Ruminations, Haunts, and Errors

Ah, today’s the day for Beaujolais Nouveau…grape jelly in a glass, with a kick! The smooth ease of Boone’s Farm–or Kool-Aid–but with the pedigree of actual wine.

• Last weekend’s Trib had a good article about the need for the city to work with architects and developers to ensure a proper sense of aesthetics is maintained, and I saw a good example of its lack today. On a stroll to the bank, I noticed that the stretch of Wacker across from the Merc is now dominated by four consecutive glass-and-metal towers. (Um, yeah, I’ve worked in one of them for several years and the remainder have been up for at least several months now. It’s not really news. Just you nevermind that.) Individually, each one is fine: all but 111 S Wacker have setbacks and/or curvilinear profiles, and they all have decent landscaping and atria at ground level. Yet it struck me today how overwhelming it is to have a two-block wall of polished metal and glass, it’s a bit much. Okay, so I’m biased in that I strongly prefer masonry, matte metal, and window divisions to the glass-box look, I’m sure there are those who really like the shiny-streetwall effect. But it’s hard to argue that variety is good, and it just seems a shame that the builders plunge forth with their vision without really considering how it will connect with it surroundings. Ever notice that the renderings for the next great skyscraper, office tower, or condo block always show the structure with little else but a few trees and cars about? Maybe that’s plausible downstate or in the sprawling west, but urban developers should be a bit more honest.
• Found some impressive imagery over at Antonia Cidadao’s Lunar and Planetary Time-lapse Animations page. Definitely check out the one entitled Lunation–definitely gives the sense that the Moon is an entity, a place, not just a light in the sky.
• More economists like this, please:
  

  the link between cause and effect is often not easy or obvious. Economies are constantly being affected by a myriad of economic forces, both external and domestic. As such, it is dangerous to casually say that any one particular economic force must be causing any one particular economic outcome. The world is extremely complicated, and there’s no reason to think that economic relationships are anything but extremely complicated as well.

  Is it foolish to hope we’ll every get to the point when people will stop believing the pol who claims that propserity was caused–or will be restored–by the amazing grace of policy X?
• Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science

Official records will indicate that I took a ‘vacation day’ today, but the term seems inappropriate. Unless I actually go somewhere, it seems I spend most of these doing chores, running errands, and working on little projects that simply reduce the number of things I’ll need to do over the weekend. Overall that’s fine–having an extra day to sleep late and tackle the same number of tasks does help with mental decompression–but one of these days I think I need to really strive to do more nothing.

Time to clear out some links I thought might be worthy of commentary…

• Blue Ball Machine Stupid and pointless, but oddly mesmerizing. Just like much of the world wide web.
• Tinfoil hats attract mind-control signals, boffins learn Uh…the title is quite enough.
• Screwcap Savvy. On one level I’m perfectly aware that good screwcaps are no longer an indicator of cheap wine, but I do remember being momentarily suprised during our Sydney vacation when waiters in a couple of restaurants opened our bottles with a twist of the wrist rather than a corkscrew. However, the reason I posted this link was that it’s the first time I’ve seen wine and light sabers discussed in the same story.
• History’s Worst Software Bugs; Some Technologies Will Annoy. Evidence against the movement towards all-wired, all-in-one, always-connected technology. As if incessant cellphones and inexplicable ‘check engine’ lihts weren’t enough of a reminder.
• Gravity-Powered Asteroid Tractor Proposed to Thwart Impact. The realities of astronautical physics and technology aren’t nearly as slick as the movies, but it’s still impressive that we’ve got a plausible method for redirecting an asteroid. Too bad that promising glitz and glam, rather than the slower plod of reality, is the better way to get decent science funding.
• NASA Axes Space Station Research. Yep, to be effective ISS needs to be safe. (And, well, completing the damn thing wouldn’t hurt either.) Yet it seemed obvious to me back in the late ’80s that, despite the promises, ISS would be so expensive to build and maintain that it wouldn’t be cost-effective as a platform for cutting-edge science and technology. And now here we are.
• Repairing Journalism. Sydney H. Schanberg suggests that journalists should consider promises of anonymity null and void upon discovery that the source was disingenous. Good idea. We need to go further into a wider examination–for journalism, law, and politics–regarding the proper conditions for putting names and statements out of public view.
• Pump Some Seriousness Into Energy Policy Wow, I never thought I’d read such a staunch conservative advocating higher taxes on anything, let alone the gasoline. His arguments for ANWR drilling don’t persuade me, but some of the others aren’t half bad.

Interesting week in the battles against Intelligent Design, as all the IDers up for reelection to the Dover, PA school board were swept out of office yet the Kansas state Board of Education voted to change the curriculum to allow more ID. The latter seemed to stir up debate, although some cooler heads pointed out that the changes not only aren’t binding on any district in Kansas but won’t take effect until 2007 at the earliest so there’s time to fix things again. (Actually, I was more disheartened by their decision to alter the definition of science to eliminate its restriction to things like natural phenomena and logic–a move akin to the aborted attempt by Indiana to redifine the value of pi.)

However, in looking over post on the subject, I found the following comment in the discussion

Science, evidence, reason, these things mean less than nothing to a fundie. They are active evils to be exterminated. It’s the wide and crooked path away from salvation. They truck in authority…

Of course! I’ve known for years that there was a fundamental (ha) disconnect involved whenever I found myself in a discussion with someone who simply would not abandon articles of faith in the face of plainly contrary evidence, but for the longest time I couldn’t quite identify why. Now, it’s more clear: people who expound such views have an inverted view of the relationship between Authority and Evidence than do people who share my views.

In my understanding, evidence is true unless and until it can be shown to have been obtained in error (instrument glitches, transcription errors, selection effects, etc.) and the authority granted to any theory is weighted by how well it explains all appropriate evidence; similarly, the authority of an ‘expert’ is determined by how often, and how well, he or she can analyze and interperet both evidence and theory to keep everything consistent. In contrast, the other viewpoint holds that authority attaches to a theory (or being) a priori and thus evidence that doesn’t conform must be wrong. The latter viewpoint has a very serious problem, however, in that it is not properly self-contained and self-validating; thus independent, evidence-based attempts to (gasp!) challenge or disprove a theory or expert become essentially impossible.

Hmm, don’t know if this will really help me too much in a practical sense, but perhaps being able to recognize the mindset will allow me to better walk away from unwinnable debates.

Is the US Becoming Hostile to Science? It certainly seems that way, what with school districts and public officials being being stalked by intelligent design. (Although, apparently America doesn’t have a monopoly on the abuse of, or disdain for, science.)

But just when it seemed that some sanity had been restored by several ID supporters making some fools of themselves in the Dover school-district trial, by the Vatican speaking up to support science, and the urgent need to fight a possible bird-flu pandemic (hmm, it would be sadly ironic if millions of flu deaths were to provide a solid case in support of ongoing natural selection through random mutations.), out comes an attack on fundamental physics. Apparently a Harvard medic is claiming not just a breakthrough in power-generating technology but also that in doing so he’s disproven basic quantum theory. Now, maybe there’s no disputing that his contraption works, and if so that’s great. Perhaps it is coming from a heretofore unknown aspect of physics not properly described by current theory. But that’s a long way from destroying a major underpinning of modern physics, especially given his flimsy reasoning in that direction:

• This result is impossible given current theory. Well, it wouldn’t be the first time a major theory of science required an adjustment in one area to explain an observation, that doesn’t mean the theory is completely wrong (hell, even some staunch ID campaigners don’t go that far). It might also be that someone made some computational or analytical mistakes, which also wouldn’t be a first.
• I don’t have years of training in this area, so I’m an outsider who can look at things in a fresh way. Wow, nice bit of sophistry to turn the concept of an ‘expert’ on its ear. By this line of thinking, we would be best served if most people started working in any and all areas except for ones in which they’ve had years of training and experience! Certainly an outsider is helpful to prod people to look anew at topics dismissed in the past as ‘obvious’ or ‘uninteresting’, but that doesn’t seem to apply here as it’s not a qualitiative aspect that is under scrutiny. I can say from experience that even the basic quantum theory of the hydrogen atom is arcane and mathematically complex (there’s a reason it doesn’t usually come up until a junior/senior level physics course), so I’m really skeptical that anyone other than an absolute mathematical savant could suddenly come on the scene and calculate a value that has escaped a century’s worth of theoreticians and empiricists.
• The entrenched scientists are only interested in protecting their pet theories. Ooh, this one’s a doozy. Certainly, physicsts at that level can sometimes be a petty lot, jealous of their star status as crafters of Important Theories. But ultimately they are interested in knowing the truth of nature. In contrast, this challenge to established quantum theory is coming from a group (filled with business types, not trained scientists, mind you) who want to make money of the technology and thus have every economic incentive to make it appear as if they have some new, profound understanding of the universe. Who do you think might be more worried about prestige and image? Didn’t the Cold Fusion debacle of the late 80’s teach anyone that science is more effective when done by scientists in controlled labs rather than via press release and VC prospectus?

Such rotten reasoning just goes to show that just because someone is a highly trained engineer or medical professional doesn’t necessarily mean they’re as sharp as the general public likes to think they are.

Fortunately, I can say that I took a walk through Battleground God and came through it with the assurance that I view and analyze the world in ways that are at least consistent and rational. Would that I weren’t in the minority in that regard.

• From Eric’s links comes this gem of ananti-telemarketing EGBG counterscript. Almost tempting to drop off the Do-Not Call List to try it out. Almost…but not really.
• Here’s a nice crackpot index to help weed the good physics from the bad. Maybe we should generalize and start applying the same analysis to the nonsense spewing from the mouths of politicians, CEOs, etc.
• Senate Rule XIV Procedures for Placing Measures Directly on the Senate Calendar
  Septemter 19, 2005:
  

  Mr. FRIST. Now I ask for its second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar under rule XIV, I object to my own request.

  Okay, legislative bodies are often where common sense goes to die but…wow.
• Kansas Law on Gay Sex by Teenagers Is Overturned
  Kansas has been in the crosshairs of ridicule for recent intelligent design silliness, but the state’s Supreme Court showed some wisdom in a ruling against a horribly discriminatory gay-sex law. From the unanimous (!) opinion:
  

  The moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate state interest.

  That statement needs to be engraved on the desk of every legislator, prosecutor, and judge in every jurisdiction in this country.
• Via Kos came this set of excerpts of Brent Scrowcroft critiquing Dubya and the neocons. In reading I came to the intriguing, if somewhat disturbing, realization that the neocon ethos espoused by Paul Wolfowitz and others is less an imperialist, modern-day manifest-destiny idea than it is simply an extreme form of a mentality that most U.S. politicians–and many citizens–posess. Two of its essential concepts are that everyone loves freedom and democracy. What American could possibly argue with those points, huh? Except…well, to many people, including right here at home, the most important freedom they desire is the freedom to ensure that no one else–at least no one else they’ll ever have the need or opportunity to deal with–thinks and acts in ways of which they disapprove. Moreover, democracy isn’t necessariliy the ideal form of government, perhaps just the least bad. Arguably public affairs could be better handled philosopher-kings of proper temperment and training than by those chosen by the whims of the public at large, but in a stable, balanced society democracy has the advantage that extreme views tend to be voted out of office before they have a chance to do permanent damage. However, it works out this way because our society has long had the sense of balance and desire for consensus, not the other way around. In a society with a strong bent towards allocation of authority based on pure power or the absoute moral superiority of one group over another, democracy by itself has no mechanism to prevent tyranny of the majority. Where one group claims divine mandate to subjugate another, or multiple ethnic-religious factions have enmity dating back centuries, the introduction of a formally democractic system and the belief that the vast majority are just yearning for the freedom to live in an open, laissez-faire society are hardly guaranteed to suddenly result in well-behaved, friendly nations. We really could use less Pollyanna and more realpolitick in our foreign policy.
• More Saturnian visual goodness, courtesy Cassini-Huygens:
  
  

Gah! I’m way overdue for some quick swipes at stuff that’s caught my eye over the last couple of weeks…

• I started playing with Flock last night. Still needs a little work, but the potential is there for this to become a great tool. I’m especially looking forwad to the ability to consolidate tags across multiple tools. I believe that the critical mass is now present in tools like blogs, Flickr, del.icio.us, Google, and widespread broadband so that a tool like Flock can now get closer to the ‘network is the computer’ ideal Sun and others have been promising for a generation now. That it’s not coming from one of the Big Guys shouldn’t be a surprise.
• Fans polled support umpires, dislike DH rule
  Good to know I’m not in the minority. Quoth Frank Thomas on the DH:
  

  It’s extended many careers. I think it should be universal; it would mean more jobs in baseball. Who wants to see pitchers hit? Nobody.

  Actually, I do like to see pitchers hit. A number are decent, plenty lay down good bunts, and watching an inept pitcher flail badly at curveball or a big guy (say, Carlos Zambrano) lumber around second for a freak triple is quite entertaining. However, while Thomas’s concern for job security is understandable, it should be considered irrelevant here. The decision to enact or drop a playing rule should be judged only by its effect on the balance of gameplay; how shifts in that balance affect the interest of fans is the only business effect really worth considering.
• What do current controversies like the validity of Intelligent Design, political intransigence and incompetence, the effects of global warming, and others have in common? I think an important thread is the desire by very many people to believe that the world functions accoring to a set of simple, easily knowable rules, and furthermore their insistence not only that those rules are already known but also that there must be something amiss with observations of the world that would seem to conflict with those rules. These types of people often have trouble with the proper interpretation of observations and tend to ignore the limitations or quirks of the mind; what’s worse, even people who do (or should) have the training to know better are susceptible to falling into such modes of thought when it suits them. Myself, I like the philosophy of the Bad Astronomer–”I like reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way”–but if others prefer a different mode of thought that is of course their prerogative. However, their views present a serious problem when used to select public officials and set public policy; if nothing else, we all end up wasting time in pointless debates over topics that should be considered settled.
• Mapping Where You Think You Live
  Ah, the power of the internet being harness for good: elucidating where the true boundaries lie between civic and sports loyalties, and all to be nicely mapped. Isn’t this info in some marketroid database at a big consumer-products corporation somewhere? Well, at least soon we’ll also be able to easily locate which locale officials deserve our scorn, and then marshal forces for the upcoming pop vs. soda war that we all know is inevitable.
• Oink Oink; For a Senate Foe of Pork Barrel Spending, Two Bridges Too Far
  The growth in pork spending over the last decade is truly astounding, especially since it coincides with Republican control of the House–and accelerated after they got the White House. They used to deride the the Democrats as the ‘tax-and-spend’ party, but that ethos is at least more honest in my view than the GOP’s ‘borrow-and-spend’ methods. I suppose the latter better corresponds to most Americans’ fiscal habits, though.
• Cheap Gas Is a Bad Habit; Sierra Club Gets Behind the Wheel
  Hybrid vehicles are still luxury items, purchases that have more feel-good effects than actual significant environmental impact, but it certainly seems that the technology is rapidly improving in terms of both efficiency and price. Perhaps these continuing improvments, combined with the lessons of Katrina and Rita, the rising demand of the Chinese economy, and the security quagmires caused by our Middle-East entanglements will finally give the proper impetus to move on from the petroleum enconomy that has dominated for the last century or so.
• Using Our Leverage: The Troops
  A little reverse psychology to nudge the Iraqis? Actually, we should make this a more general policy in the places around the world–and there are many–where locals simultaneously desire and detest American help. During our inteventions in the Balkans during the 1990s I always thought that the better approach in such situations–where various groups have been warring on and off for centuries over perceived slights, religous differences, and other such pettiness–would simply be to stay out and to use our resources to prevent spillover into neighboring regions that prefer to remain uninvolved. That’s somewhat callous given that many true innocents can be caught in the crossfire, but no amount of military power, American or otherwise, can fix broken societies. We can only offer to help if they sincerely want to change, otherwise we should simply strive to ensure an imploding society doesn’t take its neighbors down with it.
• Kathleen Sulivan, Dick Thornburgh, Ron Klain, Glenn Harlan Reynolds, and Jean Edward Smith published twenty-five questions for Supreme Court nominees in the New York Times. Many of the specifics will soon be dated (if they aren’t already), but I think these cover a number of important topics that Americans should continually ask themselves–and their public officials–regarding the responsibilities and powers of the judiciary in our government and society. John Tierney also posed some more flippant ones that are amusing but also oddly point to good techniques for any sort of important interview.