Forgot your password?

typodupeerror
Education Science

Tomorrow's Science Heroes? 799

Posted by kdawson
from the mister-wizard-reincarnated dept.
An anonymous reader writes "As a kid I was (and still am) heavily influenced by Carl Sagan, and a little later by Stephen Hawking. Now as I have started a family with two kids, currently age 5 and 2, I am wondering who out there is popularizing science. Currently, my wife and I can get the kids excited about the world around them, but I'd like to find someone inspiring from outside the family as they get older. Sure, we'll always have 'Cosmos,' but are there any contemporaries who are trying to bring science into the public view in such a fun and intriguing way? Someone the kids can look up to and be inspired by? Where is the next Science Hero?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tomorrow's Science Heroes?

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Meteorologists (Score:2, Informative)

    by Wiscocrew (1254242) on Monday July 13 2009, @10:13PM (#28685459)
    Carl Sagan died in 1996.
  • Nova ScienceNOW (Score:3, Informative)

    by macemoneta (154740) on Monday July 13 2009, @10:35PM (#28685615) Homepage

    PBS has Nova ScienceNOW, hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3210/02.html [pbs.org]

    It's pretty good, and surprisingly current.

  • Re:Sorry, No. (Score:4, Informative)

    by TiberSeptm (889423) on Monday July 13 2009, @10:50PM (#28685793)
    No, it was an outright refusal to accept quantum physics as a anything but a curiosity - an interesting but ultimately fruitless dead end. Unto the day he died Einstein refused to accept that the quantum physics explanation of the sub atomic world was any more science than aether. He even coined the term "sooky action at a distance" before it was observed in an attempt to derride the ridiculousness of that particular consequence of the quantum model. While his extrapolation on the idea of entanglement and quantum teleportation were meant to demonstrate how ridiculous quantum theory was, it ended up being the basis for experiments that proved the theory valid. It was not a simple "lament" as Einstein never considered the non-quantum past of physics to be "the past." He was quite blinded by this refusal.
  • by snookums (48954) on Monday July 13 2009, @11:06PM (#28685917)

    How about Elmo and Curious George?

    You've got years before they give a rat's ass about Cosmos or David Attenborough wildlife documentaries. It's OK, they're little kids.

    Rubbish. Show the kids David Attenborough wildlife documentaries from the get-go. Children are very good at filtering what they understand and what they don't from material aimed at adults. Elmo and Curious George are entertainment, maybe even "edutainment", but it's not going to fill them with the awe, wonder and curiosity of the natural world that drives a scientist.

    Talk to children like adults when you're discussing adult topics - like science. They'll thank you for it. Something that annoyed me no end growing up and going through my education was finding out at each new level that the previous one was not just a simplification but full of lies. "You can't subtract a larger number from a smaller number", "You can't find the square root of a negative number", "The sun is a big ball of burning gas". All lies.

  • by riprjak (158717) on Monday July 13 2009, @11:25PM (#28686077)

    Dr. Tim Flannery [wikipedia.org] is someone whose work I have introduced all of my young relatives too. He may not be as well recognised outside of Australian and I can honestly say I don't always share his viewpoint; but he conveys the points well and with great passion.

    Dr. Karl Kruszelnicki [wikipedia.org] has been doing a scientifically credible, entertaining and honest version of what the mythbuster's do on radio in Australia for donkeys years and is pure gold when it comes to making science fun and accessible.

    err!
    Jak.

  • David Attenborough (Score:3, Informative)

    by Ginger_Chris (1068390) on Monday July 13 2009, @11:32PM (#28686125)
    I know he's not a scientist per se, but David Attenborough had a huge influence on me as a child, along with BBC nature as a whole. As a child I'd watch them over and over and that interest passed over to the other sciences as a whole. He's the perfect person to get your kids into science as a whole. (I teach physics now).
  • Re:Tyson (Score:3, Informative)

    by kjenks (846750) on Monday July 13 2009, @11:41PM (#28686191)
    Tyson gets my vote, too, but my kids like: Bill Nye the Science Guy, Beakman (from Beakman's World), Alton Brown.
  • Dr. Michio Kaku (Score:3, Informative)

    by HockeyPuck (141947) on Tuesday July 14 2009, @12:03AM (#28686349)

    I actually like watching Dr. Michio Kaku on the science channel's SCI-Q. He seems to take abstract topics (Quantum Mechanics, String Theory) or stuff out of science-fiction (like time travel) and answer them in a easy to understand (but not Sesame Street) level. Here's 10 example questions from the show's website: http://science.discovery.com/questions/michio-kaku/michio-kaku.html [discovery.com]

  • by Shag (3737) <danNO@SPAMbirchalls.net> on Tuesday July 14 2009, @12:28AM (#28686549) Homepage

    There are a lot of people who work in science education and public outreach. Staff at museums and planetaria, for example. Outreach people from research facilities (here on Mauna Kea, just about every observatory has official outreach people). And people who just think what they do is so fun and cool they want to share it with people.

    I'm fortunate enough to work in astronomy, and I love bringing my daughter up to the visitor station for stargazing or hiking, or video-chatting with her while operating or observing. I also volunteer at the visitor station, lead tours of the summit, and generally "reach out" to anyone who's interested. I don't get any observing time on the 8-meter I operate, but I just got offered some time on a 2-meter and am going to work with my daughter, my nephew and my neighbors' kids to come up with a project.

    These are 8-14 year olds, so they can probably weigh in on whether we should look at asteroids, kuiper belt objects, supernovae, black holes, or whatever. But I started in the field when my daughter was 5, and even though the first few years she was mostly just wanting to look at stuff in the sky, and not caring so much about what it actually was, she's grown up knowing that her dad gets to do really cool stuff, instead of just sitting in a cubicle. Probably also doesn't hurt that she has autographed photos of a couple NASA astronauts she's met. :)

    There are a lot of science outreach activities in our town, like AstroDay [astroday.net] and Onizuka Science Day and robotics competitions and all that... plus public talks, the world's first 3-D planetarium, and... okay, okay, the whole farkin' island is one giant playground for any kid (or adult) who's into natural sciences at all.

    Find your local science museums or science centers or observatories or planetaria or whatever, find out who handles the local robotics competition, etc. Plenty of unknown heroes out there.

    Oh, one word of advice, though: don't expect the kids to go for your favorite science. I may be an astro-geek, and her mom's a social scientist, but my daughter tends more toward chemistry.

  • Videos and books (Score:5, Informative)

    by zoeblade (600058) on Tuesday July 14 2009, @04:09AM (#28687713) Homepage

    In addition to names of the people themselves, can anybody recommend any good science documentaries/talks/books? I'd recommend the following:

  • This is not about celebrity science, this is about role models. And, as scientific studies show [google.com], role models are important for field selection and motivation of pupils and students.
  • ted talks (Score:2, Informative)

    by Odinlake (1057938) on Tuesday July 14 2009, @05:07AM (#28688039)
    Browse www.ted.com [ted.com]. Personally I think everything about selfassembling nanomachines is fascinating.
  • by vlm (69642) on Tuesday July 14 2009, @07:16AM (#28688693)

    No one had the time to mention Kari or Grant from the Mythbusters, but they had time for a 200 post off topic flamewar about religion and science? Yes not exactly post graduate education there, but the question was about "excited" and "heros". Whats not to like about Kari and Grant?

    No one mentioned Shawn Carlson and the SAS?

    http://www.sas.org/ [sas.org]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Amateur_Scientists [wikipedia.org]

    At least Forrest Mims got like one comment, even if people shun him for his peculiar church beliefs (not exactly a very enlightened attitude).

  • Re:Richard Dawkins (Score:5, Informative)

    by sFurbo (1361249) on Tuesday July 14 2009, @07:22AM (#28688727)

    [...] many eminent scientists have managed to reconcile their faith with their job. Einstein, for example. I sure you'd agree that he was capable of 'thought'...

    Could we please put this myth to rest now? Einstein wasn't religious, at least not in a form most people would label as such:
    "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." [wikipedia.org]
    There a plenty of religious scientists out there, they are capable of thought, why not use one of them as an example?

  • Re:Sorry, No. (Score:3, Informative)

    by notrandomly (1242142) on Tuesday July 14 2009, @08:55AM (#28689531)

    Yes, it is a belief, it is not the proof/fact of evolution, it is STILL referred to as the Theory of Evolution. Not getting into that debate, even though a theory does have a lot of evidence, unless it's provable it's still a theory

    No wonder you are getting all your claims wrong. You don't even understand how science works. In science, a theory is the highest order. It's the goal of science. It's what makes science useful. There is no higher level than a scientific theory. You need to educate yourself [notjustatheory.com].

    Evolution is not a belief. It's a scientific theory, which is the highest level in science. It's also one of the most solid scientific theories we have.

    (Yes, some aspects of evolution are considered fact by the scientific community, but not the retarded monkey fish frog aspect)

    What is the "monkey fish frog aspect"? We have observed everything from new genes appearing to new species evolving.

    It is no more right to force a theory as fact as it is right to force your god on me.

    Facts in science are data used to support theories. Theories never become facts.

    However, it is insulting to people when instead of just saying "I believe this", you say "I believe this so your belief is wrong" - which both sides of the debate do.

    Your side says "I believe". The other side says "the facts clearly contradict your beliefs".

  • by JThundley (631154) on Tuesday July 14 2009, @09:07PM (#28698731) Homepage

    There's a cool show on the History channel called "The Universe". They have very intelligent and interesting people talking about science while entertaining with mind-blowing cgi graphics. Check it out.

And furthermore, my bowling average is unimpeachable!!!

Working...