When I was in 8th grade I did an experiment that found that mold grew better nearer a cathode ray tube computer monitor. I had, however, in retrospect, failed to control for the CRT monitor being a source of heat and light (if not much). I also did not verify it wasn't just due to the one side if the table being closer to something unrelated in my basement. I did very well in the science fair anyway (I have a plaque somewhere, and I think I had gotten it for the state-wide level), as for a "school experiment" the competition bar is quite low, and there are a ton of other factors on which you are being judged than "scientific accuracy". This kind of research is really no better than the people reporting homemade experiments constantly whom we often label "crackpots".
At that level, the experiments have little value beyond getting kids interested in science, which ultimately provides massive value. So let them field their massively flawed experiments by all means...
Here's a crazy thought. What if they use this opportunity to teach kids about the processes of scientific discovery and how it is sometimes based on pure chance. What if they then teach those kids about the scientific method and how to conduct a controlled experiment. Even if the story turns out to be a dud I guarantee the experience would make the students much more excited about science than growing some cress in a window sill.
Or we could explain how a bunch of scientists are crackpots for even thinking such a thing.
I feel like you are arguing with me. I am saying this because a some people are commenting here about what the ramifications of this discovery is; others, asking "serious" questions about the quality of the research, as if they should have taken certain things into account. I am pointing out that this isn't the right context for that analysis.
Also, that education is not news to post here in the first place. This is not a website where children are learning about science. There are tons of "discoveries" made as school experiments: I don't expect to see them on the front page of Hacker News (unless, like, there is some kind of serious interest in the larger science community). ;P
Nevertheless, HN is not a highschool science fair. The reason this story is making the rounds on the internet is very plainly not to get children interested in the scientific process, but rather because wifi somehow being dangerous is a provocative concept and therefore a good way to get pageviews.
Comments
When I was in 8th grade I did an experiment that found that mold grew better nearer a cathode ray tube computer monitor. I had, however, in retrospect, failed to control for the CRT monitor being a source of heat and light (if not much). I also did not verify it wasn't just due to the one side if the table being closer to something unrelated in my basement. I did very well in the science fair anyway (I have a plaque somewhere, and I think I had gotten it for the state-wide level), as for a "school experiment" the competition bar is quite low, and there are a ton of other factors on which you are being judged than "scientific accuracy". This kind of research is really no better than the people reporting homemade experiments constantly whom we often label "crackpots".
At that level, the experiments have little value beyond getting kids interested in science, which ultimately provides massive value. So let them field their massively flawed experiments by all means...
Here's a crazy thought. What if they use this opportunity to teach kids about the processes of scientific discovery and how it is sometimes based on pure chance. What if they then teach those kids about the scientific method and how to conduct a controlled experiment. Even if the story turns out to be a dud I guarantee the experience would make the students much more excited about science than growing some cress in a window sill.
Or we could explain how a bunch of scientists are crackpots for even thinking such a thing.
I feel like you are arguing with me. I am saying this because a some people are commenting here about what the ramifications of this discovery is; others, asking "serious" questions about the quality of the research, as if they should have taken certain things into account. I am pointing out that this isn't the right context for that analysis.
Also, that education is not news to post here in the first place. This is not a website where children are learning about science. There are tons of "discoveries" made as school experiments: I don't expect to see them on the front page of Hacker News (unless, like, there is some kind of serious interest in the larger science community). ;P
> This is not a website where children are learning about science.
On a website this size such assumptions are almost invariably false.
Nevertheless, HN is not a highschool science fair. The reason this story is making the rounds on the internet is very plainly not to get children interested in the scientific process, but rather because wifi somehow being dangerous is a provocative concept and therefore a good way to get pageviews.