In the interview with Jill Tarter, I found myself surprised by the amount of uncertainty. There is such a wide range of frequencies that extraterrestrial communication could be found on that it has led to false signals of extraterrestrial life. It seems really difficult to parse out what is normal and what may indicate extraterrestrial life. This made me wonder what the false signals look like. I know from my astronomy class that there are tons of different frequencies just bouncing around the universe, from background microwaves to X-rays, so I'd love to hear more about the science behind it. Additionally, what about the possibility that extraterrestrial life operates on a frequency that we don't know about yet or in a way we can't recognize yet? Would that be a possibility?

I found myself surprised by the fact that some epidemiology is based on "impressions that people have." Megan Murray noted that most of the field is data-based, but sometimes there are still studies based on hunches. I thought that epidemiology was a strict science without room for hunches at this point. However, I guess it makes sense that some of it would have to start with first-hand observations and hunches. I just find it surprising that we haven't somehow moved past this, despite it being a perfectly reasonable way to form a hypothesis. If I had conducted the interview, I would have asked more about what an "impression" looks like. I'm really intrigued by what counts as a scientific impression versus just a coincidence that you happen to notice. I wasn't sure if the example of a salmonella outbreak would be an example of that, but it seems like it could be. I'd also like to know how many epidemiological studies start with an impression as opposed to a data-driven hypothesis.

I found it surprising that it's a concern to figure out what storms are worsened by climate change and what storms are natural because I would just focus on the fact that storms are being made worse in general by climate change and that needs to be addressed. I don't understand the need to quantify how bad the effects of climate change are and instead believe that if climate change has a negative effect at all, which it does, then it should be addressed as soon as possible. In the astronomy class I'm taking, we learned about the greenhouse effect on other planets and how it's very clear that it's human actions that are leading to climate change, so I don't understand why someone would still deny climate change's effect or even the fact that it exists. One question I would ask Gina McCarthy is where she thinks the hesitance to believe in climate change certain people and parties have comes from because it's clear to me that science backs up the fact that climate change is happening. Is it just because they don't want to have to change their lives or take responsibility for their actions? Is it financial? A mix of all of the above? I think it would be interesting to hear her take on this topic which wasn't explored enough in the interview. Many of the people who deny science proving that climate change is real also believe that there are only two genders and that science proves that, and they additionally don't believe in the science behind covid at times, so this seems to be a pattern that I think would be interesting to discuss.