Science Storytellers

Science, for me, is knowledge. It is basically knowledge. I love being knowledgeable. I enjoy leaning something new and I am amused by science, but it is not my area of interest. I can already see that it is not the path that I will be travelling. It is not the field wherein I can contribute something for my country. Speaking of my country and science, the science education in the Philippines is not such a good stuff. The significant detail to it is that, we don’t have a science museum—not until The Mind Museum was established in Taguig City. Hooray for science! Hooray for those who love and will love science! Science may not be the field that I want but at least by writing something about it, I hope l could engage others who have the heart and ability to help the country with science.

Science is the story of the universe. This is the statement of the mind movers, or science storytellers as they translated it, when they lectured about Creative Science Communication. Science shouldn’t be something to be afraid of, science as they discuss it is a very engaging tale of our universe. The mind movers from The Mind Museum talked about the divisions of the said museum. They pointed out that the divisions are not arranged by field of science, but by: Atom, Life, Earth, Universe, and Technology. The storytelling is therefore not like teaching science in school. Also, the people and children visiting the museum are not called as ‘customers’ instead they are called as ‘guest learners’.

Engagement, curiosity, wonder, show. Lecturing about science may be quite boring. So mind movers use these four things in order to tell the story of science to people. According to them, guest learners should be engaged and their curiosity and sense of wonder should be present in order for them to learn. And to get their attention, mind movers have shows. These shows are like experiments (which uses things found at home, mostly) that leave amazement in the guest learners’ faces. Such a very nice way to communicate science, isn’t it?

Creative communication is needed for making people listen and learn. It is applicable not only in science, but also in other fields of knowledge, and all the things in the world. Without those four things, communication will not be effective. I remember the guest speakers telling us the story behind the light from the sun. They said, the speed of light is so fast, but light travels an average of 50 million years before it reaches the center of the sun. So wonderfully, the light we see in the sky is from 50 million years ago. We technically look at the past. The mind movers are also funny; they taught us how to dance the stages of matter. They said, science terms are “just fancy names” and science is for everybody.

It was such a nice encounter with science. A nice encounter with knowledge, with wonder, with creativity, and with stories. I may not have a passion for science, but this encounter made me say ‘wow’ with feelings. And that’s the goal of creative communication. I therefore say, they did a good storytelling.

Keanne Samar, 2013-16445

Mind Museum

The "Mind Movers" did a great job in hosting a show for the class. I half-expected it to be a pure lecture about a contemporary topic and a few film viewing; I was completely wrong. I went to class sleepy but got out enthusiastic - that does not happen to me so often.

They explained that 'mind moving' was not telekinesis or psychic power, and definitely not literally moving the mind of the spectator. It was some sort of science storytelling, and when I first heard that, I thought we would be treated as kids and they would just go on and tell a story. I was wrong. Again. It involved quick experiments with common household materials, like the setting an alcohol-soaked 500-peso bill on flames. It did not burn. I thought it would burn. Looks like I was wrong once again.

They explained that the alcohol concentration affects whether the bill would burn or not. In that case, the alcohol used was 40%; the other 60% is water, they explained.

My curiosity rose when I heard them say the words 'jet' and 'fire' although I do not remember the actual name of the experiment. They crushed a water jug without much force exerted by their body by using household materials again: alcohol, matchstick, and what appears to be a rectangular piece of cardboard. The fire igniting inside was an apple to my eye, and I loved it.

They did some other interactive activities like showing the states of matter using the body, and at the end, this is what made me smile: they fulfilled the goal they talked about earlier - sparking my curiosity.

Reyes, Paollo Deo R.

2013-66992

NIGHTFALL BY ISAAC ASIMOV

Nightfall is a short story written by Isaac Asimov in 1941 and Robert Silverberg adapted it to a novel in 1990. We listened to an audio play by X minus one of the same story.

The story was about a planet, Lagash, which had six suns revolving around it and light was present in every part of the planet. People were used to have light every day, except for the regular eclipse which happens when the moon was at minimum distance from Lagash and the lone sun Beta was at aphelion. The moon was seven times bigger than the apparent size of Beta covers it completely that there would be darkness all over the planet. This eclipse happens every 2049 years and it was not good when the darkness covers the place. People go mad, insane even, that they would do anything to make artificial light - fire. They burned everything they could and resulting to the fall of civilization. Others experience claustrophobia or fear of enclosed spaces, because they feel the walls closing in them when they experienced the darkness. The eclipse would last for half a day, a group of scientists predicted.

There was a place called 'Hideout' wherein selected people (probably families of the scientists) were kept safe and a hundred of invented artificial light source was also deposited there. Food and shelter were given for them for two days while the scientists stayed in the observatory and planned on taking pictures of the eclipse and hopefully informing the next generation of survivors of the nightfall about darkness and why it should not be feared. However, the scientists and the newspaperman who was about to cover the whole story died in the end.

I think the story was worthy of being nominated as the best science fiction short story back in 1965 of the Nebula awards. I had time to read the original short story, a 20-page pdf file, and I was amazed on how a person could imagine such a world and the extreme implications of night, supposing they were not used to it. The fall of civilization every 2049 years and the tales of the survivors - in the story, they were referred to either children or morons only - could have a great effect on the next generation, and it was up to them if it would be positive or negative. In their case, it was negative because the Cult linked it to some religious theories, and never believed that there was a vast universe beyond the six suns of Lagash. Their minds were closed, they never believed that, and as a result, the next generation was never ready for the next eclipse and suffered from fear - fear that they themselves created in the first place.

Reyes, Paollo Deo R,

2013-66992

Reaction Paper : Retrospect/Mind Museum Talk

From the facts that the mind movers of Mind Museum presented, it is evident that knowledge about science in our country is lacking. Moreover, we are lagging behind other countries also because of our economic situation being a third world country. Their proposal is simple, that we should start with basic awareness about different aspects in science before we go to technical details. This simplistic way appears to deal with the problem by targeting the root cause of poor proficiency in science, that is our basic knowledge and grounds that should be learned when we were younger. Facilities like the Mind Museum may greatly help increase our awareness about science in our everyday lives and spark our curiosity to learn more about it beyond the museum and the classrooms. However, I also think that what should really be dealt with is our curriculum for basic education. Though being curious is a great thing to start with, without proper and enough education about the subject matter in school might lead to just simple awareness or even wrong information from self-studied materials which are neither reliable nor updated. If we reform our curriculum and also promote more science high schools and even science grade schools in a third world country like ours, the next generations will benefit from it. In the long run we might also already achieve to be at par with other countries. Yes, museums like the Mind Museum are helpful but it is not enough to provide a solution to the problem of the education in our country.

Sy, Danica

2013-50915

Reaction Paper

Frankenstein
He waited patiently for his bride, his companion. Someone he thought will understand him because they are the same: Created from the remains of different people and given life through the miracle of science and technology. At last, he thought, here is someone who will accept him in spite of his grotesque, a friend whom he could share good times and bad times together. But alas, the opposite happened. In the end, he was still feared even by a creature who was made in a similar manner as him. Hurt and angered, he destroyed the tower, along with his supposed-to-be companion for life, and the scientist who is obsessed to find out the secrets of life, while letting his creator and his lover go unharmed.
The movie and the book may have portrayed the monster in different ways, but for me, one thing is certain: you cannot mess with science and nature. No, you can NEVER mess with science and nature. This may sound childish and all, but no matter how smart you are, even if you’re I.Q. exceeds 150, and you have the capability to perform a similar experiment such as what was written in that work of fiction, do not attempt to try it. The monster was a product of unethical research and experiment. A creature that came from the remains of bodies who are sleeping in their respectful tombs, desecrated for the sake of science. And they weren’t satisfied with just one, but created a mate for the monster, a twist from what was written in the book. What those two wackos did was wrong and shouldn’t have been done, or even given thought.
Science and technology should be utilized for the greater good, not for selfish desires. People aren’t supposed to be playing God, because they are not God and are not supposed to think of themselves as gods. Whatever research humans do, they should always consider, no, incorporate ethics and morality in their work.
As for the monster being made dumb, it’s obviously for artistic reasons and such. No one would watch a movie with no twist. The filmmakers were just adding some ‘spice’ on the original story, thus portraying the monster as dumb and ruthless, as what monster’s nature should be (or believed to be such). It worked in creating a suspense-filled and thrilling film, something that people would enjoy. But then again, we shouldn’t forget that this is but a mere work of fiction, not real life.
And so, I’ll end this reaction paper with a few words of wisdom:
“Folks, don’t try to do this at home.” Seriously, it’s disturbing.

Kay Noreene P. Dula
2013-68905

The Bride of Frankenstein

The Bride of Frankenstein shows how humans played the role of God by bringing back artificial life from the dead and therefore creating it. Henry Frankenstein was believed dead and also the monster when a mob lit up and burned their house down. But it was not the case, and the monster rose up and killed a few people and after the chase and pursuit, he finally found home in the lone blind hermit’s house in an isolated area. However, when two hunters incidentally found out where the monster was, and he was left by his only friend or his friend was taken away. He then was left alone, until he found Henry’s former professor and then ordered to make a mate for him. After negotiation and kidnapping of Henry’s wife, the mate of the monster was brought to life…only to find out that even a monster like him hates him too. This made the monster feel a series of negative emotions – depression and sadness, and anger perhaps. Henry’s wife rushed to Henry and the monster let them leave, and with a pull of a lever, the monster, his mate and the professor supposedly died from the explosion.

The film showed how ethics and science should be: not separated, but together. Science has an endless journey and they might come over to those which morality forbids. Creating life was like playing God and I know common ethics would be against that. Even the creation, the monster, wanted to communicate with the human race and he did really close with the blind hermit, but later on, he failed again. In the end, he chose that a monster like him and his created mate were not supposed to live any longer, and he took the foolish professor who wanted to be god together with their death.

I think that monsters who were as smart as the real monster in Frankenstein might be idolized may be one of the reasons why the monster was made dumb in movies, movies being the ones more watched than that of books read. Certainly, the depiction of the monster as a mindless killing machine would endorse a more negative view on monsters rather than a emotional monster like the one in The Bride of Frankenstein who was able to think like or more humane than humans themselves. It did work, however, this depiction somehow showed less of the original lesson the book wanted to bring about.

Reyes, Paollo Deo R.
2013-66992

Frankenstein

Reaction on Frankenstein:

The Film Frankenstein (1931) is about a young scientist who desires to create a human being out of electrical devices and technological stuff.  Of course, he perfected the experiment but his peculiar actions bothered people around him. Because of the incompetence of his assistant and some flaws on gathering resources, the “manufactured monster” turned out to look grotesque but with an innocent mind. With the monster’s appearance, people can’t help but feel they are in danger when they see the monster so they do all their means to find and eventually, destroy him.

In terms of morality, the main issue to be pondered on in this film is the existence of a creature without God. Some commentaries on the story say that the creator of this would like to conclude that spiritual, moral and even scientific development can be attained through shedding of dogmatic beliefs- and that is to say- the elimination of God.  From this, all that can be said is that people think differently.  I know people who think that science holds all the explanation of everything under the sun. I also know some people who believed that God proved his existence in science.

For one thing, fabrication of some parts in the original version (the book) is needed to spice up a movie. I think that the monster was made dumb to justify the fact that only humans can have the gift of speech and logical thinking. They were right in this portion since this is more believable and credible even though it is already a science fiction. The human mind is everything that it is.  

And the morals on scientific research? – it is only guided by one principle: “ and it harm none, do what you will.”

Alastair Erfe

2008-44779

Frankenstein

I once read a book about Ethics and Science in a library and although I cannot fully understand all the technical terms, I understand the point and the purpose why that book was written.

I will get this straight, morality should be above science. Morality discusses what is right and what is wrong. Science discusses what is true and what is not. But just because something is true does not mean it is right. Just because Frankenstein can prove that he can truly make an artificial human does not mean getting body parts from someone else is right. There should always be morality in all things; otherwise people won’t know their limits. Even science has limits, even knowledge has.

Frankenstein’s procedures in creating an artificial human in the book are unknown whereas he used criminal corpses in the movie. The procedures are masked in the book while it is overt in the movie. Either way, this literary piece pointed out that when science is placed above morality, a monster will grow in our own selves and it will devour our sense of life.

The monster in the movie is made dumb, while it can read and write in the book. I think the reason why the filmmakers made it dumb is because of the audience. The audience would much believe it if a monster is dumb, a gigantic being who is dumb, and a big-headed terrible giant that is dumb. People won’t buy it if the monster is literate especially in the time it was shown, and it worked. The movie became a little funny because of the inability of the monster to say at least a word after he was created. Although, it’s not a good thing for me because it is not right to laugh at someone who is illiterate. It is not right to discriminate someone just because of appearance. Maybe the filmmakers are only thinking of box-office in making the monster dumb, but it is an absurd thing for me. They took away the literacy of Frankenstein’s monster in the book. They took away something from someone. And it is not only against the author of the book—it is also immoral.

Keanne Samar, 2013-16445