Table Salt – a mix of sodium and chloride ions.
And to think that a highly reactive metal and a very deadly gas combine to form harmless white crystals that we sprinkle on food. Actually, it is better than just crystals. Table salt is the only rock directly consumed by man. That’s right. Those tiny crystals we put on everything – rocks.
Salt composes about 3.5% of the salt water found in our oceans. Albeit a small percentage, drinking ocean water directly would be fatal. That is because no matter how much of the salt water you intake; there will never be enough water in the body to flush out the excess sodium. Eventually, the kidneys cannot filter properly and shortly thereafter you fall into renal failure, the central nervous system overloads, and your circulatory system goes into overdrive. Oh…and then you die. Interestingly enough, drinking sea water isn’t necessarily unhealthy. If you were actually stuck on a deserted island with limited freshwater supply, you can add 1 part sea water for every 3 parts of fresh water. Not only would you be extending the limited water supply, you would be making better use of it.
If you go way back to the times before sports drinks were aware of the effects of electrolytes, many athletes that suffered cramps or fatigue took salt tablets instead of drowning their kidneys with excess water. This was not only to retain the water in his system, but to increase his electrolytes – the electricity that fuels the nervous system. This method of treatment has long been executed as some athletes continued to intake more tablets, eventually leading to the opposite intended effect – dehydration (or more accurately hypernatremia) from too much salt.
Going back to the deserted island scenario, combining the 1:3 saltwater to freshwater ratio not only extends the supply of available water, but it forces your kidneys to retain water that could be lost to sweat. In effect, we would be making our own sports drink – and the central nervous system wouldn’t mind the small addition of salt.
To better grasp this concept, the nerves in our body are similar to little electric impulses. These pulses of electricity are carried by sodium and potassium ions. Both ions are needed to carry out an impulse. This is why some say that eating bananas before rigorous training helps prevent the likelihood of cramps.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
Pasta
If I recall, two weeks ago I began talking about cooking – and its relationship to science. Cooking is like the fun science. And those experiments that produce excellent results…we can eat!
Anyways, I don’t know exactly where to start…
Pasta:
For those who actually cook in the home, I am sure one of the basic foods to become familiar with is pasta* (or noodles). Have you ever been told to add oil to the boiling water – whether in a recipe or by your grandmother (or other cooking instructor)? Sure you have! But why – why add oil?
Some chefs claim that by adding oil to the boiling water, they will help prevent the pasta noodles from sticking together during the cooking process. And this would make sense; oil makes the surfaces of objects slippery and lubricated. There is just one problem – oil floats above water. That is because water molecules are not as attracted to the oil molecules as much as they are attracted to each other, so the water would rather make bonds with other water molecules than oil. Thus the oil floats atop the water.
Although it is not exactly an experiment with laboratory standards, if one were to take 1 gallon of boiling water and add 1 tablespoon of oil with a half pound of pasta noodles and cook until al dente (lit. Italian to the tooth), about 85% of the oil would remain in the original pasta water. That means 15% (around a half teaspoon) of oil has managed to either be adhered to the pasta or temporarily be attracted to the water. In any case, is it reasonable that only half a teaspoon of oil is sufficient to lubricate enough of the half pound of pasta to prevent it from sticking? Adding more to the water would just be a wasteful use of oil. So…why have chefs said for centuries to add oil to the cooking pasta?
If it isn’t to prevent sticking, then why do it?
Pasta is composed of wheat flour, water, eggs, and salt at its most basic. By boiling the pasta, some excess starch from the flour is washed away from the noodles (this is why the pasta water is murky after cooking). This changes the surface tension of water – a property that pulls water molecules together at the surface. As more starch is released into the water, the surface tension becomes so weak that bubbles from the boiling process start to stack on top of each other.
This effect is similar to the foam you see when you go to a beach on a windy day, or the which foam that trails behind motor boats. The only difference is that the foam on the ocean is produced by proteins, while this particular example of pasta is produced by starch.
By adding oil to the pasta water, you add, not lubrication to the actual pasta molecules, but you lubrication to the starch molecules which compose the bubbles. No bubbles, no foam
However, the more practical approach to preventing foam build-up is not adding more oil, but adding more water. By adding more water and using a bigger vessel you (a) give more room for the pasta to move, which in turn yields to a more even cooking. This gives room for the pasta starch to dissipate. Also, the pasta will cook for a shorter period of time in more water (and by adding salt, which will be discussed in another blog). When the pasta is introduced to the water, the temperature of the water drops depending on the amount of water. The more water there is, the more energy there is in the pot, and less rebound time for the water to return to a boil.
To picture this a bit better, let’s consider two extremes. There is one small saucier with two cups of water and another stock pot with two gallons of water, both at a rolling boil. If I were to drop a several ice cubes into each vessel, which pot of water would return to a boil faster – two cups or two gallons?
The pot of two gallons of water, of course –
In this sense, the more water, the faster time it takes to re-boil, the faster cooking time leads to less starch. And if you’re going to be cooking in such a large amount of water, you’re probably going to use your largest pot.
A good rule of thumb: when cooking pasta, use at minimum a half gallon (for one to two servings) of water at a rolling boil. If you are planning on cooking more, use at least one gallon, maybe two. If planning to cook for more than five servings, consider more than one cook cycle (that is, cook in batches) and always leave at least three inches of headroom at the top of the pot to allow for excess starch collection.
*Please take caution when using the stove, oven, sharp instruments (knives, graters, micro-planks, cooking shears, blender, food processor), and take caution in unfamiliar kitchens. The kitchen is a dangerous place.
Anyways, I don’t know exactly where to start…
Pasta:
For those who actually cook in the home, I am sure one of the basic foods to become familiar with is pasta* (or noodles). Have you ever been told to add oil to the boiling water – whether in a recipe or by your grandmother (or other cooking instructor)? Sure you have! But why – why add oil?
Some chefs claim that by adding oil to the boiling water, they will help prevent the pasta noodles from sticking together during the cooking process. And this would make sense; oil makes the surfaces of objects slippery and lubricated. There is just one problem – oil floats above water. That is because water molecules are not as attracted to the oil molecules as much as they are attracted to each other, so the water would rather make bonds with other water molecules than oil. Thus the oil floats atop the water.
Although it is not exactly an experiment with laboratory standards, if one were to take 1 gallon of boiling water and add 1 tablespoon of oil with a half pound of pasta noodles and cook until al dente (lit. Italian to the tooth), about 85% of the oil would remain in the original pasta water. That means 15% (around a half teaspoon) of oil has managed to either be adhered to the pasta or temporarily be attracted to the water. In any case, is it reasonable that only half a teaspoon of oil is sufficient to lubricate enough of the half pound of pasta to prevent it from sticking? Adding more to the water would just be a wasteful use of oil. So…why have chefs said for centuries to add oil to the cooking pasta?
If it isn’t to prevent sticking, then why do it?
Pasta is composed of wheat flour, water, eggs, and salt at its most basic. By boiling the pasta, some excess starch from the flour is washed away from the noodles (this is why the pasta water is murky after cooking). This changes the surface tension of water – a property that pulls water molecules together at the surface. As more starch is released into the water, the surface tension becomes so weak that bubbles from the boiling process start to stack on top of each other.
This effect is similar to the foam you see when you go to a beach on a windy day, or the which foam that trails behind motor boats. The only difference is that the foam on the ocean is produced by proteins, while this particular example of pasta is produced by starch.
By adding oil to the pasta water, you add, not lubrication to the actual pasta molecules, but you lubrication to the starch molecules which compose the bubbles. No bubbles, no foam
However, the more practical approach to preventing foam build-up is not adding more oil, but adding more water. By adding more water and using a bigger vessel you (a) give more room for the pasta to move, which in turn yields to a more even cooking. This gives room for the pasta starch to dissipate. Also, the pasta will cook for a shorter period of time in more water (and by adding salt, which will be discussed in another blog). When the pasta is introduced to the water, the temperature of the water drops depending on the amount of water. The more water there is, the more energy there is in the pot, and less rebound time for the water to return to a boil.
To picture this a bit better, let’s consider two extremes. There is one small saucier with two cups of water and another stock pot with two gallons of water, both at a rolling boil. If I were to drop a several ice cubes into each vessel, which pot of water would return to a boil faster – two cups or two gallons?
The pot of two gallons of water, of course –
In this sense, the more water, the faster time it takes to re-boil, the faster cooking time leads to less starch. And if you’re going to be cooking in such a large amount of water, you’re probably going to use your largest pot.
A good rule of thumb: when cooking pasta, use at minimum a half gallon (for one to two servings) of water at a rolling boil. If you are planning on cooking more, use at least one gallon, maybe two. If planning to cook for more than five servings, consider more than one cook cycle (that is, cook in batches) and always leave at least three inches of headroom at the top of the pot to allow for excess starch collection.
*Please take caution when using the stove, oven, sharp instruments (knives, graters, micro-planks, cooking shears, blender, food processor), and take caution in unfamiliar kitchens. The kitchen is a dangerous place.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Statement of Purpose 02
A school quarter grading-period has passed, and it is time to reevaluate. I recall on my first Statement of Purpose I stressed the blogging of neurology. After one blog, I realized that this route was a dead end until some new medicine or disease is researched in the field. However, I did not want to go astray from the science realm.
I continued my science-related blogs with taxonomy. I go beyond the common major sciences (biology, chemistry, and physics) and peer into the view of other studies. Occasionally there is a look into my personal life, for example Chemistry Class, which revolves around my performance in Advanced Placement (AP®)* Chemistry.
A quick mandatory assignment temporarily deterred from the sciences. The entire class was required to read “Why Are All the Black Kids sitting together in the Cafeteria?” and blog about the commentary he annotated in a paragraph of Chapter 01 – Defining Racism.
During the week of 2009.10.19, I fell ill. Not only am I still not somewhat 100 percent, but this illness has dragged for over three weeks (soon to be a month-long illness). Luckily most symptoms are cleared; only congestion and coughing remains. Even under the curse of a fever, I managed to complete my English blog assignment. I could not resist adding some science into my blog post, thus added to the quick introduction of my condition was some information on pathology.
The blog post of 2009.10.26 seems to be the blog I truly want to continue. Cooking in relation to scientific terms is a concept that is important to the Why factor. It provides background information on what is happening during cooking, instead of going through the motions (mix, stir, blend, heat, cool, etc.).
For Quarter 02, I will answer most (if not all) the questions I set forth in Cooking – more than fun. Continue working with effective communication is a key concept in blog writing. Hopefully those who read my blogs (which I am guessing is not many) are getting a feel of the style of writing I present and can provide comments to improve my writing.
* AP® AND Advanced Placement Program ARE REGISTERED TRADEMARKS OF THE College Board™.
I continued my science-related blogs with taxonomy. I go beyond the common major sciences (biology, chemistry, and physics) and peer into the view of other studies. Occasionally there is a look into my personal life, for example Chemistry Class, which revolves around my performance in Advanced Placement (AP®)* Chemistry.
A quick mandatory assignment temporarily deterred from the sciences. The entire class was required to read “Why Are All the Black Kids sitting together in the Cafeteria?” and blog about the commentary he annotated in a paragraph of Chapter 01 – Defining Racism.
During the week of 2009.10.19, I fell ill. Not only am I still not somewhat 100 percent, but this illness has dragged for over three weeks (soon to be a month-long illness). Luckily most symptoms are cleared; only congestion and coughing remains. Even under the curse of a fever, I managed to complete my English blog assignment. I could not resist adding some science into my blog post, thus added to the quick introduction of my condition was some information on pathology.
The blog post of 2009.10.26 seems to be the blog I truly want to continue. Cooking in relation to scientific terms is a concept that is important to the Why factor. It provides background information on what is happening during cooking, instead of going through the motions (mix, stir, blend, heat, cool, etc.).
For Quarter 02, I will answer most (if not all) the questions I set forth in Cooking – more than fun. Continue working with effective communication is a key concept in blog writing. Hopefully those who read my blogs (which I am guessing is not many) are getting a feel of the style of writing I present and can provide comments to improve my writing.
* AP® AND Advanced Placement Program ARE REGISTERED TRADEMARKS OF THE College Board™.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Cooking - more than fun
Cooking is more than preparing food for eating (definition provided by Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary); cooking is a science. When I prepare food (which is quite seldom), I see more than the list of ingredients followed by a set of instructions. I look at these instructions and dissect the aspects of a dish and rationalize cooking in a scientific perspective.
Why is it necessary to knead bread dough?
Why add salt to boiling water?
Why do ice cream, frozen custards and yogurts, gelato, and similar frozen desserts not freeze into a solid chunk (like a block of ice)?
How do sugars ferment into alcohols and how do alcoholic wines become vinegar?
Why deep-fat fry, pan fry, or sauté? What are the differences and its effect on the final food product?
What are the best cooking methods of foods?
What is light/white meat and dark meat and why are they different?
Why are eggs a common “binder” in recipes?
How do variations in the proportions of ingredients affect a final product of a food? (A good example I will explain later involves Chocolate Chip Cookies)
What is baking powder versus baking soda? Can they be interchanged in a recipe, what are their effects on baked goods?
How does a refrigerator or freezer cool food?
Why do oil and water (and water-type liquids) not combine well? Why add the oil to boiling water when cooking pasta?
Can a cupcake and a cake use the same recipe?
Is corn syrup bad for one’s health? (Interesting information available about corn syrup)
What is the difference between table sugar (granulated, confectioner/powder, raw), artificial sweeteners, corn syrup (dark and light), brown sugar (dark, golden, light), honey, etc. and can these different sugar (and sugar-type substitutes) be interchanged in recopies?
How does adding (or taking away) heat change food’s “chemistry”?
And the list of these questions (based on cooking) continues, and I could provide over a hundred different cooking-related inquiries.
Easily, I can go to the streets and ask with what people he/she associates baking and cooking. I can assume there will be several who mention either girls or housewives – even the women.
Why associate cooking with women? Yet again, why associate working with the lower social class? Without going too far in depth to our racism unit (in English class), it is just human nature that we categorize.
Now,
Let me relate back to cooking as a science. How many would associate cooking and science?
Probably not too many, but cooking involves science (albeit not distinctly in many cases). Chemistry, physics, biology, anatomy, botany, ichthyology, ornithology, crystallography (studying crystals, like salts and sugars), and many, many more sciences intermixed to have a foundation for cooking. Transforming raw ingredients to form succulent dishes involved thousands of years of tradition, experimentation, tasting to meld flavors or avoid certain combinations of food. Only until recently (compared to the length of human cooking) have scientists discovered the science behind some of the cooking procedures used in modern culinary compositions.
“Science: It’s what’s for dinner.”
Why is it necessary to knead bread dough?
Why add salt to boiling water?
Why do ice cream, frozen custards and yogurts, gelato, and similar frozen desserts not freeze into a solid chunk (like a block of ice)?
How do sugars ferment into alcohols and how do alcoholic wines become vinegar?
Why deep-fat fry, pan fry, or sauté? What are the differences and its effect on the final food product?
What are the best cooking methods of foods?
What is light/white meat and dark meat and why are they different?
Why are eggs a common “binder” in recipes?
How do variations in the proportions of ingredients affect a final product of a food? (A good example I will explain later involves Chocolate Chip Cookies)
What is baking powder versus baking soda? Can they be interchanged in a recipe, what are their effects on baked goods?
How does a refrigerator or freezer cool food?
Why do oil and water (and water-type liquids) not combine well? Why add the oil to boiling water when cooking pasta?
Can a cupcake and a cake use the same recipe?
Is corn syrup bad for one’s health? (Interesting information available about corn syrup)
What is the difference between table sugar (granulated, confectioner/powder, raw), artificial sweeteners, corn syrup (dark and light), brown sugar (dark, golden, light), honey, etc. and can these different sugar (and sugar-type substitutes) be interchanged in recopies?
How does adding (or taking away) heat change food’s “chemistry”?
And the list of these questions (based on cooking) continues, and I could provide over a hundred different cooking-related inquiries.
Easily, I can go to the streets and ask with what people he/she associates baking and cooking. I can assume there will be several who mention either girls or housewives – even the women.
Why associate cooking with women? Yet again, why associate working with the lower social class? Without going too far in depth to our racism unit (in English class), it is just human nature that we categorize.
Now,
Let me relate back to cooking as a science. How many would associate cooking and science?
Probably not too many, but cooking involves science (albeit not distinctly in many cases). Chemistry, physics, biology, anatomy, botany, ichthyology, ornithology, crystallography (studying crystals, like salts and sugars), and many, many more sciences intermixed to have a foundation for cooking. Transforming raw ingredients to form succulent dishes involved thousands of years of tradition, experimentation, tasting to meld flavors or avoid certain combinations of food. Only until recently (compared to the length of human cooking) have scientists discovered the science behind some of the cooking procedures used in modern culinary compositions.
“Science: It’s what’s for dinner.”
Friday, October 23, 2009
Ill?
Well, I must say, I thing I am completely sick by now. I woke up on Sunday morning it find that I had a sore throat. No problem – all that is needed is some rest, liquids, soft foods, and no deep-fried products. Two days pass, Wednesday 2009.10.21, I feel up to go to swim practice – practice cut a half-hour anyways, the throat didn’t seem to be a large issue, and no detectable fever was detected. BIG MISTAKE
I am possessed like a dummy – fever, sore throat (still), congestion, and the chills. YUCK. And I attend school so I wouldn’t miss some quizzes or lectures…. Spiking a 100.8℉ fever is not cool. I just hope I don’t get anybody else sick.
Speaking of disease, what is the study of (the nature of) diseases? Oh, did I hear somebody say “immunology” (like immune system)? Well, you’re kind of on the right track, but that’s the study of the immune system – not diseases directly. What may be another name for a little microorganism –bacterium or virus – that can cause disease (e.g. the common cold, influenza, tuberculosis, and myocarditis are the only ones that I can come up with)? I am not sure if you are familiar with the term “pathogen.” So…how about pathology? Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. Pathology studies the nature of diseases and the changes (in the host) produced by said virus and bacterium. The etymology of pathology derives from New Latin pathologia and Middle French pathologie, and originally from Greek pathologia study of the emotions (emotions?). Isn’t etymology interesting – emotions…where do the Greeks come up with this stuff?
Well isn’t science fun? I combined my cr*ppy illness to (sorta) fun science. Whoo, disease like the plague, the Black Death, Bubonic plague, pneumonic plague, and septicemic plague – all caused by different types of pathogens that run wild through people’s immune system. Let’s just hope I only have the common cold =[
I am possessed like a dummy – fever, sore throat (still), congestion, and the chills. YUCK. And I attend school so I wouldn’t miss some quizzes or lectures…. Spiking a 100.8℉ fever is not cool. I just hope I don’t get anybody else sick.
Speaking of disease, what is the study of (the nature of) diseases? Oh, did I hear somebody say “immunology” (like immune system)? Well, you’re kind of on the right track, but that’s the study of the immune system – not diseases directly. What may be another name for a little microorganism –bacterium or virus – that can cause disease (e.g. the common cold, influenza, tuberculosis, and myocarditis are the only ones that I can come up with)? I am not sure if you are familiar with the term “pathogen.” So…how about pathology? Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. Pathology studies the nature of diseases and the changes (in the host) produced by said virus and bacterium. The etymology of pathology derives from New Latin pathologia and Middle French pathologie, and originally from Greek pathologia study of the emotions (emotions?). Isn’t etymology interesting – emotions…where do the Greeks come up with this stuff?
Well isn’t science fun? I combined my cr*ppy illness to (sorta) fun science. Whoo, disease like the plague, the Black Death, Bubonic plague, pneumonic plague, and septicemic plague – all caused by different types of pathogens that run wild through people’s immune system. Let’s just hope I only have the common cold =[
Friday, October 16, 2009
Social Sciences and Formal Sciences
Blog post 2009.10.09 concluded with the definition of science as “a state of knowledge.” Again, in the broadest term, science is not limited to the natural sciences (e.g. biology, chemistry, physics, ichthyology, ornithology, herpetology, microbiology, mammalogy, planktology, paleozoology, geology, meteorology, physiology/anatomy, astronomy, etc.). A wide arrange of social sciences encase our science framework. Anthropology, history, economics, law and government, psychology, geography, philosophy (controversial), and sociology are all examples of social sciences. Many of these topics have subtopics – sub-sciences – so to speak.
Anthropology studies human beings and their ancestors through time and space and in relation to physical character, environmental and social relations, and culture. Archaeology is an excellent example of a well-known anthropologic science.
Economics is concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Microeconomics and macroeconomics deal with the study of economics in terms of individual activity and in terms of a system in its entirety, respectively.
Law and governmental science (in the general of political science) concerns chiefly with the description and analysis of political and especially governmental institutions and processes.
The social sciences concern of the aspects of human society. These forms of science are usually independent of natural science components. Nevertheless, the natural sciences advanced the technology and influenced the humans to progress further to shape today’s society.
One final branch of science is the formal sciences. These deal with (formal) systems similar to logic, computer science, mathematics and number theory, statistics, and linguistics. With a looser definition of a formal science, there is slight overlap with the categorization (taxonomy). For example, some may consider microeconomics a form of both a formal and social science. These formal sciences can be seen as the sciences used to compare the real world with a science of symbols and theoretical rules. However, they should not be used as an interpretation of reality, nor do the rules represent reality in a ‘perfect world.’ Some may even confuse the real world with the theoretical rules of formal sciences.
I think this will be the last of posts concerning with the classification of sciences.
Whew, that must be a lot of material to absorb. I will finish here,
Thank you-
END OF LECTURE.
Anthropology studies human beings and their ancestors through time and space and in relation to physical character, environmental and social relations, and culture. Archaeology is an excellent example of a well-known anthropologic science.
Economics is concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Microeconomics and macroeconomics deal with the study of economics in terms of individual activity and in terms of a system in its entirety, respectively.
Law and governmental science (in the general of political science) concerns chiefly with the description and analysis of political and especially governmental institutions and processes.
The social sciences concern of the aspects of human society. These forms of science are usually independent of natural science components. Nevertheless, the natural sciences advanced the technology and influenced the humans to progress further to shape today’s society.
One final branch of science is the formal sciences. These deal with (formal) systems similar to logic, computer science, mathematics and number theory, statistics, and linguistics. With a looser definition of a formal science, there is slight overlap with the categorization (taxonomy). For example, some may consider microeconomics a form of both a formal and social science. These formal sciences can be seen as the sciences used to compare the real world with a science of symbols and theoretical rules. However, they should not be used as an interpretation of reality, nor do the rules represent reality in a ‘perfect world.’ Some may even confuse the real world with the theoretical rules of formal sciences.
I think this will be the last of posts concerning with the classification of sciences.
Whew, that must be a lot of material to absorb. I will finish here,
Thank you-
END OF LECTURE.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Blog: 2009.10.09
I have come to a conclusion that I am spending an excessive amount of time composing (and completing) these blog posts. I looked around at other people’s blogs via the Blog Feed and noticed many different types of compositions. Some blogs are focused around songs (and music), movies, and books, while other blogs are written about personal life. In many cases, these blogs can be written freely based on one’s opinion, which can easily be recalled by memory. However, blogging concentrated about sciences (I feel) may be a bit more of a challenging, albeit fun, topic – as blogging about accurate scientific requires research, instead of freeform opinion of other topics – not to say that science blogging always requires research or other topics lack freeform opinions. Nevertheless I feel that the researching for these blogs is time-consuming compared to the composition of a story. That said I believe I will limit the number of science-related blogs (or at least those surrounding the world of modern medicine that is constantly altered).
Hopefully that introduction did not give you the impression I was going to speak of another topic (ha). On the other hand, I can reduce the quantity extensive research contributing to the blog post.
On one of my previous blogs, “The Basics of Science” (click here), I ended with a wide-ranged list of sciences (mostly, if not all, natural sciences). And this would be a valid list, considering that the first ideas of science that come to mind are the natural sciences. What is so interesting is how science only refers to a state of knowing, in its broadest interpretation. If you look at the introduction of “The Basics of Science” you may note that I define science in terms of the natural sciences, the chemists’, biologists’, physicists’, geologists’, medical doctors’, etc. point of view; I defined science as:
[…] knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws, especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. It is a framework for gaining and organizing this knowledge. However, it is not simply a set of facts but it is also a plan of action – a procedure for processing and understanding certain types of information.
With this limited definition, we see only the natural sciences – those concerning physical objects that we can test and study (or hypothesize) with the scientific method. Broadening the scope to just a state of knowledge, an introduction of social sciences becomes available.
Ahh. I need to post this. I will continue.
I have come to a conclusion that I am spending an excessive amount of time composing (and completing) these blog posts. I looked around at other people’s blogs via the Blog Feed and noticed many different types of compositions. Some blogs are focused around songs (and music), movies, and books, while other blogs are written about personal life. In many cases, these blogs can be written freely based on one’s opinion, which can easily be recalled by memory. However, blogging concentrated about sciences (I feel) may be a bit more of a challenging, albeit fun, topic – as blogging about accurate scientific requires research, instead of freeform opinion of other topics – not to say that science blogging always requires research or other topics lack freeform opinions. Nevertheless I feel that the researching for these blogs is time-consuming compared to the composition of a story. That said I believe I will limit the number of science-related blogs (or at least those surrounding the world of modern medicine that is constantly altered).
Hopefully that introduction did not give you the impression I was going to speak of another topic (ha). On the other hand, I can reduce the quantity extensive research contributing to the blog post.
On one of my previous blogs, “The Basics of Science” (click here), I ended with a wide-ranged list of sciences (mostly, if not all, natural sciences). And this would be a valid list, considering that the first ideas of science that come to mind are the natural sciences. What is so interesting is how science only refers to a state of knowing, in its broadest interpretation. If you look at the introduction of “The Basics of Science” you may note that I define science in terms of the natural sciences, the chemists’, biologists’, physicists’, geologists’, medical doctors’, etc. point of view; I defined science as:
[…] knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws, especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. It is a framework for gaining and organizing this knowledge. However, it is not simply a set of facts but it is also a plan of action – a procedure for processing and understanding certain types of information.
With this limited definition, we see only the natural sciences – those concerning physical objects that we can test and study (or hypothesize) with the scientific method. Broadening the scope to just a state of knowledge, an introduction of social sciences becomes available.
Ahh. I need to post this. I will continue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
