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.