Tag Archives: experiment

The dream academy

When I was a kid, I wanted to be a parapsychologist. I thought that this meant a person who examines supernatural claims and tries to find psychological or other scientific explanations for them. When I saw Ghostbusters at the age of 11, I realized I might be mistaken, and that if Dr. Peter Venkman was a parapsychologist, maybe I ought to rethink my career plans.

I continued to be enamored of the idea of scientifically testing or studying seemingly magical phenomena. In high school, this wound up intersecting perfectly with my fascination with dreams, when I picked up a copy of Exploring the World of Lucid Dreaming, by Stephen LaBerge, Ph.D. My experience with this book and LaBerge’s Lucidity Institute would become an early lesson in skeptical investigation.

A lucid dream is when you’re aware that you’re asleep while you’re in the dream. Not everyone has them, but they’re not that unusual. Carlos Castaneda wrote about them, and they feature in the movie Dreamscape (one of my favorites). My first lucid dream was “wake-initiated”: I was awake in a mauve-colored hotel room, and then suddenly finding myself in a lush green meadow made it obvious I was in a dream.

I found the experience amazing. My mind had broken the fourth wall of its nightly theatre and I was now a totally conscious participant inside an unconscious experience. How the hell was this possible? I was far less interested in the supposed mystical or healing properties of these dreams than the fact that the brain could allow such a thing to take place. So what attracted me to LaBerge’s book was that it offered step-by-step and sensible — not New Agey –  instructions on how to train yourself to have lucid dreams.

First, you learn to remember your dreams more clearly and more frequently. This means any time you wake up from a dream you must immediately write down as much as you can remember. Now, I’ve been an insomniac longer than I’ve been a skeptic, so frankly I hated this idea, since falling back to sleep was always so difficult. Also, the mechanism by which keeping this journal would increase dream recall wasn’t well explained, so I had no special expectation of a positive outcome. (A good skeptical position.)

But I did indeed find that forcing myself to keep the dream journal increased my dream recall, to a pretty remarkable extent in fact. So I embarked on the next steps, which involved training myself to do frequent “dream checks,” with the idea that the habit would continue into dreaming, where my dream check would fail and I would become lucid.

In the end, I didn’t have much success. I didn’t stick with the dream journal too well and, despite the notices my roommate and I plastered to our walls reminding us to check “ARE YOU DREAMING,” I was never able to induce a lucid dream. But I joined the Lucidity Institute so I could read their newsletter about lucky people who had become proficient at this technique, and the different studies that were done with these “oneironauts,” as LaBerge termed them. The study subject’s eye movements were recorded, and at the moment of entering a lucid dream he would perform a certain eye movement to signal this to the researcher, and then begin whatever experiment he was supposed to do in the dream.

Next: A rip-off by any other name…

Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Guest post: On improving science education

Jack Randall was a science instructor for 25 years, including 14 years at Interlochen Arts Academy in Interlochen, MI. There he was notable for identifying the radioactive “Cheetos” isotope, endangering students’ lives as coach of varsity cafeteria-tray luge, and enriching them immeasurably as a teacher and a friend. He currently works for Vernier Software & Technology.

First, a brief word of introduction. Joey and I studied chemistry together in high school. On paper, Joey was the student and I was the teacher, but we both did a fair amount of learning and there were many instances of role reversal. Joey was a terrific student and, more importantly, a great person with whom it was my very good fortune to have worked. That was a number of years ago. I have since left the teaching profession, pursuing an alternate career in science. Joey is no longer a teenage kid who completed the massive load of homework I offered for her consideration.

In recent times we have kept in touch via e-mail. One of Joey’s many projects has afforded her the opportunity to give me a homework assignment. Joey and I looked at a few topics and we decided to tackle science education, in particular the notion that science education is poorly delivered in the United States. I’m not sure exactly how our discussion proceeded, but at one point I commented, off the cuff, that science education was not executed well in America. My assignment was to expound on my comment. Why wasn’t science education very good, what was wrong with it, how could it be improved?

The tables now having been turned, I humbly submit my completed assignment. Truth be told, it’s a bit late. But, I have good excuses. My computer lost one draft, other tasks had higher priority, I thought the deadline was next week, and I haven’t been feeling well lately (but I’m all right now).

science.previewI think that science education is poorly done because it seems that Americans know very little basic science. I’m not sure what a package labeled “Basic Science Information” would contain, but there are certain fundamental concepts of biology, chemistry, and physics we all need to know. Add to the package a healthy dose of common sense and we would all be wiser consumers, informed citizens, and skeptical readers and listeners. And we wouldn’t have to be science geeks to put this package of basic science information to good use.

Where does this notion of mine come from? It’s kind of backward logic, actually. Rankings of academic achievement in science worldwide normally place the U.S. in the lower half, if not the lower third, of the countries listed. University-level science professors chastise high school teachers for sending them ill-prepared students, high school teachers complain that little or no science is taught in the K-8 grades and the K-8 teachers may or may not respond with a justifiable shoulder shrugging.

Science education takes a drubbing from its own kind, which may be the strongest argument. In my field of study, chemistry, one can peruse the highly regarded Journal of Chemical Education and regularly come across articles decrying poor teaching practices and offering one type of improvement after another. The editorial in the October issue of Science, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is entitled “Europe Rethinks Education.” The author, Pierre Lena, remarks that “Improving the quality of science education in primary and secondary schools is a challenge faced by nearly all countries.” Dr. Lena further comments about the “…disinterest of European youth in scientific careers and the public’s poor understanding of science….” His editorial describes programs in Europe to meet this challenge.

Thus, without a greater mass of evidence, here’s my thesis: science education has never been up to snuff. It’s not that once upon a time we got it right and somehow over the years we lost it. We’ve never, ever taught science properly, effectively, efficiently. We haven’t taken the time to figure out how to do it right, and now here we are, where we’ve always been, stumbling around taking stabs at teaching science and most of the time missing the mark.

How do we improve? Here are a few ideas. As Joey will attest (I hope) I like to toss out ideas, hear what others think, try some things, and see what happens. Subliminal scientific method, if you will.

JACK’S STEPS TO IMPROVING SCIENCE EDUCATION

Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon