RockOn #1

Humans (and our crops and pets and farm animals) now use: A) All of the natural Diet Pepsi springs on the planet, so that future generations will be forced to drink Coke. B) Almost half of the things the planet makes available and that we like to use. C) Only the tiniest bit of the good things the planet makes available. D) Almost everything that the planet makes available that we could use. E) Almost all of the saccharin produced by the saccharin plantations of South Sweetland, so that future generations will be forced to drink sugar-sweetened sodas.

Almost half of the things the planet makes available and that we like to use. Feedback: We have removed perhaps 90% of the large fish in the ocean, and we raise crops or cut trees on much of the land surface. In very round numbers, we are approaching use of half of everything available on the planet, with the likelihood that we will greatly increase our population in the future.

We speak of elements, such as gold, or oxygen, or iron. If you got some gold, and started dividing it into smaller and smaller pieces, the smallest piece that would still be called "gold" would be: A)An atom. B)A quark. C)A proton. D)An electron. E)A neutron.

An atom Feedback: We can break matter down into atoms (Greek for "not cuttable" because the Greeks didn't have atom smashers or other exotic tools that would allow cutting atoms into smaller pieces). All of the wrong answers here are smaller pieces of atoms, but they wouldn't be gold any more; you can make any of the elements out of these pieces.

You find two neutral atoms. Each has 8 protons in its nucleus, but one has 7 neutrons, and the other has 8 neutrons. It is correct to state that: A)The two atoms are from two different elements. B)The two atoms are from the same cola, but presented in different packaging. C)The two atoms are from the same element, but are different isotopes of that element. D)The two atoms are from the same element, but are different ions of that element. E)The two atoms are from the same element, but are different isopleths of that element.

The two atoms are from the same element, but are different isotopes of that element. Feedback: The element is determined by the number of protons, so if each atom has the same number of protons, the atoms are the same element. Changing the number of neutrons primarily affects the weight, giving a different isotope of the same element. (Changing the number of neutrons too much can introduce radioactivity, so the isotope won't hang around forever.) Ions are made by gaining or losing electrons. Isopleths are lines on a map connecting places with the same concentration of something that someone has measured, not exactly relevant here. And cola requires making atoms into molecules, and then mixing molecules of several sorts (water, sweetener, coloring agent, flavoring agent, perhaps caffeine) to make cola.

Scientists often speak of consensus—the scientific community agrees that a particular theory is better than the competitors. What is such scientific consensus based on? A) A single experiment had an outcome that was predicted accurately by the favored theory and not by the competitors. B) The decision of the Nobel prize committee to give the inventor of the idea a lot of money. C) A number of different experiments by different people that all had outcomes that were predicted accurately by the favored theory and not by the competitors. D) Statements in the old textbooks that the scientists studied when they were in school. E) The insistence of a single scientist that he or she is correct.

A number of different experiments by different people that all had outcomes that were predicted accurately by the favored theory and not by the competitors. Feedback:Agreement on scientific theories is a contentious, drawn-out, and sometimes acrimonious business. Scientists are no better (and no worse!) than everybody else: we think we are right and those who disagree with us are dunderheads! I put forward my idea, and the experiments that I did that show the idea is a good one... then everybody else piles on and pooh-poohs my idea. BUT, they go out and do experiments that try and show my ideas are wrong... and they can't do it! So eventually all those experiments accumulate, and finally people agree that my idea is a good one. (Sometimes accompanied by a sneer: "...but of course I knew that all along. I just didn't bother to publicize it..." I told you, scientists are no better and no worse than the rest of the world.)

The peer review process, in which scientists submit write-ups of their ideas and experiments to a set of colleagues who judge how good the ideas are before the ideas can be published, is: A) Always infallible. B) A way to keep unpopular or dangerous ideas out of public circulation. C) A useful and important, even if imperfect, mechanism of quality-control for the scientific literature. D) The way all publications do business, including the popular press such as the New York Times, Rolling Stone, the Onion, etc. E) A way for the Scientific Establishment to maintain control over ideas and theories.

A useful and important, even if imperfect, mechanism of quality-control for the scientific literature. Feedback: The peer review process applies to scientific publications and works like this: I get an idea and do some experiments to test it and write down the results of the tests. I send the paper to a scientific journal (Nature, Journal of Geophysical Research, etc.) and the editor of the journal sends it to a number of other scientists who can best judge whether my methods are good, whether my results are new and interesting, and whether my paper ought to be published. They don't base their judgements on whether they like me or not or whether I'm a nice guy/gal or not (or at least they ought not base their judgments on that, though it does happen: we're human!). They don't base their judgements on whether my ideas are popular or unpopular. They are only supposed to ask: is this really new (i.e., did somebody else think of this and publish it already somewhere else?) and are the methods used accurate and repeatable?

Newton's ideas on physics "won", and Aristotle's ideas were kicked out of science and over into history. Why? A) Newton's ideas appealed to dead white European males, whereas Aristotle's didn't. B) Newton's ideas did a better job of predicting how nature would behave. C) Newton won the Nobel prize. D) Newton's ideas appealed to dead white European males, whereas Aristotle's didn't because Aristotle wore a toga all the time. E) Newton's ideas were more elegant, and so were intellectually favored.

Newton's ideas did a better job of predicting how nature would behave. Feedback:Unlike painting or literature, scientific inquiry has a well-defined procedure for figuring out if Newton's ideas are better or if Aristotle had it right all along. In looking at a painting, we can ask different people what they think, or we can make up our own mind on whether we like it or not, and that is perfectly valid. In science, we have to ask: does the idea fit with the way the world works? Can I predict the speed of a falling object better using Newton's ideas or Aristotle's? As it turns out, Aristotle's ideas didn't predict things very well, and Newton's did.

A scientist gains knowledge about how the world works, and uses that information to successfully predict what will happen in an experiment. This proves that the scientist's knowledge is: A) One or more of True, lucky, or close to being true (or cheating), but we can't tell which. B) Lucky; no one knows what is going on, so only lucky people get things right. C) True; you can't get it right unless you know what is going on. D) Cheating. E) Close; no one really knows what is going on, but people sort of know.

One or more of True, lucky, or close to being true (or cheating), but we can't tell which. Feedback: If you guessed "heads" before a coin flip, and it came up heads, that would NOT prove that you can predict all coin flips; you will get half of such guesses correct by chance. You might be cheating, you might be lucky, or you might have figured something out.

Geology departments are seeing a lot of recruiters recently, because geology is an in-demand major. Which of the following is NOT a job that geologists commonly end up doing? A) Helping people use knowledge of the Earth to make wise decisions. B) Helping people avoid landslides, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, and other natural disasters. C) Packaging substandard mortgages into "securities" and trying to sell them to unsuspecting people. D) Educator or teacher. E) Exploring for oil, coal, gas, diamonds, gold, or other valuable things.

Packaging substandard mortgages into "securities" and trying to sell them to unsuspecting people. Feedback: Most jobs in geology involve finding valuable things: oil, clean water, ores, and more. But, geologists also teach and communicate in other interesting and entertaining ways, warn about hazards, and help understand the Earth system.

Nuclei of atoms are made up of: A)Protons. B) Neutrons. C) Protons, usually with electrons added. D) Protons, usually with neutrons added. E) Neutrons, usually with electrons added.

Protons, usually with neutrons added. Feedback: The simplest nucleus is the single proton in "ordinary" hydrogen. All other nuclei include protons and neutrons. Electrons make the cloud around the nucleus.

National Parks are: A)Regions containing key biological, geological or cultural resources that have been set aside for the enjoyment of the present generation and future generations. B)Regions containing key cultural resources that have been set aside for the enjoyment of the present generation. C) Regions containing key bumper-cars games that have been set aside for the enjoyment of the current presidential administration. D) Regions containing key geological resources that have been set aside for the enjoyment of future generations. E)Regions containing key biological resources that have been set aside for the enjoyment of the present generation.

Regions containing key biological, geological or cultural resources that have been set aside for the enjoyment of the present generation and future generations. Feedback: Old Faithful, the giant sequoias, and Mesa Verde's cliff dwellings are waiting for you, and your grandchildren.

Opinion polls show most residents of the US do not believe they understand science very well, but they do favor more government support of science. Why do most US residents favor government support of science? A) Scientists apply their scientific method, which allows them to learn the Truth. B) Scientists are so breath-takingly sexy that most people are drawn through sheer carnal lust to support the scientific enterprise. C) Science is so boring that almost everyone uses public-broadcasting science programming as a sleep aid, and government funding is needed to insure a steady supply of boredom. D) Science is simply so fascinating that almost everyone can't wait to see what will be discovered next. E) Science has helped make our lives healthier, wealthier, easier, safer, etc., and people hope that more funding of more science will provide even more health, wealth, ease, safety, etc.

Science has helped make our lives healthier, wealthier, easier, safer, etc., and people hope that more funding of more science will provide even more health, wealth, ease, safety, etc. Feedback: Without science and technology, the great majority of us would be dead, so we tend to be supporters of science. Although we know that science works, we're never sure that it is completely right. Students so often discover things that professors missed, or that professors got wrong, that scientists would be silly to claim Truth. Comparing the TV ratings of the latest hit to the ratings of the latest science program on public broadcasting shows that many Americans are not fascinated by science, but the science-show ratings are above zero, so some people are fascinated by science. And hope as we might, it is unfortunately clear that not every scientist is sexy (just most of them are...).

Geologists get to play with chemistry, physics, biology... and history! And what a history you will meet as you work your way through the course. Starting at the beginning, the textbook provides the scientifically accepted start of the story... and promises that you'll get to explore some of the evidence for that scientific view, later in the semester. Meanwhile, which is more nearly correct of the scientifically accepted view? A)The Earth formed when the Big Bang caused older materials to fall together, about 14 billion years ago. B) The Earth formed from the falling together of older materials, about 4.6 billion years ago. C) The Earth is eternal, having been here forever and promising to be here forever. D) The Earth formed in the Big Bang, about 6000 years ago. E) The Earth was assembled by gigantic space beavers, which gnawed down the primordial tree of life and piled its branches together to form the planet.

The Earth formed from the falling together of older materials, about 4.6 billion years ago. Feedback: The Big Bang is estimated as having occurred about 14 billion years ago. Stars that eventually formed in the wake of the Big Bang led to production of elements such as iron and silicon that are common in the Earth—we are formed from second-generation stardust, which "got it together" to make the planet about 4.6 billion years ago.

What is more accurate about the Earth? A) The Earth is formed of flat, vertical layers; one runs from the North Pole to the South Pole, and then others are layered on to the sides of that. B) The Earth is formed of concentric layers (something like an onion--a central ball with a shell around it, and a shell around that...); when the planet melted, it separated into layers. C) The Earth is homogeneous; when it melted, it got all mixed up. D) The Earth is formed of flat, horizontal layers, a little cap at the South Pole, then a layer above that, and a layer above that, all the way up to a little cap at the North Pole. E) The Earth is formed of concentric layers (something like an onion--a central ball with a shell around it, and a shell around that...), but with a giant hole on one side where the moon-making collision blasted pieces off.

The Earth is formed of concentric layers (something like an onion--a central ball with a shell around it, and a shell around that...); when the planet melted, it separated into layers. Feedback:The planet is onion-like, with an inner core, then an outer core, a mantle (which has several sub-layers), and a crust. The moon-making collision did happen, but the planet got hot enough to separate again. The planet separated after melting largely or completely, with the densest stuff falling to the center and the lowest-density stuff floating to the top.

Your boss has assigned you to get the low-down on the latest wonder-drug and to be darn sure to get it right. You would be wise to consult: A) The New York Times article quoting the discoverer of the drug on how wonderful it is. B) The article in the Journal of the American Medical Society, a peer-reviewed scientific journal, reporting on the discovery and testing of the drug. C) The Wikipedia; everything they publish is up-to-date. D) The web site of the manufacturer of the wonder drug; they know more about it than anyone else does. E) The web site in the email you received with the subject line "Grow your ***** naturally with new wonder drug".

The article in the Journal of the American Medical Society, a peer-reviewed scientific journal, reporting on the discovery and testing of the drug. Feedback: No source of information is perfect, but the refereed articles in learned journals put immense effort into "getting it right". The web has some reliable information, but probably most of the information on the web is not especially reliable. The web is very inexpensive, and lots of people put junk on it. The Wikipedia gets a lot of things right, but it is a distilled synopsis of the real stuff. Most newspapers are around for the long haul, and try to make the news fairly accurate, although some newspapers do have agendas, and the editorial pages are not especially accurate. But, if the report is on the views of a public figure, the newspaper may accurately report what the public figure said, but what the public figure said may be less than completely accurate. And while you are welcome to believe that an unsolicited email promising to grow your ***** will do so... don't count on it.

One of the big problems faced by National Parks is that: A) They must provide marriage counseling for their moose, so that the mommy and daddy moose have lots of baby moose that can be sold on the export market to raise money to pay the rangers. B)They must allow people to enjoy things today, and preserve those things for the future, but achieving both of these is not easy. C) They must preserve valuable things for the future, and not allow people to enjoy those things today, but people want to enjoy them now. D) They must cure the chipmunks of their cappuccino habit or Congress will cut funding, and getting chipmunks off caffeine isn't easy. E) They must allow people to enjoy things today even if that destroys things that many people would like to save for future generations.

They must allow people to enjoy things today, and preserve those things for the future, but achieving both of these is not easy. Feedback: The law that established Yellowstone as the first national park required "conservation... unimpaired for...future generations" and "to provide for the enjoyment" of the parks. But what if so many people want to visit that they scare the wolves, or trample the soil and kill the roots of the big trees? Enjoying and preserving at the same time isn't easy! Fortunately, caffeinated chipmunks and maritally distressed moose are not big problems.