Bradley Lignoski

Black Diamond, WA, United States

Someone is shy

Bradley hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Bradley Lignoski
Posted over 2 years ago
Showing experiments on live animals to young kids, regardless of what kind of animal, can be considered part of an educational program?
ROBOROACH!!! I already posted a very long, scathing review. I will keep this short. Go to this guy's commercial site where he sells his products. Notice that they are developing a kit that turns a roach into a remote-controlled toy. Watching the how-to video at the bottom of the page is deeply disturbing. The presenter's language is full of euphemism which strives to transform our perception of the creature from something that is living and has its own agency, to something that is an object in our environment; Indeed the illusion is powerful as the animal is rendered immobile bythe ice water. Many students that I teach are fixated on the virtual enough as it is. This is true of many "screenagers". Many struggle with empathy. They do not need more reasons and even encouragement to further objectify the animate members of their world. I wonder how many people giving positive reviews of this talk would feel the same about the TED talk on DARPA's experiments with cyborg bugs.
Noface
Bradley Lignoski
Posted over 2 years ago
Showing experiments on live animals to young kids, regardless of what kind of animal, can be considered part of an educational program?
BEWARE: There is a difference between teaching science and making a spectacle! I have been teaching a combination of high school physics, math and other forms of science for the past 6 years. The following observations are informed by my experiences as an educator and my continuous struggle for improvement. This presentation depends entirely upon shock value and the common fetishism of smart-phone apps. The combined smoke and mirrors effect leaves many thinking that they are "learning science" and having fun at the same time (Which is possible, just not from this video)! But did anyone in the audience actually learn anything new? They saw graphs and can't name what is being plotted on the axes because the speaker never mentioned it. This teaches the kids that when graphs appear, no rigor is needed to interpret them; Graphs are mostly for fun and give us an excuse to pull out our Iphones! He then inaccurately describes the graphs as "the sound of the brain". Did this make anyone else feel physically ill? Another glaring mistake: Action potential means something specific. Good educators do not use important, technical terms without defining them. Lesson implied to kids: Everyone knows what that word means which is why I didn't define it (some kids will feel some shame or at least self-consciousness). The MOST IMPORTANT LESSON: If ripping the leg off of a living creature makes you feel uncomfortable and you aren't comforted by a dismissive "don't worry it will grow back" from a hip dude, then there is no place for you in science. At the very least brace yourself for a high school experience full of discomfort and invalidation. I repeat, there is no room for compassion in the field of science. Science should be about asking questions, such as: "When the roach warms up again, won't it feel pain?" not to mention ethics: "do I have a right to rip the leg off of a roach for fun?" This is one of the most gimmicky, reckless and myopic TED talks that I have ever seen