I chose the Science and Global change program to explore climate change beyond just news headlines and some background research I’ve done. I expected SGC to be student-centered, with a focus on research and discussion. SGC definitely met my expectations in the discussion department, although it did differ from my expectations of it being a primarily research-based class. I am grateful for the format of the class, as it challenged me to think critically and also learn about climate change on a deeper level through lectures and discussions.
An example of when I employed hypothetico-deductive reasoning emerged this semester in my physics class for biologists. I was tasked to find the “step size” of vesicles moving through onion cells. If they were calculated to be around 8 nanometers, then we hypothesized that the vesicles would experience directed motion based on kinesin (a motor protein) transport, while if the step size were around 10 nanometers, then they would experience myosin transport. While our data collection was verified and our graphs fit the expectations of directed motion, our calculated step sizes did not fit either scenario. We accepted that there had to be something wrong with our experiment– however, we could not rule out our data collection methods, since they seemed accurate. In SGC, I learned that science is not just a body of knowledge, but a method to conduct experiments. And, of course, not all experiments go your way, or match your hypothesis, which is how progress is made in the first place. It was also integral to have other people conducting this same experiment, because if science was based on only one faulty experiment, then we would have ruled out a lot of theories that we consider scientifically valid today. About theories– that’s also something else I’ve learned in SGC– scientific “theories” are actually based on evidence and aren’t just speculation despite what the name might suggest- they actually are the leading explanations for phenomena we see such as evolution.
Apart from conducting experiments, scientific reasoning can also be tested in daily conversations. I talked to a friend last year, who claimed that since everything is predictable on extremely small scales and there is no uncertainty, then our lives are already predestined and the future has already happened. I thought this was an interesting point, but I was skeptical of the first part of his claim. I know that not everything can be predicted, at least not yet with the current technology that we have, so his claim was very speculative. However, even if it was true, I can see his claim fitting into an appeal-to-ignorance fallacy. Just because things happen, doesn’t mean that they can be predicted. And, we can’t presume that our lives are already lived because of these predictions. Since his argument relied on speculation and making assumptions, I reminded myself to remain skeptical based on principles I’ve learned in SGC.
A news article that has struck me in the past 3 semesters was about tipping points, particularly in the Amazon Rainforest. Carlos Nobre studied how intense deforestation and climate change was causing lower precipitation in many parts of the Amazon, making the climate more suitable for a savanna rather than a forest. If climate change were to continue at its same pace, one of the largest forests in the world would lose its ability to sequester carbon and act as a carbon sink. It would also release much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as vegetation decomposes. In SGC, we learned about feedback loops as well as tipping points which were highlighted in the book Hothouse Earth. Additionally, we learned about fluxes as well as sinks, and how they naturally recycled carbon through a “carbon cycle.” The SGC curriculum helped me understand this article thoroughly, as I learned that human activities can push cycles out of balance to a point of no return. For example, Hothouse Earth describes the release of methane stored under snow in higher latitudes caused by warming, which is anticipated to speed up warming to a much higher degree. So, my time in SGC helped me understand that tipping points really are a real thing, and that human activities can set natural cycles such as the carbon cycle out of balance.
Aside from credible news stories, I’ve also seen some examples of science misinformation, mainly on the internet. I’ve heard the claim that the Earth’s climate has been in an ebb and flow for its whole existence, which is usually a claim to discredit man-made climate change. I already would have known that this point was in bad faith before SGC, but SGC solidified my ability to understand this point from a more educated perspective. SGC did allow me to understand natural carbon variation in Earth’s history, and how these directly correlated with temperature. Also, I’ve been able to learn how the recent boost in carbon emissions directly coincides with the industrial revolution, and how this boost in emissions is definitely human sourced, as there are no mass volcano eruptions or natural events that could be the source of these emissions. I have also learned that there have been spikes in the past which have led to huge climate disruptions, but how these have differed from the current warming we are seeing today. So, while the climate is changing, and although there is nothing we can do to stop it, there is a lot we can do to reduce our emissions and slow the change of the climate to make Earth more hospitable to us and the biodiversity that we are forever connected to. There are other ways that SGC has boosted my understanding of scientific principles in other environments apart from the colloquium.
My learning was improved by meeting with other scholars to work on projects, but I usually interacted with other scholars in a casual manner outside of class. Being in the living-learning community allowed me to meet with my group members on projects such as how climate change affects cocoa production and the Visions of the Future project. We were able to split up the work and share some cool facts that we gained from our research, but this was done casually. I believe that a living-learning community allows people to meet more frequently for projects, but that it also helps people socialize and make new connections. Aside from completing my necessary work, I think I did contribute to SGC a fair amount in class discussions and by asking questions. I found myself directing the discussion a few times when we were researching technologies to combat climate change. For example, I asked people to give their thoughts on the assigned video and to give an overview of their technologies when I found that people weren’t talking. Honestly, if people at SGC were all like-minded people, but I didn’t experience people challenging my positions. I think this could be due to me not sharing my opinions enough or connecting with people on a deeper level.
I’ve learned that my Scholars experience was in fact student centered, and I could tell that I was being taught by people who genuinely wanted me to succeed. For example, they made clear at the beginning of class that building relationships is essential, even for extrinsic benefits such as asking for a recommendation. The scholars class helped me recognize that I need to stay on top of internship opportunities– through the newsletter and practicum requirements— as well as the need to build my relationships with professors, as well as how to gain leadership positions around campus. These are lessons I will draw upon in my junior and senior years apart from my newfound knowledge of the scientific method and climate change.