What If Babies Wrote Scientific Journals?

I have been thinking a lot about how our whole understanding of the universe and specifically the world around us, is based on people making guesses (based on evidence, of course, but often guesses nonetheless.)

My educational background happens to be in the field of statistics, where I developed a pretty deep love for the research process, but also a healthy skepticism for the conclusions that people *sometimes* make based on the data in their research.

This weekend I was watching my 9-month-old play with a toy and had a startling insight into how errors can surface in that research process. We have an electronic guitar-type toy that you can "play" by pushing long plastic "strings" on it. My baby really likes to make the music play, and spends a lot of time slapping it randomly to try to make the music start. This weekend, though, he discovered that if he turns over the guitar on the floor (so the buttons are facing down) he has a lot more success. He further discovered that if he pushes the guitar around (face down) while he is crawling, that the success rate increases even more.

After doing these experiments, his conclusion is that the guitar is meant to be upside down, and that if you want the guitar to make music, you need to crawl around the room, putting your weight on the guitar. Any person wanting to make music with this toy while sitting in one place will find themselves completely unsuccessful.

At this point I wondered, how often do we make similarly faulty conclusions? How often do we make scientific statements that work for our own limited understanding but somehow miss the real point?

Colin Firth vs. Matthew Macfadyen: The P&P Showdown

I just finished back-to-back viewings of two film versions of Pride and Prejudice. Darrell and I have spent the past few days watching the BBC version, but hadn't yet finished it, so last night while he was at the Fathers and Sons campout I did what every self-respecting woman would do. I watched the end without him! My daughter was crying because the boys were going camping without her, and I quickly decided that my sweet tomboy needed a girls night. I pulled out the nail polish and painted her toenails while we ate chocolate and I introduced her to the chick movie of all time. OK, so she ended up painting her own fingernails while I fed the baby and put him to bed and then she fell asleep before the movie was over, but I think she had fun, and it stopped her from crying.

Well, when the BBC version was over, it was only 9:30, and both my kids were asleep. With my kitchen a wreck, and after a day of not really accomplishing anything, I again did what any self-respecting woman would do, and spent the next two hours watching the Keira Knightley version of P&P. This was purely for comparison purposes, of course, and has nothing to do with any sort of a longing to see Mr. Darcy win Elizabeth Bennet's affections one more time.

I admit that prior to these back-to-back viewings, I had few objections to this shorter version, but now I have to say that hands down, the BBC version is better overall. I like the casting better, and I've decided that this is a story that *needs* the character development of the full version.

OK, as much as I would like to further analyze the differences, the time constraints of being a mom force me to simply summarize by saying that unless you're short on time, go for Colin Firth!!!