Popcorn Problem

There is nothing more annoying than buying a large tub of popcorn before a movie, fully expecting it to last for the entire ninety minute feature, and then eating more than half of it before the movie even begins. According to research from Cologne University, however, this may not be a first-world problem that we as movie-goers will face for much longer. In a recent study, it was discovered that snacking on popcorn during the advertisements prior to a movie makes the viewer immune to the ads. 

The logic behind this surprising effect is that when a new ad is played on the screen, our mouths subconsciously simulate saying the name of the brand or company, and repeat it the next few times it is said on screen, as well, allowing it to be added to our short term memory. If the audience has food in their mouth, they can't mouth the name of the company, and the repetition does not occur, which does not allow the brand name to be stored in the memory. 

Does this mean the end of movie theater popcorn? Sascha Topolinksi, one of the researchers involved in the study, thinks it might.
"This finding suggests that selling candy in cinemas actually undermines advertising effects, which contradicts present marketing strategies. In the future, when promoting a novel brand, advertising clients might consider trying to prevent candy being sold before the main movie."

However, his statement seems to suggest that theaters may be able to get away with altering the order of events at the theaters, for instance, putting on advertisements first, then allowing time to go buy popcorn before beginning the film. Unfortunately, this particular solution could be easily avoided by movie-goers, arriving just in time to buy popcorn and enjoy the film. If this research will ever be put to use is questionable right now, and we as a movie-going population will have to wait on more research from different populations.

To read the full article:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/13/eating-popcorn-cinema-advertisers

Do Scientists Actually Use the Scientific Method?

The scientific method as understood by the average student appears to be a rigid structure that is the absolute be all and end all of research and experimentation. However, the design is more flexible than it initially seems. The steps of the scientific method are as follows:

                1. Pose a Question

                2. Do Research

                3. Construct a Hypothesis

                4. Test Your Hypothesis by Performing an Experiment

                5. Analyze Data and Draw a Conclusion

                6. Communicate Your Results

 As a student, I was never allowed to pick my own question to work through the scientific method in order to answer. It was always assigned to me, so I never had the chance to choose a topic that fascinated me. For scientists such as Dr. Burns or Dr. Bulinski, the initial asking of a question comes from an area of personal interest. Dr. Burns, for example, is studying the amount of arsenic in food that we as humans consume because it is a topic that caught her eye and interested her. Dr. Bulinski, being a paleontologist, poses an entirely different type of question about fossil records.

Both scientists research the topic their question is based on in order to gather knowledge and also to make sure they won’t accidentally repeat another scientist’s research. Dr. Burns uses the research to help hone a specific question to experiment on, but she does not call it a hypothesis. Dr. Bulinski ultimately uses her original question as a type of hypothesis, as she says, “a potential explanation that I have about why I observed what I did in my field work, or a potential explanation for a phenomenon that other scientists observed but could not explain.” (Bulinski)

The next step is a bit different for Dr. Burns and Dr. Bulinski. Dr. Burns can use resources in the lab to test her topic, while Dr. Bulinski has to do a bit more field work to test her hypothesis. The latter of the two typically gathers rocks and fossils from various layers, so she has a wide variety of data to later analyze. Both scientists use the data gathered from their experiments to draw a conclusion. For Dr. Burns, this will provide an answer for her question. For Dr. Bulinski, she will compare her conclusion to her hypothesis and see if her explanation works or needs to be reworked.

While I’m sure Dr. Burns will ultimately share her results on arsenic in food, she did not share with me where she typically publishes her research. Dr. Bulinski publishes her results in a peer-reviewed journal in order to share her work with other scientists with the ultimate goal of publishing it for the general public to read and learn from.

Overall, the scientific method is actually used by scientists, but in different ways. The type of science that the scientist specializes in, whether it is Chemistry, Physics, Geology, or any other branch, determines how closely the method is followed. While some scientists like Dr. Burns choose to not make an official, outright hypothesis to guide her experiment in the lab, others like Dr. Bulinski make a hypothesis but can’t do laboratory research or perform what the average person may consider to be an experiment. The scientific method, while flexible, is a good guideline for everyone in the scientific community to follow and use to achieve successful experimentation, research, and publication.

The Age of Denial or the Age of Exaggeration?

 From the very beginning of this article, I had a feeling I wasn't going to like it. Most articles that start off with a statistic choose one that is shocking or represents a drastic change. Adam Frank starts with a statistic that shows a two percent increase in the beliefs of his "opponents", as he seemingly views them, over the course of thirty years. While I was surprised that the percentage of people who believe in creationism has increased rather than decreased over the years, I would not consider it shocking nor a bad change. The statistic that was a little more surprising was the second one he uses, because in the age of the media, I would have thought more people would acknowledge that climate change is a problem.

I do agree that people need to appreciate and learn more about science and how it impacts our daily life, but I don't think it is as important as Frank makes it out to be. He really loses my interest and my care for this topic when he outright belittles creationism. Obviously if forty-six percent of the population you are appealing to believes in it, you shouldn't toss it to the side as though it holds no value. A lot of the time, both scientists and people of faith can't seem to find a happy medium between the two. Science and religion can co-exist, and more peacefully than they have been in recent years. Science clearly exists and affects our lives, and different religions exist to those who practice them and affect their lives in different ways.

So while he does lose some credibility, overall he makes a fair argument. The American education system needs to put more of an emphasis on science and letting kids know from a young age that it is everywhere.