You've probably heard or used the word calibration in reference to the balances. I often ask you to check to be sure that they are calibrated. When I do, you look to see that when nothing is on the balance it reads zero. According to Wikipedia, (and yes, I am citing wikipedia, a thing I tell you never to do, but it just so happens, in this instance it gives a very good definition for calibration) calibration is:
"a comparison between measurements – one of known magnitude or correctness made or set with one device and another measurement made in as similar a way as possible with a second device. The device with the known or assigned correctness is called the standard. The second device is the unit under test (UUT), test instrument (TI), or any of several other names for the device being calibrated."
Calibration gives us a starting point or a point of comparison between measurements. We may have two different units of measurement calibrated to each other. This is where scales come in.
Angier is not talking about scales of a fish, or scales on a piano (although, scales on a piano are the same concept); she is talking about scales of reference or measurement of numbers. Something that is really tiny is on a small scale. Something that is really huge is on a large scale. All the metric conversions we have been doing are about changes of scale. Scientific notation provides a quick and easy way to change the scale of something.
OK, now that we have made sense of the title of the chapter, it is up to you to make sense of the rest of this. I invite you to post your thoughts.
The Metric System is a very controversial and widely debated topic. It poses both positive and negative aspects. For example, the metric system is based on powers of ten which makes it very easy to use. If it were to become universal, it would put the entire world on the same measurement scale. Unfortunately, America has not switched to the metric system because it would cost too much to do so. People believe the amount of money required to switch to the metric system would be too much for a menial part of our world. Though scientists use it, most of Americans have gone through life without needing the use of the metric system. Average people do not feel the need to use scientific measurements, especially when they do not need to convert measurements in daily life.
ReplyDelete-Wendy Doan and Kathryn "the great" O'Donoghue
Especially as children we tend to misjudge measurements. We're only familiar with a small area so we think it is a lot bigger than it is, becasue that is all we know. As we get older, the more we know the smaller or less important things seem to be. This can relate back to science because the less we know we think everything is big and simple. The more information we know we see how complex things are and how miniscule they are. Things such as our cells, and all the complex reactions that occurr constantly in the body.
ReplyDeleteThis effects our ability in that it makes it difficult for us to visualize because it is too small to understand. In a world where everthing is so large it is impossible for people to conceptualize anything we can't see. Seeing is believing and so if something is so small we can't see it we can't understand the scale its on because it doesn't relate to our daily lives. Often in an attempt to understand extremely small scales we rationalize them to the point that they are no longer applicable because we have messed up the scale so much. For example Angier's example of fitting the universe on the head of a pin is a good metaphor but it takes a scale that is small and makes it sizeable while ruining our ability to understand and apply that scale because to us it will always be the size of the head of a pin.
ReplyDeleteIn this reading, the metric system is described from past explorations of King Henry and the Romans. King Henry described a yard as the length of this nose to the tip of his middle finger of his extended arm. The Romans devised a plan about how long a mile was and how it compared to a full-stride of a common person. The metric system isn't based on properties of atoms or gravity but rather a group of measurements that were passed down from generation to generation. However, the metric system is helpful because it allows for exact conversions.
ReplyDeleteMorgan Wheeler and Mary Leasure
The metric system is a good system to use because it is based in units of ten. This makes it easier to use and also makes the conversion much simpler. Another reason the metric system is helpful is because the entire scientific community uses it. It is the universal system for scientists. A reason that the metric system is not the best system is because it is not based on atoms of light or gravity. It can also be a difficult system to use because the United States does not fully use it. So it is broken up and difficult to convert to the metric system because we are already using a different system.
ReplyDeleteDakota, Gabby & Christina
@Mary: Yards and miles are considered the english system, not metric. One critique of metric is that it is not connected to any external logic, but rather randomly chosen lengths and volumes.
ReplyDelete@Mary: good one, we totally agree! Good information :-)
ReplyDelete@Dannielle Allen: I agree that as children your idea of measurement can be miscontrued. It seems that this trend is becoming something adults do too, not just kids.
ReplyDelete@ kathryn "the great" and Wendy:
ReplyDeleteI think that switching to the metric system would be beneficial because then the pretty much the whole world would be together on one system of measurements.
Even though it may take a lot of money to switch, it would be good in the end.
-Taxia, Dannielle, and Cristina
“By all appearances, we have evolved to view life on a human scale, to concern ourselves almost exclusively with the rhythms of hours, days, seasons, years, and with objects that we can readily see, touch, and count on, because those are what we have to work with, those are the ambient utensils with which we must build our lives.” –Page 72
ReplyDeleteScientific concepts are beyond our human conception. Because we can’t see many scientific concepts, we have a hard time understanding them. For example, there are 300 billion stars in our Milky Way, but we actually only see 2,500 stars. That makes it hard to believe that there are actually 300 billion stars, for we can only see so many. Angier helps us understand this concept by telling her childhood story of growing up in the Bronx. When she was little, she would exaggerate her neighborhood, making every block the size of a continent. Years later, she went back to the Bronx and realized how overwhelmed she felt as a child, thus exaggerating the dimensions of her surroundings to match how large they seemed emotionally.
-Katie and Anna :)
@Carolyn: We agree that fitting the universe on the head of a pin is a good metaphor. We think that this only relates to an adults view of the universe, for through a child's eyes, the universe is GINORMOUS!!! They can't even imagine how big the universe actually is, whereas adults can relate to the whole galaxy, and realize they can go anywhere, making the universe not so big.
ReplyDelete-Katie D. and Anna :)
In the canon Angier discusses our propensity to concern ourselves only with those things that exist on human scale, meaning that we revert our thinking back to everything that relates to us. We can’t think of things that are on very small scales like atoms or bacteria or very large things, for that matter, like the universe all because they aren’t based off of what we always think of as measurements or as sizes. This inclination effects our ability to understand and conceptualize scientific concepts because it limits our thinking and our ability to grasp things that are in relation to each other because they can’t relate back to us. Angier states, “Thus, the scientists I interviewed were unanimous in their conviction that people would benefit enormously from a better grasp of nature’s true dimensions: the length and breadth and tenure of the visible universe, the timeline of life on earth, the sublime spaciousness that persist even down to the imperceptible atom.” So basically she is saying that we need to relate things back to a base from nature and how they measure up there rather than basing them off of what history has taught us to be our measurements.
ReplyDeleteWe agree with Taxia, Danielle, and Cristina. Making everyone convert to the metric system would just be a lot easier. It would make it easier to compare data and exchange information without taking the time to convert that information into the different measurements.
ReplyDelete-ALEXA and this random loser girl (aka Jaime Lacasse)
plus, we agree with what Taxia, Dannielle and Cristina said about switching to the metric system. It would be costly, especially in this economy, but would be good in the long run.
ReplyDelete-Katie D. and Anna :)
In The Cannon, chapter three, Angier describes a metaphor to explain the Earth’s lifespan as that of a child growing up and passing through the different stages leading up to adulthood. She describes a metaphor for the size of the solar system by comparing each planet to different sized objects: the Earth is a grain of sand, the sun is an orange, Jupiter is a pebble, and Neptune and Pluto are slightly larger grains of sand.
ReplyDeleteThrough a web search, some alternative metaphors were found for both the Earth and the solar system and can be found at the following links:
Earth:
http://books.google.com/books?id=AAzZINriY3EC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=metaphor+for+earth's+lifespan&source=bl&ots=OrkTBEztIl&sig=1YVaEHRSRCBCxu9CoO7SZApFRUs&hl=en&ei=hUZZTfDIC8_UgAemj93YDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=metaphor%20for%20earth's%20lifespan&f=false (paragraph four of page 51).
Solar System:
http://answer.co5.biz/science-mathematics/what-would-be-a-good-metaphor-for-the-earths-size-in-comparison-to-the-rest-of-the-known-universe.html/comment-page-1#comment-566482 (scroll down to number five).
Love,
Katie B. and Abby Nee (haha, we rhyme)
Roses are Red
The Earth is blue
Friedrich is pretty
And we are too
<3 HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY!!!
The whole conversation that's been going on about converting to the metric system makes a lot of sense. It might be a little difficult to get used to, seeing as we are, at the present, using a separate system. In the end, however,the process of converting would help to break down the barriers that exist between communities that have formed because of the US's insistence on using a separate system.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Alexa's first comment, which was well said-- it is difficult to think of things that are much bigger or smaller than we are. Relating things like molecules or the universe to things on the human scale can be very helpful when trying to understand a new concept.
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of the posts concerning streamlining the metric system. I believe that using the metric system everywhere would greatly benefit all countries. This way, everyone would know (roughly) what 26 kilometers is in distance, or how much 56 grams really is. We wouldn't have to go through the pains of converting everything. Also, the metric system is much more logical than the system we use now. Because everything is in multiples of ten, everything is relative. The system we use is much more random.
ReplyDeleteWe also agree with Taxia, Dannielle, and Christina about switching to the metric system. Almost everything else in math and science is standardized. There is really no point in maintaining our current system, besides saving money. Many things have been switched over though, like spedometers (which show mph and kph), and the scientific community in the US uses the metric system, too. When Ronald Reagan was president, he suggested that Americans switch to the metric system, but we just didn't want to change. It seems kind of thoughtless now.
ReplyDelete-Taylor C, Kira, and Clare