Be a Skeptic

    The groups that I chose to evaluate, who I think is trying to promote critical thinking, are the people on the television show Myth Busters.  I love the show Myth Busters, I have been watching it for a long time and I think it is really cool to see them trying to find the truth behind the myth.

            According to their website their mission on the show is  “The MYTHBUSTERS mix scientific method with gleeful curiosity and plain old-fashioned ingenuity to create their own signature style of explosive experimentation.” I think that this is a great description of some of what they do, but in my opinion the most important thing that they do is promote critical thinking, and they make it fun at the same time.

            Myth Busters investigates many clams and ideas, they go from urban legends to just plain science experiments. Here is an example of one of the episodes I’ve seen. The episode that I thought was really interesting was where they were trying to prove whether or not static electricity can cause a fire, or explosion at the gas station, on the same episode they also tried to see if cell phone use at the pump could cause a fire or explosion as well. This is a great example of some of the things they try to figure out on the show.  

            Myth Busters does not necessarily have a standardized approach to their investigations, like they state on their website they do use the Scientific Method, but they make there experiments their own by adding humor and excitement. Myth Busters also tackles each one of their problems differently, that’s what makes the show so exciting. Also each character on the show specializes in a different area, so they all are able to use their different fields of expertise to create these scientific experiments.

            Myth Busters promotes critical thinking because they force people not to take everything at face value. They disprove some general assumptions that people have. For example cell phone use at the gas pump. For a while it was a concern that if you used your cell phone while pumping gas that an electrical current could ignite a fire or some kind of explosion. This was such a concern that it was even posted on some gas pumps as a warning. Myth Busters attempted many times to make a gas pump blow up or burn by using a cell phone, and they were not able to. However when they also tried to make the gas pump ignite in fire using static electricity they did, proving that static electricity at the gas pump is an actual concern. This is a perfect example of how they promote critical thinking it was a common belief that it was unsafe to use your cell phone while pumping gas, and Myth Busters proved it to be a Myth. After I watched this episode I started considering how many things could be myths that people actually believe.

            I don’t think that the fact that Myth Busters is being presented through television, and as an element of pop culture effects credibility of the show. Yes Myth Busters has the excitement, and comedy factor but that doesn’t change the fact that they are conducting scientific experiments with experts, they just have personality as well. Yes it is possible that rigorous critical thinking is being compromised because people watch television to relax, and since they do attempt to appeal to large audiences this does effect how the level on which the show makes people think, but in my opinion any show that forces people to critically think, no matter how deep they are thinking deserves credit.

            I think it is really awesome that Discovery channel has the ability to make topics that normally may be considered boring fun to watch. I think that shows like Myth Busters are really cool because they do help people to look at things from a different perspective without having to feel like they are being forced to learn something.  I think the fact that Myth Busters and other shows use the pop culture element to promote their shows is crucial, how else would they be able to have such a large fan base. I think that the fact that popular culture has the ability to make people critically think is a useful and powerful tool for everyday people to learn new and exciting facts. 

Become a Wikipedian

Asthma 

For this assignment I chose to analyze the Wikipedia article on Asthma. The reason I chose Asthma was because I have had Asthma since I was a young child, so I would like to think that I am fairly knowledgeable on the topic.  While looking through web page I found that most of the facts about Asthma were legitimate facts. I only found a few facts that were slightly off while the rest that I compared matched up, and seemed to be correct.

The first sight I used to compare resources was http://my.clevelandclinic.org the reason I chose this website was because after a little research about Cleveland Clinic it seemed to be a legitimate source. Cleveland Clinic is a non-profit organization dedicated to combining hospital care with education and research. Now according to Wikipedia Gastro esophageal Reflux disease or GERD is common in 80% of people who have Asthma. According to Wikipedia the reason for this is because of Asthmatic Medication, bronchoconstriction, and irritation. But according to Cleveland Clinic “studies have shown a relationship between asthma and GERD, the exact relationship is uncertain. GERD may worsen asthma symptoms, however asthma and some asthma medications may worsen GERD symptoms. On the other hand, treating GERD often helps to also relieve asthma symptoms, further suggesting a relationship between the two conditions.” So there is no actual known relationship between the two. I also used this website to compare to many facts on the Wikipedia page and most of them matched up.

            The second web site I used to check facts mayoclinic.com. I used this web site to check the Asthma medications that were listed on Wikipedia and again, the facts matched up with the medications listed on Mayo Clinic. I was a little confused on how Wikipedia referred to the most common medication for immediate relief as Salbutamol. In my personal experience with Asthma I have only herd the same medication being referred to as Albuterol. After a little research I realized that they are basically the same thing, just a different name. The more common name is Albuterol so I think it is a little confusing that Wikipedia refers to if as Salbutamol.

The final website I used to check facts was Medical News Today. Com, they had an article on the different types of Asthma. What I noticed while reading this article was that on the Wikipedia site they have different names for the same types referred to in the Medical News Today article, and Medical News Today mentions other types of Asthma that Wikipedia doesn’t mention at all.  

            All together I found the Wikipedia site to be mainly a good source and only one fact was partially incorrect the rest could have used a little more detail. I didn’t feel it was necessary for me to edit these facts myself, I don’t think it was serious information that was left out considering that Wikipedia try’s to show only the main points of a topic, rather than extensive detail. All and all I think this site gave good basic Asthma information

While doing this assignment I realized that Wikipedia is a valid source. I had an extremely hard time trying to find facts that didn’t match up on other websites. When I was working on this assignment it was extremely hard for me to find a topic. At first I thought that this assignment would be really easy, the reason I had this opinion was because of what I had learned from school. Wikipeada was not and expectable resources, because of this I simply ruled out the option of Wikipedia even in my own non- school related researches. The first time I actually used Wikipedia was when I was working on my Book V.S Movie assignment for this class, and it was only because the professor said it was acceptable so I wanted to try it out. I found that Wikipedia had a valid movie summery so I used it. 

While doing this assignment I researched many different topics. The first topic I chose was Asthma, and when I realized that all of the facts I checked on the topic were correct I decided to choose a different topic. I assumed that the reason that it was hard for me to find facts that did not add up was because Asthma is a medical condition and there aren’t many conflicting facts about it. After thinking about this I decided to research more controversial facts hoping I would find a bias. The next topic I chose was same-sex marriage, I thought for sure that researching this topic I would find incorrect or biased facts, though at first the article did seem biased after reading into it more I realized that it was simply just presenting the facts, and it represented both sides well. The next topic I chose was Capital Punishment; this again was a controversial topic. I spent hours researching this page and trying to find conflicting facts on multiple websites, but everything added up. Finally out of frustration of searching different topics I researched Extra Terrestrials for fun because I thought for sure there would be some crazy facts on there, but again I got the same unbiased factual view, After all of this stress  I settled on the topic I knew best which was Asthma, andI reached a conclusion that Wikipedia is mainly a valid source.

Now I am sure that there are Wikipedia articles that do not have all of the facts straight and I can hardly reach a broad assumption over researching four articles, but I did reach the conclusion that well searched and common topics probably are mostly legitimate. I can say that I am now a Wikipedian and that I think that Wikipedia should get more credit than it does. I wonder if other students had similar frustrations while working on this assignment.

How we decide

Make up Assignment 

 I found many things interesting in this book, but the part that stood out to me the most was when Jonah Lehrer was discussing the Jam experiment. I found this fascinating especially when he brought up how the participants would actually talk themselves out of the type of jam that they preferred because they were trying to make an argument for why they preferred the jam, when it was simply a matter of taste. I find myself doing this in many situations, but I mainly related it to when I am taking a multiple-choice test. I find myself over thinking questions that I already know the answer to. I also noticed that when I’m taking the test I sometimes even convince myself of a different answer even if I know that it is most likely wrong. Now I’m sure many students have the same problem, but I think it comes from something deeper in our society that always makes us feel the need to second guess ourselves, and have a good reason for why we feel the way we do, instead of going with our gut instincts. I understand that answering questions on a test is not really a matter of opinion, but I thought it was cool that I was able to relate my own personal situation to the book.

The Shallows

Make up assignment 

In the Shallows Nicholas Carr makes very strong points on how the Internet has cognitive consequences and forces us to eliminate our brains normal process of linear thinking. This is a very good point but I find myself disagreeing with Carr. I’m not sure if I disagree because I’ve read the book Everything Bad is Good For You by Steven Johnson and enjoyed it, or because my personal experience leads me to believe the opposite. Carr does point out how when we use the Internet we feel like we’re getting smarter but in reality it is an illusion. I do not believe this is the case, I think that when we use the Internet we feel like we are getting smarter because we actually are. The Internet allows us to take in multiple sources of information and use them at once. I think it heightens our ability to multitask and increases the rate in which we learn things. 

Dueling Pop Culture

While working on this quest I realized how many different forms of pop culture are present in my life, and the different messages that I’m subconsciously and consciously receiving. With that being said I’m choosing to focus on television shows that I frequently watch, that send conflicting messages

 The first television show that I’m going to focus on is Breaking Bad. Breaking Bad is one of my favorite T.V shows and also is one of the best shows that I’ve ever watched. This show is a perfect example of (as Steven Johnson would call it) “the rise of the anti-hero” The show is about an average school chemistry teacher, Walter White being forced to cook meth as a last resort in order to support his family. This show affects me because not only does selling meth and being a criminal go against my morals, but also I find myself completely sympathizing with Walter and his situation. As I’m watching the show I’m constantly asking myself what I would do if I were in that situation.  Another character who I relate to in the show is Walter’s partner Jessie Pinkman. Jessie is a meth addict and a criminal who does lots of bad things throughout the show, but ultimately he is a good person, talk about conflicting messages.  The whole show I support what he does even if it is bad, because he has a good heart and ultimately strives to do better for himself.             

Even thought Breaking Bad is just a fictional T.V show I found myself asking a very serious question. What if all criminals were like these characters on this show? What if criminals are just good people that get caught up in these impossible situations? I couldn’t stop thinking about this. This again goes back to the book Everything That is Bad is Good for You, and how pop culture is making us smarter, some of these shows make us think critically about stuff that may not normally occur to us.

            Now on a lighter note there are two other shows that I am obsessed with for completely different reason than Breaking Bad.  I love watching the shows Keeping up With the Kardshians and Jersey Shore. A lot of people would consider this trash T.V, and I to a certain extent feel the same, but I cant stop watching it. I love watching Keeping up with the Kardashians and imagining what it would ne like to have money and that type of lifestyle. I love watching the drama that unfolds between the sisters and the people they come into contact with. It is so entertaining this show defiantly appeals to my fantasies and the type of life I wish I could have. Jersey Shore however I watch for a different reason although I do admit that part of the reason I watch this show is too feel better about myself, I love saying wow I would never do that! Or can you believe how embarrassing that is?! But I think I do actually relate to the characters on Jersey Shore, I think that everyone does on some level because they are just normal people and I think that part of what makes the show so addicting. Since most of us don't like the Kardashians I think it is nice to be able to watch characters on a reality show who are real people who make real mistakes.

 I think that it is very interesting how I can have such different tastes in television shows, but I think it is even more interesting how I have a different reasons for why I watch the shows and how each of the appeal to me in different ways.

Book VS Movie

Book V.S Movie 

 The book I chose to compare and contrast with the movie is the book Holes by Louis Sacher.  Though the book and the movie are different, the movie did a pretty good job at following the story line and was actually done well. A lot of the fans of the book Holes are fans of the movie as well. The reason I chose Holes was because I really enjoyed reading the book as a kid, and I loved the movie when it came out! For me this was the first time that I actually liked a movie that was done after a book. Here is the story plot for those of you who haven't read the book.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holes_(novel) Here is also a trailer for the movie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1peixRfNzo&feature=related

•  The first difference that stood out was Stanley's weight. In the book Stanley was over weight while in the movie Stanley was shown as skinny. This is a huge difference considering in the book it talks about Stanley's insecurities about his weight, and it plays an important role with his character. 

• In the book Stanley was in school when he was arrested while in the movie he was walking down the street. 

• In the book Stanley's father is trying to figure out a way to recycle sneakers when he comes up with sploosh, while in the movie Stanley's father is trying to invent a way to get rid of foot odor. 

• In the book Sam and Kate are caught kissing by a girl in the town named Hattie Parker, while in the movie they are seen by Trout instead. 

• In the book it keeps it a mystery why Stanley is at camp Greenlake until around the second chapter. While in the movie it explains why he's there right away, and does not begin with him at camp Greenlake. 

   

         In the movie Holes there are mainly minor changes from the book. The book uses more detail to describe things and situations, but this is expected to change in most movies that are based on books. In the movie there is one large change, which for me had the potential to ruin the movie and then there are other changes that are important but minor.

    The largest difference between the book and the movie to me would be Stanley's weight. Don't get me wrong I think Shia Labeouf is a good actor for the role of Stanley but he's skinny. I don't think that Stanley's weight was necessary for the producer to change at all. In the book Stanley's weight is huge issue for him, and as the book progresses Stanley becomes more confident about himself, and his weight as well. I think that this was a very important part of the book that should not have been left out of the movie. In my opinion the only reason that the producer made this choice was so that Stanley would be more of an appealing character in the movie, this was purely a superficial Hollywood change. 

                The second change that is noticeable in the movie is the way it starts. In the movie it immediately shows why Stanley is arrested and sent to camp Greenlake. In the book it starts with Stanley describing camp Greenlake, but you have no idea why he is actually there until around the second chapter. In the book this makes it more interesting because it grabs your attention, you want to know why Stanley is in such a horrible place and what he did to be there. In the movie they grab your attention with the actual arrest. I think the producer chose to do this in order to make the film more exciting and make the reason Stanley was in camp Greenlake more obvious and clear and less mysterious.

     The next change that was noticeable in the book was that Stanley was arrested in school, in the book,while in the movie it shows Stanley being arrested on the street. In the movie the arrest happens immediately because the shoes literally land on Stanley, while in the book he is arrested later in class. I think the producer changed this in an effort to save time, that's why in the movie the arrest happens instantly, though I think being arrested in school in the book demonstrated the situation being more of a shock for Stanley. However in the deleted scenes of the movie there was a scene that showed Stanley being arrested in school. The next change that occurs in the movie has to do with Stanley's father and his invention. In the Movie Stanley's father is trying to invent a way to eliminate foot odor when he discovers a solution that finally works. In the book Stanley's father is trying to invent a way to recycle shoes when he  accidentally invents a foot odor eliminator. I think that the producer made this change in order to make the story line in the movie flow better. Its easier to explain Stanley's father finally inventing what he has always wanted to, than to show him come up with foot odor eliminator while trying to find a way to recycle sneakers. Although in the book it makes Stanley's wacky father seem even more different.

        Another change is in the book is that Sam and Kate are caught kissing by a girl in the town named 

     Though in the beginning I said the movie was well done, I did want to point out some of the more obvious changes, and give my opinion on why I think the producers chose to make the decisions they did, whether they were positive or negative.

Advertising Map

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=216611531538915549201.0004b0d7b3755305d04c0&msa=0&ll=34.547733,-112.45393&spn=0.001094,0.002411