News:

The default theme for this site has been updated. For further information, please take a look at the announcement regarding HAF changing its default theme.

Main Menu

Explaining things to people without insulting their intelligence

Started by xSilverPhinx, August 15, 2018, 01:39:25 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Dave

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 29, 2018, 03:40:19 PM
Quote from: Dave on August 29, 2018, 05:07:08 AM
See, I said so, you're going to be a pop-science media star!

:lol: I wish!

QuoteDifficult! I once explained part of the operation of an MRI scanner using the idea of rulers made from different materials, held down sticking out different lengths and how they would twang at different notes if held down then released. The imaging bit was not so easy - sort of fudged round that using the idea of ""... now imagine sort of radar cameras that can take pictures of radio vibrations, light is only a kind of such vibration really, just one we can see with our eyes...".

But the result was the person was left with an understanding of the principle.

Confidence is important, comhined with a sort of comic musing when difficult bits arrive. Where possible draw parallels with ordinary stuff. If you have to use jargon make a feature of it, a joke if you can. Humour helps!

That history prog is a good example of technique even though it is not science. Steal techniques from others. And it sounds like you can "read" your audience and know when to re-iterate - an important skill.

But I am sure you have seen/heard/realise all that stuff.

"Where possible draw parallels with ordinary stuff."

Yes, that is important. Though the problem with using everyday language instead of jargon is you lose precision. If language can be limited to explain certain concepts, it can become even more so. Metaphors and analogies are good, but they should be used carefully, and their limitations pointed out. For instance, some people use the analogy of computer memories -- RAM, HD --- to explain working memory and long-term memory, respectively. I think there are major problems in doing so, as our memories are nothing like that of a computer. But, depending on the level of understanding of the person you're talking to, should one use such an analogy even though it is imprecise? For instance, when talking to a child with access to computers.

I think precision depends on your audience, but accuracy is the right of everyone.  Not quite the same thing, unless you are working with pure, critical numericals - Avogadro's Condtant is 6.023 × 1023, but the number of connections to neurons can be, "About . . ."

Worst case is talking to those of another discipline, used to precision but totally ignorant of what you want to ecplain to them! But pop-science media stars don''t have to pander to them very often.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Dave

Here is simething I put together for a series of talks on everyday science for the U3A- then someone produced some very similar stuff, so I rewrote it as an article.

"SOLUTION FOUND IN BATHTUB!
Dateline Syracuse; Sicily; 257(ish)BCE: Well known local thinker and inventor, Archimedes, foils fiendish plot to rob King Hiero II!"

Archimedes, son of  astronomer Phidias,, was one of the ancient world's main men. Just about the most famous story about him is that of his running, wet and naked, through the streets yelling, "Eureka!" ("I found (it)!"). What had he found that was so astounding that he forgot his bathrobe?

The king of the time had commissioned a new votive crown, supplying the gold for it himself. But His Majesty had the suspicion that the newly made crown was not all it seemed, he suspected that the goldsmith had kept some of the expensive gold and mixed cheaper silver in with the rest to make the weight of metal the same as that supplied.

The king asked Archimedes to prove this one way or another - without damaging the crown. "OK," thought Archimedes, "I can easily weigh the crown, and then make a lump of pure gold of the same weight. But I need to know the volume of both of them as well, if the crown contains some, lighter, silver it will take up more space for the same weigh. The lump of pure gold is easy to measure, but the crown is a difficult shape, I can't measure all these fiddly bits accurately!"

Archimedes puzzled over this until he got brain ache and decided to have a nice soak in the bath. His servant had filled the tub to the brim, and as Archimedes lowered himself slowly in the water overflowed. Later he got out of the bath, and the water level went back down. Then the realisation hit him, the space now left in the bath was exactly the same volume as his own, submerged, body (complete with all his fiddly bits) and therefore so was the displaced water. If he were to place the crown in a full tub of water, the displaced water must be the same volume as the crown!

So happy was Archimedes that he forgot his naked state and rushed of to tell the king of his idea... He had a wide jug, with a long spout, made and filled this until the water over-flowed from the spout. When this flow stopped he lowered the crown into the jug, but this time carefully collected the displaced water from the spout. Making a mark where the water level was on the collecting vessel he emptied that and dried it, then refilled the jug and repeated the process, this time dunking the lump of pure gold and collecting the new over-flow in the same measuring vessel.

The displaced water from the gold did not quite reach the first mark, the gold lump had a smaller volume than the crown, was more dense than the crown. Therefore the crown was a mixture of gold and some lighter metal.!

Archimedes had temporarily lost his head in his joy at finding his solution; we can assume the goldsmith lost his head in a more permanent way!

OK, no one knows the actual details of the story, but history has recorded the fact that Archimedes obviously felt a real emotional lift in finding a simple solution to what he thought was a very difficult problem. That is one of the rewards of working in science and technology - that sense of discovery, of creating new ideas or inventions. It doesnt happen all that often, and it can take a lot of time and work, but when it does happen its a real buzz!

Archimedes method has remained just as important for every single moment of the two thousand two hundred odd years since he found it. It is still used today for many purposes, including being still the most accurate way to measure the volume of the human body. From this and the persons weight the density of his or her body can be found – which is a good indicator of the amount of fat someone has, his or her body mass index orBMI, a very important factor in medical research and treatment. It is also used to measure the "displacement" of ships, they "displace" their own weight of water when floating.

An iceberg has a density, weight per volune, kilograms per litre, only about 90% that of salt water. Thus it floats with about 10% of its volume above the surface but the volume it displaces under the surface is equal to its total weight.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74