Capturing Motion and Depth before Cinematography

Visual representations of biological states have traditionally faced two problems: they lacked motion and depth. Attempts were made to supply these wants over many centuries, but the major advances were made in the early-nineteenth century. Motion was synthesized by sequences of slightly different images presented in rapid succession and depth was added by presenting slightly different images to each eye. Apparent motion and depth were combined some years later, but they tended to be applied separately. The major figures in this early period were Wheatstone, Plateau, Horner, Duboscq, Claudet, and Purkinje. Others later in the century, like Marey and Muybridge, were stimulated to extend the uses to which apparent motion and photography could be applied to examining body movements. These developments occurred before the birth of cinematography, and significant insights were derived from attempts to combine motion and depth.</p

Microscopic anatomy of sensory receptors

Experiences following stimulation of the senses have been recorded for millennia, and they could be related to the gross anatomy of the sense organs. Examination of their microanatomy was to await the development of achromatic microscopes in the early nineteenth century. Among the microscopic structures that were isolated and described were specialized sensory cells, called receptors, and they could be related to the stimuli that excited them. Those located in well-defined sense organs (like the eyes, ears, nose, and tongue) were named on the basis of their morphology, whereas the receptors in or beneath the surface of the skin were generally named after those who first described them. Illustrations of early representations of sensory receptors are combined with "perceptual portraits" of the microanatomists who described them.</p

“Logic is the beginning of wisdom … not the end”: Using Star Trek to Teach Scientific Thinking

To paraphrase Batman: "[humans] are a superstitious and cowardly lot". We cling to our preconceptions against all evidence, literally unable to see the unexpected forest when we find that our field of view is crowded with an unanticipated number of trees. Our preconceptions and other cognitive biases weaken our individual ability to perceive the world around us. Telling fact from fantasy requires cooperation and formal, unintuitive thought. Scientific thinking may be the single greatest intellectual tool ever developed. Contrary to popular belief, it is not a way of proving things true, but a way of proving them false. It is not the work of a singular intellect, but a social activity. It is a method of altering the inherent iterative cycles of bias reinforcement and leaps of faith that we consider intuitive thinking, so that we explicitly define the weaknesses in our own ideas and count on others to help us find the flaws we've missed. But how does one teach this unintuitive style of thinking? How do we keep our students from exchanging one set of preconceptions and cognitive shortcuts for another? Personally, I use mental models with which they are already familiar. Personally, I use Star Trek