Hello again, Without delving into trite argumentation on evolution's merit, I would just like to echo comments from others about the inappropriateness of "creation science" being written as a science question. Someone mentioned phlogiston, phrenology, etc. being asked about as science questions. I'm sorry if this is being done, for it further dilutes the sad state of science question writing on the circuit today. SO ... just as a friendly exercise, I'm going to delineate what should and should not be counted as science questions for the purposes of quizbowl. (Yes, I realize it's a bit pompous, but this has been a serious pet peeve of late) * History of science. The classic example. I don't care how important Isaac Newton was/is to science. He is part of history. Gravity is science. Newton's Laws of Motion are science. The fact that Newton was not a nice guy is not, nor is the occupation of his parents, nor is any other fact about his life. Newton is perfectly acceptable as a history question, however, but it does not belong as "science" in the distribution. It only takes away from other real science. * "Faux" Science: Piltdown Man, phrenology, phlogiston, Nemesis, various quackery, (yes, creationism), etc. This is a more difficult area, as generally I would say that this does not belong anywhere in "hard science," but things such as Nemesis and phlogiston may be worth asking about. I would submit that the all-encompassing "general knowledge" or "other" category fits best. * Nobel Prize Winners: A subset of history of science, admittedly, but more recent. Scientists should certainly be mentioned in the questions (and I likely wouldn't object to the scientist being a 10-point bonus part), but not the answer. That's the key point. A good example of this would be the 1999 Chemistry Laureate, Ahmed Zewail. Zewail should not be the answer to a tossup. "Femtochemistry," however, certainly could. * "Colvin Science," with apologies to Mr. Colvin: I think most people know what is meant by this term, but it is, briefly, list and/or linguistic root knowledge. Very few chemists could tell you the atomic weight of Vanadium without consulting the periodic table -- that's why the table is there. This is akin to writing questions out of the almanac, and should be considered a no-no. Linguistic roots, unless they give clear and precise indications of what the answer is, should NEVER be used as opening clues. If the idea is that people who know the subject will get the question first, let's not give the classicists among us some giveaway clue. These types of clues, when in the MIDDLE of tossups, are acceptable in moderation. As boni parts, they are generally poor. I think that's about it for now ... I'll be sure to post more science-question ranting if I think of something ... -- Eric Steinhauser ... who honestly did not see Shaun's post until a minute ago while writing this
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:44 AM EST EST