You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.
There’s lots of science and mathematics in “Solar” and given Ian McEwan’s reputation as a very assiduous researcher and given whatever I’ve picked-up in “Energy & the Environment,” I think that most of it is not bullshit. But, of course, that assumption does not apply to physicist Michael Beard’s brand new process for solar power.
The process involves reverse engineering “the capturing and converting of light and the splitting of water be self-organizing living forms [that has] been the engine of evolution.” Is that bullshit and, if so, why? I’m looking to what I’ve come to think of as “Solar Week” (oh the celebration!) in the class for the answer to these questions. This might sound flippant, but it’s not, after all, I have been known to tell students that the best way to enhance their bullshit detectors is a grounding in political philosophy. Why should science be different?
[Please note, if I was taking this course for a grade, I’d be confident of an F given my performance. If I was really taking this course for a grade, as a real undergraduate, I would, of course, have worked much harder. If I hadn’t worked hard while I was a real undergraduate I would have deserved my F. All this in praise of Professor Dominique D. Hamburger of LSU, my new hero!]
