Posts Tagged ‘Science’

Programming Must Be An Open System

I decided I needed an hour break from Scala hacking, and I am about halfway finished with Sean Carroll's From Eternity to Here, which goes on at great length about entropy as it relates to time's arrow. So for the fun of it I whipped up a simulation of an Ehrenfest Urn using Processing.js.

Check it out here (requires a browser supporting canvas).

Now that I'm done, there are a couple of things I find amazing about this.

  • I felt like I needed a break from being paid to write Scala. As opposed to, like, Visual Basic, Java, C++, or something like that.
  • Within an hour I was able to download processing, learn the basics, and hack this animated demo together. And put it on a web page, viewable by pretty much anybody that I care to reach. Back in the early aughts I probably spent fifty or sixty hours just trying to figure out how to step debug javascript.

From eternity to here apparently involves a massive improvement in the state of the programming art. Everything is amazing and nobody's happy.

The Accidental Utility of Slashdot

I've been reading Slashdot for the last year and a half or so. I stayed away from it until I downloaded an aggregator that had it preinstalled, and, well, it just kind of stayed there. I don't post comments myself, but I find find those who do interesting. Of course, it's probably not for the reasons they had intended.

I think Slashdot is a great way to measure my own susceptibility to argumentum ad verecundiam. I do this (retrospectively) by reflecting on to what degree I have agreed with the posts scoring "5, Informative" or "5, Insightful" when attached to topics I know relatively little about. I contrast that with how ignorant posts with the same rating seem when in reply to topics I know inside and out.

What is more likely? That only the high-scoring commentators on "my" topics make serious errors? Or that the overall intelligence and ability of the commentators is fairly uniform, and I attribute too much credit to them when I don't know the material? Meeting one or two posters in real life might bias your response, but I digress.

In Humans First Arose in Asia, for example, some of the comments currently scored as fives give away obvious misconceptions of the time frame of human evolution. There are good comments too, but the scoring system does a poor job of differentiating them. Competitors like Digg and Reddit suffer from similar problems with varying degrees of severity. (I can't read Digg at all, and I'm currently giving Reddit a "time-out" after it linked to one too many pseudoscientific/conspiracy-theory articles.)

So what's the point here? Just that adequate English skills combined with an argument that sounds logical can easily be mistaken for an argument that is correct.

Press Innumeracy

I just finished reading this Reuters story, "Rising Sea Levels Threaten New Jersey." Nevermind the obvious question of whether we'd really be menaced by the disappearance of New Jersey. I would like to focus on details tangential to the main story, as is my custom.

Notice the next-to-last paragraph,

Worldwide, sea levels are expected to rise between 0.09 and 0.88 meter (0.29 and 2.88 feet) between 1990 and 2100, the report said, citing figures from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Do you see anything amiss? Many scientists and engineers in the audience have already leapt out of their seats. I will explain the problem anyway, for those of you trained in the humanities.

The issue is one of precision. Or rather, too much of it.

What most likely occurred is that the Journalism major who wrote this lifted the metric figures from the published paper. Writing for a U.S. audience, he obviously needed English equivalents.

If you plug 0.09 and 0.88 meters through a conversion calculator, you get 0.29527559055118110236220472440945 feet and 2.8871391076115485564304461942257 feet, respectively. The author made the rookie mistake of cutting these off at the same number of decimal places.

This author, like most reporters, does not understand significant figures. The trouble is that the metric numbers quoted give one and two significant digits, respectively. His converted numbers erroneously give two and three significant digits.

I have gone to the trouble of rewriting his paragraph for him.

Worldwide, sea levels are expected to rise between 0.09 and 0.88 meter (0.3 and 2.9 feet) between 1990 and 2100, the report said, citing figures from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

You may think that this is a silly thing for me to be complaining about. Not so. Significant digits are one of the first lessons in every science class, from elementary school through the first few semesters of college. Anyone doing science reporting should at least be familiar with significant digits.

Given this, it is not difficult to understand why there is so much confused and idiotic coverage of the Dover Design trial (I am on board with refusing to call it "Intelligent") and why it is reported at least once a year that the speed of light has been exceeded (Everyone say it together with me: "Phase velocity vs Group velocity").

Secure in our Stupidity

Many of you may have heard stories about the CIA spending tax dollars on “remote viewing” and other paranormal spook activities during the cold war. Incredibly, many of these stories turn out to have been true.

Some senior officials kept an eye on the phenomenon. Kress reports that in November of 1976, CIA Director George Bush became concerned about reported Soviet advances in parapsychology, and called in the agency's RV researchers for a briefing. (Such concerns often provided the impetus for U.S. government parapsychology research; the fear that the Soviets were getting ahead in the mind-war game was widespread among paranormal enthusiasts at military and intelligence agencies) [source].

Not to be outdone, the military may have pursued avenues that were even more bizarre.

In 1979 a secret unit was established by the most gifted minds within the US Army. Defying all known accepted military practice - and indeed, the laws of physics - they believed that a soldier could adopt the cloak of invisibility, pass cleanly through walls and, perhaps most chillingly, kill goats just by staring at them. Entrusted with defending America from all known adversaries, they were the First Earth Battalion. And they really weren't joking. [Emphasis mine, source].

Despite substantial effort and investment, none of this produced one single verifiable, reproducible result. Surely, the agencies involved have wised up.

Right?

Well, I wouldn’t bet the farm on that just yet.

It has recently emerged that the source for the New York City subway terror scare passed a polygraph test. Reading this I was, in a word, livid.

What does a polygraph test have to do with psychic spies? Although it probably is not apparent to readers familiar only with Law & Order, both of these instruments have about the same degree of accuracy.

(Please don’t email me about Law & Order. I love Law & Order. I am not throwing Law & Order under the bus.)

Polygraphs may be very popular on television, but there are legions of pretentious whores on television. The National Academy of Sciences agrees (in substance, anyway), giving this recommendation regarding the use of the polygraph by the government:

We have reviewed the scientific evidence on the polygraph with the goal of assessing its validity for security uses … Overall, the evidence is scanty and scientifically weak. Our conclusions are necessarily based on the far from satisfactory body of evidence on polygraph accuracy, as well as basic knowledge about the physiological responses the polygraph measures [source].

The fact that this instrument is being relied upon to safeguard American civilians should infuriate anyone even remotely scientifically literate. The government may as well be identifying terror suspects using a dowsing rod.

“Insane,” responded Drew Richardson, one of the FBI’s top polygraph experts until he retired a few years ago, in an e-mail to SpyTalk. “I would say placing any significance on an examinee passing some portion or all portions on eight out of 15 CQT polygraph exams with all exams having covered the same subject(s) is, in a word, insane” [source].

Further reading:

Dvorak at it Again

John Dvorak recently posted this plug for what appears to be a pseudoscience site, holoscience.com. Quote:

This site is devoted to looking at space science in a holistic, interdisciplinary manner. It also has some exceptionally cool images.

The comments on his blog appear to be either disabled or not working, so I will post a reply here.

This site appears to be yet another "theory of everything, the scientific establishment is against me" kind of site. Example quote:

"The Big Bang is already dead! The unheralded "Galileo of the 20th century", Halton Arp, has proven that the universe is not expanding."

Everything written in the News area of the site appears to be self published and not peer-reviewed. There seems to be a war going on at Wikipedia over another apparently self-published article about the "Electric Universe" theory espoused on the site. View the discussion here.

Hi William, please refer to the list of papers on the article page going back to 1930 to show serious study in this field. A Google search will reveal 6,240 pages returned on a search for "'electric universe' + plasma" …. . –Bongani 19:38, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

No, thats a long list of papers which have something to do with electricity in space, and have nothing to do with EUM. One of the characteristics of pet/psuedo science [sic] is appropriating irrelevant papers that have the right-looking words in them. Any article that states That the Sun and stars are powered by an external electric current is (to be frank for just a moment) wacko nonsense. Any article that makes such a controversial statement, and then fails to back it up with a peer-reviewed paper, is unsuitable for wiki as "original research". … William M. Connolley 20:05:57, 2005-07-09 (UTC).

And as you can see the neutrality of the original article is disputed.

I can't believe Dvorak posted this, frankly. But it fits with the horoscope ad displayed prominently on his site. Holoscience does have "purty pictures," though.

Update (11:15) - It appears that Dvorak might have posters on his site other than himself. Not sure why or who they are, but I thought I should mention that the opinion I quoted above may not be directly attributable to the popular PC Magazine columnist.

Don Quixote vs. the Bookstore, Part II

Here is the latest in my correspondence with a bookstore “recommending” Kevin Trudeau’s “Natural Cures ’They’ Don’t Want You to Know About.”

Part I

Don Quixote vs. the Bookstore

There’s nothing like eight hours in various airports to make you want to try to change the world. Here’s an email I just sent to Gary McBrayer of the Hudson Group. I will post any replies I receive.

Welcome to the Ass-End of the Enlightenment

According to this article, the word debate seems to be sorely in need of redefinition.

President George W. Bush stirred the debate on the teaching of evolution in schools when he said this week that he supported the teaching of alternative viewpoints - such as the theory of Intelligent Design - to help students "understand what the debate is about" [emphasis mine].

Please do not trouble yourself - I have already suggested a number of alternatives to the archaic meaning (“to engage in argument by discussing opposing points.“) to the custodians of Dictionary.com.

  1. Impassioned and reasoned logic countered with childish misrepresentations and/or outright lies.
  2. Deliberately creating confusion between the Scientific Process and a Scientifically-Conducted Gallup Poll.

If you are not looking forward to another unreasoning dark age, except this time with nuclear bombs, might I suggest taking this opportunity to donate to these charities:

  1. The Council for Secular Humanism
  2. Americans United

John Dvorak Benefits from the Public Stupidity he Decries

Something has been bothering me about John C. Dvorak’s site for the last few days. This post in particular drove me to write about it. Here is a screenshot of the post. I would like to point out two things.

John Dvorak promotes pseudoscience

Figure (1) is John Dvorak complaining about public ignorance and stupidity. For this, I would normally applaud him. Figure (2) is John Dvorak profiting from public ignorance and stupidity.

Perhaps Dvorak isn’t in control of the content of that ad. If that’s the case, hopefully he’ll stop using that particular vendor. If he doesn’t, I don’t think there’s anything you can call this behavior other than every gadfly’s favorite insult, hypocrisy.

Some of the comments to his post are seriously pretty scary. Somehow, these people are allowed to procreate.

There is a slight parallel here to My God Problem, which is a thought-provoking article by Natalie Angier that appeared in Free Inquiry magazine. Simply put, the point is this: you cannot turn a blind eye to certain (popular) superstitions and still bemoan the public’s inexplicable distaste for evolution.

Conversations in the Park

Hoboken appears to be overrun with evangelicals. Last week on my way to the train there was a gentleman standing quietly with a sign that read:

CATHOLICISM IS THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION

ALL NONBELIEVERS WILL SUFFER HELLFIRE

It certainly made me glad that his god only exists in his head.

So I went down to the park today to get some reading done, but it wasn’t in the cards. I ended up spending most of the time speaking to two groups of people who were very interested in “saving” me.

Part I – The Young Brazilian Girls

This one was very confusing. It mostly went like this.

“Don’t you believe in the Bible?”

“I believe that it exists. What do you mean, exactly?”

“Why do think there’s all this evil in the world?”

“What?”

“Don’t you believe in the devil?”

“Why did god create him, again?”

Except I feel like we covered that material three or four times. These girls were pretty attractive, but not prepared to debate. That’s a shame, from their point of view. I have no doubts that they would be a real “double-threat” if they could draw from even a few Aristotelian ideas, or throw out some quotes from Thomas Aquinas.

They also kept asking me if I remembered this scene or that scene from The Passion of the Christ. I’ve never seen the Passion of the Christ. Is it a good sign or a bad sign that serious Christian thought has devolved to the point of being dictated by Mel Gibson?

That went on for about a half an hour, until one of them made the “talk to the hand” motion at me and walked away (I am not making this up). I thought I was conversing in a reasonably calm way, by my standards.

After that, I tried moving to a quieter park. The one right on the waterfront is thunderdome, anyway.

Part II – The Jersey Guy

This encounter was much more interesting. This was with a very soft spoken gentleman wearing a tie. “I’m not a Mormon or a Jehovah’s witness,” was the first thing he said. He appeared to be trying to start his own religion. Bravo, good for him.

He spent some of his allotted timeslot complaining about “preachers and priests that drive around in Mercedes,” as he put it. He also stated that “the Bible proves evolution,” which put a pretty interesting spin on the conversation.

Perhaps it was his intention, but I was actually arguing against the absolute provability of a thing like evolution.

“It’s so incredibly likely to be true that you could say that it is proven, but I don’t think any real scientist would say such a thing,” I said. “When you say that the Bible proves it, you’re giving away a very different idea of ‘proof’ than I have.”

He was, (not surprisingly, I guess), impressed with the Bible’s powers of prophecy. He shied away from it, I think detecting that it wouldn’t win me over. We talked about the vague wording, lack of falsifiability, and rationalizing after the fact that is involved in prophecy, and he conceded that I was probably right about that.

In the end, we agreed that I had no answers for him, and he none for me. And we decided that recruiting people to follow you is not a good idea in general, because people should think for themselves. All in all, a very pleasant conversation. It could have been one of the scenes in Waking Life.

Part III – Winding Down

I came back and my roommate was drinking wine and eating cheese. “You need to take the wax off of that cheese before you eat it,” he said. Oh, do I? I bit down. Yes, it turns out that I do. But being a contrarian is fun nonetheless.