sporadically produced odds, ends, and essaylets on any number of topics from programming to politics, paramecia to puff pastries.
Sunday, December 25, 2005
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Intelligent Design
What's wrong with intelligent design, and with its critics
I disagree with the author's reasoning, but agree with the result: evolution, not "intelligent design", should be taught in science classes. My view of the purpose of science education is teaching the scientific method by example, and that drives the curriculum in the same direction the author advocates: toward presentation of the best science. So what do I disagree with? Putting the emphasis on exclusively on finding the "best science" to put into the classroom. For two reasons: it (inadvertantly?) frames the discussion about evolution and intelligent design as a theory v. theory debate, which it's not (and the author touches on this point), because intelligent design is only a theory in the lay meaning of the term, not the scientific one. But, also, because illustrating the scientific method with "bad" theory may be just as effective -- or more so -- than teaching it with "the best".
In a modern college level physics curriculum, you find out you've been "wrong all along" in your use of the classical model of physics, and begin to explore the strange, charmed world of quantum mechanics. But on the gross level (human sized stuff, as opposed to subatomic particles), classical mechanics still works great. QM equations reduce to their classical forms, basically. However, this means classical mechanics, is, technically, 'flawed', because it doesn't really reflect out current understanding of how things actually work.
And yet, QM's just too abstract, too complicated, etc., to try and get into high schooler's heads. So, go ahead and teach classical mechanics -- you can actually do experiments in class on that, without spending too much of the school budget, you know? It works. Even though it's only an approximation...even though it's not actually the 'best' science available.
Besides, the author starts off by asserting without proof there's no such thing as the scientific method. A point on which I strenously disagree. It's also the point at which I wonder if we're not speaking the same language. To me as a scientist, science is knowledge gained via what we refer to as the scientific method. The author seems to have a broader definition, perhaps scienter as it is meant in a legal framework, as "knowledge", regardless of the method by which it is acquired.
I disagree with the author's reasoning, but agree with the result: evolution, not "intelligent design", should be taught in science classes. My view of the purpose of science education is teaching the scientific method by example, and that drives the curriculum in the same direction the author advocates: toward presentation of the best science. So what do I disagree with? Putting the emphasis on exclusively on finding the "best science" to put into the classroom. For two reasons: it (inadvertantly?) frames the discussion about evolution and intelligent design as a theory v. theory debate, which it's not (and the author touches on this point), because intelligent design is only a theory in the lay meaning of the term, not the scientific one. But, also, because illustrating the scientific method with "bad" theory may be just as effective -- or more so -- than teaching it with "the best".
In a modern college level physics curriculum, you find out you've been "wrong all along" in your use of the classical model of physics, and begin to explore the strange, charmed world of quantum mechanics. But on the gross level (human sized stuff, as opposed to subatomic particles), classical mechanics still works great. QM equations reduce to their classical forms, basically. However, this means classical mechanics, is, technically, 'flawed', because it doesn't really reflect out current understanding of how things actually work.
And yet, QM's just too abstract, too complicated, etc., to try and get into high schooler's heads. So, go ahead and teach classical mechanics -- you can actually do experiments in class on that, without spending too much of the school budget, you know? It works. Even though it's only an approximation...even though it's not actually the 'best' science available.
Besides, the author starts off by asserting without proof there's no such thing as the scientific method. A point on which I strenously disagree. It's also the point at which I wonder if we're not speaking the same language. To me as a scientist, science is knowledge gained via what we refer to as the scientific method. The author seems to have a broader definition, perhaps scienter as it is meant in a legal framework, as "knowledge", regardless of the method by which it is acquired.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Canada saying no to US Patriot Act?
Canada drafts proposals to shield personal data from U.S. anti-terror law
From The Chronicle: Wired Campus Blog, thanks to a tip from Faz at Fusion Reaction
A federal proposal would allow government departments to immediately cancel a contract with an American firm if it hands personal information about Canadians to U.S. anti-terrorism investigators.
From The Chronicle: Wired Campus Blog, thanks to a tip from Faz at Fusion Reaction
Supreme Court to hear redistricting case
Supreme Court to weigh Texas redistricting
The last time the Court attacked this question, they couldn't answer it. I mean, they really couldn't. Under the political question doctrine, they said, in a political gerrymandering case about 5 years ago, Vieth v. Jubelirer, that the Court had no standards to apply. Justice Kennedy concurred in the decision but said if standards did emerge, the issue could be revisited. Looks like maybe it is. This should be interesting. Makes me want to take Con Law over again in the Spring semester, just to work the problem in class.
The last time the Court attacked this question, they couldn't answer it. I mean, they really couldn't. Under the political question doctrine, they said, in a political gerrymandering case about 5 years ago, Vieth v. Jubelirer, that the Court had no standards to apply. Justice Kennedy concurred in the decision but said if standards did emerge, the issue could be revisited. Looks like maybe it is. This should be interesting. Makes me want to take Con Law over again in the Spring semester, just to work the problem in class.
Author Podcast Interview Now Available!
Interviews with authors of "L. Ron Hubbard Presents Writers of the Future, Vol. 21" - Show posted Dec 12, 2005
Me, Floris, and John!
For information on listening to the interview, whether you have an iPod or not, please visit DragonPage's main page.
Me, Floris, and John!
For information on listening to the interview, whether you have an iPod or not, please visit DragonPage's main page.
Monday, December 12, 2005
We are about to lose New Orleans
Death of an American City
We are about to lose New Orleans. Whether it is a conscious plan to let the city rot until no one is willing to move back or honest paralysis over difficult questions, the moment is upon us when a major American city will die, leaving nothing but a few shells for tourists to visit like a museum.
We said this wouldn't happen. President Bush said it wouldn't happen. He stood in Jackson Square and said, "There is no way to imagine America without New Orleans." But it has been over three months since Hurricane Katrina struck and the city is in complete shambles.
Monday, December 05, 2005
Torture By Any Other Name
Would be just as apalling.
The defining of torture in a new world war
The Torture Memo By Judge Jay S. Bybee That Haunted Alberto Gonzales's Confirmation Hearings
Tracing the Torture Memos
"[T]he Bush Orders of January and February, 2002, denying Geneva Convention protection to captured members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda appears inherently flawed. Acts carried out in furtherance of those orders, if themselves violations, might, accordingly, constitute war crimes."
And yet, Rice defends US policy. Even when records show 'serious mistakes have been made'.
My Country's Secret Prisons:
Q&A: CIA jails allegations
Rice visits Germany amid CIA row
And, in other 'stunning' news: US 'is failing to protect itself'
Well, hully gee.
***
There's something about this that bugs me that I've expressed before in various ways. Call it an overdose of literalism if you will. Call it the cheating society America has become. "Everyone does it." So long as we obey the letter of the law, we don't have to live up to the spirit. The appearance, but not the truth.
Well, frankly, I find that unacceptable. Would you like to know why? It's simple: because torture is wrong. That's why. No matter who does it.
The defining of torture in a new world war
The Torture Memo By Judge Jay S. Bybee That Haunted Alberto Gonzales's Confirmation Hearings
Tracing the Torture Memos
"[T]he Bush Orders of January and February, 2002, denying Geneva Convention protection to captured members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda appears inherently flawed. Acts carried out in furtherance of those orders, if themselves violations, might, accordingly, constitute war crimes."
And yet, Rice defends US policy. Even when records show 'serious mistakes have been made'.
My Country's Secret Prisons:
Q&A: CIA jails allegations
Rice visits Germany amid CIA row
And, in other 'stunning' news: US 'is failing to protect itself'
Well, hully gee.
***
There's something about this that bugs me that I've expressed before in various ways. Call it an overdose of literalism if you will. Call it the cheating society America has become. "Everyone does it." So long as we obey the letter of the law, we don't have to live up to the spirit. The appearance, but not the truth.
Well, frankly, I find that unacceptable. Would you like to know why? It's simple: because torture is wrong. That's why. No matter who does it.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Privatizing our Honor out of Existence
AmericaBlog hits this one out of the ballpark, regarding the apparent suicide of military ethicist Col. Ted Westhusing:
Our military is our *military*. Our businesses are our businesses. They serve different goals. (And, while I'm pointing out the obvious, our state is our state and our churches are our churches.)
They're not *supposed* to be the same.
When Honor Is No Longer Possible: A Nation Beyond Forgiveness, by Arthur Silber. Longer, more eloquent. Worth reading. So, go read it.
wrote Lt. Col. Lisa Breitenbach, "He could not shift his mind-set from the military notion of completing a mission irrespective of cost, nor could he change his belief that doing the right thing because it was the right thing to do should be the sole motivator for businesses."
Lt. Col. Lisa Breitenbach is the one with the problem, not Westhusing. Our military is not intended to work for profit of private corporations - its purpose is to support U.S. foreign policy with force.
Our military is our *military*. Our businesses are our businesses. They serve different goals. (And, while I'm pointing out the obvious, our state is our state and our churches are our churches.)
They're not *supposed* to be the same.
When Honor Is No Longer Possible: A Nation Beyond Forgiveness, by Arthur Silber. Longer, more eloquent. Worth reading. So, go read it.
Thursday, November 24, 2005
No More Human Rights NGOs in Russia?
Russia is pondering legislation right now that will dramatically affect human rights orgs' ability to work in that country.
http://www.times.spb.ru/story/16159 -- The Duma giving money to "promote civil society" and "defend the rights of Russians in the Baltic countries." Critics, however, say this is another step in a campaign to bring NGOs under the Kremlin's wing [which would substantially reduce their effectiveness].
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20051124/42204325.html -- In defense, "the new amendments aim only at blocking the operation of those who use the cover of public activities to import [revolution] to Russia."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/23/international/europe/23cnd-russia.html
[New York Times article, seems to cover the various sides]
http://www.times.spb.ru/story/16159 -- The Duma giving money to "promote civil society" and "defend the rights of Russians in the Baltic countries." Critics, however, say this is another step in a campaign to bring NGOs under the Kremlin's wing [which would substantially reduce their effectiveness].
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20051124/42204325.html -- In defense, "the new amendments aim only at blocking the operation of those who use the cover of public activities to import [revolution] to Russia."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/23/international/europe/23cnd-russia.html
[New York Times article, seems to cover the various sides]
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
The Right Moment Passed By
The Problem with Bush and Cheney's "Faulty Intelligence" Defense
Why, Powell? What stopped you? Loyalty to the commander in chief? You weren't in uniform any more.
That moment, that speech, represented a chance to act. That was a fulcrum moment. A world-changing moment. And it was lost.
Re-writing history may be wrong, but reviewing it is instructive. The record shows that Bush and Cheney's claims that they were duped by bad intelligence are disingenuous.
Sources close to Powell told Bamford that Cheney's chief-of-staff, Scooter Libby, drafted Powell's now-infamous UN speech. While writing it, Libby was in constant communication with David Wurmser of the Policy Counterterrorism Group. Powell's people also told Bamford that the secretary of state knew that much of what was in the script was false. In the end, Powell's people were furious at Libby, but the secretary of state didn't have the courage to not deliver the speech. AP special correspondent Charles J. Hanley did a thorough job of identifying the false and misleading statements in Powell's speech.
Why, Powell? What stopped you? Loyalty to the commander in chief? You weren't in uniform any more.
That moment, that speech, represented a chance to act. That was a fulcrum moment. A world-changing moment. And it was lost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)