There will be no photos today

The dog doesn't feel well. She got into (at the very least) one crunchy twig and a bunch of honeydew chunks at the park yesterday. The melon was on purpose, "how bad can it be for her?" I thought. The twig I knew could make her throw up. And she had some stinky gas last night, probably from the dog treats from the sitter.

Yes.

Well.

3am the explosive everything started. Both sides, poor thing. An while she is very good at telling us "um, guys, yeah, I need to go out. How about now? No, really, now," she tends to aim for sheets, her bed, and our area rugs as if they were grass. So when we hear something going on in the dark of night, we usually bolt upright, turn on lights and get into defense position.

It is also a bad idea, I learned a few hours later when I took her out again (M had the first shift), to let a dog in this state drink down a big bowl of water. So much for instant hydration. Oops.

So I stayed up for an hour, in case she needed more help, and wound up posting a few messages on the science education site in the middle of a conversation about the cultural basis (or influence of) for science. Same old discussions about science = just the evidence, while pseudoscience (like creationism) = not just the evidence. Same "did to!" "did not!" , 5th grade level of refuting pseudoscience. Can't we get to a more subtle discussion at some point?

I mean of course science is subjective - people do it. How could it not depend on language and concepts and beliefs? It isn't something you can get rid of to find some objective science, based on "just the evidence." The Evidence doesn't come pre-labeled so that you just need to pick it up, turn it over and see if there is "FACT" stamped on the bottom. Researchers and scientists decide (sometimes by consensus, sometimes by a big name individual saying it it so) when some information becomes a fact. The Bruno and Latour book, Laboratory Life, from K's class last semester was dense, but provided an interesting view on this.

For me this means that what is science vs. what is not is a much more subtle question than what usually gets discussed. I feel like the whole thing degenerates to vehemently defending things like evolution with some faulty arguments. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in creationism, but I also don't like feeling as if there is no room for me to learn what is shaky or questionable about evolution because all my energy is spent on "no, I don't think Adam and Eve could have been the only two people at the start because we would have died off long ago due to inbreeding."

Scientific inquiry is not straightforward; it is messy. Scientists know this, at least they speak as if they do behind closed doors, in each others' company, where we complain about the difficulty of interpretting computer models, about personal influence in swaying a research community down some line of inquiry, and about how valuable creativity is in students. Wait a minute, where is the value of thinking completely outside the box (and maybe even outside the evidence), and being creative, listed in the scientific method?

In front of a class of highschool kids, or politicians, or at a public lecture, more often we preach "the scientific method": certainty, exactness, testing, falsification. Another good reference is work by Gilbert and Mulkay on humor in science and on the distinct ways of speaking that scientists use with each other (much more contingent) versus with the public (much more absolute and certain).

And that, that was how I kept myself awake this morning waiting to see how the dog would feel. She seems to be better now. Completely pooped....ha ha, I hadn't intended that pun, but it is very appropriate for the day. And I do hope she is completely pooped out finally.

There is rice on the stove. At lunch time I'll go to the store for some chicken breast to boil up, and by this evening, crunchy kibble will be replaced by bland and totally yummy chicken. Hmm, maybe she gets herself sick to bring on the good food?