People looking at the scientific world from the outside often see it as one dominated by facts, where scientists use a stepwise, systematic process that begins - you know, you learned all this stuff in grade school, a hypothesis, the collection of data, of observations, blah, blah, blah, you go through all these steps.

In his new book, Ignorance: How It Drives Science, Neuroscientist Stuart Firestein says in fact science is a fishing expedition propelled by what scientists don't know and produces more questions than answers, as it should. He also teaches a class on ignorance at Columbia University, where he is professor and chair of the Department of Biological Sciences. Below is a radio interview with the author from NPR.

For decades, teachers, managers and parents have assumed that the performance of students and employees fits what's known as the bell curve — in most activities, we expect a few people to be very good, a few people to be very bad and most people to be average. But new research argues that a lot of people are actually outliers. The researchers found that most people are not average, but below average, and that there are a small group of high achievers or performers. To learn more listen to the following story.

The AP is reporting results from a group of Italian researchers using equipment from the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) that claims they've measured particles traveling at a speed greater than the speed of light.

If this result were true (it has not been published, and thus not peer-reviewed, yet) then the structure of the world might be very different from what we believe. Einstein's theory of relativity is built on the idea that there is an absolute cosmic speed limit — that light is the thing traveling at this speed is beside the point. Among other things, the existence of that speed limit sets the structure of causality in the Universe.

In other words, that effects follow causes and not the other way around, which is, in general, a good thing. The universe would be a whole lot harder to understand without this link between cause and effect. Think of it as being shot before the trigger is pulled. It's more nuanced than what I am describing here (of course) but breaking light-speed means breaking relativity and causality as we know it flows from relativity.

So if these results are correct then we might have to go back and start rebuilding pretty much all of modern foundational physics. Are they correct? This kind of thing has been claimed before. My colleague Steve Manly who works with neutrino beams in experiments like the ones described by the AP story puts it this way, "I'm not planning to eliminate the relativity portion of my general physics course anytime soon."

Based on past experience, these results are probably wrong but it sure would be a wild ride if they prove correct.

Reported by Adam Frank who is an Astrophysicist

Surprising and exciting scientific findings capture our attention and captivate the press. But what if, at some point after a finding has been soundly established, it starts to disappear? In a collaboration between Radiolab and On The Media, NPR looks at the 'decline effect' when more data tells us less about scientific truth.

NPR"S Robert Siegel talks to Alex Long, University of Tennessee law professor who contends that Bob Dylan's song lyrics are used more than any other writer's in court opinions and briefs. He chronicles the artist's influence on today's legal community. From U.S. Supreme Court rulings to law school courses, Dylan's words are used to convey messages about the law and courts gone astray.

I went to Cal Tech yesterday to hear a lecture by the mathematician Dr. Yau. He spoke about his new book, The Shape of Inner Space: String Theory and the Geometry of the Universe’s Hidden Dimensions. We have been covering art and beauty in TOK the last few weeks and one of the important ideas is that mathematics, physics and the arts have a lot in common. Students usually think that the subjects are polar opposites when it comes to our search for truth and knowledge, but from my perspective this is not the case. Dr. Yau used the words beauty, elegance and intuition numerous times during his lecture. These words are often associated with the arts and not mathematics. He spoke of the beauty and elegance of Calabi-Yau Manifolds which he help develop and the spark of intuition that led him to his discoveries. Below is a beautiful picture of a Calabi-Yau Manifold.

Sean Carroll

Following A Wandering North Pole

The location of the magnetic North Pole is moving toward Siberia at about 40 miles per year and every few hundred thousand years, the North and South poles switch positions entirely. Geophysicist Ronald Merrill explains what's known about the inner workings of the Earth's magnetic field. Ronald Merrill’s description of the inner working of the Earth’s magnetic field reminded me of the paradox of cartography. The cartographer’s paradox states that if a map is to be useful, then it must of necessity be imperfect. I remember being taught that you can think of the magnetic field as a bar magnet at the center of the Earth that is tilted about 10 degrees with respect to the rotation axis. Ronald Merrill explains that this is a simplified description of a far more complex and fascinating phenomenon. We still have much to learn about the Earth's magnetic field.