Science fairs have always had this “World’s Fair” like undercurrent. You’re supposed to do actual science and be judged for that. But you can usually get very far with a clickbait-worthy hypothesis like “is it possible to…” or “what is the outcome of…” and ride on pure novelty and wow-factor. I’ve done both at the same time: eye-popping visuals with a provocative hypothesis, but with real R&D to back it up.
That’s why I did “watching paint dry” as an actual science fair experiment. Tried putting paint in different environments to see how conditions actually effected the speed in which it dried.
Requires experimentation to backup a hypothesis with empirical data. Yeah it sounds boring, but had some fun with it regarding the different “environments” (like under heat lamp, with a fan, etc.)
Yeah, not everything in science is super cool, but it is valuable to show why testing things out matters. Although it’s not like the scientific community has been great about doing peer reviews anyways.
"For my science project I have chosen to peer review Jacob’s paper on the smelliness of the boys restroom.
My review could find no hypothesis nor data collection in the original from which he concluded the different ways the vaguely described room smelled.
It is my conclusion that his passing grade was based on (1)having delivered some content on or before the deadline, (2) presenting various physical attributes under an accurately defined heading, and (3) minimum spelling mistakes.
I have illustrated these and other aspects by representing his paper with the teacher’s markups.
Science fairs have always had this “World’s Fair” like undercurrent. You’re supposed to do actual science and be judged for that. But you can usually get very far with a clickbait-worthy hypothesis like “is it possible to…” or “what is the outcome of…” and ride on pure novelty and wow-factor. I’ve done both at the same time: eye-popping visuals with a provocative hypothesis, but with real R&D to back it up.
That’s why I did “watching paint dry” as an actual science fair experiment. Tried putting paint in different environments to see how conditions actually effected the speed in which it dried.
Requires experimentation to backup a hypothesis with empirical data. Yeah it sounds boring, but had some fun with it regarding the different “environments” (like under heat lamp, with a fan, etc.)
I applaud your adherence to the scientific method. Amusingly, this is probably a lot closer to how science is conducted out in the professional world.
Yeah, not everything in science is super cool, but it is valuable to show why testing things out matters. Although it’s not like the scientific community has been great about doing peer reviews anyways.
"For my science project I have chosen to peer review Jacob’s paper on the smelliness of the boys restroom.
My review could find no hypothesis nor data collection in the original from which he concluded the different ways the vaguely described room smelled.
It is my conclusion that his passing grade was based on (1)having delivered some content on or before the deadline, (2) presenting various physical attributes under an accurately defined heading, and (3) minimum spelling mistakes.
I have illustrated these and other aspects by representing his paper with the teacher’s markups.
I will be taking no questions at this time."
Oooh, savagely destroying bad projects from last year? Why didn’t I think of this?!
Rigor is the bedrock of science.