3 ms·
So a question, do scientists not make a distinction between blowing things up for fun and blowing things up for an organized scientific experiment? I understan
by adamdavis 13y ago
So a question, do scientists not make a distinction between blowing things up for fun and blowing things up for an organized scientific experiment?
I understand that blowing things up and having fun can be part of a scientific experiment, but that doesn't mean any time that someone makes an explosion that they're participating in a scientific experiment, unless we're using a very loose definition of the word.
- nitrogen 13y agoMy favorite science teachers in high school and junior high blew things up for fun all the time. Curiosity is the important factor driving people into science.
- adamdavis 13y agoOf course, and I'm not arguing that explosions have no place in science, but I'm not sure if this answers the question I posed.
- nitrogen 13y agoI think that the definition of a "scientific" experiment should include harmless fun that leads to an exploration of science. I'd argue that children (young children especially) are the world's most active scientists. Every time they throw something, climb something, jump off of something, fall down, get up, etc. they're conducting a physics experiment. If calling a just-for-fun HCl+Al bomb a science experiment helps the world to gain another scientist, or even just a well-rounded, open minded, curious adult, then yes, let's blur the distinction between blowing stuff up for fun and "science".
- munchbunny 13y agoBlowing things up is fun, and kids should be able to blow things up for fun if it gets them interested in science. But they should do it at a safe distance from behind a blast shield. Still fun, but much safer.