Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts
Thursday, April 10, 2008
The Second Law
Everything the educated layperson and puzzled student needs to know about one of the most important principles in physical science can be found at Prof. Frank L. Lambert's web site. Ten pages of low entropy enlightenment!
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Top 10 Foolish Beliefs
In honor of April 1st, traditionally April Fool's Day in the US and some other countries, here are my thoughts on the top 10 foolish beliefs of all time.
10. Perpetual motion is possible.
9. The Earth is Flat
8. My religion is correct, all others are wrong.
7. Dianetics (Scientology) is not a cult.
6. There is a Devil who lives in hell.
5. Astrology is a valid methodology for understanding your life.
4. Numerology has something relevant to say about our personal destiny.
3. Noah's Ark existed and had two of every animal on board.
2. Intelligent Design is a rational model of the origin of life.
1. God (as in an intelligent animate being) exists.
You may wonder why the Devil is only 6 while God is 1, besides the obvious numerological reason :-) . I justify this ranking based on the observation that there is much more anecdotal evidence for Satan than God!
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
A Lesson in the Process of Science.
I realize that I have been posting quite a bit about education and the evils of teaching creationism. These topics are a bit off topic for this blog but they are important in light of the fact that (a) this is an election year and (b) a new creationism propaganda film staring Ben Stein is about to be released.
This film and creationists in general claim that "big science" is stifling other viewpoints and that doing so is anti-scientific. However, this position has as much legs as the theory creationism itself(that would be none).
Allow me to illustrate how science actually works by considering another area that is not as emotionally charged as the origins of life. Let's consider physics and in particular Quantum Mechanics (QM). I am inspired to write this by a recent article in New Scientist titled Quantum Randomness may not be Random.
As most readers are probably aware, the meaning and interpretation Quantum Mechanics was hotly debated during the birth of modern physics (~1880 - 1930) . The two most famous individuals at the heart of this debate were Albert Einstein with his position best immortalized in the "God does not play dice" quote and Niels Bohr who argued for the abandonment of all notions of causality at the quantum level. Bohr's view point became known as the Copenhagen interpretation and it ultimately became the dominant viewpoint of physics and the one that the vast majority of physicists accept today. In fact, this interpretation of QM has the same status in physics as The Theory of Evolution has in biology.
The first point to be made is that during the evolution of modern physics there was certainly room for multiple viewpoints and these viewpoints were hotly debated. But these debates always followed a process of science which begins with the presentation of facts and uses logic and mathematics to reach conclusions. Of course, scientists are humans and a certain degree of emotion and bullying come into play as well but nothing is settled using these devices. They are only a back drop of the human saga that is science. However, this is not what is truly instructive.
Fast forward to 2008. Quantum Mechanics is the most successful theory in the history of physics and its equations are responsible for so much innovation in the modern world. Truly, QM has earned the right in physics to be untouchable dogma. Certainly any respectable physicist who would dare question the Copenhagen interpretation would be the laughing stock of his profession and his career would be ruined. Certainly the proponents of Creationism would have you believe that this is how science works. But they are wrong.
In the New Scientist article we learn that a respected physicist from Rutgers, Sheldon Goldstein, is trying to revive an older interpretation of QM called the Bohmian Model, after David Bohm. The details are not as important as the moral. Goldstein is not being mocked by physics (even though his views are squarely in the minority) because he and his peers question the dogma of QM on scientific grounds. He presents mathematical and logical arguments. When his peers raise objections he does not scream foul or prejudice but rather talks about possible experiments. He does not dismiss his peers arguments by arguing in circles nor does he draw on sources of mysticism that lie squarely outside of science. Goldstein and others can question Big Science while remaining well ground in the process that define the way science has always operated.
Creationist don't play by the rules of science but want the respect of scientists. They propose arguments which draw on misrepresentations of thermodynamics but when they are called out on this they jump to other arguments equally fallacious. It is not so much the argument of design that disturbs most scientists; its the lack of logical and consistent reasoning that pervades all of ID.
I doubt many proponents of ID read my blog but if there are any out there allow me to suggest the following analogy. Imagine a scientist walking into your church this Sunday and saying, "Listen all you Christians your whole process of worshiping Christ and interpreting the bible is wrong. You should interpret Mathew like such and such and Paul like this and that." Wouldn't you be furious? By what right does a heathen have in telling your preacher what the bible means. How dare he! Well I say to you, "How dare you! How dare you come into the house of science and tell it how it should be. By what right?!?. Please leave immediately! ... But if you'd like to drop a small monetary donation on the way out we'd gladly accept!
This film and creationists in general claim that "big science" is stifling other viewpoints and that doing so is anti-scientific. However, this position has as much legs as the theory creationism itself(that would be none).
Allow me to illustrate how science actually works by considering another area that is not as emotionally charged as the origins of life. Let's consider physics and in particular Quantum Mechanics (QM). I am inspired to write this by a recent article in New Scientist titled Quantum Randomness may not be Random.
As most readers are probably aware, the meaning and interpretation Quantum Mechanics was hotly debated during the birth of modern physics (~1880 - 1930) . The two most famous individuals at the heart of this debate were Albert Einstein with his position best immortalized in the "God does not play dice" quote and Niels Bohr who argued for the abandonment of all notions of causality at the quantum level. Bohr's view point became known as the Copenhagen interpretation and it ultimately became the dominant viewpoint of physics and the one that the vast majority of physicists accept today. In fact, this interpretation of QM has the same status in physics as The Theory of Evolution has in biology.
The first point to be made is that during the evolution of modern physics there was certainly room for multiple viewpoints and these viewpoints were hotly debated. But these debates always followed a process of science which begins with the presentation of facts and uses logic and mathematics to reach conclusions. Of course, scientists are humans and a certain degree of emotion and bullying come into play as well but nothing is settled using these devices. They are only a back drop of the human saga that is science. However, this is not what is truly instructive.
Fast forward to 2008. Quantum Mechanics is the most successful theory in the history of physics and its equations are responsible for so much innovation in the modern world. Truly, QM has earned the right in physics to be untouchable dogma. Certainly any respectable physicist who would dare question the Copenhagen interpretation would be the laughing stock of his profession and his career would be ruined. Certainly the proponents of Creationism would have you believe that this is how science works. But they are wrong.
In the New Scientist article we learn that a respected physicist from Rutgers, Sheldon Goldstein, is trying to revive an older interpretation of QM called the Bohmian Model, after David Bohm. The details are not as important as the moral. Goldstein is not being mocked by physics (even though his views are squarely in the minority) because he and his peers question the dogma of QM on scientific grounds. He presents mathematical and logical arguments. When his peers raise objections he does not scream foul or prejudice but rather talks about possible experiments. He does not dismiss his peers arguments by arguing in circles nor does he draw on sources of mysticism that lie squarely outside of science. Goldstein and others can question Big Science while remaining well ground in the process that define the way science has always operated.
Creationist don't play by the rules of science but want the respect of scientists. They propose arguments which draw on misrepresentations of thermodynamics but when they are called out on this they jump to other arguments equally fallacious. It is not so much the argument of design that disturbs most scientists; its the lack of logical and consistent reasoning that pervades all of ID.
I doubt many proponents of ID read my blog but if there are any out there allow me to suggest the following analogy. Imagine a scientist walking into your church this Sunday and saying, "Listen all you Christians your whole process of worshiping Christ and interpreting the bible is wrong. You should interpret Mathew like such and such and Paul like this and that." Wouldn't you be furious? By what right does a heathen have in telling your preacher what the bible means. How dare he! Well I say to you, "How dare you! How dare you come into the house of science and tell it how it should be. By what right?!?. Please leave immediately! ... But if you'd like to drop a small monetary donation on the way out we'd gladly accept!
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Intelligent Design Indeed.
Here it is in a nutshell why teaching ID in schools will create a country full of boobs (I mean more than the number we already have sitting in pews).
Thursday, March 20, 2008
I was going to vote for John McCain...
John McCain pretty much had a lock on my vote for the 2008 election. The purpose of this blog is other than politics so I am not going to go into why I thought he was the best candidate. Instead I would like to discuss why I may have to change my vote.
The issue is "Intelligent Design" AKA "Creationism". Apparently McCain's views on the teaching of evolution and the teaching of creationism is that each is a point of view and each point of view should be taught.
Well, Senator, Astrology and Numerology are points of view. Should we teach them beside Astronomy and Mathematics? Phrenology is a point of view. Should we teach it beside neuroscience? I sincerely hope the senator would have the common sense, even though he says he is not a scientist, to see that "points of view" and "science" are not the same thing. Point's of view don't cure disease, solve problems in physics, help design the next generation of computers, launch a spaceship, etc. A point of view is not a scientific criteria. Scientists follow a process and within the boundaries of that process there can be different "points of view". "Intelligent Design" does not follow the process of science. This has been well established, so it would be silly to repeat the points here.
Can McCain be convinced to abandon this position? Well just to get my vote he probably can't but I think its time for a little grass roots action in the states where McCain has to have victory to become president. There must be enough rational folks out there to help convince the senator to abandon his foolhardy stance.
The issue is "Intelligent Design" AKA "Creationism". Apparently McCain's views on the teaching of evolution and the teaching of creationism is that each is a point of view and each point of view should be taught.
Well, Senator, Astrology and Numerology are points of view. Should we teach them beside Astronomy and Mathematics? Phrenology is a point of view. Should we teach it beside neuroscience? I sincerely hope the senator would have the common sense, even though he says he is not a scientist, to see that "points of view" and "science" are not the same thing. Point's of view don't cure disease, solve problems in physics, help design the next generation of computers, launch a spaceship, etc. A point of view is not a scientific criteria. Scientists follow a process and within the boundaries of that process there can be different "points of view". "Intelligent Design" does not follow the process of science. This has been well established, so it would be silly to repeat the points here.
Can McCain be convinced to abandon this position? Well just to get my vote he probably can't but I think its time for a little grass roots action in the states where McCain has to have victory to become president. There must be enough rational folks out there to help convince the senator to abandon his foolhardy stance.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
The Problem with Mathematics Education
There are numerous essays and newspaper blurbs lamenting the poor state of mathematical education in the US. Here is a typical example: Presidential panel bemoans state of math education.
What I see as the problem is that advanced mathematics is introduced in language that is unfit to inspire any but the few that were genetically destined to be mathematicians (or physicists).
Ask a recent college grad what an Eigen value or Eigen vector is. I give you 100:1 odds you'll get a blank stare. Okay now ask them to read this explanation from a popular Math web site. I bet their face will be even blanker. Now ask them to read this wonderful little explanation. Chances are the lights came on.
This is not to say that the later explanation will allow a person to do the math. But this is certainly where Math education, even at the highest levels, should begin. Illustrate why the problem is important, give a sensory picture to go along with the abstractions. Some might believe that this is how most Mathematicians teach but that is simply not the case. Mathematics is a very macho profession and many mathematicians believe its beneath them to offer intuition prior to rigor. The sad truth is many of them could not come up with compelling intuitive explanations even if they wanted to. It was not the way they were taught either.
What I see as the problem is that advanced mathematics is introduced in language that is unfit to inspire any but the few that were genetically destined to be mathematicians (or physicists).
Ask a recent college grad what an Eigen value or Eigen vector is. I give you 100:1 odds you'll get a blank stare. Okay now ask them to read this explanation from a popular Math web site. I bet their face will be even blanker. Now ask them to read this wonderful little explanation. Chances are the lights came on.
This is not to say that the later explanation will allow a person to do the math. But this is certainly where Math education, even at the highest levels, should begin. Illustrate why the problem is important, give a sensory picture to go along with the abstractions. Some might believe that this is how most Mathematicians teach but that is simply not the case. Mathematics is a very macho profession and many mathematicians believe its beneath them to offer intuition prior to rigor. The sad truth is many of them could not come up with compelling intuitive explanations even if they wanted to. It was not the way they were taught either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
