Monthly Talks at London Canal Museum

    Our monthly talks start at 19:30 on the first Thursday of each month except August. Admission is at normal charges and you don't need to book. They end around 21:00.

November 7th

    The Canal Pioneers, by Chris Lewis. James Brindley is recognized as one of the leading early canal(运河) engineers. He was also a major player in training others in the art of canal planning and building. Chris Lewis will explain how Brindley made such a positive contribution to the education of that group of early“civil engineers”.

December 5th

    Ice for the Metropolis, by Malcolm Tucker. Well before the arrival of freezers, there was a demand for ice for food preservation and catering(保存和供应)，Malcolm will explain the history of importing(进口) natural ice and the technology of building ice wells, and how London's ice trade grew.

February 6th

    An Update on the Cotswold Canals, by Liz Payne. The Stroudwater Canal is moving towards reopening. The Thames and Severn Canal will take a little longer. We will have a report on the present state of play.

March 6th

    Eyots and Aits-Thames Islands, by Miranda Vickers. The Thames has many islands. Miranda has undertaken a review of all of them. She will tell us about those of greatest interest.

Online bookings: www.canalmuseum.org.uk/book

More info: www.canalmuseum.org.uk/whatson

London Canal Museum

12-13 New Wharf Road, London NI 9RT

www.canalmuseum.org.uk   www.canalmuseum.mobi

Tel:020 7713 0836

    Have you ever seen a real night sky that looks like Van Gogh's Starry Night? I hope not! So, why would an artist paint the sky this way? Perhaps I can answer that with another question. When you're happy, why do you sing instead of speaking? Or when you're in love, why do you speak of roses and honey? When we do these things, we, too are artists. We're using something that goes beyond a mere scientific description in order to communicate our feelings more powerfully than straightforward words can. So consider for a moment that Van Gogh might not have been hallucinating on the night he painted this. Maybe he felt something so powerful that he had to go beyond the familiar to express it.

    I hope I'm reminding you of something you already know as I describe the experience of being outside at night under a crystal clear sky that makes everything seem clean and refreshing. So you look up. And suddenly you see the sky that you've seldom seen before. It's not just the same old dark night sky tonight. Instead, the blackness is a deep, rich blue that is more bottomless than any ocean. The stars are not spots of light but brilliant, magical diamonds that dance like tiny angels. In just this special moment, the sky is somehow alive, and it seems to speak to you silently about the meaning of infinity.

    Now look at the painting again. Can you see something of what makes this such a famous and well-loved image? But there's more here than that. Van Gogh painted this while he was quite struck down by a mental disease. It is natural to imagine that he frequently battled the fear that he would never escape his prison to true freedom. It is natural for us to imagine this because each of us has faced our own personal prison, whether it be disease, the loss of a loved one, serious financial problems … In such moments it is tempting to give up to despair and collapse in hopelessness.

    Looking at this painting, I imagine Van Gogh in just such a moment of despair, when he is struck by the memory of one of those amazing night skies. He recalls the sense that he is not alone, that there is a living, infinite world with rich colorful creatures and scenes all around.

    And so the sky flows across the canvas full of vitality and power. The stars don't just sparkle; they explode. Looking closer, we notice that the earth itself seems to respond to the movement in the sky, forming its own living waves in the mountain and rolling trees. In the sleepy village, the windows of the houses glow with the same light that brightens the universe. The giant trees at the left seem to capture the joy by stretching upwards toward the sky.

    What a tremendous message of hope there is in this masterpiece! Even if our troubles persist, the world around us assures us that life is worth living. That's what the angels sing about. Doesn't it make you want to sing, too?

    French writer Frantz Fanon once said: “To speak a language is to take on a world, a culture.” Since the world changes every day, so does our language.

     More than 300 new words and phrases have recently made it into the online Oxford Dictionary, and in one way or another they are all reflections of today's changing world.

    After a year that was politically unstable, it's not hard to understand the fact that people's political views are one of the main drives of our expanding vocabulary. One example is “clicktivism”, a compound of “click” and “activism”. It refers to “armchair activists” — people who support a political or social cause, but only show their support from behind a computer or smartphone. And “otherize” is a verb for “other” that means to alienate (使疏远) people who are different from ourselves — whether that be different skin color, religious belief or sexuality.

    Lifestyle is also changing our language. For example, “fitspiration” — a compound of fit and inspiration — refers to a person or thing that encourages one to exercise and stay fit and healthy.

    The phrase “climate refugee” — someone who is forced to leave their home due to climate change — reflects people's concern for the environment.

    According to Stevenson, social media was the main source for the new expressions. “People feel much freer to coin their own words these days,” he said.

    But still, not all newly-invented words get the chance to make their way into a mainstream (主流的) dictionary. If you want to create your own hit words, Angus Stevenson, Oxford Dictionaries head of content development, suggests that you should not only make sure that they are expressive (有表现力的) and meaningful, but also have an attractive sound so that people will enjoy saying them out loud.

    Children start out as natural scientists, eager to look into the world around them. Helping them enjoy science can be easy; there's no need for a lot of scientific terms or expensive lab equipment. You only have to share your children's curiosity. Firstly, listen to their questions. I once visited a classroom of seven-year-olds to talk about science as a job. The children asked me “textbook questions” about schooling, salary and whether I liked my job. When I finished answering, we sat facing one another in silence. Finally I said, “Now that we're finished with your lists, do you have questions of your own about science?”

    After a long pause, a boy raised his hand, “Have you ever seen a grasshopper （蚱蜢）eat? When I try eating leaves like that, I get a stomachache. Why?”

    This began a set of questions that lasted nearly two hours.

    Secondly, give them time to think. Studies over the past 30 years have shown that, after asking a question, adults typically wait only one second or less for an answer, no time for a child to think. When adults increase their “wait time” to three seconds or more, children give more logical, complete and creative answers.

    Thirdly, watch your language. Once you have a child involved in a science discussion, don't jump in with “That's right” or “Very good”. These words work well when it comes to encouraging good behavior. But in talking about science, quick praise can signal that discussion is over. Instead, keep things going by saying “That's interesting” or “I'd never thought of it that way before”, or coming up with more questions or ideas.

    Never push a child to “Think”. It doesn't make sense, children are always thinking, without your telling them to. What's more, this can turn a conversation into a performance. The child will try to find the answer you want, in as few words as possible, so that he will be a smaller target for your disagreement.

    Lastly, show; don't tell. Real-life impressions of nature are far more impressive than any lesson children can learn from a book or a television program. Let children look at their fingertips through a magnifying glass（放大镜）, and they'll understand why you want them to wash before dinner. Rather than saying that water evaporates（蒸发）, set a pot of water to boil and let them watch the water level drop.

    Hannah Levine decided she wanted to give hugs to all of the children and families in need at local hospitals.

    Because she couldn't give them hugs one by one, Levine, then a sixth-grader, decided she would use her talents(才能) to do the next best thing. She began to knit(编织) hats, scarves, and blankets for families staying at the Ronald McDonald House at Stanford. Her creations also went to Bundle of Joy, a program that provides newborn baby items for families in need, and to Knitting Pals by the Bay, a local organization that provides hand-knitted caps to cancer patients.

    "I love to knit, and I thought it would be a great idea to make all these handmade items for kids and adults who need them. It would be like a hug for them." Levine explained.

    Levine started the project about a year ago. "I think it's just really fun to do, and it keeps me busy." said Levine, now 13.

    Once she got started, Levine realized that her project could be much bigger than the goods she was able to produce with just her own hands. So she sent emails to her school and communities, asking for knitted donations(捐赠物) to the project she named "Hannah's Warm Hugs". She also posted advertisements at Starbucks and other locations in her area. The warm goods began to pour in.

    "It was amazing; more strangers than people she knew started dropping donations at our door." said Levine's mother, Laura Levine. "We ended up with this huge box of items she was donating."

    The knitted items numbered in the hundreds. Levine made her first round of donations around Hanukkah (an eight-day Jewish holiday in November or December) and later received thank-you letters from the organizations. Levine is still knitting, and she said the project will continue.

    "It has turned into a bigger thing than she had thought." her mom said. "It made her feel pretty good; it made us feel pretty good.”

"Assume you are wrong." The advice came from Brian Nosek, a psychology professor, who was offering a strategy for pursuing better science.

To understand the context for Nosek's advice, we need to take a step back to the nature of science itself. You see despite what many of us learned in elementary school, there is no single scientific method. Just as scientific theories become elaborated and change, so do scientific methods.

But methodological reform hasn't come without some fretting and friction. Nasty things have been said by and about methodological reformers. Few people like having the value of their life's work called into question. On the other side, few people are good at voicing criticisms in kind and constructive ways. So, part of the challenge is figuring out how to bake critical self-reflection into the culture of science itself, so it unfolds as a welcome and integrated part of the process, and not an embarrassing sideshow.

What Nosek recommended was a strategy for changing the way we offer and respond to critique. Assuming you are right might be a motivating force, sustaining the enormous effort that conducting scientific work requires. But it also makes it easy to interpret criticisms as personal attacks. Beginning, instead, from the assumption you are wrong, a criticism is easier to interpret as a constructive suggestion for how to be less wrong—a goal that your critic presumably shares.

One worry about this approach is that it could be demoralizing for scientists. Striving to be less wrong might be a less effective motivation than the promise of being right. Another concern is that a strategy that works well within science could backfire when it comes to communicating science with the public. Without an appreciation for how science works, it's easy to take uncertainty or disagreements as marks against science, when in fact they reflect some of the very features of science that make it our best approach to reaching reliable conclusions about the world. Science is reliable because it responds to evidence: as the quantity and quality of our evidence improves, our theories can and should change, too.

Despite these worries, I like Nosek's suggestion because it builds in cognitive humility along with a sense that we can do better. It also builds in a sense of community—we're all in the same boat when it comes to falling short of getting things right.

Unfortunately, this still leaves us with an untested hypothesis （假说）: that assuming one is wrong can change community norms for the better, and ultimately support better science and even, perhaps, better decisions in life. I don't know if that's true. In fact, I should probably assume that it's wrong. But with the benefit of the scientific community and our best methodological tools, I hope we can get it less wrong, together.