Nonsense on Stilts

I attended a talk lats night by Massimo Pigliucci related to the debate of when science should and should not be trusted. It was in support of his forthcoming book, Nonsense on Stilts: How to tell the Difference between Science and Bunk.

This was an excellent and well balanced talk that showed how scientists and post-modernists can both get things wrong and what we can do to maintain our BS detectors. I highly recommend listening to it. His web site is called Rationally Speaking.

Staying Young

There is a large laundry list of characteristics that separate youth from old age but there is one characteristic in particular which has been poking around in my mind today. I think this characteristic is the most important because it applies to other entities, like companies, as much as it applies to people. And it is a characteristic that both companies and people can change about themselves.

I think one of the quintessential traits of youth is a tendency to focus on what can go right while old age focuses on what can go wrong. Sure, there are differences between individuals, some being optimists and some being pessimists. But, there is definitely a trend to become increasingly pessimistic with age. This is, of course, not unexpected. As we get older we have potentially much more to lose.

This same tendency applies to young versus old companies. Google versus Microsoft is an obvious comparison (as was Microsoft vs. IBM back in the day). Two young Turks with a few servers and an above average search engine have nothing to lose. Naturally they will eat drink and sleep what they can do to turn average into insanely great. In contrast, a ~20 yr old company that dominates the market for PC operating systems and application software has plenty to lose. A great deal of company resources must go into thoughts of protecting that turf.

Completely ignoring what can go wrong is called irresponsibility. No middle aged person or successful company can afford to focus 100% on the rosy scenarios. The question for both individuals and company leaders is "what do you want the dominant attitude to be"? The answer defines your age, your culture, your prospects for growth and ultimately the number of years you have left in this world (baring unforeseen tragedy).

I am presently working on a project where we are about to embark on some uncharted territory and it is pretty exciting. I am contractually prohibited on elaborating but I will say the following. The most frustrating aspect of working on this project is the overall dominating focus on what can go wrong. It is truly unbearable sometimes and even borders on the absurd . It should not surprise anyone that the work I am doing is for an older company.

So here is my 2 cents. You only have some many hours in a day and so many brain cells to occupy with thoughts. Be vigilant and make sure that at least 51% of your limited resources are focusing on success and improvement. You'll feel a lot younger.

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!

The Fundemental Principle of Science

What is the fundamental principle that distinguishes science from non-science? I have been thinking about this a lot lately. I am somewhat familiar with the vast literature from the philosophy of science which speaks to this question (e.g. Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend). Popper is best known for the "falsifiability criteria". Kuhn is famous for his "paradigm shifts". And Feyerabend insisted that science not follow any method whatsoever, lest it somehow restrict itself.

I buy into pieces of each of these philosophies but yet I feel compelled to think about a principle that would resonate with almost every practicing scientist. To me, the principle can't be as simple as "the scientific method" or the use of mathematics. Much scientific progress happens outside the confines of rigorous method and rigorous math. Scientists can't escape from the fact that they are ultimately human and as humans they succumb to emotion, prejudice, and turf wars. They use rhetoric as much as they employ differential equations and statistics.

Ultimately, despite temporary deviations from method and rigor, all true scientists buy into the principle of Occam's razor. No matter what mode a scientist is presently working, he or she is guided by a quest for simplicity. This does not mean the path to simplicity is always a straight line.

Most computer programmers, like myself, are also on a quest for simplicity. We call code "elegant" when it achieves great feats while remaining simple. However, most programmers don't regularly write elegant code; we just know that when we do it is the most satisfying experience imaginable. Likewise, most science does not start out elegant but it is constantly seeking this state. Science is looking for the simplest rules, laws and equations that explain the most observations, dispel the most mysteries and lead to the most new discoveries.

Occam's razor is the essence of Science.

This, more than anything else, is why the vast majority of practicing scientists reject pseudoscience (like Intelligent Design, Astrology, Numerology and the like). For example:

Intelligent Design: how could an explanation that requires the preexistence of a designer before the designed be the simplest explanation? Isn't simpler to assume the non-circular premise that intelligent life does not depend on the preexistence of someone more intelligent than the life whose origin requires explanation?

Astrology: how can the position of planets whose, gravity is too weak to even move a feather on earth, be the simplest explanation for any given human's life story.

Numerology: How could the letters of ones name, which are arbitrary artifacts of the evolution of language, have any bearing on a persons fate? Isn't it simpler to imagine ones fate is tied to a combination of heredity, environment and chance?

Of course, a believer in god would counter that his system is the simplest. You presume god and everything else follows. How can you get any simpler!?! It is of course at this point where any hope for intelligent discourse ends and the scientist and the faithful must part ways.