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.