This is a nice, compact debunking of the "B-b-but in the 1970's all the scientists were predicting global COOLING!" meme that the denialists seem unable to resist. It won't help with the hardcore denialists, of course -- "You can't reason someone out something he didn't reason himself into" -- but it's worth keeping around to show those who might be on the fence. Be sure to follow the links; there's some good stuff there.

Derailing for Dummies

I'm not going to say I agree completely with all the arguments herein, but it nonetheless ought to be required reading for anyone (and particularly, yes, for white men) who is considering jumping into discussions about race, sex, religion, and other Sensitive Subjects. It strikes me as being akin to lists of common logical fallacies -- not at all (a large number of Slashdotters to the contrary) the be-all and end-all of understanding how to have a good debate, but an incredibly useful tool for understanding the basics of how not to make yourself look like a fool.

The reactions to Christopher Hitchens' death have reminded me that I am, even among my fellow nonbelievers, a stranger in a strange land.

My personal "I had no need for that hypothesis" brand of atheism, or agnosticism, or whatever, is important to me to exactly the same degree it was important to Pierre Laplace -- that is, not at all, unless someone with the power to order my head chopped off makes an issue of it. (To be fair to Napoleon, he did nothing of the sort. Modern bloody-minded political leaders could take a lesson from this.) I spend as little time as possible pondering (and pontificating on!) the nonexistence of God, or the Gods, or the Universal Spritual Force Which Holds Everything Together But Which I Don't Want To Call God Because That's Too Conventional, because it does not matter to me. I have science to do.

But then, I was raised by two atheists, an ex-Catholic and an ex-Jew, and they didn't get that luxury. Neither, I strongly suspect, did Hitchens, or any of the other more vocal "New Atheist" leaders -- and neither did the vast majority of the nonbelievers I know. Almost everyone I have ever known, in my entire life, was raised with some sort of religious belief. Most of them retained that belief, or switched over to a closely related one. Some broke away from it, and the use here of the verb "to break" is appropriate. It is a breaking, and like all such violent events, it leaves scars. The ex-believers almost universally have in their minds something very much like the titanium rod I have in my leg; it provides some support against the stresses and strains of the world, but one is always aware that it is there, and sometimes it rubs against other, organic structures in uncomfortable ways.

My father is an immigrant, and although he's lived here for what is now by far the greater portion of his life, he's still sometimes taken aback by some cultural reference which was common to the childhoods of his native-born contemporaries. In a culture which is shaped as deeply by religion, specifically Christianity, as is ours, I sometimes feel like a long-term immigrant too. I may look and talk and for the most part think like the people around me, but there's that common cultural reference point, that history of belief if not the belief itself, that I don't have.

"You don't know what it was like, man! You weren't there!" Indeed. And I don't regret this, because I've seen the scars the breaking leaves. But I do regret that there really is no other way to understand what it feels like, without having to go through the associated pain.

Hitchens was an abrasive, egotistical loudmouth, and the things he was loud about tended to be opionions with which many of my family and friends passionately agreed. For what it's worth, I agreed too, for the most part, but without the passion. Because I just don't have the background -- the Passion of the Atheist, if you will -- to feel it. I have no need for that passion.

This leaves me free to look at the man and his life with the immigrant's eye. If the immigrant's lack of a common cultural reference point comes with a price, it confers advantages as well. My father often makes astute observations about American culture which no native-born citizen, not even one as culturally introspective as I am, could quite come up with. Objectivity helps. And the objective truth is that while Hitchens was right about many small things, he was wrong, badly wrong, about One Big Thing.

Hitchens saw 9/11 as the result not merely of Islamic extremism, but of religion in general -- in which he was right -- and conceived of America's subsequent kill-em-all reaction, specifically the Iraq portion, as a war against religious extremism -- in which he was wrong. Deeply, tragically, bloodily wrong. And he compounded the wrongness by turning his considerable eloquence and wit to propagandizing for the war, often turning against his fellow leftists in the process, growing ever louder as the corpses piled higher.

One Big Thing. And I understand that to my fellow nonbelievers, more specifically to the ex-believers in whose land I-the-immigrant live, the small things were not small. Hitchens wrote for decades against Yahweh, after all, and for only a few years in the service of Mars. But for myself, while I have no need of the Yahweh hypothesis, I know Mars quite well. Bright-speared Mars, and Odin who stirs up wars among men, and Morrigan who sends her ravens to feed on the dead -- these Gods I know; and Hitchens preached their gospel. To others, this may well be a minor heresy. So be it. It is a sin I find myself unwilling to forgive.

http://the-scientist.com/2011/11/16/opinion-the-dark-side-of-science/

The author seems to think we live in a world of wild, unregulated research in which unlimited time and money are available for latter-day Frankensteins to create monstrosities in their labs, hidden from public view until the horror is unleashed. In reality, the opposite is true. The primary ethical concern in biomedical science is with curing disease, saving lives, and reducing suffering -- and progress toward these goals is increasingly hindered by philosophers, theologians, and politicians who inject themselves into a process they refuse to understand.

I can't help but wonder if their remote ancestors during the Paleolithic were rubbing their chins and muttering about the dangers of this new flint-chipping technology. Of course, once the hand axe was established as part of everyday life, they were happy enough to use it, all the while warning that tying a smaller, sharper piece of flint to the end of a stick was Going Too Far ...

The more any participant in an online discussion proclaims that he's being logical, the less likely it is that there's any actual logic on display in his posts.

As an American, and specifically as a Westerner, I reject the idea that culture is in the blood. The West is a distillation of America, with all its best and worst ideas, and one of these ideas is that we are who we choose to be, not who our ancestors were. Our names, our languages, our religions, even our lands: these things matter, but they do not define us; we define ourselves.

But I have to admit that there is something distinctly Russian in the way I see America, and particularly Colorado. The Motherland, the Rodina. A very old way of thinking, and one which doesn't fit particularly well with the New World.

The linguistic root of "patriotism" is "patria," that is, "fatherland" -- a word which tends to make people nervous these days, and with good reason. I am a patriot, and (says the Westerner again) I choose what that word means to me. I am far past the age when it meant beating the drum and waving the flag. I did that when I was younger, and I don't regret it, but honestly I'm not sure how well it ever fit me. Nor, with my rational modern eye, can I indulge in the idea of mommy-land; I've lived too many places (largely as a side effect of the drum-beating and flag-waving, it should be noted) and known them too well to believe that any of them is bound to me by blood.

Grown-ups love their parents too, even when they go far from home. Adult patriotism is hard to define. It's easier to remain a child, to be tough like Daddy says or run crying to Mommy when acting tough doesn't work out so well. My parents raised me with something more thoughtful and more useful than that, and in so doing earned my eternal gratitude.

I'm still working out how to apply that to my country. I probably will be for the rest of my life.

(Jumping off from the conversation here, for those who are interested.)

There is deep satisfaction in finishing an elegant proof, like writing a good short poem or a beautiful paragraph, though not exactly like either of these. It is, I suspect, very much like finding the right arrangement of notes when writing a piece of music; I'll probably never know.

In writing a paper full of such proofs, there is fatigue and blurred vision and, often, actual pain. So it goes.

If either (a) it wasn't really bin Laden they killed, or (b) Obama could have had him killed at any time, and in either case the announcement was for political purposes, when would have been the right time to do it? The short answer is, "not right now."

The longer answer is, sometime in early September -- not September 11th itself, that would have been too obvious, but say sometime during the first week of the month. It could have been last year, in the run-up to the midterm elections, to give the Democrats a boost. It could have been this year, to tie in with the 10th anniversary of the event, since we all seem to like nice round numbers. Or it could have been next year, to give Obama as well as the Congressional Democrats a boost for the upcoming election.

But doing it now, as a political act, would just be dumb. Obama is, very roughly, at the same point in his (hopefully) first term as GHW Bush was at the close of Desert Storm -- at which point, you may remember, Bush the Elder enjoyed approval ratings of 90+%, a record no President has equaled before or since, and was widely considered unbeatable. And if you don't remember what a certain Governor of Arkansas did a year and a half later, I assure you Mike Huckabee does.

There is no reason, at all, at least on political grounds, not to think this is the real thing.

The topic on Woz inspired me to post something about the ideas I've been percolating for some time. These are based on personal teaching experience, teaching experience by siblings and father at University level and by my grandfather at secondary school, 6th form college and military acadamy. (There's been a lot of academics in the family.)

Anyways, I'll break this down into sections. Section 1 deals with the issues of class size and difference in ability. It is simply not possible to teach to any kind of meaningful standard a group of kids of wildly differing ability. Each subject should be streamed, such that people of similar ability are grouped together -- with one and only one exception: you cannot neglect the social aspect of education. Some people function well together, some people dysfunction well together. You really want to maintain the former of those two groups as much as possible, even if that means having a person moved up or down one stream.

Further, not everyone who learns at the same pace learns in the same way. Streams should be segmented according to student perspective, at least to some degree, to maximize the student's ability to fully process what they are learning. A different perspective will almost certainly result in a different stream. Obviously, you want students to be in the perspective that leads them to be in the fastest stream they can be in.

There should be sufficient divisions such that any given stream progresses with the least turbulence possible. Laminar flow is good. There should also be no fewer than one instructor per ten students at a secondary school level. You probably want more instructors in primary education, less at college/university, with 1:10 being the average across all three.

Section 2: What to teach. I argue that the absolute fundamental skills deal in how to learn, how to research, how to find data, how to question, how to evaluate, how to apply reasoning tools such as deduction, inference, lateral thinking, etc, in constructive and useful ways. Without these skills, education is just a bunch of disconnected facts and figures. These skills do not have to be taught directly from day 1, but they do have to be a part of how things are taught and must become second-nature before secondary education starts.

Since neurologists now believe that what is learned alters the wiring of the brain, the flexibility of the brain and the adult size of the brain, it makes sense that the material taught should seek to optimize things a bit. Languages seem to boost mental capacity and the brain's capacity to be fault-tolerant. It would seem to follow that teaching multiple languages of different language families would be a Good Thing in terms of architecturing a good brain. Memorization/rote-learning seems to boost other parts of the brain. It's not clear what balance should be struck, or what other brain-enhancing skills there might be, but some start is better than no start at all.

Section 3: How to test. If it's essential to have exams (which I doubt), the exam should be longer than could be completed by anyone - however good - within the allowed time, with a gradual increase in the difficulty of the questions. Multiple guess choice should be banned. The mean and median score should be 50% and follow a normal distribution. Giving the same test to an expert system given the same level of instruction as the students should result in a failing grade, which I'd put at anything under 20% on this scale. (You are not testing their ability to be a computer. Not in this system.)

Each test should produce two scores - the raw score (showing current ability) and the score after adjusting for the anticipated score based on previous test results (which show the ability to learn and therefore what should have been learned this time - you want the third-order differential and therefore the first three tests cannot be examined this way). The adjusted score should be on the range of -1 (learned nothing new, consider moving across to a different perspective in the same stream) to 0 (learned at expected rate) to +1 (learning too fast for the stream, consider moving up). Students should not be moved downstream on a test result, only ever on a neutral evaluation of some kind.

Section 4: Fundamentals within any given craft, study or profession should be taught as deeply and thoroughly as possible. Those change the least and will apply even as the details they are intertwined with move in and out of fashion. "Concrete" skills should be taught broadly enough that there is never a serious risk of unemployability, but also deeply enough that the skills have serious market value.

Section 5: Absolutely NO homework. It's either going to be rushed, plagarized or paid-for. It's never going to be done well and it serves no useful purpose. Year-long projects are far more sensible as they achieve the repetitious use of a skill that homework tries to do but in a way that is immediately practical and immediately necessary.

Lab work should likewise not demonstrate trivial stuff, but through repetition and variation lead to the memorization of the theory and its association with practical problems of the appropriate class.

Section 6: James Oliver's advice on diet should be followed within reason - and the "within reason" bit has more to do with what food scientists and cookery scientists discover than with any complaints.

Section 7: Go bankrupt. This is where this whole scheme falls over -- to do what I'm proposing seriously would require multiplying the costs of maintaining and running a school by 25-30 with no additional income. If it had a few billion in starting capital and bought stocks in businesses likely to be boosted by a high-intensity K-PhD educational program, it is just possible you could reduce the bleeding to manageable proportions. What you can never do in this system is turn a profit, although all who are taught will make very substantial profits from such a system.

Everything that's wrong with Atlas Shrugged, and with Objectivism, lucidly explained. Kind of a one-stop-shop for responding to the Randroids in your life.

I will disagree with the author on one important point. The essay opens with the mandatory dig at Rand's writing style; de gustibus and all that, but personally I think Rand was a pretty good writer, stylistically speaking. She was wordy, to be sure, but she put those words together well. It was what she was saying with the words that was so thoroughly messed up.

I learned today -- or relearned, rather; it's one of those lessons that apparently I have to keep learning -- not to try to out-calculate the computer. What I mean by this is that math, real math, the kind of math that involves pushing symbols around, is hard; but calculation is easy, so easy that we build machines to do it for us. And in that limited realm, those machines are much better than we are. So we should concentrate on the math and let the machines handle the number-crunching, rather than molding the math to fit our idea of what we think the machines are doing.

Specifically, when formulating a mathematical model, formulate that model in a way that makes sense to you. Matrix transposition is trivial for a computer, but it can completely screw up a human's mental picture of the problem. That screw-up then propagates through the modeling process. You will end up with something that is neither good math nor good programming. It may work, but it will be less flexible, less maintainable, and -- here's where the lesson re-learning comes in -- probably less computationally efficient than it would be if you'd just written the math the way you wanted to in the first place and then turned the math into code.

Computers are really, really, really good at matrix algebra. It's pretty much what they were invented to do. Let them at it.

Critical posts on Sarah Palin's Facebook page are deleted almost as soon as they appear, but a post celebrating the death of the 9-year-old victim in Tucson remains. The blogger calls this "inexplicable," but of course there's no mystery here. This is how Republicans think. Forget this at your peril.

However, just as a good engineer must be able to hypothesize and experiment on occasion, a good scientist must sometimes be able to pound a problem into the desired shape with a hammer.

... is a writer whose works people want to read.

That's it. That's the whole thing. There's nothing else.

And the definition of a great writer is a writer whose works people want to read long after the writer is dead. Homer, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Austen: great. Their long-forgotten contemporaries: not great.

If in a hundred years, or five hundred, or two thousand, people are still reading The Girl ... novels, then Larsson was a great writer. If they're not, then he wasn't. None of us will be around to know. On the other hand, we can at least say, based on the current evidence, that he was a pretty good one.

Also, I confidently predict that not only will people not be reading anything by Docx a century from now, they will have forgotten that he ever existed once he's been dead the few short years that Larsson has today. He won't be remembered as a great writer, or a good one, or at all, for the simple reason that people don't want to read pretentious crap churned out by bitter twits.

To celebrate 30 years of "Pac Man", at this year's Retromañï½Âa (University of Zaragoza, 8th - 12th November) there's a Pacman programming contest (with prizes!). Information about the contest and rules can be found here:

http://www.retroaccion.org/sites/default/files/eventos/retromania/2010/concurso_pacman/RM10-ProgPacman-english.pdf

There's two categories - one for games programmed beforehand (so that people who can't go to Retromañï½Âa can put in an entry) and for those programmed during the event.

I'll myself be off to Retromañï½Âa, not for anything to do with the Pac man coding contest, but to demonstrate and explain the ethernet hardware that I've made for the ZX Spectrum (itself coming close to its 30th anniversary). Indeed that entire week is going to be an orgy of retro geekyness, the weekend leading up to it is R3PLAY in Blackpool (retrogaming event), then I'm off to Zaragoza for Retromañï½Âa, and then on the way back I go via Madrid for a small gathering of retroafficionados in a bar somewhere in Madrid. Three events in less than 10 days.