Motivation - Perspective is everything

The following are a few quotes that I found in motivational gym videos on YouTube.
In my opinion they can be applied on any activity or life event, be it work, a difficult assignment, exercise or just reaching one's individual goals and dreams.
If you're into bodybuilding (even remotely), then I recommend you to check out JerichoDMZ's motivational videos on YouTube.

"Work on your focus, perspective is everything.

The problem with most of you is that you see difficult as something negative.

I want you to see difficult differently. Do you hear me? I need you to see difficult differently!

That weight-lifter when he’s looking at those weights, he got that iron. That iron is heavy, but he isn’t looking at that iron like “look at how heavy that iron is”.

He knows what it’s going to do. It’s going to tear his muscles to pieces. He gets it! What he understands is that if it tears them down they will rebuild themselves. They will rebuild themselves that much stronger!

The more you go through, the more difficult it is, the more challenging it is, the harder it is. Are you hearing me? Don’t quit!

I suggest to you, if you want to become diamond, write down five reasons why it is worth it for you to become a diamond.

To experience that level of achievement, what is it that will give you the drive?

What is it that will ignite the courage in you to get up and come back again and again and again?

If it was easy, everybody would be good at it. If you want something you never had before, you have to be willing to do something you’ve never done before.

This is kind of hard to understand but, sometimes you can try so hard at something. Sometimes you can be so prepared, and still fail.

And every time you fail it’s painful. It causes sadness.

I’ve often said that a man’s character is not judged after his celebrates of victories, but what he does when his back is against the wall.

So no matter how great the setback. How severe the failure. You never give up.

You never give up. You pick yourself up. You brush yourself off. You push forward. You move on. You adapt. You overcome. That is what I believe!"

Go out there and show yourself, and everyone else, what you're made of. Today is your day!

What is this thing called science?

As an introduction to science in this introductory course in research studies in biology we were all asked to read the introduction and first chapter of A.F. Chalmers' book "What is this thing called Science?". Obviously it is a deep philosophical question, as I mentioned previously, especially since Chalmers wrote a full book on it which also have been re-released in several editions.

It is initially stated that there is a fundamental issue in the understanding and interpretation of science and what we actually derive from it, and all of that comes down to observation.
Science are based on objective, unprejudiced observations that are used to determine facts of the world around us. At this very point Chalmers dig in and highlight the flaws of science. Be it modern or otherwise, it still has the same roots. The same underlying assumptions and issues.

The main issue here is with observations. That observations is based on more than just what our brain registers by use of our senses of the surrounding environment. It is also based on experience and our current state of knowledge. Chalmers has an example of a 3D image of a staircase which can be seen from either above or below. This image immediately reminded me of an old optical illusion of a spinning dancer which, depending on the observer, is spinning either clockwise or counterclockwise. You tell me.

This might seem like a poor example for the principles of modern science, but when it comes the practices of observation in for example microscopy, I have a direct experience of observer dependent "facts". In this case it was related to experience and previous knowledge, which is another vital part of statements and facts according to Chalmers. Being inexperienced with microscopy and the organisms of my new project, I looked at a slide of sample prepared by my supervisor. What I saw was more or less equivalent to a starry sky at night and the occasional cell that I actually recognised. My supervisor on the other hand could tell a story of the planktonic community by looking at the same slide.

The same story arose out at sea when me and my colleague were looking for the same cells but in a much more difficult setting, with a lot more other microbes on the slide. We observed very few of our target microbes and that was our fact of observation. However, when I later ran the same water on an instrument designed to quantify our target organisms, back at the lab, it gave us a very different result. Our initial observation based on previous experience was not even close to reality. At least we learned something from that. We somewhat gained more knowledge in our field and from that knowledge we can derive statements and hypotheses which can be tested to reach a fact.

Science is based on facts and from facts we can formulate theories. If the objectivity of observations in science is aided or not by technical development, I can't say for certain, but I would argue that it is aided. Because refining a technical innovation and method of observation follows the same principles as for science itself, and basically it is science. Knowledge about an observed phenomenon lead to a statement that could be tested, and as the quote I posted previously said, "many observations can prove me right, but it takes only one to prove me wrong".

Science is not a feeling or a belief. It is observable facts derived from previous knowledge. In my opinion it is both one of its greatest strengths but also its greatest weakness. Falsify one fact and the theory is flawed. By that said, not just anyone can do ground-breaking science, but everyone can appreciate good science with its theories formulated from facts. Unless it's steaming fresh data up for interpretation. I hate that word.

A scientist's life is not always science

These past few weeks since the SAME14 conference I've tried to develop a new work schedule and adapt to that since me and my supervisor agreed that I need to get more laborative work done. This is the downside to weekly commuting to work. The upside is that when I'm actually at work I can fully focus on work and work alone and very often I work quite late. Sometimes because I have to but also because I find it so damn interesting that I must have those final few data points to eagerly start analyzing a, hopefully, coherent picture of my observations. The latter is usually not that simple, but you get my drift.

With that said I want to emphasize the point of this post, as the headline says, that even though I'm hired to learn and do professional science it is not the only thing I fill my workdays with. Far from it. There are many issues or matters that require my attention, not all of them related to science, but those that are might not actually be related to my project or even my subject.

This somewhat covers the never-ending story of the scientist with numerous "professional hats". The hat being a metaphor for a role, profession or title that I put on and take of when needed in my daily work with science. Because that is the reality of many professions I guess but I can only speak for scientists. It is a stressful prospect and not at all simple to deal with. Mainly it requires careful management of your time and work, but it also requires extensive knowledge and skills in areas where you were not necessarily previously trained or only have limited experience of.

Photo credit: Actuation Consulting

The list of requirements is long but the list of highly recommended skills is usually even longer. As a marine microbiologist working in the tropical open oceans, I'm naturally expected to be somewhat of an expert in my subject, quite knowledgeable in marine biology and a generalist in biology as a whole. However, knowled
ge wise it doesn't end there and the reason for that is that any one system that you might study is not limited to biology. There are numerous other factors that sustain, limit and shape biological life other than biology in itself. So to really begin to understand open ocean ecosystems I also need to be an oceanographer. I need to understand the role of currents, eddies and internal waves. I need to be a marine chemist. I need to understand the chemical composition of the waters that I study and be able to follow cycles of elements as well as realising the broader context of elements relevant to the phenomenon I observe. I need to be an ecologist. I need to understand the broader context of the observed phenomenon in the ecosystem as to identify and account for top-down and bottom-up effects.
The list can go on and this is just within the actual science that I'm studying. I also need to be a statistician. I need to analyse, prove and interpret the data from my observations using biostatistics.
I need to be an engineer and build my own experimental setups. I need to be a good writer and speaker to communicate my science and receive funding. I need to be an administrator that keeps track and logs my work for yearly revisions...etc...etc...

Finally I have to have a thirst for knowledge, which isn't a concern really, but to stay abreast with a rapidly improving and developing field I mainly need to read, read and read.

This week, and next, I'm attending an introductory course on research studies in biology. It partially covers the philosophy of science. What is science? Well for me, science in practice is obviously a broad concept, but that is also a deep philosophical question which people make careers on.
I will try and delve deeper into just that in my next blog post.