Can’t… Stop… Learning…

This is a brief list of the sites that I like to visit. I attempt to avoid always wasting my time and instead of watching TV I will watch presentations or classes. Most of the time they are just, if not more, entertaining. This way I am entertained and educated. I particularly like TED, MIT OCW, and PBS. The Periodic Table Videos are fun too.

Presentations/Talks/TV programs/Podcast

TED

fora.tv

Fluid Mechanics Films

PBS NOVA

PBS Science NOW

PBS Frontline

PBS Nerd.tv

Astronomycast

Institute for Advanced Study

periodicvideos.com

reason.tv

Expert Village

Open Courseware

ocwconsortium.org

MIT OCW

UTAH ocw

Yale OCW

academicearth.org

Blogs/Articles

nature.com

bad astronomy

freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com

instructables.com

Digital Teaching - Setup Details

This post is meant to give details about the possible digital teaching setups. Specific hardware and software will be listed. Cost will be considered as well.

In the previous post a digital teaching nationwide system was discussed. This system uses simple modern technology to transform any classroom to a digital one. There is no need for fancy interactive classrooms. They are expensive. These suggestions use between $300 and $3000 dollars (depending on how fancy you get and what you already have available) to create a digital learning environment.

The Tech:

Tablet PC's such a the HP Pavilion tx2110us (which I use) are cheap (~$1100) and provide nearly everything you need for digital teaching. The laptop can be connected to a projector and written on. Notes can be saved and distributed electronically.

Bluetooth Microphones allow for voice recording. On board and stand up microphones work as well, but they don't give as much freedom for mobility. ($30-$70)

Projectors will be used to project the tablet PC interface onto a screen for the class to see. This isn't always necessary since you could just prepare the lectures on your Tablet PC and have the students watch the lectures on their own time. ($600-$1000+)

Recording Software can be used to save lectures which can be store online for student use. Camtasia is a great program which will record your screen activity and voice. It also has the ability to feed in webcams. Videos are easily edited and posted online in a multitude of formats. There are many programs available for simple voice recording.

Wacom Tablets are available if you already have a PC or laptop and want to add the ability to write on the screen. There are many cheap tablets which are perfect for writing quality. Many of the expensive tablets are made for artistic purposes. There are even wireless bluetooth tablets available. This would instantly give you the capability to transform a cheap PC to a remote in class writing platform. The disadvantage to these tablets is that you can't see what you are writig on them, but with practice that is not an issue. It may in fact be better that you need to look at the board like the students instead of always looking down. ($60-$250)

Cameras can be used to record a lecture. However, they do not work well to record the actual note taking process. High quality cameras are needed (which are expensive) so that you can read what is being written in the final video. Also, a camera may need to be operated (pan and zoom) by a person which is either inconvenient or expensive. Cameras do allow you to record live demonstrations which do not need as high of a resolution. For this a cheap digital camera could be used. ($100-$500+)

All of this equipment can be used in a variety of ways to make digital classrooms. A few options are given here.
This first setup uses most everything we talked about. A laptop feeds in the signal from the wireless Wacom tablet and Microphone. This Data is sent to the projector. All of this can be recorded on the PC as well as an additional digital camera. (1100+700+250+50+300=$2400)

This setup can be modified. The camera is an extra. A cheap stationary PC could be used instead of the Laptop as shown below. (700+250+50+500=$1500)


A bare bones system could consist of just a tablet PC and a projector. (1100+700=$1800)

If you want to get really cheap you could use a cheap PC and a wacom tablet hooked to a projector. $500 (PC estimate) + 100 (Wacom) + 700 (Projector) = $1300.

And if you want to get really cheap don't use a projector. Just prerecord lectures and have students watch them online later. (500+100 = $600)

Considering that most schools already have computers and projectors in classrooms many of these costs may be redundant. It may be as simple as buying a Wacom tablet and a microphone to get started. This would only cost $150 to $300.

And there you have it. Cheap simple ways to drastically change the way we educate.

Digital Teaching

[I wrote this up a while ago, since then I have made additional observations which I've added in brackets.]

I've been pondering the pros and cons of teaching with a tablet PC. The basic idea is to prepare some kind of material ahead of class (probably slides) and then, using the tablet PC, you can project the image and write on the slides as you give the lecture.

Pro: You no longer waste as much time in class writing out equations and notes.
Con: This may cause a lecture to go too quickly through material, since the time spent writing allowed a student to think.

Con: It is difficult to pace yourself correctly with pre-made notes. The process of writing down notes on a board slows you down to an appropriate pace for comprehension. Josh postulated that it takes twice as long to comprehend as it takes you to write, including the fact that the student is writing down what you are doing and trying to understand.
Pro: Digital media removes the need for the student to write down complete notes, thus permitting them to focus on comprehension.

[Additional thoughts: after doing some lectures like this it seems as if it is not a good idea to have all the lectures premade. There is something natural about writing the equations by hand. The speed at which you write seems to be close to the speed at which people can read and comprehend. The manual writing gives you the appropriate speed naturally. Some equations could be prewritten. General equations, equations that have already been derived, etc, so there are opportunities for premade material.]

Pro: Because the material is presented digitally the lecture itself can be saved and distributed to the class. Notes can be given before a lecture and screen capturing can easily create a video of the lecture. This alleviates the student from having to take so many notes in class.
Con: The note taking process may be beneficial since it acts as a memorization device.

Con: Having all prepared notes conveys to the student that you are unable to lecture about the material without prepared slides. Possibly undermining your respect.

[Applying a mix of premade and handwritten notes should take care of this.]

Pro: Prepared notes will reduce errors, possibly allow for a more dense class, allow student to pay attention to the ideas instead of their notes and allow for easy recording of lectures.
[Just be careful so that it is not too dense.]

Con: Everyone falls asleep during power point slides.
[More reason to continue with hand written notes (remember that they can still be digital via a tablet. Also, some though can be put into the color scheme. Using a projector that does not require the class room lights to be off may help as well. ]

Pro: The class can clearly see what you are writing on the board. i.e. you are never standing in the way.

Modern Digital Education - Changing the Way We Educate

In a paragraph this is the idea. Lectures are recorded in a digital manner (more on these details later and how it is really cheap and easy.) Students can view these lectures via an online medium. As time progresses the lectures are improved. Questions can be added, mistakes fixed, material added. Student could be asked to add material as well. Explain problems, solution manuals, etc. Essentially the system would iterate towards a 'perfect lecture.' This system has numerous benefits (such as flexibility, resources, mobility) which we will explore. Further infrastructure can be added to make this into a national system, thus making the information available for everyone.


As I see it, if a system like this was setup, you can eliminate the need for traditional lectures. Every few years the lectures could be updated, via redoing the entire series, or adding notes and re-editing. This does not remove the role of the professor (or teacher) it instead shifts it to a more of a tutor type of position. Professors could hold question answering sessions where students could ask questions (which would be added to the digital media) This both enhances the education and reduces workloads allowing teachers and professors to focus on the students.

Once a system like this is put in place we can continue to make even greater changes. I will use high school as an example. It is clear that in many schools there is a large variance in the levels of the students. Some students progress significantly faster than others, some need more help. This creates a big problem when many students are placed together. The fast ones get bored and are held back and the slow ones don’t get the attention they need. By implementing the previous digital system students essentially become their own entities within an education system. Essentially there would still be ‘math’ teachers and such, but no classes. Students would simply have a set of requirements, they would follow the thorough media sets, and possibly on a weekly basis would have a question session for that course with the professor (again all questions are added to the media set. Eventually one would assume that most questions could be addressed via the digital data.)

Additionally, digital lectures do not need to be only of your teacher, they could be a collection of lectures from across the country, collected into a database. Then students would be able to use the lectures they found most informative and also be able to rank and criticize the videos. This fixes a few things – first, the good teachers are clearly recognized and they are recognized for their teaching skills, because, with a flexible learning system the teacher who teaches best helps the student accomplish his requirements sooner. Secondly, it significantly levels the playing field. Schools with less funding or poorer teachers now immediately have access to the best in the country.

One may say that this places too much responsibility into the hand of the student. In my opinion systems which clearly state the requirements and clearly give you a way to challenge yourself and succeed, or fail miserably, will, in the end, work better. No longer will students be able to be content scraping by. Similarly it gives the really talented students as much room to grow as possible. This will give a clear message to the slackers that they need to work harder. We want to prepare students for life, life is tough and you need to know how to work and push yourself. This system of education gives you that skill. Also, by reducing the load of the teachers and allowing the faster students to work on their own it gives the teachers the opportunity to focus on the trouble students. The individual attention may in many cases change their status. Thus, this system helps both the fast and slow students.

Details of the System
A view of the system fully implemented after starting with our current system.

We start things off with teachers recording their lectures. This can be done in several ways. The use of a camera can work, but it has significant downfalls. Without a very high resolution camera the video cannot adequately capture the notes being written. This in turn requires either someone manning the camera zooming in to the text or the high resolution cameras. Both of which are very expensive. An alternative method is to use a tablet PC. The lecturer writes on the PC and the text is displayed to the class (if there is a class) via a projector. The video is captured from the screen and the audio is recorded alongside the video. All this can be done easily and cheaply (~$1000 for tablet PC, $300 for software for a single purchase in a onetime purchase) and it allows the video to have high quality recording of the text being written. The lecturer would not be seen, which in the end is typically unnecessary.For lectures which require visuals (maybe a chemistry course) a lower quality camera could be used alongside the PC recording.

The tablet PC has other advantages. Equations and notes can be premade, allowing the speaker to spend more time explaining and less time writing. Additionally, other digital media can be used easily within the lecture.For schools who may already have computers and projectors the simple addition of a Wacom tablet ($100-$300 for simple versions, even wireless bluetooth versions) and a bluetooth mic ($50) can change a traditional setup to a wireless digital recording system.


This is the first iteration. As a class progresses additional material can be generated. Questions are bound to be asked. These questions can be cataloged and added to the lectures. All of this data would be added to a searchable online database. It could be organized as the users see fit. Preferably, the system should be capable of feedback. Additional data can be added to the system as time progresses. Students can add solution to problems. Practice tests and quizzes can be included as well. Lectures could be updated with additional material and taking into account the questions and comments previously noted.

Initially each school would have its own database. Having such a database gives flexibility to teachers. Now, with lecturers prerecorded, students can watch them individually, at their own pace. Smarter students will have the opportunity to progress faster. This system has immediate realizable benefits even before things get more complicated.


As the catalog of courses matures schools would become interconnected (maybe just all the public schools.) Now students are able to receive lectures from any number of teachers. Lectures could be rated, either based on student reviews, other teachers’ reviews, or ideally by correlating lectures with the students test scores. This could be done by keeping track of which students are watching which lectures. If tests were given in a standardized way the test scores could then be related to the lectures being watched. This allows the best lectures to come forth. Finally a way to quantify teacher performance. All students will then have access to the best lectures and the best teachers will be recognized for it. Most importantly small or poor schools will have access to the best teachers.

Testing would need to be done in a standardized way. This is the only pitfall, but I think it can be overcome. A few things make this different. Because the system is challenging students, harder tests can be written. Also, because everyone can see all the lectures and rate them it would be more difficult to 'teach to the test' since everyone would see it. Additionally those lectures are likely boring and students are going to be interested in interactive entertaining learning. Teaching to the test generally doesn't fall into the exciting category of classes.

Alongside the lectures, open source books could be developed for the public school system. There is no need for them to pay for books. Open source books like Motion Mountain (a physics book) are high quality. Besides the initial investment in technology (which many schools already have,) a digital system reduces schools costs.

Something can be said about giving the students too much responsibility, but in my mind that is the power of this method. Reduced teacher load permits them to focus on trouble students. Many students, given the chance to learn and challenge themselves will. Also, the brightest students will be able to shine at their full potential. There is no longer any mechanism which will hinder them. Students may also be able to finish their class work faster moving them on to college or the work place quicker. This will reduce the number of students in a given high school further reducing teacher load and other costs.

This kind of system does not replace in class or hands on work. Laboratories would still be needed. Gym class, shop class, art class, etc would all still exist as they are (although additional instructional material may still be available.)

Private schools and universities are probably less likely to implement a nationwide system since they compete with each other. State schools could have inter-state systems. Individual universities could at a minimum have their own systems. Many large schools still have multiple teachers teaching the same class so a rating system may still work.

A lot of these ideas may not work for younger students. Personal instruction is still important. As time goes on this could be experimented with.

I have additional material on digital teaching systems and problems. I will add these posts soon

In conclusion. A system like the one presented uses cheap digital systems to alter the current education model. It allows for an iterative method for creating education resources. It allows for student input and rating. Teachers can also then be rewarded for true quality teaching. Poor schools easily (with only an internet connection and computers) have access to the best teachers and materials the nation can offer.

Santa and Religion

Why do Christian parents encourage their children to believe in Santa? They let them think that there is someone special who watches your behavior and gives you gifts, then when they get old enough we tell them that Santa is not real. Yet, the Christians still expect their children to believe in God.

It reminds me of a story Richard Feynman tells in ‘What do you care what other people think?” When he was a boy during a sermon his rabbi tells him a long story about another boy. Afterwards Feynman asks him a question about the story, then the rabbi tells him that the boy wasn’t real and that the story was just made up to illustrate a point. After that Feynman was upset at his rabbi and asked him how he can expect him to believe any of the stories that his religion teaches. After that he stopped going to church.

Additionally, by telling the children that their gifts came from a magical man the entire lesson of Christmas and gift giving is lost. Christmas isn’t just about being a good person; it’s about showing your love and giving of yourself. The kids don’t realize that you are giving them the gifts because you love them. It creates a sense of false entitlement, in that they deserve things just because they are good.

Maybe there is some way to alter the depiction of Santa to rectify some of these problems while maintaining the legend.

Tools and Education

I wonder what the net effect of having a spell checker will be on the quality of education, particularly with younger generations. I personally have found that I often do not even find the mistakes, I just click through them and make the corrections. I will spell the same word wrong over and over. Spell checker could seriously set back someone who does not know how to spell well or is learning to spell by making it too easy to avoid learning. I wonder what high school and middle school teachers think about this? Are their students typed assignments without error, but their written notes atrocious. I wouldn't be surprised if it is degrading their education.

Once I noticed that I was avoiding spelling and becoming complacent I started to make a strong effort to avoid using spell checker in the traditional fashion. I think if used properly it can be a learning tool. Typically now I use it to check the words and then if I really can't spell it I see what the computer thinks. Then if I am not feeling too lazy I manual type out the correct word. This helps to cement the correct spelling into my memory, reducing the chance that I will make the same error again. At a minimum I try to look at the correct spelling and notice where I was making the mistake. I think since I started doing this my spelling ability has increased. (grammar is an entirely separate issue.)

Like most technologies, they can either make you lazy, or if used properly, they can aid your learning. It is up to the user to decide.

I had a professor in my undergrad who would curse calculators up and down. Preferring to instead do manual calculations. He thought that calculators were degrading the younger generations minds. They can, but only if you let it happen. Again, you can treat it as a positive tool and let it help you, or you can depend on it and have it weaken you.

I had thought of this topic along time ago, but it was reawakened by a question during my PhD proposal presentation. My math professor, Dr. Kupershmidt, asked me if I had done all the algebra by hand or with computer software. I told him I had done it by hand, expecting a positive response, instead he asked, "Why?" I suppose the true skill is in knowing when to use the tools and when to avoid them. In my case I think I did the right thing because it would have been cumbersome to make the computer go in the right direction with the math. However, we should not be afraid to use our tools out of self righteousness or any other reason as well. It is a careful balance.

In the end, we are humans, the reason we are here is because we make tools. We just need to make sure they do not become our demise as well.

Life and Intelligence

I enjoy thinking about life and whether we have companions in the universe. The fascinating question - Are we alone? And beyond that, the implications, religious and otherwise. The fundamental equation for estimating the existence of other intelligent civilizations is the Drake Equation.

Essentially we start with the rate of production of stars in our galaxy, then add factors such as the likelyhood of a star having planets, then having ones which can support life, then which of those will develop life, and then those which will develop intelligent life, then those which will create technology which will make themselves visible to us, and finally then length of time which these civilizations last.

Naturally, there are a lot of factors in there which we have no idea about, but you can put in intelligent guesses and see what kind of numbers we are working with. In 1961 Drake Estimated N = 10 × 0.5 × 2 × 1 × 0.01 × 0.01 × 10,000 = 10. More current analysis gives an estimate of 2.31. Meaning that at our best guess, on average there will be around 2 intelligent civilizations in our galaxy. Interesting.

Now, where am I getting with this. Nowhere really. It is just a neat idea. I always like to think of all the crazy things which could have influenced our development of intelligence and technology. For instance, what if the Earth rotated faster? This would have made throwing objects very difficult and that may have severely restricted the development and use of tools. Motions on the earth would be very non-linear, so dynamics and mathematics may have evolved along a different route. Simple linearization in physics and engineering would not have been valid, making the math much more difficult. Or this could have all gone the opposite way. Maybe the challenge of throwing objects in a rotating reference frame would have amplified our intelligence and given us a more non-linear way of thinking. Our math could be entirely different and maybe non-linear equations would be no big deal.

Another thought. What if there was no Moon. Avoiding the geographical and climate changes, the moon was our clear evidence of time. The phases of the moon gave way to calendars, the passing of time evolves to counting and then math. The moon inspires us to look in the night sky. Everything else is a point of light. The moon is dynamic. Eclipses, harvest moons, the phases give clear signs to the orientation of the solar system. Maybe it wouldn't have made a difference, maybe it would have just slowed our progress. Nonetheless, it is interesting to think about.

I am sure you could think of a millions variables like this. All these would need to be accounted for in Drakes Equation to get a really accurate estimate. In the end, it seems like there is a decent chance that we are alone, or only one of a few civilizations in this galaxy. That kind of makes me feel lonely.

Immigration

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."
-Excerpt from inscription which accompanies the statue of liberty.

I just wanted to put up a quick post saying that I do not understand the current national sentiment on immigration. In my mind we should allow anyone to quickly and easily become a citizen. Simply check someones background and then let them in. This is the foundation of our country and the reason we have been successful. As long as people want to come here, then we know we are doing something right.

Additionally, we should encourage higher educated individuals to come to America. The more educated you are, the easier it should be to become a citizen. We want talented individuals and their creativity.

Putting up walls and limiting immigration is silly. We have plenty of room and resources here. Allowing individuals to come legally will create more revenue and taxes. Creating barriers only will prevent the educated and responsible individuals from entering the country, those are the people we want.

We should not be afraid of cultural influences. This is what we are. We are all German, Irish, Italian, English, Asian, African... everything. Our culture is simply a reflection of all the worlds cultures. Why not involve another?

If we close our borders and claim that this land is only for 'Americans' then we have completely forgotten who we are and how we got here. It will be the end of the beautiful idea of America and we'll become just another country.

Ben Franklin's 8 Reasons to Prefer Old Women to Young Ones

Ben Franklin wrote this essay in 1745, he would have been 40 years old. He begins with:

"It is the most natural state of man, and therefore the state in which you are most likely to find solid happiness.... It is the man and woman united that make the complete human being. Separate, she wants his force of body and strength of reason; he, her softness, sensibility and acute discernment. Together the are more likely to succeed in the world. A single man has not nearly the value he would have in that state of union. He is an incomplete animal. He resembles the odd half of a pair of scissors. If you get a prudent, healthy wife, your industry in your profession, with her good economy, will be a fortune sufficient."

However, recognizing the youthful male attitude and the unlikely event of accepting a rational argument he suggested what sort of mistress one should have.

"In all your amours, you should prefer old women to young ones."

For which he presented 8 reasons.

"1. Because as they have more knowledge of the world and their minds are better stored with observations, their conversation is more improving and more lastingly agreeable.

2. Because when women cease to be handsome, they study to be good. To maintain their influence over men, they supply the diminution of beauty by an arguement of utility. They learn to do 1000 services small and great, and are the most tender and useful of all friends when you are sick. Thus they continue amiable. And hence there is hardly such a thing as an old woman who is not a good woman.

3. Because there is no hazard of children, which irregularly produced may be attended with much inconvenience.

4. Because the more experience, they are more prudent and discreet in conducting an intrigue to prevent suspicion. The commerce with them is therefore safer with regard to your reputation. And with regard to theirs, if the affair should happen to be known, considerate people might be inclined to excuse an old woman who would kindly take care of a young man, form his manners by her good counsels, and prevent his ruining his health and fortune among mercenary prostitutes.

5. Because every animal that walks upright, the deficiency of the fluids that fills the muscles appears first in the highest part. The face grows lank and wrinkled, then the neck, the the breast and arms, the lower parts continuing to the last as plump as ever. So that covering all above with a basket, and regarding only what is below the girdle, it is impossible of two woman to know an old one from a young one. And as in the dark all cats are grey, the pleasure of corporal enjoyment with an old woman is at least equal, and frequently superior, every knack being by practice capable of improvement.

6. Because the sin is less. The debauching a virgin may be her ruin, and make her for life unhappy.

7. Because compunction is less. The having made a young girl miserable may give you frequent bitter reflections, none of which can attend making an old woman happy.

8thly and lastly. They are so grateful."

As a final note, Ben Franklin is generally referred to as being a 'ladies man' with the implications that he slept around. This essay certainly makes it seem so. He did seem to have a healthy libido and did have a child, with an woman unknown to history, before he was married, but all accounts seem to show that he was faithful throughout his marriage.

He did seem to maintain his interest in women, at one point maintaining flirtatious written contact with a younger women during his marriage and similarly with other women during his time in France. I don't think you can blame him for that.

Speak to Me Lover

I live my life completely unknowing of why I am here and what this is all about. We can come up with hypothesis about God and such, but all of it seems shaky to me. There is one thing that I cannot understand but I can count on, and that is in the ability of nature to completely floor me with its beauty. From a glorious sunset to a tiny detail in a complex flow. It is all amazing, every piece of it. Nature is beautiful, inspiring, surprising and unwavering, just like a perfect lover. That is the one thing that I know.

And what language does nature speak. Mathematics.

“Nature’s grand book, which stands continually open to our gaze, is written in the language of mathematics. Its characters are triangles, circles and other geometrical figures. Without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one is wandering around in a dark labyrinth.”

-Galileo Galilei, 1623

Higher States of Being

Considering my recent review of an unfortunate series of correspondences between a Mathematics teacher and an aspiring English teacher in her class, I'm compelled to discuss the underlying problems in the discussion. Let me begin by offering a sort of hypothesis regarding people and their vocations. I conject that there are fundamentally two types of people; each one best suited for one of two types of vocations. Simply put, there are vocations that sustain and vocations that advance. I use the word 'vocation' to imply more of a societal responsibility or calling rather than simply a job, but of course as the argument progresses transposing 'vocation' for 'job' will suffice.

The vast majority of jobs are those that sustain our way of life. They are vitally necessary in order to maintain societies accepted levels of existence. Jobs in civil service are an excellent example. Businesses (in general) operate by exploiting a societal demand for luxury or necessity; again sustaining. One might argue that business entrepreneurs advance humanity. In some cases they would be absolutely correct. However many entrepreneurs take advantage of a missing service in a community rather than advance that community beyond any other. As we develop as a whole these vocations also develop in number and skill. They are an essential part of society.

The vast minority of jobs are those that advance our way of life. These vocations are where we find the creators. Scientists are the obvious example of the 'creator.' They are responsible for every technological breakthrough in the history of man. I submit that technology is the foremost method of advancing humanity to higher states of pleasure. Those versed in philosophy can liken these higher states of pleasures to the concepts proposed by John Stuart Mill. For those not, please understand that 'pleasure,' in this context, refers to not only physical pleasure, but comfortable living, intellectual stimulation, enlightenment, and so on. I am confident that anything created, concocted, or envisioned by man can be traced back to a fundamental science as its enabler. I cannot go without acknowledging artistic creation. The pure skill in the brush or Rembrandt, or the vision of Picasso, or the torment of Blake, the genius of Shakespeare, or the inspiration of Milton cannot go unnoticed when segregating vocations. Without question, these individuals advanced humanity and were also creators.

I give special attention to the teacher. From one perspective teaching serves as a vocation for advancement. By enlightening young people, teachers are an integral part of advancement. On the other hand, the concept of teacher has shifted. We no longer learn by the Socratic Method. The emphasis is now to unsure that students run the gauntlet of classes in order to give them a superficial exposure to many things. Clearly, the purpose is to create well rounded individuals because well rounded individuals are a benefit to society. Unfortunately, this idealistic approach is polluted by the fact that uninspired students leave this arena to embark on careers that sustain. The terrifying truth is that some become teachers themselves. This leaves the teaching vocation in a state of perpetual stagnation and therefore, with the exception of a few teaching, is unable to be classified as an advancing vocation.

I come back to the original purpose of this discussion. The argument posed in the correspondences mentioned in the opening paragraph was that no more than rudimentary mathematical skills are needed for many vocations and therefore advanced mathematical topics should not be forced upon students should they choose against it. There is a fundamental flaw with this statement in that collective advancement cannot be bore on the backs of a few. Collective advancement is the responsibility of the collective, with both creative and logical thinking being its cornerstone. Consider a world in which there were only scientists and no artists. Invention would stagnate. Creativity for invention would be lost. The 'think outside of the box' mentality would be a fairytale. We would have the most scientifically minded collective imaginable but nothing to do with it. Honestly, I have a hard time imagining this extreme because almost by definition science is creative thinking, but bear with me. Consider the other extreme; no scientists and only artists. The world would be as beautiful as anyone could possibly imagine, but it would go no farther in its development. There would be no way to support itself and inevitably would fail. I also have a hard time imagining this extreme because without scientific creation the tools of creation wouldn't exist.

It becomes clear that both extremes are not beneficial. Ideally all people would excel in both venues. This is not possible and therefore divulges the critical foundation of a society: people contributing to the common good by providing their individual skills.

Science has shown how the brain is stimulated by logical thought process verses emotional or creative (liberal arts) thinking. Pure logic and pure creation produce very specific responses that account for 'right brained' and 'left brained' thinking. Science has also shown that both sides can be stimulated simultaneously. This type of synaptic response produces a nonlinear increase in memory and skill retention. Long term training shows an increase in overall cognitive ability. It becomes irrefutable that persons well versed in both types of thinking have a significant advantage over persons who do not. This creates a scientific basis to suggest it is the responsibility, or perhaps obligation, of the individual to train in both areas.

I must discuss myself in all this. I am a scientist, an engineer who was fortunate enough to have the ability to place myself in a vocation for advancement. The title given to those who endure my topics of research is one of high intellectual regard (the astrophysicists might scoff at that statementJ), but one that is expected to have an extreme bias toward logic rather than emotion. There is some truth to both statements, but even in my position I can differentiate the worth of my peers based on their level of enlightenment through well rounded intellectual stimulation. I am confident that the tangible worth based on productivity, not just my perception, is greater for those who observe the benefit of both logic and emotion. In this case we can specifically consider the fruits of science and the fruits of literary work and communication. I personally have a deep appreciation for the liberal arts. My education doesn't include these personal indulgences so I must seek them out on my own accord. Perhaps I am too bold, but if history prevails, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that I and my aforementioned peers have as good or even a better understanding of classical literature and artistic works than does the average liberal arts major.

We are caught in a vicious cycle of ignorance and argument. People in general don't appear to have a sense of self awareness. They don't observe how their actions ripple through time and space. They can't appreciate how the ripples of others have contributed to their current state of being. It is asinine to believe that society as a whole can advance though the minds of scientific or artistic geniuses alone. A society that seeks higher pleasures collectively will outshine the achievements of any single individual. At this point, it becomes a social responsibility, not a personal choice.

To the Mathematics teacher: I rambled a bit, but I hope I have supplied a stronger basis for your argument. You touched on some of these topics and I have the feeling that you'll be in agreement with much of what I said, but certainly being the teacher you must tread lightly.

To the prospective English teacher: I'd like to know what school you teach at. That way I can insure my children aren't accidentally placed in your class. Opinionated ignorance is dangerous.

And now a deep thought…

The fortunate few cannot reach the pinnacle without the wide base of support below them. If the base of support starts a little higher, then those fortunate few are that much closer.

Nonlinear Morality

I've recently become a guest of Harvard's Justice Online philosophy courses. A recent discussion posed the case of Dudley v Queen of England. The case describes a ship that sunk leaving the captain, a crew member and the cabin boy...maybe one more...in the life boat drifting in open ocean. They had meager food supplies and no water. Soon they ran out and began to starve. The captain suggested they all draw straws and the short straw gets eaten by the rest. However, the cabin boy had already drank sea water and was very ill. In his weakened state, he became the victim of cannibalism to sustain the rest. The remaining crew was eventually picked up without having to kill and eat another member.

A cut and dry utilitarian perspective - the greatest good for the greatest number - suggests that their actions were completely morally acceptable. For objectivism, I've left out some details of the argument that would reinforce the utilitarian viewpoint. The question is: Is the utilitarian perspective correct?

The arguments for and against the case all have an underlying understanding of morality; one that is not so easy to define but rather somewhat universally understood. If it was, then philosophy would be objective and completely understood. The application of what essentially is the same definition of morality produces differences in option when different personal perspectives objectively weigh the means and ends of the decisions. We come to the first observation of nonlinearity. Morality is not deterministic. Presenting the same case to different people with always produce some variation in either the means or the ends.

Lets change the scenario. Only two people are in the boat and one eats the other to save himself. Is it morally objectionable? There is nothing known about either individual that might weigh on their worthiness to live. I think many/most people would find it objectionable. What if there were 6 people? One dies for five to live. The answer becomes less definitive. What if it is 21 people so 1 dies and 2o live? It becomes apparent that utilitarianism becomes more relevant once the prospering majority becomes proportionally larger. This is the second nonlinearity. Utilitarianism becomes disproportionatly relevant as the prospering majority becomes proportionatly larger.

I've already illuded to a conclusion I've made. Morality is not definable, yet is universal. It is the nondeterministic nature of moral application and interpretation that produces differing opinions on right and wrong. For example, in extreme situations we glimpse true humanistic nature in that self preservation becomes the driving factor and can be projected to apply to others. Self preservation is instinctual, primative, yet it allows us to justify extreme actions in extreme situations. With that justification we are exempt from the pain of guilt and remorse and utilitarianism still rules. However, in the case where only two people are involved and one is killed to save the other rather than 21, we can expect a level of remorse even though self preservation ruled; the second nonlinearity exists.

To understand morality I seems that we must consider human behavior on a much more primitive level. Even with that, I doubt that morality will be definable simply because of it's nonlinear characteristics

And now a deep thought...
If we consider guilt to be a primitive human characteristic, perhaps we must examine guilt before we can attempt to define morality.

Grading Classes

The other day I was thinking about the best ways to grade a class. I know that many of my fellow grad students plan to teach someday. How should we grade our classes?

As engineers, we benefit from the fact that we deal with a generally definitive subject. There are solutions to math problems, so we typically don't have to deal with wondering how to grade a specific problem. It is right or it is wrong. Partial credit can be given based on taking correct steps to get to the answer, but failing to get the right answer. In the end, this is all going to be much more straight forward than grading a literature class for instance.

I don't think they are as popular now, but curving a class is an option. I don't know if I have ever had an engineering class that was curved though. There seems to be some pros and cons. It does make it easier on the professor. Schools typically do not like professors to give all high grades, so the curve reduces this problem. It can help students if a classes or test is really hard, by at least benefit those who did well. Similarly it can hurt students if a class or test was easy, since it punishes the students who may have done well, and understood the material, but were slightly lower than the best students.

This seems to be the heart of the problem. What should a grade represent? In my mind it should be a qualifier of how well the student understands the material presented. Requirements for courses should be laid out prior to a class and students will be expected to meet them. If this is the case there should be no problem will all students getting an A, or all of them getting a F.

In the end it seems as if the best solution is to give appropriate tests. The test needs to be fair and represent the class requirements. If the test is sufficiently difficult it will limit the high scores, creating a sort of natural curve.

Homework and Projects play an important role as well. One system I like is having a few options for how your homework/test combination will lead to a grade. This gives options for students who may find tests nerve racking and difficult. Some people just have a hard time with tests. They can then focus on getting good homework grades to make up for the poor test grades. Additionally, students who demonstrate that they understand the material well by scoring well on tests would not be punished for scoring lower on homework. I always personally had this problem when I found a class easy since I did not feel the motivation to do the homework when I already understood it and my test scores demonstrated that fact.

The one problem I see with this setup is how to deal with giving a fairly graded classes on your first shot. It will be difficult to create a balanced test. I think the only option is to make it fairly hard. Afterwards you can at least curve the scores up. If you make the test too easy, I think there would be a riot if you curved the scores down.

So, what does everyone else think? How can we grade fair without making it a time consuming mess? What is the simple solution? What grading systems promote learning?

Evolution Relationship

I was watching some videos on TED, a site which I highly recommend. Lately I have been watching random videos when I feel bored. I came across a video on genetic tracing of humanities origins. (Spencer Wells - Building a family tree for humanity) It is a good watch. The thing that I really liked and would like to point out is this idea of our relation to other animals. Typically we just get compared to apes, we came from apes, yada yada. This idea gets some people upset. Instead if we take this a little deeper, the greater idea is that we are related to all the animals on the planet, not just the apes. To me this seems like a incredible viewpoint which is much more 'religious' and uplifting. I wish more people would mention it.

That is all, watch some more videos on TED, like these:

Jane Goodall on what seperates us from the apes.
Hans Rosling shows the best stats you've ever seen.
Murray Gell-Mann: Beauty and truth in physics
Joshua Klein: The amazing intelligence of crows

That should be enough to get you hooked.

Olympic Judgement

I was talking to my Dad about the Olympics. He hasn't watched a lot of it but He started to complain about the sports which give judged scores, preferring the ones with definable quantitative measures. I thought this was interesting since I've complained about this as well. Are we genetically predisposed to complaining about gymnastics scoring? :)

I think it is pretty evident that the scoring system just does not work. This is evident in the spread of the scores given by the judges. If all the judges gave nearly the same score you may be more inclined to believe that the score they gave is what the athlete deserved. Instead, the Olympic judges, presumably the best judges around, cannot give consistent scores between themselves. Right here I would like to run through some numbers, calculating standard deviations of the group scores and compare that verses the variation between athletes. Unfortunately I don't remember enough of my statistics class to do a good job of that quickly. (If someone wants to give it a shot, I'd appreciate it, maybe I'll try later.) Though, I am confident that the variations between the judges is far beyond the differences which determine gold and silver and bronze.

The problem is, I really enjoy many of the judged events. It is amazing what these athletes do. I am in awe. How can we help to increase the confidence in the scores? I think this could be done. I started thinking about diving. A computer-camera system could be put into place which would estimate the angles of the body, determining rotation, separation of the legs, and ultimately it could put a quantitative measure the amount of water displaced. Similar systems could be used in gymnastics as well.

A system like this would not solve the problem outright, but it would give the judges more to work with. It also would give the audience some tangible scores that they could appreciate and understand. In the end the variation between the athletes would need to be accounted for. This would all come down to human judgment, but maybe with some engineers help we can reduce the error within the judges and insure that the athletes get the metals that they deserve.

Electricity vs. Gasoline

I got fired up to write this article because of hippies. I think they are a frequent source of inspiration for us on this blog. In essence, I was reading a forum and as usual someone has to complain about people driving and that you should just move closer to work and bike. We'll that is great if you can do that, but it is obviously not a solution for everyone. (I am not going to get into the details here but... cost of living, city life, raising kids are good reasons.)

This example wasn't the entirety of my frustration. This kind of mindset is typical of the now more popular casual environmentalist claiming that individuals need to make drastic changes to their lifestyle (possible significantly detrimental ones) in the name of the environment. I think this kind of argument is bound to fail. Individuals will not change make significant changes easily, especially if they are going to inconvenience themselves. Instead, what should the environmentalist ask:

Can we create a global system which has the advantages of our current system without the pollution? How do we accomplish this? What technologies need to mature? What is the impact on the economy or the average joe's wallet? (it needs to be minimal, preferably create a system which makes money) How are we going to address growing energy demands?

If they maintained this attitude (an engineering approach to the problem - maybe they could actually get involved in the engineering and science themselves) they might make more significant changes. This is the point - the environmentalists agenda will not be fulfilled by making everyone feel guilty, instead it will happen if people can make money at it. This is only going to happen if technological advances allow it. Simple, science + money = solution, that is how you change the world.

Somewhere in the middle of this all I was researching carbon dioxide release from several energy sources. People have a tendency to blindly trust what they have been told. I asked myself, how much CO2 is created while driving a car vs. consuming electricity? Here are the numbers. A gallon of gasoline produces around 20 lbs of CO2. That may seem odd, since a gallon of gas only weighs about 6 lbs, but it is mostly carbon and it combines with oxygen from the atmosphere. O2 is much heavier than Carbon. Thus, heavier CO2.

On the other hand, a coal plant might produce around 2 lbs of CO2 per kWh. To put this in perspective lets say a home is using 11000 kWh/year. (An average value) This equates to around 22,000 lbs of Co2/year (if they ran off a coal plant) or maybe as low as 10,000 lbs of CO2. (if they have other combustion energy sources, natural gas, etc) This is equivalent to 500 to 1100 gallons of gasoline per year or 1.36 to 3.01 gallons per day. In a 30 mpg vehicle this equates to 40 to 90 miles of driving per day.

Thus, a 20-45 mile commute to work (everyday) in a vehicle with a reasonable gas mileage will produce about as much CO2 as a typical home.

I like numbers.

World Records

Josh and I were chatting about the breaking of world records the other day. In specific, during the 4x100 mens freestyle relay 4 teams were past the previous world record. We thought it odd that after all these years a world record could be crushed like that. One would expect some humans would reach some sort of limit, at least limiting world record breaking. To satisfy my curiosity I just had to plot the data.


So there it is. The data shows some sort of limit being reached. This last world record has been a bit of a jump, but not significantly more than previous jumps. I actually love the first set of data, from around 1932 to 1954, that is the trend which one would expect.

It seems as if though individuals, or teams come along at times and make sudden changes. This last Olympics may be an example of that. Here is data from the 400 meter medley which Phelps won a few days ago.


Again we see some leveling off of the records. I noted two swimmers and their records just to show the influence of an individual. This shows you a bit of Phelps true skill. He was able to snap the limit of the records and make significant changes, improving year to year on his own records. Interesting.

The data:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_record_progression_4x100_metres_freestyle_relay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_record_progression_400_metres_medley

The Nature of the Olympic Games

I'll begin by apologizing in my lack of contribution to the blog over the last month. Things have been hectic and I'm sorry to say this had to play second fiddle for awhile. I hope I haven't lost any of our few regular readers.

Recently I received a lot of grief for my excitement for the Olympic Games. To be completely honest, I was surprised and a little dismayed because of it. The summer games have been a very powerful generator of emotion for me since I was a little kid. I don't see why they wouldn't be significant for everyone.

Deep down do I care about swimming, track and field, weightlifting, etc.? No. If it was on TV on any usual Saturday afternoon I might watch it for a while. During that time I would appreciate it, but I don't follow those sports with the same zeal as I do with SEC football. That's not the point. The Olympic Games stand as a symbol of Humanity.

Consider this: when NASA sends deep space probes with the potential goal of contacting extraterrestrial life they use what we comprehend as universal symbols; namely numbers (prime numbers I think). That symbolizes intelligences. They also include symbols of Humanity. If an alien life came to earth and asked "what does it mean to be human?" we would recognize it as a pivotal point for all humans whatever nationality, color, or creed. Now consider the Olympic Games. There are other international competitions like the Olympics, but since their grandeur is less inspiring I will consider them as being less significant.

Because of its broad spectrum of sports, a large portion of the world is able to participate. The spirit of competition shines through in that international differences are ideally, if not always practically, set aside. There was a symbolism when Kerry Strug stuck the landing in '92 that defines the essence of being Human. It is that symbolism that Humans can be defined by perseverance against adversity. On a larger scale we see nations that are not strong players in the world community being forces to be reckoned with in Olympic competition. Kenya has their runners, Romania their gymnasts. Although ultimately insignificant in a capitalistic world market, these are symbols of perseverance and inspiration. They could be springboards for national pride, national identity, and ultimately international security. Perseverance over adversity is a reoccurring theme in many (all) cultures. Nations are forged by the fire of conflict, oppression, and inspiration. It has shaped the course of human history and is so universally shared that it should be considered a defining factor of what we are as a world society.

I also considered art, architecture, music, etc. as being symbolic of Humanity. After considering this for a moment, I realized that those things are a testament to Humanity, not a definition. These things are a product of something greater. The spirit of creating or the ability to inspire through creation or action is much more significant than the creation itself. These things are intrinsic to the spirit of the Olympics.

The very fact that Olympic champions are timeless and borderless shows potential for Humanity to survive. Take note to how many times you see a clip of Nadia Comaneci's perfect 10 performance on American TV during the games. She was not American and she put those marks up 7 years before I was born. However, she is a household name. A name I've known my whole life. She has nothing to do with stop the conflicts in Africa, or supplying aid for the tsunami victims in Southeast Asia. She has nothing do with ending the Cold War or reconciling the differences between feuding religions. Or maybe she has everything to do with it. Back to the original consideration. If it was my job to answer the question of "what does it mean to be human?" this is how I would respond. To be Human is to so much more than just a species.

And now a deep thought…

In the short time between the starting gun firing and the tape at the finish line breaking, there are no white men or black. No Christians, Muslims, or Hindus. No Americans or Russians or Iraqis. Perhaps it is only in that brief moment that we can simply be Human.

Things I Hate: Commercials

I was thinking about this yesterday. Today I was privy to the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak. I was thinking about the effectiveness of commercials in my consumer decisions. I decided that at least half the time the outcome of a commercial elicits the opposite as to their intended purpose. I don't pretend to be the only person who dislikes commercials, but I doubt people really think about it. What is their purpose? Fundamentally, it is to inform the consumer as to the availability of a product or service. The next step in advertising sophistication is to inform the consumer as to the benefit of said product or service by either positively presenting their product or service, or negatively presenting the competition. The later is the first crux. Finally, they must make the commercial memorable in a favorable way by being provocative when smearing the competition or "pop" or "edgy" when trying to promote their own positive characteristics. This is the second crux.

By smearing the competition as inferior we are ultimately deteriorating society by pushing the bounds of ethics. This is common and obvious in the realm of politics. Also, they fail to present a proper persuasive argument by all too often dwelling on a one sided bias. This sort of mentality slights fair trade and ethical competition by forcing the common consumer to make choices without complete knowledge of the product and its alternatives. Inevitably if no company takes the high road, then the consumer must choose between the least of all evils. Complete negative reinforcement will only create lower consumer moral.

The second, and most damnable characteristic of ad campaigns, is the exploitation of consumer through a blunt force trauma use of unsophisticated suggestions. Miracle cleaners and car salesmen are two good examples. A local car commercial was going to have some guy on a motorcycle jump 14 cars. So. I wondered if anybody would even show up to see it. They use an unnaturally annoying high pressure salesman with a fake persona and sales pitch poorly riding a wheelie on camera as he spouts out some crap about this motorcycle jump. What does that have to do with the product? It's simply annoying. It's exploiting people that are unsophisticated enough get excited about gimmicks. The miracle cleaner guy is the same way. He talks quickly and excitably in order to be memorable. His statements are reinforced by a questionable "right before your eyes" demonstration. Any moron should be appalled by the obvious use of rudimentary manipulation techniques.

Either way, these are primitive tactics, brutal like the prom night fumbling in the back seat of your father's car. A conscience stance against these exploitations will align with the spirit of capitalism and the best products will shine through. I will not dance to their tune. An online consumer rating system could effectively weed out the less worthy. Maybe Angie's List is making an attempt at that. I'm not sure if it handles consumer goods or not. If it doesn't then it should.

This paragraph is my acceptance as to the inevitability of commercials. Remember the old Gillette commercials? "Gillette, the best a man can get." They were sophisticated and affective because they employed attractive people in a "normal" yet modern setting. Consider them further. They always depicted a ruggedly handsome man shaving; hence, an attractive person in a normal situation. They were selling razors so they used sharp lines and harsh shadows to define edges. They also used deep, rich color schemes that appealed to the sophisticated side of the consumer. Is this manipulation of emotions? Definitely, but they appealed to complex, evolved emotions. They were void of flashy, trendy gimmicks.

I have to say, sex sells. Damn, I love the most recent Edge shave gel commercials with the hot girls shooting each other with shaving cream. I am a corporate pawn. But let's consider that further though. Sex is as primitive as it gets but sexuality is as sophisticated as it gets. Sexuality and sensuality are equally affective on men and women because sexual, mysterious people are desired and admired. Even purely sexual women such as in the Edge commercials bring positive reinforcement while remaining essentially neutral in a capitalistic way. They are pushing the envelope as to what is exploitation of consumers. I acknowledge that.

My last thought pertains to the "straw" I referred to in the first sentence. I was watching Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire on ABC Family. After I started counting and before I lost my patience it was averaging 5-10 minutes of movie before airing 4-7 minutes of commercials. The total run time is 3.5 hours. The DVD runtime is 2.5 hours. If we adjust for the "edited to fit in the allotted runtime" clause, I'd bet we're talking about a 2 hour runtime without commercials. This is unreasonable. The same thing happened with Batman Begins on FX (I think). Just like poor commercials forcing away my business, I quit watching! Furthermore, it's likely I will not watch your station again because of it. I take things to the extreme, but ask yourself my dear reader…why don't you?

And now a deep thought…

The achievement of mankind cannot be measured by its tangible creations. It can only be assessed by marveling at the great expanse of knowledge learned through its generations.