The tour will go out to around 200 schools. I'm pretty sure Peoria is on our list.
Cool.
Just send me a PM when ya do....(if you want to, that is...It's ok if you don't)
puppets and science
- Thread starter thatguywhojuggles
- Start date
Cool.
Just send me a PM when ya do....(if you want to, that is...It's ok if you don't)
thatguywhojuggles
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2002
- Messages
- 1,335
Well I finished my script. I'd love some feedback if anyone cares to read over it.
thatguywhojuggles
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2002
- Messages
- 1,335
(bump... only because I am eager for feedback, and this got pushed to page 2 very quickly. I promise I won't bump after this.)
Thanks again.
Thanks again.
Dragonrock
Militant Elvisian Tacoist
That was great! I give it 3.14 thumbs up!
thatguywhojuggles
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2002
- Messages
- 1,335
Thanks!
Anything you would change or do different?
Anything you would change or do different?
Dragonrock
Militant Elvisian Tacoist
I had never seen this thread before, so I had an idea for a game show theme, but I like your's better. One thing you might mention is something about the astronaut who dropped the feather and hammer on the moon, they fell at the same time. Then Galileo could get really excited and say something like "Men have walked on the moon? The only things in my time that fly are birds! Scientists have done amazing things!!"
Why the hell did I click on this thread. I knew what it was going to be about.
thatguywhojuggles
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2002
- Messages
- 1,335
Oooohhh! I like it. I'm adding that to the script. Any idea which astronaut it was??
thatguywhojuggles
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2002
- Messages
- 1,335
Capsid
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,845
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
thatguywhojuggles, I can see that you put a lot of effort and thought in it. But I am somewhat more critical of your work than most people here and you did ask for feedback, so here goes. Take it however you want.
The title is a rather obscure reference to Newton and doesn't communicate well what the story is going to be about.
In the beginning of the story it is revealed twice that the coin is from 2006 and that it is 50 years old. Once while Tricia is talking to herself and once when she gives it to Andy to read it. I think the dialog would flow more naturally if you delete the part where Tricia says to herself how old the coin is. That way it is only the age is revealed at the moment she has a conversation with Andy, which is more dramatic.
I don't think it is believable that Andy would say that girls can't be superheroes. I am sure he is familiar with the concept of superheroines? And I sure hope in 50 years we have gown out a bit more of this whole gender-segregation thing...
You try to explain to your audience that girls can become scientists too, but you all the scientists you mention are men which doesn't further that argument. It is perhaps difficult to find a woman scientist from history who has done something that can be explained during the show, but I see no reason why this fictional Dr. Nagas couldn't be female. Dr. Nagas is mentioned just after Tricia complains that Andy doesn't want to play with her because she is a girl, so I think it is a good moment for Grandpa to introduce her to a female rolemodel. Medical research is a good example to show that women can be scientists, because even today women are well represented in the life sciences.
Personally I don't like the concept of "scientists as superheroes". It does little to familiarise people with science and more likely distances people from it. It reinforced the idea that what scientists do is unreachable for ordinary people, and impossible to understand.
It also reinforces the idea that scientific discoveries are the result of lone geniuses instead of the cooperation and competition of thousands of fairly ordinary people.
The "scientists as superheroes" concept also seems to contradict the conclusion of the story. The story concentrates on presenting lone geniuses, but somehow Tricia manages to come to the conclusion that scientists depend on eachother's work. She must be a bright kid, because I don't see how she could have learned it from the things she was presented to in the story.
E.R.P. Unit? We have such things right now! Presumably Grandpa has lived through our age and was 50 years younger in 2006, so I imagine he should be familiar with such things. He's a scientist too so I think he should be somewhat knowledgable about technology. The acronym sounds ridiculous to me.
As I said earlier, Galileo is not the best example of someone using "OHECK", even if he is the archetype of a scientist from the "scientific revolution".
The story gets a bit preachy and boring when you discuss "OHECK". I understand you want to tell kids about your particular philosophy of science, which borders on "scientism" and that you want to further the idea of a single "Scientific Method". But the least you can do is explain that not all scientists will have to use all aspects of "OHECK". There are lots of scientists who only do observations, only formulate hypotheses, only do experiments and only form conclusions. You brought up Galileo and his astronomical observations, and astronomy is hardly a hands-on experimental science. Most of its experiments are just more passive observations.
It is obvious that you are trying to get the role of Galileo. You know what they say about "wearing Galileo's mantle" don't you?
Galileo doesn't argue very well in this story. It does not follow that if objects of different weight fall at different speeds, a juggler must have magical mind powers in order to juggle. It just does not follow, so there is no reason to assume the alternative hypothesis is simpler. It is not good science just to declare that any alternative explanation requires supernatural powers, you'll have to show it!
Galileo did not drop things from the leaning tower of Pisa as an experiment! It is a myth. If he did any experiments to determine drop speeds of differently weighing objects (which is not entirely certain), he used inclined ramps.
The experiment you are planning to do during the performance is likely to go wrong unless you can make sure the people involved hold the objects at exactly the same height, release them at exactly the same time and those things of the same shape.
There is gravity in outer space! In fact, it is the single most relevant force in the formation of celestial objects.
The other experiment with the tube is not going to be convincing either. Turning the tube will take more time than dropping the feather, and while one person is turning it, the feather will already slide down. It will not wait until the tube is turned over. What you need is a tube that is usually used for such experiments: one containing a feather and a metal ball. You'll have to show what happens when the tube contains air, and when the air is pumped out. Showing that a feather in air falls slower than in an empty tube does not prove that all objects fall at the same speed regardless of their weight (or more correctly: mass. A falling object is weightless).
The title is a rather obscure reference to Newton and doesn't communicate well what the story is going to be about.
In the beginning of the story it is revealed twice that the coin is from 2006 and that it is 50 years old. Once while Tricia is talking to herself and once when she gives it to Andy to read it. I think the dialog would flow more naturally if you delete the part where Tricia says to herself how old the coin is. That way it is only the age is revealed at the moment she has a conversation with Andy, which is more dramatic.
I don't think it is believable that Andy would say that girls can't be superheroes. I am sure he is familiar with the concept of superheroines? And I sure hope in 50 years we have gown out a bit more of this whole gender-segregation thing...
You try to explain to your audience that girls can become scientists too, but you all the scientists you mention are men which doesn't further that argument. It is perhaps difficult to find a woman scientist from history who has done something that can be explained during the show, but I see no reason why this fictional Dr. Nagas couldn't be female. Dr. Nagas is mentioned just after Tricia complains that Andy doesn't want to play with her because she is a girl, so I think it is a good moment for Grandpa to introduce her to a female rolemodel. Medical research is a good example to show that women can be scientists, because even today women are well represented in the life sciences.
Personally I don't like the concept of "scientists as superheroes". It does little to familiarise people with science and more likely distances people from it. It reinforced the idea that what scientists do is unreachable for ordinary people, and impossible to understand.
It also reinforces the idea that scientific discoveries are the result of lone geniuses instead of the cooperation and competition of thousands of fairly ordinary people.
The "scientists as superheroes" concept also seems to contradict the conclusion of the story. The story concentrates on presenting lone geniuses, but somehow Tricia manages to come to the conclusion that scientists depend on eachother's work. She must be a bright kid, because I don't see how she could have learned it from the things she was presented to in the story.
E.R.P. Unit? We have such things right now! Presumably Grandpa has lived through our age and was 50 years younger in 2006, so I imagine he should be familiar with such things. He's a scientist too so I think he should be somewhat knowledgable about technology. The acronym sounds ridiculous to me.
As I said earlier, Galileo is not the best example of someone using "OHECK", even if he is the archetype of a scientist from the "scientific revolution".
The story gets a bit preachy and boring when you discuss "OHECK". I understand you want to tell kids about your particular philosophy of science, which borders on "scientism" and that you want to further the idea of a single "Scientific Method". But the least you can do is explain that not all scientists will have to use all aspects of "OHECK". There are lots of scientists who only do observations, only formulate hypotheses, only do experiments and only form conclusions. You brought up Galileo and his astronomical observations, and astronomy is hardly a hands-on experimental science. Most of its experiments are just more passive observations.
It is obvious that you are trying to get the role of Galileo. You know what they say about "wearing Galileo's mantle" don't you?
Galileo doesn't argue very well in this story. It does not follow that if objects of different weight fall at different speeds, a juggler must have magical mind powers in order to juggle. It just does not follow, so there is no reason to assume the alternative hypothesis is simpler. It is not good science just to declare that any alternative explanation requires supernatural powers, you'll have to show it!
Galileo did not drop things from the leaning tower of Pisa as an experiment! It is a myth. If he did any experiments to determine drop speeds of differently weighing objects (which is not entirely certain), he used inclined ramps.
The experiment you are planning to do during the performance is likely to go wrong unless you can make sure the people involved hold the objects at exactly the same height, release them at exactly the same time and those things of the same shape.
There is gravity in outer space! In fact, it is the single most relevant force in the formation of celestial objects.
The other experiment with the tube is not going to be convincing either. Turning the tube will take more time than dropping the feather, and while one person is turning it, the feather will already slide down. It will not wait until the tube is turned over. What you need is a tube that is usually used for such experiments: one containing a feather and a metal ball. You'll have to show what happens when the tube contains air, and when the air is pumped out. Showing that a feather in air falls slower than in an empty tube does not prove that all objects fall at the same speed regardless of their weight (or more correctly: mass. A falling object is weightless).
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Female scientist - The one that discovered radium. - Starts with a C.
Gone to bed. Good night.
Gone to bed. Good night.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Hello!
I suggest you come visit the enlightened community of Shampoo-Banana , it is a slightly less conservative oasis in central Illinois, we also have a ton of great resteraunts and all the cool stuff that a city has. I love the midwest but the conservative ideaology can be very daunting.
Have you considered having the same 'mad scientist' be the same character with a slight costume variation through time?
You can avoid the Darwin things, yeah i know it is wierd, but you could have non standard scientists and the standard set, start with a 'cave man' and the discovery of cooking, egyptians and the inclined plane, sailing by the stars, Levosier and the crew of Pasteur, Cuie and Bequerel.
Good luck, will you come to Shampoo County(Champaign)?
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Sorry, but I think you should avoid gallieo, he is like too mainstream and not really what science is about.
What do I mean by that?
His story has been told endlessly and over and over to death. He did not invent the telescope, he just pointed it at the sky. He did do the stuff with inclined planes and different wieght that led to the idea that the acceleration of gravity is constant. But that it boring. I do like your script however, it is well fashioned.
BUt sceince is very rarely about the ideas in and of themselves, it is about the testing and the development of technology. Only in modern times has it begun with the theory , usualy the two go thogether.
The history of science shows the development of critical thinking in the process rather than the words, so unless this is a play for older kids I am afarid it will bore them.
I again would suggest the use of a character through time who does silly stuff that turns out to have benefit and improves the knowledge base of humans.
cave man bangs rock and cuts themselves, discovers stone tools
caveman drops raw meat in fire discovers cooking
ancient egyptian type discovers it is easier to drag a rock up a hill than haul; it up a cliff
babylonian has something roll down a hill and turns it into wheel
indian(hindu) has obsession with counting and creates mathematics
ancient asian plays with charchol and discovers writing
that sort of idea, then the scientist is seen as a humorous character in the beggining, and then the more serious stuff can be gotten at still with humor. Grandpa can explain to Trish the consequence of each thing from the modern viewpoint. You can have the standard characters of the doubter, the grumpy sceptic and the one who laughs at the scientist.
I am not saying that my idea is right but the gallileo thing will most likely loose intrest for kids very fast.
What do I mean by that?
His story has been told endlessly and over and over to death. He did not invent the telescope, he just pointed it at the sky. He did do the stuff with inclined planes and different wieght that led to the idea that the acceleration of gravity is constant. But that it boring. I do like your script however, it is well fashioned.
BUt sceince is very rarely about the ideas in and of themselves, it is about the testing and the development of technology. Only in modern times has it begun with the theory , usualy the two go thogether.
The history of science shows the development of critical thinking in the process rather than the words, so unless this is a play for older kids I am afarid it will bore them.
I again would suggest the use of a character through time who does silly stuff that turns out to have benefit and improves the knowledge base of humans.
cave man bangs rock and cuts themselves, discovers stone tools
caveman drops raw meat in fire discovers cooking
ancient egyptian type discovers it is easier to drag a rock up a hill than haul; it up a cliff
babylonian has something roll down a hill and turns it into wheel
indian(hindu) has obsession with counting and creates mathematics
ancient asian plays with charchol and discovers writing
that sort of idea, then the scientist is seen as a humorous character in the beggining, and then the more serious stuff can be gotten at still with humor. Grandpa can explain to Trish the consequence of each thing from the modern viewpoint. You can have the standard characters of the doubter, the grumpy sceptic and the one who laughs at the scientist.
I am not saying that my idea is right but the gallileo thing will most likely loose intrest for kids very fast.
thatguywhojuggles
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2002
- Messages
- 1,335
Earthborn & David: Thank you for your honest feedback. I will definitely take it into consideration.
LawnOven
robot
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2001
- Messages
- 1,308
Cool stuff like, "REO Speedwagon Way" and the largest Greek System in the world.
thatguywhojuggles
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2002
- Messages
- 1,335
Most likely we will be performing in and around Champaign. If you think a specific elementary school should see our show, call them a suggest they contact The Little Theatre on the Square in Sullivan and book this show.
Thanks.
Not bad atall.
If you do another perhaps you might have something like a real mad scientist. One trying to prove PM or such. Give him an assistant who actually follows scientific method. Something like the scientist on the Muppet show with his assistant Beaker.
If you do another perhaps you might have something like a real mad scientist. One trying to prove PM or such. Give him an assistant who actually follows scientific method. Something like the scientist on the Muppet show with his assistant Beaker.