One Astronomer's Noise

I remember the virus-ridden hell, the slow down of the processor, the mysterious errors and crashes. I still deal with it every time I visit my family and there’s a computer problem to fix. I love my Mac, things mostly do “just work.” In fact, it’s made me lazy, and I’ve never truly learned to install things properly in Linux as a result! But it’s an uneasy comfort, since I hate turtlenecks, and don’t drink lattes, and I dread the day when people start writing viruses for Macs, too. We’re not invulnerable, just under the radar…

On a lighter note, I love the use of the word “lovecraftian”!

If you want to read the original article and usual amusing Slashdot fare, here ya go: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/03/2049205&from=rss

–

Next, I’ve deleted my old, old blog (of the same title) but wanted to hang onto a few posts that I particularly liked. So, humor me for a moment…

–

10/23/05

Anyway, onto the subject that has been just burning on my mind. Okay, it’s not that bad, but it’s quite serious. There are a number of cases in the courts lately about intelligent design, and whether or not it should be taught in science classrooms. Many anti-ID people say that it is repackaged creationism. That may be true, but it has been packaged SO well, that it’s not quite obvious that it is religious. Sure, the logical conclusion to saying that there is a design to nature is to ask, “well then who is the designer.” But even putting that aside, it is not such a leap to ask the philosophical question of whether the universe is random or designed. Heck, every student should have to ask himself or herself that question, and that’s fine to bring up in school as a debate. However, does it belong in the science classroom?

I did some snooping into the world of ID (thank you Google.) The Intelligent Design Network was one of the first hits, and it was impressively written. It also includes many teaching resources for those who want to participate, as well as alot of legal material. What bothers me is that the homepage states “We promote the scientific evidence of intelligent design because proper consideration of that evidence is necessary to achieve not only scientific objectivity but also constitutional neutrality.” Yet nowhere on the website is there a shred of a scientific argument. It claims,

“In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).”

Okay, I understand the uses of design detection. But in those cases, we are sure that there is an intelligent being or beings behind the processes (okay, the SETI thing has no grounds yet, but let’s leave that for another time.) I think it is presumptuous to assume that some seemingly desgned patterns are evidence against the weight of scientific evidence for the randomness of evolution. I had to read Origin of the Species in high school, so I can tell you that Darwin was thorough… boring, but thorough. And genetic sciences even went so far as to fill in the “how” behind the processes of natural selection. Maybe natural selection is a difficult thing to prove beyond contention, but it certainly has been supported by an incredible amount of evidence, evidence which also rejects other theories. But intelligent design does not have an answer, or even an approach to an answer to the question of existence.

Also, is it just biology that ID proponents are challenging? I had heard that in at least one state, the second law of thermodynamics was being challenged in court! This says, basically, that the entropy, or measure of randomness, in physical systems increases with time. Think of an egg being dropped. It can’t be put back together, not without an incredible amount of effort that would increase entropy in another sense. Can the laws of physics be reinterpretted to fit this untangible “design?”

The Access Research Network has a “scientific” case for ID as .pdf document. However, it is not very compelling. This states some general properties of designed systems, chooses some facts about nature that seems to fit these properties, and touts this as scientific evidence for design. Tell me, what new experiments can further these conclusions to the exclusion of other theories? I suggest you read it.

I would also read the American Astronomical Society’s Statement on the Teaching of Evolution. What scientists need to do is promote an understanding of the scientific method and the rigorous tests of scientific theories. Mos successful and revolutionary theories were orginially thought to be bunk because they were so different, but the truely good theories stood the test of experimentation and observations. Believe me, scientists bicker and pull apart any new theory, it IS a rigorous process!

From your friendly, neighborhood scientist on a soapbox… Ciao!

–
2008 update, I no longer find Ben Stein amusing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Stein#Views_on_Darwinism

–

06/05/05

I found this story (link now gone) on Instapundit the other day, and I was dismayed. Apparently, graduates from the College of Stat
en Island were dismayed that their commencement speaker had a few words to day about the state of the world today along with some advice on how to proceed in such a world.

At Lycoming College, we had a similar such commencement speech from Dr. Bill Dever, an archaeologist. He had alot to say about special interest groups (including staunch liberals and conservatives) and the state of pop culture, etc., etc. He followed this up with some advice on how to live in the world, to be rational, free-thinking, independent human beings. I, for one, loved the speech. I didn’t agree with some of his finer points, but the message was inspiring, like an intellectual call to arms. I later found that others in attendance found it inappropriate, or were too riled up since their particular “interest group” was negatively mentioned. And of couse, there was some apathy from the students. But at least everyone behaved.

The CSI graduates who caused a stir should be ashamed of themselves, and their parents should likewise be ashamed. I find apathy to be too prevalent among people my age, and for some reason, worse yet amongst many in Staten Island. If you have an intelligent disagreement with the speaker, fine. However, if you are too apathetic of closed-minded, well don’t make a scene. Did they expect a flowery, sugar-coated speech like those we were fed during high school graduations. We are adults and the world is at an intellectual crisis. I feel terrible that speakers such as Erica Jong are being ignored or misheard, and I for one would like to see a transcript of the speech.

At the Farrell high-school graduation, one of the student speakers quoted the Daily Show’s John Stewart from a commencement address he had given. It went something like, “You will be entering the real world. And I’m sorry, but we broke it. It’s up to you to fix it for yourselves.” Frankly, this sounds the same as what Dr. Dever and Ms. Jong said, only they were brave enough to be more specific. No one at Farrell complained.

So my message to my peers is this… PAY ATTENTION. The world has become complicated, and those people who are in power or otherwise highly visible are doing some things that are irrational or downright wrong. As an individual, an educated individual, you should stand up and say what’s wrong, and try to find ways to change it, even if in your own life or community.

Thank you.

–
06/01/05

There have been many instances over the past few months that have lead me to consider this question. After all, who decides what is to be put in the classrooms? I am generally speaking about college classrooms, where students are (supposed to be) more well informed of the world in which they live and work. My experience with this question comes from my own experiences as an undergrad at a small, liberal arts college, discussions with professors and students recently and over the four years, my work on an academic committee that actually makes curriculum changes, and articles that I have read or glaned through that deal with this topic, at least tangentially.

Traditional wisdom, as far as I have heard it, seems to place the responsibility of curriculum content on college administrators and professors. Hence, the committee I served on at my school was mostly made up of professors, and secondarily of administrators. (A few students, such as myself, were invited for good measure.) At first glance this is reasonable. Professors are the ones that have “already been there” and “already made it” and therefore know what is best for their students. But how true is this really? College professors should be chosen regardless of philosophical standing, and this has a big influence on teachg style and content. And so, each class is affected by this teacher’s style and content. What if the professor is out of touch with the field in which they teach? What if they are unconventional, and thus deprive the students of an education that is useful? Okay, so these are small instances, and so these committees arrive so that a consensus can be drawn across the college. But even that is guided by the college’s educational philosophy, and this is often drawn up by only a few.

What is to be said for student input? In my experience, much is due to apathy and/or laziness, and should rightfully be ignored. But there are a few of us who do care, who do join committees or write proposals and petitions to make changes as we see fit. In the small environment that I experienced, it was prone to many of the minor problems mentioned before because of size, but allowed for greater student input, also because of size. So student input, at least driven student input, does have merit, and should not be ignored as “inexperienced.”

There is also the case for outside reviewers, critics, etc., or the authors of the aforementioned articles on education. They each have their individual, and often educated, opinions. But I think my point is beginning to come clear. There may be more than one way to do education “right.” There is no one person or agency that can step out and say “universities should teach x, y, z,” although many try to do so. Education, especially at the college level, should be left for the market to decide. Let the college choose what philosophy to which to adhere. Let the professors teach in the colleges they see fit. And let students and their parents decide where to go for education. The “good” systems will be successful. Those who fall out of favor shouldn’t complain. And individual disputes will be left to individuals to determine amongst themselves within the structure of the university.

If you’ve gotten this far, thanks for reading!
–

Boy, was I burned after college! And I had completely forgotten about Instapundit, I’ll have to check that out again.