Explanatory Power

The last couple of posts have focused on explanations in science education, but this one pivots back to explanations in science.

There is a scheme, owed to Hempel, of 5 kinds of explanations in science and their relation to scientific laws, but that is a topic for another day.

In brief, a scientific theory – which is not the same thing as a scientific law – ought to have descriptive, predictive and explanatory power.

There are some laws which do not have explanatory power. Kepler’s Laws describe the motion of the planets accurately, but they are ’empirical’ laws, constructed based on observations. They do not include any explanation of the phenomena they describe and predict. It required gravitational theories from Newton and later Einstein to explain why the planets move as they do.

Indeed, it could be argued that laws – mathematical relationships between quantities – never have explanatory power. They explain what happens, but not why.

Scientific theories, however, explain what happens. That is what a scientific explanation is and is for.


Explanation in Science Education from a Constructivist Perspective

When a teacher explains a concept to a student… and, before I continue I should note that the people in those roles may not be in them formally. Parent explaining to child, foreman explaining to new employee, doctor explaining to patient. These ideas are relevant to a very wide range of human activities.

Explanations in science education are different from everyday explanations in a number of features, but that’s probably not something we need to go into in great detail here. We would avoid explanations such as that the contrails of jets are really ‘chemtrails’ of drugs to pacify the populace, not so much because they are not scientific (they aren’t) but because the best available evidence doesn’t support them. It’s an interesting question whether a fallacious ‘explanation’ is an explanation at all, but that might be another post for another time.

OK, digressions aside, I’ll start again: When a teacher explains a concept to a student, that process was historically considered to be what we educational theorists might call ‘transmissive’. The metaphor is like a radio or TV transmission, where the signal that is sent is the same as the signal that is received. The concept is moved intact from the teacher’s mind to that of the student.

There’s a fair bit of evidence, argument and experience to suggest that that’s not … I was about to say ‘what really happens’, but a better way to put it is ‘an effective way to think about it’.

Rather, we tend to have a ‘constructivist’ image of learning 1. In brief, this means that students construct their own knowledge based on their experiences. Those experiences include, but by no means are limited to, the explanations and other experiences offered by their teachers. These in-school experiences are joined with the life experience of the phenomena being discussed: riding bicycles for physics, observing living things – and being living things themselves – for biology and so on.

From a constructivist perspective, then, there is no such thing as the ‘perfect explanation’ of a scientific concept, as a thing unto itself. An explanation is part of the process of explaining (see a post from a couple of days ago on the distinction) that occurs between teacher and student. The explanation provides structured experiences which are the ‘building materials’ from which the student actively constructs understanding.

The importance of the dynamic interaction – and the relationship which forms its context – is that each student is building on different conceptual ‘foundations’. Each has a different set of experiences, and each has made different meanings of them. By listening, drawing on feedback, giving feedback and re-constructing the explanation, the teacher ensures that the explanation offers the best possible materials for that particular student to use in constructing an understanding of the specific scientific concept to be learned.

  1. There are definitely a number of older posts about constructivism on this blog if you’re interested. The Search box on the right side of the page (scroll down a bit) will enable you to find them.


It’s Alliivvve!!!

Hmm – my last post in this blog was in early February this year, about 9 months ago. At that point I was tired of blogging and blogging was tired of me. I declared it dead…

But, as for Mark Twain, rumors of its death may have been exaggerated. A few ideas have come to me recently for which it seems like this is a better medium than Facebook, Twitter or a web forum. These are longer-form pieces and ideas, to which I want to have permanent access.

Facebook does immediacy well, but it also does ephemerality well… or durability very poorly, depending on your purposes.

So there’ll be a few more posts here: probably not daily, maybe not even weekly, but some. I think the links to Facebook and Twitter still work to alert my friends of new content, and I hope you’ll find the new content interesting.

If you want your comments to be durable, post them here, if you want them to be ephemeral, post them on Facebook or Twitter.


I think I finally know what I am

…religiously speaking.

Listening (a practice I highly recommend) to the podcasts of the Long Now Foundation (thanks to Anthony Bishop for recommending them to me), I heard the following exchange:

Eric Schneider asked “Mr Eno, as a Zen Buddhist (Eno: “I’m not!”) how do you reconcile the 10,000 year clock project with the Buddhist notion of impermanence?”

Brian Eno: “I’m actually not a Zen Buddhist. I’m not embarrassed to be described as one, but, um, I…”

Stewart Brand: “What are you, actually? (laughter) Do you have any belief structure whatever?”

Brian Eno: “The sounds like an accusation, Stewart. (laughter) No, I don’t think I do actually, I think I’m a, a… (Brand: “You’re an atheist?”) somebody who believes in the muddle. I’m a muddlist. (laughter) I more and more think that things just muddle along. Everything just muddles along.”

Stewart Brand: “Are there rituals that muddlers…?”

Brian Eno: “Muddlers like me surrender to the muddle, and love the process of surrendering to the muddle.”

I’m a muddlist too! This seems like the most perfect description I’ve ever heard of how I think and feel about religious matters. Not for me the ironhard certainty of any position…

The Long Now Foundation is dedicated to getting us lifting our eyes above the rut and taking a longer term view. Their iconic project is building a mechanical clock that will run and be accurate for 10,000 years. This podcast takes about the features of that and so much more, and is hilarious and moving and brilliant. You have to join the foundation to watch the video, but the podcasts are free, and I *highly* recommend this particular one.


How a Scientist’s Mind Works

Alex, Peter and I were walking our dog, Buffy, yesterday. She likes to run to places where there are dogs on the other side of the fence, and then run with them, greet them or start a fight. She’s not allowed, and she’s being trained out of it, but – although we walk miles in all directions on a wide range of routes – she remembers every such fence, and starts sneaking away from us and toward it, well ahead of time.

I said to Alex and Peter “She must have amazing spatial memory, because even on walks she’s only been on once, she remembers where all the ‘dog fences’ are”. I didn’t say anything to them at the time, but did think to myself “Either that, or perhaps she smells something from the dogs as we get close…”

Later in the same walk – 2-3 km later – she also ran toward a path that we needed to take, that she had only been along once, and in the opposite direction. She did this before we knew where the start of the path was.

There’s no scent clue from a dog for the path, so that challenges the ‘smell’ hypothesis and supports the ‘spatial memory’ hypothesis. Her spatial memory may, of course, include a lot more scent clues, rather than being almost exclusively visual like ours…

So, automatically creating and testing hypotheses and seeking confirming and disconfirming evidence, even when just taking the dog for a walk. It’s how a scientist rolls.


[Open] What It Sounds Like When I Lecture

My lectures are all recorded, but they’re on the closed and locked university web site.

I’m not vain enough to think anyone else would be keen to listen to them in full anyway, but thought you might be intrigued to hear a small sample. This class has about 99 students in it.

This is a bit over 3 minutes near the start of the lecture in Week 2, and the file size is about 2.1 MB.

(I should probably note that this has been compressed by the university’s recording system and then again when I converted it to mp3, so the sound quality in the actual lecture theatre is a lot better than this.)


With no policy, all that’s left seems to be xenophobia


Convenient Samples vs Generalisability

Surprisingly, undergrads in psych courses in developed countries are not a sample that is representative (i.e. randomly chosen from) the entirety of humanity. You’d be surprised how many of psychology’s claims this renders invalid when broadly applied.

You’d think the psychs would have a handle on this stuff…


Generations, Generalisations and Stereotypes

I posted this on Facebook the other day:

I’m sure it was well-intended, but this presentation from… another middle years course that consists of slide after slide of ‘Generation X used vinyl records, Generation Y used cassettes, Generation Z uses mp3s… Generation X used typewriters, Generation Y used Apple IIs, Generation Z uses iMacs…’ and so on is both not very interesting and quite essentialist. Internal differences within generations dwarf generational differences, IMO. The approach to the course will be different this time…

I’ve been thinking about it since, and wanted to say a few more words about it.

Stereotyping, while to some extent unavoidable, and a side effect of the pattern-finding abilities that make us intelligent, is generally considered a Bad Thing in relation to any other groups. It’s not OK to say ‘women are {like this}’ or ‘white people’ or ‘gay people’ or ‘police officers’ or whatever.

Why would it be OK, then, to stereotype whole generations? But that’s what these generalisations do: ‘All people born in a particular bracket of years are like this…’. Clearly that’s not true – no more than ‘all people born in a particular 12th of the year have the same characteristics’ is true.

It’s not just that we’re all unique snowflakes, either – there are real and important differences within ‘generations’, that (as I already said in the short Facebook post above) are much larger than the differences between generations.

Given that, I’ve resolved to talk and think a bit about how society has changed (in some ways dramatically and in others not at all), but not to make sweeping statements about ‘how kids today are’ or ‘how kids today are not like kids in our day’.

I have readers here (and I’m going to post this discussion on the Open Forum too) who are, like me, on the cusp of the ‘Baby Boomers’ and ‘Generation X’, and a number who would be called ‘Generation Y’ (but who I think would mostly reject that label).

What do you think? Are these labels – if not true – ever useful? Or do they mask differences that it would be better if we saw?

Climate Science Stuff

Up Here’s For Thinkin’

Here’s a graph I made and posted here a while ago:

The post in question is here:

Sorry about the lack of labels – x-axis is years, y-axis is million square km of Antarctic sea ice.

These data are for Antarctica, but the Arctic picture is similar. Why do I bring it out?

Because the claim ‘Arctic ice is growing at record rates’ is being bandied about to ‘debunk’ climate change.

Yes, the extent (area) of the ice is growing fast for part of the year. The onset of winter runs for a finite time in the year. And if you look at the graph above, you will note that the minima are getting smaller quicker than the maxima – there is a lot less ice in summer, and a little less in winter.

That means that, to get from the new lower minimum to the new also-lower-but-not-as-dramatically maximum, in the same amount of time, of course the ice extent has to grow faster – maybe even at record rates.

It also means, of course, that to get from the maximum to the new ever-lower minimum at the beginning of summer the ice is also shrinking at record rates… but that stat doesn’t get bandied about at all by the (and I use the term quite wrongly) ‘skeptics’.

Doesn’t mean the ice is actually expanding over time – quite the reverse. The total ice is shrinking, and markedly so. This is not evidence against climate change, but for it.


Slowing My Roll

At the dog park today, throwing the ball for Buffy and another dog while Suzie chatted to the dog’s owner. Beautiful day and I was enjoying life… but I could feel myself feeling “OK, done this, onward to the next thing!”

It’s an odd thing – I think of myself as a very mellow, laid back guy, almost lazy. And yet… I manage to achieve a lot (heh, and do lots of things that mightn’t necessarily be counted as achievements). And there’s this urge to keep moving.

So I consciously pushed that feeling down, and tried to relax into the moment.

This afternoon at Wet n Wild, too, lying by the pool, I just stopped, chilled, breathed – didn’t read, talk, anything, just… lived.

Because when you do that, subjective time slows down… and while living on fast-forward might help get stuff done, it can also make subjective time speed up. Maybe so much that I fast-forward right through the best bits of my life.



It’s kind of a nice problem to have – too much good music playing here to afford! I’d love to have seen Opeth next month – and the fact that they’ve now added Katatonia in support is even more tempting – and ZZ Top, and there are a number of other shows to attend, as well as Bluesfest with Cam and Jen and Suzie.

I’m glad I decided to go and see Anthrax last night, though. Very small venue for a big band (OK, bigger in the 80s, but riding high on the back of their new album and in top form. Ears are still ringing, face is still grinning… just an awesome heavy metal show.

Actually, before I go on, here’s my review of their performance at the Gigantour festival in Edmonton 8 years ago!

Anthrax – what can you say when the classic mid-80s line-up of Anthrax is back together and taking the stage by storm? They were Suzie’s favourite – Joey Belladona does it all from Bruce Dickinson-style long screams to melodic singing to yelling, and the band were tight and intense but just looked like they were having a huge amount of fun playing together. A problem I had intermittently all night reared its head here, and it must have been much worse for Suzie all night (she’s a saint for accompanying me and hanging in there!): we didn’t know all the songs all that well. I knew most of the old Anthrax stuff because I used to listen to it in the 80s, but I’ve listened to the John Bush (replacement singer) era stuff much more in the past few years – I don’t even have a CD of the old stuff. And – I guess it makes sense since it was the old band – all they played was the old stuff. No complaints, they played all the hits – Caught In A Mosh, I’m The Man, I Am The Law, Indians, Metal Thrashing Mad, and lots more – it was just that this was the less familiar stuff for me. Probably shoulda bought up a couple of the old albums when we bought the tickets a few months ago.

Most of that still applies, and in some ways even more so. These guys are my age (within a couple of months), and they’ve been doing this for over 30 years, but they still look as if this was what they were born to do, is their dream and that they’re absolutely stoked to be on stage and are having a great time: so the audience has a great time to.

The band is tight as a duck’s proverbial: it’s really a 3-piece rhythm section with Charlie Benante’s thunderous (but *interesting* – no tedious double-kick pummel, lots of variety) and Frank Bello’s bass underlying Scott Ian’s riff mastery on rhythm guitar. Lead guitarist Rob Caggiano left the band before this tour and his temporary replacement Jon Donais of band ‘Shadows Fall’ played very well but, perhaps fittingly given his band, pretty much stayed in the shadows at the side of the stage. Singer Joey Belladona really *sings*, and his voice has matured beautifully. He can still do the long, loud screams and melodies but also had a more rhythmic, percussive approach on some songs and more bottom end.

Donais’ low-key performance is probably wise, given that everyone else on stage is busy entertaining! Benante sits high above his kit so he can see and be seen, and is working the crowd, Bello and Ian jump and race around the stage and exhort the crowd and Belladona does a lot of mimes to encourage the crowd to jump, shout and raise their fists or horns.

Joey’s banter is fairly traditional ‘Really great to be here in Brisbane (which he pronounced like an American), thank you very much, rawwkkk!!!’ stuff, but Scott Ian also steps up to the mic now and then. He got Brisbane right, and made remarks about ‘taking this seriously, so I know not everyone wants to get in the pit, but if you’re not in the pit you will raise your fist, you will bang your head, and jump up and down’. Maybe it shouldn’t work, but it did.

He also introduced one song saying ‘this one goes back to 1982 – it’s older than most of you’. Paused, then pointed out one dude in the crowd: ‘We’ve have to be Judas Priest for it to be older than you’. Got a laugh. The band’s new album ‘Worship Music’ includes a song called ‘Judas Priest’ paying tribute to that band.

It also has a (great) song called ‘In The End’ paying tribute to the recently deceased (at least, it seems that way) Ronnie James Dio. The band take this seriously, with Scott Ian raising the horns (which Dio popularised) to heaven and bowing his head as in prayer, and Bello making the sign of the cross toward heaven (interesting that they seem in no doubt which direction he went!) The tribute might seem cheesy, but it really felt sincere, and the fact that they left the stage to Rainbow’s ‘Long Live Rock ‘n’ Roll’ played at full volume after Joey sang the title (doing a pretty credible Dio) brought the message home.

As in the Edmonton show, nothing from the Bush era. He co-wrote most of those songs, so maybe there are legal issues. Or maybe, between playing the hits and the stuff from the new album – which stands up to the hits well – there just wasn’t time. It’s a pity, because there are some amazing songs on those albums, but I guess we’ll always have the albums.

I tried to remember the set list without taking notes (too busy moshing!), but won’t get them in the right order from memory. We definitely heard ‘Caught In A Mosh’ (first up), ‘I’m Alive’, ‘Indians’, ‘Antisocial’ (the sing-a-long both on the intro and chorus is, ironically, perhaps the most social part of the whole event), ‘Devil You Know’, ‘Madhouse’, ‘Fight ‘Em ‘Til You Can’t’, ‘I Am The Law’, ‘Deathrider’, ‘Medusa’, ‘Among The Living’, ‘Efilnikufesin (NFL)’, ‘In My World’ (song from the ‘Married… With Children’ episode) and… possibly, memory is mixing, ‘Belly Of The Beast’.

If you have been trying to decide whether to go see them: do! There’s not even a decision to make.


[Open] Some Words About Expectations

These words, or something like them, are in the first lecture of most of my courses. I’d be very happy to have some feedback on whether people find them useful, condescending or a little of both:

Pulling It All Together

  • I’ll try to weave the bits and pieces together, but we have a lot to do in a short time, so you’ll need to do some integrating of your own

Expectations 1 – You Of Me

  • You can expect that I will be prepared to teach, and that I will bring my ‘A game’
  • You can expect courtesy and consideration and professionalism
  • You can expect timely, useful feedback – in a variety of ways
  • You can expect that I know what I’m talking about, but am always still learning

Expectations 2 – Me of You

  • You will be practicing professionals very soon, and are already beginning professionals: I will treat you that way
  • You should take notes in class – and not just of what I say
  • You (collectively) know a lot: I teach by eliciting that and then supplementing it

The Real Goal

  • My real goal in this course – which is encoded in the ones in the Course Profile – is to work with you to help you develop as the best teacher you can be
  • Ultimately, the responsibility for your learning rests with you: I can lead but I can’t force
  • That means I don’t mark a roll in tutes or labs or lectures, and I expect you to know when things are due
  • At the same time, I’ll be monitoring how you’re doing, and try to help if it looks like you’re struggling, before it’s too late

[Open] First lot of PowerPoints for 7032 (Middle Years Science) uploaded

The Inquiry one in particular is way too brief, and I’ll be talking a lot more than what is shown there – but I’ll post on the lecture once it’s happened.


Open Education – It’s Here, Now!

Here’s an announcement I just posted (with slight tweaks) on the web sites for both of my courses:

I’m trying an experiment this semester. It’s 100% your decision whether you participate or not. There’s no cost, and it’s irrelevant to your grade in the course*, and I won’t be using it to write any research papers or anything. I just think it’s kind of a cool idea.
The experiment is to conduct this course in a more ‘open’ way. That includes a few things.

  1. I will post all the PowerPoint slides I use in my account on Slideshare, so that they’re available to the world. I’ll also post them – and the lecture recordings – here on the course site so that you have direct access.
  2. I will post about what I’m teaching on my blog at I’ve been blogging for about 8 years and there are something like 1800 posts there, including quite a few about educational issues, and I’ll just post about what I’m teaching during this semester.
  3. I have created a discussion forum at which I have just called ‘Open Forum’. It will be available for people in this course, 7032 – Middle Years Science Curriculum (which is a pretty terrible title, btw) – and in the other course I am teaching this semester, 7801EDN – Teaching and Learning in the Middle Years. One of the cool things about it is that, unlike Discussion Boards within course sites, it won’t go away at the end of the semester, it will always be available. I’ll use it in the courses I teach next semester, too (7033 and 7035EDN, Senior Science 1 and 2). I’ve been on one online forum for 10 years, and it has enriched my life enormously. I’ll also be inviting some of my colleagues and former students and other interested educators to join the community and comment on the discussion, so it should be a great way to join the profession.
  4. I will post Announcements here when I post interesting readings and new discussions in the Open Forum: these are not compulsory in any way, just things I think are interesting. You are also very welcome to share anything you find interesting, and if a good discussion gets going I’ll announce it here too.

If you choose to participate, just register on the Open Forum and go for it! If you prefer not to, don’t! It shouldn’t impact you at all – just study the course in the regular way. You’ll see some Announcements, but I’ll tag them with [Open] and you can feel free to ignore them

* Except, perhaps, in the sense that if you discuss the ideas in the course you will develop a better understanding of them.

So, among other things, this constitutes part of that invitation to my friends to join the Open Forum. Click, register, post!



I’ve said before that ‘debunking’ isn’t that interesting to me as an activity. At the same time, I care passionately about truth and truth-telling. So when someone crowed that the Bible’s divine origin was demonstrated by the fact that it had prophesied that certain cities would be destroyed and never rebuilt, I immediately thought of Tyre. Formerly the capital of the Phoenicians, it is now in Lebanon, and called ‘Sour’. Here is what Ezekiel had to say about Tyre (in Chapter 26):

7 For thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, and with horsemen and a host of many soldiers. 8 He will kill with the sword your daughters on the mainland. He will set up a siege wall against you and throw up a mound against you, and raise a roof of shields against you. 9 He will direct the shock of his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers. 10 His horses will be so many that their dust will cover you. Your walls will shake at the noise of the horsemen and wagons and chariots, when he enters your gates as men enter a city that has been breached. 11 With the hoofs of his horses he will trample all your streets. He will kill your people with the sword, and your mighty pillars will fall to the ground. 12 They will plunder your riches and loot your merchandise. They will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses. Your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters. 13 And I will stop the music of your songs, and the sound of your lyres shall be heard no more. 14 I will make you a bare rock. You shall be a place for the spreading of nets. You shall never be rebuilt, for I am the LORD; I have spoken, declares the Lord GOD.

It was actually Alexander who tore down the old city and threw it into the sea, building a causeway from the mainland out of the island that, with added silt, means Tyre is now a promontory rather than an island, but Nebuchadnezzar also attacked it, and in fact it has been destroyed or damaged a number of times, including in the wars in Lebanon in the past few decades.

But here’s a satellite photo of modern Tyre/Sour (click for bigness).


Clearly there’s a substantial small city there. The population is estimated at about 117,000, though the wartorn nature of the region means that accurate censuses are hard to come by.

There’s been a lot of tapdancing by people trying to save the prophecy: here are a few examples:

It does depend on ones perspective! Was the original city rebuilt into the thriving city it was once on a time??

Not sure about ancienct populations, but I’d be pretty surprised if the ancient city had 117,000 inhabitants.

The statement that Tyre will never be rebuilt means more than the restructuring of stones, wood and mortar. Tyre will never regain international prominence as a world trader and colonizer. She will never be a rich, prosperous, flourishing, world power as she was in Ezekiel’s day. The denial of rebuilding goes far beyond a mere architectural project. It must include making Tyre into the person she was in the early sixth century BC. It must be kept in mind that the meaning is “you will never be rebuilt,” not “the city will never be rebuilt.”

The statement in 26:14 does not deny there would be buildings on the island. It means that Tyre would never be rebuilt into the commercial superpower she was in Ezekiel’s day. It means that the palaces and temples of Ezekiel’s day would forever lie deep underneath the ground (and the water!), never to be revived. It would in no way be rebuilt into the prosperous, powerful living entity she was at the time the oracle was given.

Chapter 26 verse 14 says (in part): “I will make you a bare rock. You shall be a place for the spreading of nets.” Have another look at the satellite photo: bare rock?

Someone else (actually, I think it was the SDA Bible Commentary) then said ‘Oh well, the island has been rebuilt but the prophecy meant the city on the mainland”. But if the ‘Romanium Stadium’ shown in the satellite image marks the location of the old city (which makes sense) it is clear that the modern city extends considerably inland and around that. Some of that area has been preserved for archaeological reasons, not built over, but that would be rather clutching at straws in prophecy terms.

I could keep going, there are lots more examples. But they’re all ways of explaining away or dancing around the contradiction.

You can’t have it both ways, if you care about truth. If the warrant for the Bible’s prophecies being reliable is the real-world evidence, you don’t then get to explain away the evidence when it’s inconvenient.

Philosophy Science Stuff

Science and Morality

P Z Myers is almost always worth reading. I disagree with him on many things, and agree on many more, but a blog is not worth reading only based on agreement – no doubt many who read my blog also disagree with me on some things. A blog is worth reading, in my opinion, for the ways in which it (a) points us to things that we find interesting but might not have discovered on our own and/or (b) works through ideas in a thoughtful, interesting way.

I’ve talked before about why I think Sam Harris’ claim that morality can be founded in science is a mistake, and could talk more about that, but this post by P Z does a great job, using an illustration from history:

The short-sighted lesson would be ‘oh, those silly 19th century folk who thought eugenics was a Good Thing’. The longer-sighted one is, I think, ‘Hmm, I wonder what things we silly 21st century folk remain blind to?’

The moral (heh) is that we must seek our morality somewhere other than in science. Where that is has been an on-going theme for me, some of it represented here and some in other places. To be continued…


If the science won’t convince ’em, maybe the economics will

Small-minded, isolationist policies just won’t work. If Australia doesn’t move (or moves backward, as T. Abbott plans but likely can’t deliver), there is sufficient political will internationally to introduce tariff mechanisms to force the issue. Better to be masters of our own destiny.



So, I built a forum on the 6th of this month, as described in this post. Now, 11 days later, there are 1107 spam posts in one forum and 696 in another.

Off to spend a few minutes fixing the filters.

Science Stuff


So, I got my lab book – the crucial and closely-guarded document in which working scientists record their experiments each day to establish who got there first – this afternoon, and spent the whole afternoon working in the lab.

Nothing particularly security-conscious today, but in these social media days, in which I know I share a lot more than many people, I need to get in the habit where it’s OK to say that I’m doing research but not to share what I’m working on lest some other team elsewhere scoop us.

Anyway, definitely a buzz to be working as a real scientist in a biophysics lab.

I guess the first publication of a paper in that field will be the really big milestone – perhaps even more so than getting the degree itself. That’s some distance off, of course, but not that far… stay tuned!

Only then will I feel I can call myself ‘a physicist’ and/or ‘a scientist’.