fantasies where, with a few exceptions, scientists are shown negatively because it fits dramatic needs (Crichton, 1999). It's just not true in real life.

Type
Evolution in Prespective
Information
The Paleontological Society Special Publications , Volume 9: Evolution: Investigating the Evidence , 1999 , pp. 3 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Chamberlain, T.C., 1897. The method of multiple working hypotheses. Journal of Geology, 6(5): 837–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crichton, M., 1999. Ritual abuse, hot air, and missed opportunities. Science, 283(5407): 1461–1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwin, C., 1859. The Origin of Species. John Murray, London.Google Scholar
Darwin, C., 1874. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. John Murray, London.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, P.R. and Ehrlich, A.H., 1996. Betrayal of science and reason : how anti-environmental rhetoric threatens our future. Island Press, Washington, D.C., xiii, 335 pp.Google Scholar
Lederman, L.M., 1996. A strategy for saving science. Skeptical Inquirer, 20: 23–28.Google Scholar
Lett, J., 1990. A field guide to critical thinking. Skeptical Inquirer, 14: 153–160.Google Scholar
Lipps, J.H., 1999. Beyond reason: Science in the mass media. In: Schopf, J. W. (Editor), Evolution! Facts and Fallacies. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 71–90.Google Scholar
Mims, E.M. III, 1999. Amateur science–Strong tradition, bright future. Science, 284: 55–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platt, J.R., 1964. Strong inference. Science, 146(3642): 347–353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sagan, C., 1995. The demon-haunted world: science as a candle in the dark. Random House, New York, xviii, 457 pp.Google Scholar
Simpson, G.G., 1963. Historical science. In: Albritton, C. C. Jr. (Editor), The Fabric of Geology. Freeman, Cooper, & Co., Stanford, California, pp. 24–48.Google Scholar
Wade, C., and Travis, C., 1990. Thinking creatively and critically. Skeptical Inquirer, 14: 372–377.Google Scholar