After reading Richard Feynman's book a year or two ago, I learned about Cargo Cults, an incredibly interesting topic. A lot of people use the following example in relation to modern religion, but I tend to stay away from bashing religion.
It started off in WWII, when the US is island-hopping to Japan (The Japanese are planting soldiers on the hundreds of small islands to slow the US advance). On some islands that the Japanese haven't occupied, there are tribes of people, who are foreign to modern advances in technology and language. These people see the magic and gigantic ships carrying supplies to the islands, creating outposts and air strips, and the people guarding them. The idea of post hoc ergo propter hoc is foreign to them, so they believe that the food and magic supplies come from the massive religious structures and the way the people pray with rifles. Not helping, a person identified as John Frum tells them that if they pray to him, he will give them "Radios, TVs, trucks, boats, watches, iceboxes, medicine, Coca-Cola and many other wonderful things."
To this day, the denizens of the island have built recreations of the American structures entirely out of wood, including a radio, where the elder/shaman converses with John Frum in a mysterious language.
The cargo cult phenomonon isn't new. Many of the primitive cultures that have been touched by more modern ones have been affected similarly. Another popular case is one in the early 1900s russia, where an explorer found a tribe. After some time, they settled a new island, gathering funds to purchase Lyndon Johnson from America, believing that he would bring them supplies.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
NASA's New Lifeform
Recently, NASA uncovered a new form of life that has the alien trait of using Arsenic instead of phosphorus. If true, this would show an incredible breakthrough in understanding what could happen on earth. In a similar venue, we know that different forms of life evolved independently throughout the history of earth, giving rise to different species. There is a difference however; so far, all the life we know evolved using the same basic chemicals- Oxygen, Carbon, Phosphorus, Nitrogen, Sulfur, and Hydrogen. The enormity of this is kind of easy to see once you look at it closely.
On the other hand, the scientific review process is kicking in, and at least one person has sent in a letter about flaws in the design. The basic design is that they replaced the two elements in it, until they could have the organism immersed in water, as arsenic dissolves in water.
There are many criticisms of the research, but most is entirely jargon. The major theme of them seems to be an issue of contamination.
On the other hand, the scientific review process is kicking in, and at least one person has sent in a letter about flaws in the design. The basic design is that they replaced the two elements in it, until they could have the organism immersed in water, as arsenic dissolves in water.
There are many criticisms of the research, but most is entirely jargon. The major theme of them seems to be an issue of contamination.
Wikileaks
Recently, in the news, there's been a large commotion over wikileaks. To sum it up, wikileaks is an organization that publishes leaked documents (Almost entirely about the US).
Here's a sample of the titles of news articles relating to the good side wikileaks-
Pope refused to cooperate in sex abuse investigation
Wikileaks Reveals U.S. Tax Dollars Fund Child Sex Slavery in Afghanistan
The above are things I can pretty much agree with leaking. However, there was a recent leak with the content being buildings that were classed as vital to US internal communications. Something tells me that people who want only government transparency wouldn't be interested in getting this out. The something also tells me that the only people who would be interested in this information is either an enemy nation or a terrorist.
Other than that specific article, there have been numerous examples of leaks I consider incredibly stupid, unnecessary, or both. Information that endangers lives types of information. To date, wikileaks has turned from "Hey, let's leak documents that the US is hiding to make themselves look good" to "Hey, let's leak documents that the US is hiding."
The main reason this is a large issue to me is because the arguments I hear for and against wikileaks' existence. Examples include
Pro-
1. The government is run by the people, so everyone should know
2. If the government doing nothing wrong, then it shouldn't have problems with transparency
3. There's no reason for having secrets from the people
The rest are the sayings of paranoid tin-foil-hat wearers, without much reason behind them.
The arguments I have against these are pretty short
1. You run the government by voting those people you want into power. If the majority of people want something, they vote for the people who (they think) can make it happen
2. Change "the government" to "you". As they say, turn the tables.
3. Hiding the locations of refugees or the plans for nuclear bombs or the locations of missile silos seems like good reasons for me.
On the other hand, I hear equally stupid/terrible remarks in opposition to wikileaks.
Here's a sample of the titles of news articles relating to the good side wikileaks-
Pope refused to cooperate in sex abuse investigation
Wikileaks Reveals U.S. Tax Dollars Fund Child Sex Slavery in Afghanistan
The above are things I can pretty much agree with leaking. However, there was a recent leak with the content being buildings that were classed as vital to US internal communications. Something tells me that people who want only government transparency wouldn't be interested in getting this out. The something also tells me that the only people who would be interested in this information is either an enemy nation or a terrorist.
Other than that specific article, there have been numerous examples of leaks I consider incredibly stupid, unnecessary, or both. Information that endangers lives types of information. To date, wikileaks has turned from "Hey, let's leak documents that the US is hiding to make themselves look good" to "Hey, let's leak documents that the US is hiding."
The main reason this is a large issue to me is because the arguments I hear for and against wikileaks' existence. Examples include
Pro-
1. The government is run by the people, so everyone should know
2. If the government doing nothing wrong, then it shouldn't have problems with transparency
3. There's no reason for having secrets from the people
The rest are the sayings of paranoid tin-foil-hat wearers, without much reason behind them.
The arguments I have against these are pretty short
1. You run the government by voting those people you want into power. If the majority of people want something, they vote for the people who (they think) can make it happen
2. Change "the government" to "you". As they say, turn the tables.
3. Hiding the locations of refugees or the plans for nuclear bombs or the locations of missile silos seems like good reasons for me.
On the other hand, I hear equally stupid/terrible remarks in opposition to wikileaks.
The Process of Science
This is something I'm writing about because I keep seeing people ignoring the scientific process in the news, intentionally or not.
Step 1: Actual science
This is where everything is usually fine and well. See what effect gravity has on a watermelon at 10 meters, whatever hypothesis you feel like testing. Then you repeat the tests, and make sure everything is actually correct
Step 2: Have others arrive at the same result
This is where a lot of people mess up. The idea is that your study has little to no credibility if the results aren't reproducable. The other scientists that want to do what you did also want to make sure you're right before you push your study to the general public.
Step 3: Publish
This is where you put your results into a journal and have them commend you for you excellent study on the splash patterns of various size watermelons dropped from various heights. Then you let the people use your findings to do other studies, or even have your study used as a basis for a revolutionary watermelon delivery system.
In step 3, there starts the news cycle on particuarly interesting articles. Or at least, those that can be intentionally misunderstood. This only applies to less-than-credible news sources *cough* Fox *cough* that aren't much based in scientific thinking.
Step 3.1: See the article, misunderstand it
"Woah, this study says that watermelons have a 73% chance of injuring those it falls on to!"
Step 3.2: Report on the article
"Scientists determine watermelons have a 73% chance of killing you! Cont. on page A3"
Step 3.3: Inspire grassroots movements
"Let's protest the White House! Ban Watermelons! They kill adults and give children brain damage!"
Ideally, the next step is that people tell those who believe this stuff why they're wrong, and then they realize they're wrong and then use the rest of the day to work in a soup kitchen or help build an animal shelter.
Ideally.
Step 1: Actual science
This is where everything is usually fine and well. See what effect gravity has on a watermelon at 10 meters, whatever hypothesis you feel like testing. Then you repeat the tests, and make sure everything is actually correct
Step 2: Have others arrive at the same result
This is where a lot of people mess up. The idea is that your study has little to no credibility if the results aren't reproducable. The other scientists that want to do what you did also want to make sure you're right before you push your study to the general public.
Step 3: Publish
This is where you put your results into a journal and have them commend you for you excellent study on the splash patterns of various size watermelons dropped from various heights. Then you let the people use your findings to do other studies, or even have your study used as a basis for a revolutionary watermelon delivery system.
In step 3, there starts the news cycle on particuarly interesting articles. Or at least, those that can be intentionally misunderstood. This only applies to less-than-credible news sources *cough* Fox *cough* that aren't much based in scientific thinking.
Step 3.1: See the article, misunderstand it
"Woah, this study says that watermelons have a 73% chance of injuring those it falls on to!"
Step 3.2: Report on the article
"Scientists determine watermelons have a 73% chance of killing you! Cont. on page A3"
Step 3.3: Inspire grassroots movements
"Let's protest the White House! Ban Watermelons! They kill adults and give children brain damage!"
Ideally, the next step is that people tell those who believe this stuff why they're wrong, and then they realize they're wrong and then use the rest of the day to work in a soup kitchen or help build an animal shelter.
Ideally.
IQ testing
We all know what IQ is. It's a supposed measure of how smart we are, and a lot of people are fine with it. We tend to like how we can give a specific number to how smart we are. It may be a semi-useful tool today, but it was inspired by and used for a negative purpose during its infancy.
It all started with the eugenics movement back in the early 1900s. Eugenics in this context is basically only letting the very best have the ability to reproduce, hypothetically moving towards a better population. Those in the eugenics movement needed a good way to quantitatively identify mental retardation, which started the path for IQ testing.
Now we're into the early days of IQ testing. The test wasn't as we know it today. In those days, it consisted of some tasks memory testing. The tests were designed to give your mental age, a term that's becomming increasingly common again. Your IQ was your mental age/physical age*100, so if you're 20 and your mental age is 20, you would have an IQ of 100.
Nowadays, we have a different method of determining it. Now we have a written test, which determines our knowledge in different areas, then we are scored based on how correct we are. Then, all the scores are put into a program, and this does the math such that the average of all the scores is exactly 100, and the standard deviation is 15. The major problem with this is that by definition, exactly half of the people who take the test are below average intelligence. This may not seem much of a problem, but when coupled with the fact that the scores are constantly in flux, they never remain constant. If you had an IQ of 60 in 1970, you could have the exact same test scores give you an IQ of 150, depending on who takes the test.
The way I look at IQ tests is that they can be useful in estimating what is usually painfully obvious. After researching the test, I'm in the camp that believes IQ testing belongs with the "What kind of toaster are you?" personality tests.
It all started with the eugenics movement back in the early 1900s. Eugenics in this context is basically only letting the very best have the ability to reproduce, hypothetically moving towards a better population. Those in the eugenics movement needed a good way to quantitatively identify mental retardation, which started the path for IQ testing.
Now we're into the early days of IQ testing. The test wasn't as we know it today. In those days, it consisted of some tasks memory testing. The tests were designed to give your mental age, a term that's becomming increasingly common again. Your IQ was your mental age/physical age*100, so if you're 20 and your mental age is 20, you would have an IQ of 100.
Nowadays, we have a different method of determining it. Now we have a written test, which determines our knowledge in different areas, then we are scored based on how correct we are. Then, all the scores are put into a program, and this does the math such that the average of all the scores is exactly 100, and the standard deviation is 15. The major problem with this is that by definition, exactly half of the people who take the test are below average intelligence. This may not seem much of a problem, but when coupled with the fact that the scores are constantly in flux, they never remain constant. If you had an IQ of 60 in 1970, you could have the exact same test scores give you an IQ of 150, depending on who takes the test.
The way I look at IQ tests is that they can be useful in estimating what is usually painfully obvious. After researching the test, I'm in the camp that believes IQ testing belongs with the "What kind of toaster are you?" personality tests.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)