New ways of communicating science

As an author of popular science books I will defend to my last breath the superb effectiveness of good popular science writing to get across the message of science and the sense of wonder that goes with it. But there are, of course, other good ways of communicating science. We've seen a lot recently about TV, podcasts and video, but here are two other great examples to give science lovers hope, both of which I've recently reviewed for www.popularscience.co.uk.

The first is Marcus Chown's beautiful Solar System app for the iPad. Okay, it has a limited audience because of the platform. And, yes, I'm getting a little boring about the iPad, but this app works so well. I'm not a huge fan of big mega-illustrated science books. I think the entertainment value wears off very quickly. But the genius of this app is that it combines the wow factor of the images plus good basic text with some superb interaction. It was interesting that without any instruction to do so, my natural inclination was to try to turn around objects (like the Sun and planets) on the screen... and rotate they did. Just occasionally this interactivity verges on the self-parodying, as when a (rotatable) bunch of bananas on a stand is used to illustrate that the Sun is, erm, much heavier than a bunch of bananas, but on the whole it is immersive.

This app is never going to reach as wide an audience as a great book. The iPad is self-restricting in a number of ways. What's more there will probably only ever be a couple of such apps a year. They are just too cost and effort intensive to create. But there is no doubt whatsoever that what we have here is a new, improved and shiny (so shiny!) way to explore some aspects of science. Brilliant.

The second example is, in a sense, totally opposite in approach. Although it's a new idea, it is technology free. We're talking a science-based board game. This is the rather clumsily named The Art of Science. At first glance it's a science/maths only version of Trivial Pursuit, which is in itself quite interesting, but in practice it's much better than that. The clever game structure means people with different areas of interest can play against each other on equal footing. It's simple, straightforward - and good fun. The only problem I have with it is that it is expensive (more than four times as much as the iPad app - but then you don't have to buy an iPad to run it). Nonetheless, science-based games are another great and underused way to get science across.

All in all I'm rather encouraged by these two products. I don't see in them the death of the popular science book, but the widening of the opportunity to spread the science message. For which I give three hearty cheers.

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...

Search This Blog