Sciencey Heroes For Young Children? 614
An anonymous reader writes "Unhappy that all his friends have heroes he knows nothing about (they've all chosen hockey players — actually a hockey player: Sidney Crosby), my eight-year-old son asked me if I would find him a 'cool hero.' When pressed to define 'cool,' he very earnestly gave me this list of acceptable professions: 'Astronauts, explorers, divers, scientists, and pilots.' A second and only slightly less worthy tier of occupations includes 'inventors, meteorologists, and airplane designers.' To be eligible for hero status, an individual must be (1) accomplished in one of these fields, (2) reasonably young (it pains me to report that Dottie Metcalf-Lindenburger, NASA's youngest astronaut and now just 31, barely makes the cut), and, critically to my naive son's way of thinking, (3) respected by third graders nationwide. Ignoring that last criterion, or not, what heroes would you suggest from the sciences as people whose lives and accomplishments would be compelling to an eight-year-old mind?"
Dottie Metcalf-Lindenburger is 35... (Score:4, Informative)
Dottie Metcalf-Lindenburger is 35 as of this year, not 31....
Re:Dottie Metcalf-Lindenburger is 35... (Score:4, Funny)
Dottie Metcalf-Lindenburger is 35 as of this year, not 31....
To be fair, I don't believe math was a requirement listed by his son.
Re:Dottie Metcalf-Lindenburger is 35... (Score:4, Funny)
His kid probably asked the question 4 and a half years ago and it took this long to get published on slashdot. His math is probably good.
Outreach (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i was thinking more http://xkcd.com/695/ [xkcd.com] (might not be safe for work; some people cry when reading this)
Re:Outreach (Score:4, Interesting)
http://imgs.xkcd.com/blag/spirit_rewrite_unknown_author.png [xkcd.com]
Here's a few (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Neil DeGrasse Tyson would be my best suggestion.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
XKCD Zombie Feynman says, "so what?" They've got the spirit of it, if not the formalism and rigor.
This is even more the case since we're looking at examples for young children who need the showmanship and wouldn't appreciate the difference anyway.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Then again, they've done this without those kinds of checks, which means that their science could be (and has been proved to be, on revisits of myths) incorrect.
Re:Here's a few (Score:5, Insightful)
The willingness to revisit myths is a hallmark of the scientific process, though. They have a hypothesis -- the myth -- and collect initial evidence to determine a certain level of plausibility. They then move to large-scale experiments. In some cases, their experiments disprove the hypothesis. However, upon peer review (using the term loosely), problems with their experiments may be pointed out, and they revise and rerun the experiment. Sometimes the original results are overturned, and they can, to some degree, form a theory.
The Mythbusters are the first to claim that what they do is more entertainment than science. You just don't often hear things like "Jamie wants big boom" coming from real scientists. But normal people learn from their abbreviated process anyway, as you said, and that's what is important right now.
Re:Here's a few (Score:4, Insightful)
Their research is the most important possible for the kids of this generation.
No kid is going to get excited about science and go "yay, I want to be a scientist and study string theory". They are more likely to want to play with focusing mirrors to make fire, to use high pressure water hose to make jetpacks.
Mythbusters shows that you can make cool & interesting stuff at home which will get kids interested in becoming the next generation of scientists and engineers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, the reality of science (like the reality of just about any other field you can choose for a profession) is that 95% of what you do is completely boring. Almost every job in the history of the world is like that, and will continue to be so until those lazy ass computer scientists finally figure out Artificial Intelligence and we can truly have machines do all of the mundane tasks.
Real science takes lots of dull repetitive work. Good, useful results have to be weaseled out of mounds of noisy data and de
Re:Here's a few (Score:4, Insightful)
Dude, the layman has no idea how science works at all.
Almost no one in this country can even give an brief summary of the scientific method. Almost no one knows how science works at all, in any manner. They can't give any explanation of what scientists actually do or how they do it.
Complaining about the Mythbuster's lack of rigor is like complaining about how teaching Maxwell's equations ignores quantum effects.
And I'll point out that science doesn't require rigor. Or, more specifically, it requires as much rigor as the field requires. As the Mythbusters are operating in their own field of 'urban legend', perhaps that field has exactly as much rigor as that field wants.
You want more rigor, you start doing scientific research in that field and start complaining about their lack of rigor, until then, shut up...you don't get to define how much rigor is needed for random field of science. Different fields have different accepted standards. Until some distinguished 'urban legend' institutions start criticizing their lack of rigor, and stops using their results, they have enough.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Einstein was a patent clerk.
Da Vinci was a painter.
Priestley was clergy (he discovered oxygen, & invented carbonated drinks).
Since when was a lack of university education & a job in the field a requirement to be a scientist - all you need is the ability and interest to investigate the subject. Even better if you can encourage the next generation to become interested too.
Studying science academically just means you're taught what everyone else already knows and your thinking is moulded by your lectu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the grandparents point is you don't need a university degree or any formal qualifications in order to 'study'
You can learn the current state of the art independent of any such institutions.
Using the scientific method does not mean that you are doing science. For example you could conduct a criminal investigation using the scientific method but that does not mean that what you are doing is science.
By that definition no applied use of science would be 'doing science' and for example physics students at university would not be 'doing science' because what they are learning has already been done before.
Science does not need to be new to still be science.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You train to do science by repeating classical experiments.
True, but training to do something is not the same as actually doing it.
Re:Here's a few (Score:5, Informative)
Brian Cox [wikipedia.org], aslo known as the "rock star of Physics". Works on the Large Hadron Collider, has his own TV series on the solar system, was in the 2009 "sexiest men alive" issue of People, and played the keys for some semi-famous 90's bands. Not too shabby.
Another Brian (Score:5, Interesting)
How about another Brian [wikipedia.org], a bona fide rock star (i.e. older than most people on /.) and also astrophysicist. Took a detour from his PhD work to play lead guitar for the British rock band Queen [wikipedia.org]. Finally finished his PhD in 2007. Is one step from away from knighthood.
Bill Nye the Science Guy (Score:3, Informative)
It's great fun and educational. My son lov
Age is a Problem (Score:5, Interesting)
His friends are all looking at sports heroes and you're looking at people with long careers. There's a big difference.
Athletes only have a few decades in which they'll do well, then they retire. So it's easy to find a younger athlete as a hero: as they get older, they lose it.
But almost all the other professions take time to get experienced in. They require learning and years of experience to excel, other than something like astronaut, which can include younger people.
Too bad you can't include people like Chuck Yeager or Wiley Post.
Re:Age is a Problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, you have that backward. Astronauts require YEARS of training, which usually doesn't even start until they've had a reasonable distinguished early military career.
Most of the "rock stars" of science made their contributions while still quite young... Einstein published on special Relativity at 24, James Watson (of Watson & Crick) published on the structure of DNA (which he later admitted to "discovering" while trippin' balls) at 25. Alan Turing published his On Computable Numbers... at 24 and built the world's first real computer at 32.
I could go on.
Re: (Score:2)
It takes less training (in terms of time and years) than it does to make a name in other fields.
Physical shape is an issue in space flight, just like in sports, so age is, again, a factor.
Re: (Score:2)
By the years training and experience, I think he was meaning something in context with being the best scientists or something verses becoming a stellar athlete above others in the same field. You can be an astronaut in about the same amount of time it takes to go from a rookie not well known to a famous sports player. In the other fields, it takes decades of applied knowledge and the ability to use that knowledge to become known on the same level.
This is probably because of media exposure involved in it. In
SCUBA (Score:2)
Carl (Score:2)
So what if he's dead. ;_;
Adventurer / Surgeon / Rock Star (Score:3, Interesting)
Carl Sagan (Score:5, Insightful)
NIKOLA TESLA (Score:5, Interesting)
See subject-line...
APK
P.S.=> He's a PRIME EXAMPLE of that "once in a generation mind"... apk
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
EXACTLY what I was here to say. He doesn't quite fit the criteria, but what 8 year old _wouldn't_ love him? He's _CLASSIC_ mad scientist! Only problem is that you'd have to spend some time explaining who he is. But seriously - the world as we know it would not exist without him...and this is the same man who was thinking of death rays, worldwide free wireless electricity, global communications - he damn near thought of the internet before we even had electricity!
Re:Carl Sagan (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no other.
Be careful with role models. By all accounts he was a brilliant science popularizer and a better than average scientist. But he was also petty and arrogant and thought a lot of himself and treated women badly. Read one of the biographies. I think that is what you should teach kids - that even their heroes and role models may be exemplary in one or more areas of life without being perfect or even acceptably good in other areas. Therefore only emulate the good, and don't be disheartened when you learn about the bad.
That said every child should watch COSMOS at least once and read a few of his books. Pale Blue Dot and Demon Haunted World would be my recommendations (though I'm sure some of the more religious types will disagree with the latter).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Behold, Captain Entropy! (Score:4, Funny)
That scientist guy, Fargo, (Score:2)
in Eureka.
He's pretty young. Who cares if he's not real. Heroes are larger than life, anyhow, right?
Disregarding your criteria... (Score:2)
AronRa [youtube.com]. It's possible I'm old and out of touch, but I have to think your son would find him cool.
He fails most of your criteria -- he's still a student (in his spare time) though he certainly seems to know his stuff, he's a scientist/biker (and definitely looks the 'biker' part), he's likely not young enough -- but I'd encourage your son to look at the man before passing judgment (I hope I look that good at that age), and if third-graders nationwide knew anything about him, I have to imagine they'd feel the
Space! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the new age where all that is forgotten.
what's that saying? Oh yea, don't hate the player, hate the game.
Who needs a hero? (Score:5, Insightful)
You kid seems smart. Maybe ask why he feels the need to have a hero? And why this hero needs to pass some sort of test of being 'accepted by your kids peers' ?
I understand the need for kids to fit in somehow, but maybe he can transcend this.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because our brains are pattern matching engines and we need to see patterns in order to recognize and or emulate them.
The fitting in part is a necessary part of growing up and we don't have a better way to do it yet.
Why has nobody mentioned Michio Kaku yet? I know he's too old, but he's the only one on TV right now with the old Carl Sagan vibe.
Also Phil Platt for Bad Universe if there were more episodes.
Jeri Ellsworth (Score:2, Insightful)
Jeri Ellsworth, AKA "Lady Ada" [wikipedia.org]
Read some of her articles [hackaday.com] on [hackaday.com] hackaday [hackaday.com].
Brilliant, clever, and resourceful. Definitely hero material.
Re:Jeri Ellsworth (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, Ladyada is Limor Fried [ladyada.net].
But both of them are absolutely hero material.
Re: (Score:2)
Limor Fried is also known as Lady Ada, not Jeri Ellsworth.
http://lifehacker.com/5481197/macgyver-of-the-day-limor-ladyada-fried [lifehacker.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Jeri Ellsworth is known as 'Jeri Ellsworth'.
http://www.youtube.com/JeriEllsworth [youtube.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeri_Ellsworth [wikipedia.org]
http://www.jeriellsworth.com/ [jeriellsworth.com]
Race cars, pinball, electronics...
http://www.google.com/search?q=racecars+pinballs+electronics+c64 [google.com]
First Robotics competetion (Score:2, Interesting)
On TV quite a bit (Score:2)
He's not terribly young, but Michio Kaku [mkaku.org] would be a good choice after watching some of his shows.
physicist! (Score:2, Informative)
Richard Feynman!
Two words (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Any of these guys (Score:2)
2. Buzz Aldrin
3. Pete Conrad
4. Alan Bean
5. Alan Shepard
6. Edgar Mitchell
7. David Scott
8. James Irwin
9. John W. Young
10. Charles Duke
11. Eugene Cernan
12. Harrison Schmit
Re: (Score:2)
Lets start showing reruns (Score:4, Informative)
Phil Plait (Score:5, Informative)
AKA The Bad Astronomer. Read Death from the Skies with your kid - it's quite entertaining and has a persistent message that rational thought is superior to sensationalism.
Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I concur. He should definitely devote his hero worship to Neil DeGrasse Tyson. He does great stuff when he's not ruining pluto, and he really gets how to explain science to laymen/kids.
what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
He's my hero, does that count? (I'm 31 though).
For a slightly younger person, perhaps Garrett Lisi? He's older than what #2 seems to require, but he's still quite young at 42 and is doing some interesting work. He's also a surf bum :D
Find a hero for me, daddy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Find your own hero, kid.
I just asked my 12yo son, and -- as I will ever be thankful -- it would never cross his mind to ask me to find him a hero. (I even asked him if he would have when he was 8. Nope.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Find your own hero, kid.
Better yet, if you think your kid has a love for science, tell him that both "coolness" and "hero worship" are antithetical to real science. Science is not a popularity contest, nor is science made great because it is done by a great scientist. Good science stands because it withstands further scientific challenge, and the personal characteristics of the scientist do not matter one bit.
Then past that, remember that no matter how things may appear, as a parent *you* are always going to be your child's mo
Re: (Score:2)
No.
It's the parent's job to put him in an environment where he will (hopefully) choose parentally-acceptable role models.
(This means no /Family Guy/ and /Southpark/ for 8 year olds!!!!! Or 15 year olds, for that matter.)
Then, if he chooses a "bad" hero/role-model, you talk it over with him.
Mainly, though, a parent just has to accept that unless you home-school him, you have a lot less influence over him than you wish you would.
Re:Find a hero for me, daddy? (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought it was a parent's job to hunt around for acceptable role models for their kids.
Gee! I always thought it was a parent's job to *BE* an acceptable role model for their kids.
Tom Swift || Tintin (Score:2)
i remember reading hardy boys, narnia and tom swift novels when i was a kid - the tom swift stories always emphasized science, invention, and technology - great books. the tintin books are also science positive. :-D
all the best
john p
Youres or his? (Score:4, Informative)
Joking aside, tell him about Joseph Kittenger and Felix Baumgartner. Kittenger was the pilot/sky diver involved in Project Excelsior. The highest/longest sky dive in history. 15 minutes of free fall. Felix Baumgartner is a dare-devil currently trying to break that record. He's being sponsered/supported by Red Bull (come on, thats instant cool), and Kittenger is consulting on the whole thing. If all goes to plan Baumgartner will break the sound barrier. With his body.
If he wants famous aircraft designers, two giants that come to mind are Ben Rich and Kelly Johnson, both of Lockheed Skunkworks fame. Unfortunately, they're both gone from this world... the days of airplanes being a single person's brain child is quickly faming (if not gone). If you wants some famous pilots, probably the single most important pilot would be John Boyd. One of the best fighter pilots ever, he also went ahead and pushed an entire generation of air force fighters into service, developed an entire engineering metric on comparing the performance of fighters, and then went ahead and revolutionized the way we fight wars (look up Maneuver warfare... all of the official doctrines of the armed services are based on his ideas).
Wile E. Coyote (Score:5, Insightful)
I can honestly say that without him as a role model, I would never have become a physicist or discovered how to paint the dimensional portal which brought me to this world years ago.
Unfortunately, the rules of physics seem to be slightly different here for some reason, and I have been stranded ever since. Oh well...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I can honestly say that without him as a role model, I would never have become a physicist or discovered how to paint the dimensional portal which brought me to this world years ago.
So what you're saying is that you're from Cool World?
Okay, but seriously, you'd probably like Phineas and Ferb [wikipedia.org], as would the kid in question. Not being real I guess they don't qualify as role models, but they're definitely worth watching until a real world role model shows up.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When I applied to MIT anno 1980, part of the application process was to write an essay titled, "What is my favorite cartoon character and why." So this was essentially a "Who's your hero" question. I chose Wile E. Coyote. The focus was about his persistence: despite that all his ingenious attempts to catch the Roadrunner with cockamamie contraptions failed, he never gave up. He always came up with something new to try.
The admissions folks loved it, and I got a call from the local MIT rep to come by for
clever nick name (Score:4, Funny)
i dont know an obvious answer. i'm kind of out of touch with 8 year olds, but they havent heard of carmack or musk and think that tesla's a band.
wil wheaton isn't famous enough, oh i dunno maybe he is do kids these days watch next generation reruns on spike?
he pops up on eureka and csi and that one with the nerds... now and then. i guess 8 year olds dont watch the guild. or know who randall munroe is.
hey how about richard branson? a lot of 8 year olds are virgins these days.
My 2 cents (Score:3, Informative)
The dude was a pilot and all - but he went on to really design and build these planes. He was such a "hands-on" guy, a real genius and innovator. I never knew any of that about him before watching some movie about him. I'd recommend the same.
My 8 year old daughter's idol is Buzz Aldran. I totally respect the guy too. Aside from obviously being the second guy on the moon - he was (I think) #1 in his class at MIT after doing his thesis on Orbital Docking manuvers - before any such thing was actually done.
Aside from just "flying the spaceship" and "walking on the moon" - even today, he continues to innovate in the area of space travel. He has a web site where you can see not just some of his old stuff, but new stuff as well. He's not just part of history, he's really part of the present.
A Pilot? How About Captain Sully? (Score:2)
Willy Messerschmitt (Score:4, Interesting)
explorer/diver (Score:3, Informative)
Robert Ballard
Also... (Score:2)
I would say Steve Jobs too - reluctantly.
On the upside - he's incredible. Most people who are killer successfuly in business do it once. He's done it several times. Most people that come up with killer products do it once. He's done it many times. Even when he's ousted, he comes back, proves he was right - and flips everything ba
Airplane (Spaceship) Designer (Score:4, Insightful)
Elon Musk (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok... (Score:3, Insightful)
Admit it... that was a major "proud papa" moment.
Thor Hyerdahl and the Kon-Tiki crew were my heroes (Score:5, Interesting)
Then there's the Easter Island stuff. While crappy TV shows say "who knows why these roads go into the sea" Thor put on the scuba gear and found they were boat ramps. When the crappy TV show said "who knows how the statues were erected" Thor asked the locals, put on a huge BBQ for them and they showed him how it was done.
Then of course there are plenty of other examples of people in science doing things kids will find heroic - vulcanologists in rubber boats on acid lakes, polar explorers and many others.
Ray Kurzweil (Score:4, Interesting)
He's an inventor, scientist, author, futurist, musician and probably plenty more I don't even know about. And he's still alive... and hopes to be alive forever due to evolving technology.
Reasonably young?? (Score:5, Insightful)
To be eligible for hero status, an individual must be (1)...(2) reasonably young (it pains me to report that Dottie Metcalf-Lindenburger, NASA's youngest astronaut and now just 31, barely makes the cut), and, critically to my naive son's way of thinking, (3)...
Since when do 8-year-olds know the difference between 45-year-olds and 30-year-olds? They were all just grown-ups to me when I was that age. There were, like, 4 categories of people: kids, big kids, grown-ups, and old folks (technically a subset of grown-ups, but distinguished by completely gray/white hair and large amounts of wrinkles). I don't think I became aware of the difference between 45 and 30 until I was at least 11.
Re:Reasonably young?? (Score:4, Funny)
I don't think I became aware of the difference between 45 and 30 until I was at least 11.
Impressive. I don't think i knew the difference until I was...30.
Why young? (Score:3, Insightful)
But, I don't think you're going to find a 20-year-old science hero, like you would a 20-year-old sports hero. To really have a science career, you have to have a PhD, and then some career after that. I think the best you can do is a 30-year-old with promising research, or a 20-year-old whose a promising genius, or made a great invention. Other than that, you're looking for a person who has a PhD + 10 years' work behind them.
Warning about Sidney Crosby (Score:3, Informative)
While he is a fine young hockey player, and I fully expect him to lead his team to a Stanley Cup, there is one thing that every eight year old should know about him before indulging in any form of 'hero worship'.
HE HAS COOTIES!!!
Lord British! (Score:4, Informative)
Teenage video-game prodigy and self-made astronaut Richard Garriott!
Emily Rosa - She's still young (early 20's) (Score:4, Interesting)
As a 9 year old girl, she debunked the whole Therapeutic Touch nonsense, with a sensible experimental design.
If it helps, she grew up to be a smoking hottie, as well as having brains to burn. IMO, young kids could look
up to her for both her critical thinking skills, and the way she was no swayed by arguments-from-authority of
the "we're older than you, so we know better" sort.
Re:Peter Parker? (Score:4, Interesting)
Galois (Score:4, Interesting)
Galois (look him up!!) is long dead, but he was quite possibly the greatest genius ever to walk the planet. Too bad he was killed in a sword fight when he was 20. As a teenager, he solved a centuries-old math problem and created a fundamental branch of advanced mathematics.
Re:Galois (Score:5, Funny)
he was killed in a sword fight
That explains why he lost, since Galois died of a gunshot wound.
Re:Galois (Score:4, Funny)
he was killed in a sword fight
That explains why he lost, since Galois died of a gunshot wound.
I think "genius" might be too strong of a word....
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Thank you! Mythbusters is just a bunch of guys goofing around. The scientific method rarely plays a part in their form of entertainment. Besides, am I the only one who thinks the main guys' personalities (especially the one without the beret) are annoying as heck?
Magnets can affect Lead too (Score:3, Informative)
A whole program trying to deflect bullets with magnets. Aren't they made of lead?
Ever heard of Lenz's law [wikipedia.org]? There is a very simple demo of it where you can make an aluminium ring jump off the pole of an electromagnet - this would work fine for lead as well. Not to mention paramagnetism and diamagnetism (not sure which applies to lead) - all materials containing atoms will interact with a sufficiently strong static magnetic field.
Re: (Score:2)
http://xkcd.com/397/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, I'd forgotten about that one. There's an XKCD for anything, isn't there?
Re: (Score:2)
Well they certainly use scientific method to prove or disprove myths. I had a massive argument with a gamemaster for Traveller about explosive decompression - I said it just wouldn't happen with a small hole like a gunshot hole (simply because the hole isn't big enough), he said it would. This guy was working on a doctorate in physics - and mythbusters proved him wrong - too bad it was 10 years too late.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I believe that's supposed to be written...
"Cap-tin Jean-Luc-Pic-ard ofthe U-S-S En-ter-prise" /technobeat
Re: (Score:2)
I second this nomination, he might not be young in age but he is definitely has done a lot of cool stuff.
Re:Mark Zuckerberg (Score:5, Informative)
Re:the youngest billionaire in the world of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because he couldn't possibly be getting most of that back as profit [techrights.org] now could he?
Re:Jesus Christ is my #1 Science Hero! (Score:5, Funny)
We're looking for science heroes, not science fiction heroes.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No. But I've never taken LSD.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Christa McAuliffe
Meh... School teacher only put there for PR reasons.