cross-stitch and science

I pulled out some unfinished cross-stitch kits the other day contemplating making something for the new addition to our family. Surprisingly, I have finished most of the many projects I purchased from Michael's for various special occasions and gifts. It's so easy to purchase a cross-stitch or other craft kit and then somehow never finish it. I collect my past patterns, leftover floss and kit-covers of the finished product. I have over 25 finished kits in my archives- at some point I will organize them by category/topic and put them in a permanent archive for when a similar occasion arises.

We have reached a new era in crafting. Michael's no longer sells complete cross-stitch kits. This means you must purchase or create your pattern independently and purchase the floss/aida cloth separately. While I think this probably increases the level of skill of your average cross-stitcher, it makes it harder to get started and requires a bigger committment for each project. Oh the days of convenience! While you can buy the completed kits online it is considerably more difficult to do so since you really can't see the picture on the front cover in any detail. It makes it difficult to judge whether or not you really like the design or not.

What does such a silly topic have to do with science anyway? Actually not a whole lot but I was trying to force a connection in my mind today. Is there anything scientific about cross stitch? I came up with one thing: color. The assembly of different colors with thread on a cloth is scientific in nature because it uses the principles of harmony/complementary colors to create pleasure. The absorption and reflection of white light creates the beauty of the combination of colors selected for any art project. Cross-stich does that with floss, aida cloth and a needle.

What beauty- I love crafts. Crafts relate to science as well. Almost everything in this world does.

Understanding as "acceptance" rather than related on a deep level

I touched on this below but I wanted to revisit this idea. Often learning the crux of a subject is more about acceptance rather than true understanding. How can you really understand something if you are new? On the level of an introductory course I think this concept applies to other subjects: art, religion, English and even History (to some extent).

I like to think of my students (that may be you if you are my student) as doing practice problems and reading the material in the textbook so that they grasp enough of the details to accept what the experimental evidence tells us about the way chemical elements behave. None of it is intuitive and none of it is something I would expect anybody to figure out without explicit information from the text.

I hope everybody out there who is currently studying chemistry can grow in their acceptance of experimental data. It is only through this acceptance that you can understand more about how the experimental evidence may affect medicine, physics and the everyday way we live our lives.

I'm sure the founders of quantum mechanics had no idea that they had just unleashed the beginning of the information age. The internet and all the small gadgets we take for granted resulted from the acceptance and further creativity of those who observed quantum mechanics in nature.

It is my hope you will be enthusiastic to do the same. Let me be the proud teacher of the next United States inventor. Good luck.