“It Takes a Village!” No, “It Takes a Family!”
“We must use Phonics!” “No, don’t be a fool, Whole Language!”
“Global warming is natural, so leave my Hummer out of it!” “You damn SUV drivers are the Devil himself!”
“It’s your diet, duh!” “All you need is exercise, so get off your lazy ass!”
“Pepsi!” “No, Coke!” OK, I won’t even go there.
I need to vent some frustration after reaching a breaking point with the publication of Senator Rick Santorum’s book, “It Takes a Family.” No, I have not read it yet but have seen excerpts and have heard bits of interviews with this right-wing nut. I also have read comments from many true conservatives, including one of my very best friends Zenpundit, who has taken a stance that has hit me harder than shock and awe: he is willing to support Santorum’s Democratic opponent.
“IT TAKES A VILLAGE IDIOT
Like Rick Santorum who exists apparently to provide evidence for Leftists everywhere that membership in the Republican Party is not incompatible with complete intellectual incoherence and a fascistic mindset. You sir, represent a weird, right-wing bizarro world version of everything I categorically reject in Left-wing authoritarianism.In the next election cycle I will do something I have never done before which is cross party lines and donate to Santorum's opponent ( naturally, I'm sure the Democrats will take the opportunity to nominate a true extremist kook of their own to make this decision as unpalatable as is humanly possible).”
That is how bad off our world is. The stars must not be aligned correctly or something like that (I haven’t seen my astrologer recently). It is easy (and sort of fun) to use Santorum as the poster-boy of, for lack of a better phrase, intellectual absolutism, but it exists everywhere and in all fields. Partisan politics, of course, is a power game that is played for keeps, regardless of who is correct and what is best for most citizens. It is also the most familiar example of seeing extremism and absolutism in action because we get to watch it every day on the news.
Hillary Clinton’s book, “It Takes a Village,” is a dissertation of her take on society. She puts her opinions out there, she backs much of it up with research studies, and she concludes sometimes parents need assistance with their children. She really does state that ideally and primarily, family is the core to a child’s well-being, so after I read her book I agreed with many, but certainly not all, of her conclusions. The ‘village’ is not a substitute for government necessarily, because she does conclude schools, churches, community organizations, and so on, are vitally important in our society, and she praises all of them. Government can play a role as well, to help those who cannot be helped by community services and so on, but of course there are huge limitations that need to be considered. Thinking of your own situation, which of the following excerpts make more sense to your life:
“After decades of assault upon what made America great, upon supposedly obsolete values, what have we reaped, what have we created, what do we have? What we have, in the opinion of millions of Americans, is crime, drugs, illegitimacy, abortion, the abdication of duty, and the abandonment of children.
And after the virtual devastation of the American family, the rock upon which this country was founded, we are told that it takes a village -- that is, the collective, and thus, the state -- to raise a child.
The state is now more involved than it has ever been in the raising of children, and children are now more neglected, abused, and mistreated than they have been in our time.
This is not a coincidence, and, with all due respect, I am here to tell you: it does not take a village to raise a child.
It takes a family. (Sound familiar - my addition)
If I could by magic restore to every child who lacks a father or a mother, that father or that mother, I would.
And though I cannot, I would never turn my back on them, and I shall, as president, promote measures that keep families whole.
I am here to tell you that permissive and destructive behavior must be opposed, that honor and liberty must be restored, and that individual accountability must replace collective excuse. I am here to say to America, do not abandon the great traditions that stretch to the dawn of our history, do not topple the pillars of those below.”
And:
“I want to talk about what matters most in our lives and in our nation—children and families. I wish — I wish we could be sitting around a kitchen table, just us, talking about our hopes and fears, about our children’s futures. For Bill and me, family has been the center of our lives.
But we also know that our family, like your family, is part of a larger community that can help or hurt our best efforts to raise our child.
Right now, in our biggest cities and our smallest towns, there are boys and girls being tucked gently into bed, and there are boys and girls who have no one to call mom or dad, and no place to call home.
Right now there are mothers and fathers just finishing a long day’s work. And there are mothers and fathers just going to work, some to their second or third jobs of the day.
Right now there are parents worrying: “What if the baby sitter is sick tomorrow?” Or: “How can we pay for college this fall?” And right now there are parents despairing about gang members and drug pushers on the corners in their neighborhoods.
Right now there are parents questioning a popular culture that glamorizes sex and violence, smoking and drinking, and teaches children that the logos on their clothes are more valued than the generosity in their hearts.
But also right now there are dedicated teachers preparing their lessons for the new school year. There are volunteers tutoring and coaching children. There are doctors and nurses caring for sick children, police officers working to help kids stay out of trouble and off drugs.
Of course, parents, first and foremost, are responsible for their children.”
The first was from Bob Dole’s acceptance speech at the 1996 Republican National Convention, the second from Hillary Clinton’s speech at the 1996 Democratic National Convention. Who is correct? Well, at the core they are saying the same thing. Family is (or at least should be in an ideal world) the most important part of a child’s life. Dole is correct that our society is lacking individual responsibility in many instances, and this is in part responsible for our ‘take you to court,’ make excuses-happy culture. But with complete families now in the minority, obviously this is an ideal view that is disconnected from reality. Many on the Right talk about faith-based everything, but now you are talking in Hillary-speak, are you not?! Ouch, that has got to hurt and I’ll likely hear about it from certain people.
As part of the Right’s grand plans to bring back traditional family values, “promote measures that keep families whole” (hey, Bob is talking about doing this through, gulp, government policy), etc, they are in Hillary’s worldview but cannot and will not realize it and/or admit it. After all, on paper two parents are better than one for a child. Without thinking about it, I agree. But simplistic, absolute answers have trouble when one considers complexity of real life. Let me modify the two parent concept like this: Two parents who give a damn about the child are better than one. (Just like two heads are better than one for solving, say, social problems….unless one of those heads belongs to a Hitler or Stalin) I just cannot help but think too many on the Right don’t think in these terms, such as a Dole or Santorum, and yet they go on to constantly contradict their own arguments by talking about government incentives to promote family and get faith-based, community service organizations involved in helping with education, the drug war, and countless other aspects of a child’s life. It is also hard to be lectured on what’s best for my kids by rich white guys whose children were likely raised in part by the nanny…
My guess is most people will relate with the everyday situations described by Hillary. Any parent asks these same questions. To say absolutely that the family unit can survive on its own and that a child is only affected by his or her family is, of course, ridiculous because we all are influenced by society. To say absolutely that government can solve all family and social ills through policy and regulation is, of course, ridiculous because no policy or regulation exists that will work for all individuals, let alone be constitutional or American, where freedom is king. This is what I mean by ‘intellectual absolutism.’ It is the lack of ability to recognize complexity and that real, working solutions are combinations of the extreme views. Is the Left correct? Is the Right correct? Both are correct, both are wrong. Partisanship within the two party system is in theory a good thing, and having some small number of extremists on each side is a good thing because it broadens the spectrum of ideas. But having said that, the danger lies in the inability of leaders to listen to each other and argue about things simply for the sake of partisanship, rather than solving real problems. In addition, getting personal is currently a problem of such great magnitude that it clouds rational, logical debate with emotion, and we all know how well human beings think when caught up in emotion. I’ve seen the same thing countless times in teacher meetings when discussing teaching methodologies or theories of learning. Certain individuals become consumed absolutely with Piaget, others absolutely with Skinner, to the point where they cannot identify that there are some good points from each theory, so why not take pieces of each. It seems our culture is more consumed with the notion of absolutes more than I can ever remember, and I, for one, am frustrated with so many walking around and arguing with blinders on. So, going back to the beginning:
“It Takes a Village!” “It Takes a Family!” Hey, it takes both!
“Phonics!” “Whole Language!” Hey, each has its strengths, so we need both!
“Global warming is natural!” “We are causing global warming!” Hey, there is evidence for both
(so it would help if we did try to do something about the portion we can control).
“It’s your diet!” “All you need is exercise!” Hey, it is both, so eat less and, yes, get your lazy ass off the couch.
“Pepsi!” “No, Coke!” OK, I still won’t go there (but just so you know, it absolutely is Pepsi).
Sunday, August 07, 2005
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
A Disturbing Observation
When at a large department store one night, I observed a small group of white teens who came in and walked past a security guard, who sat there without noticing. They were dressed in baggy jeans and had baseball caps on backward, and were a bit on the loud side. An African-American man came in shortly after and went to look at some merchandise. He was likely in his twenties and was dressed in casual business attire. I could not help but note that the security guard got up and followed him around the store, while ignoring the white teens who were roaming the store.
This scenario is something every minority student I have worked with can identify with firsthand. Is there really an even playing field out there, as those who want an end to all affirmative action/race-based programs like to claim? The actual evidence suggests there is not. It is probably better than the last generation had it, but there is obviously still racism, stereotyping, and so on in the real world. When someone suggests to me that any and all ‘preferential treatment’ towards minorities who are working hard is wrong, I typically respond that this is an ideal reality we need to shoot for…but until ‘preferential treatment’ for someone like George W. Bush, who was accepted into Yale with an academic record that is normally laughed at by their admissions office (and this happens on occasion for the children of the wealthy and powerful), I’ve got no problem with responsibly run programs trying to even society’s playing field.
This scenario is something every minority student I have worked with can identify with firsthand. Is there really an even playing field out there, as those who want an end to all affirmative action/race-based programs like to claim? The actual evidence suggests there is not. It is probably better than the last generation had it, but there is obviously still racism, stereotyping, and so on in the real world. When someone suggests to me that any and all ‘preferential treatment’ towards minorities who are working hard is wrong, I typically respond that this is an ideal reality we need to shoot for…but until ‘preferential treatment’ for someone like George W. Bush, who was accepted into Yale with an academic record that is normally laughed at by their admissions office (and this happens on occasion for the children of the wealthy and powerful), I’ve got no problem with responsibly run programs trying to even society’s playing field.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
A tough political position to be in.....
I have recently heard many comments about the way freshman Congresswoman Melissa Bean (Democrat, Illinois 8th District) voted on CAFTA. She was one of the few Dems in the House to vote for it, and the only Dem from Illinois to vote for it, as it passed by the narrowest of margins 216-214.
It is unfair to suggest she alone caused it to pass (as I have heard some say), as about 30 other Dems voted for it. But this provides an interesting example of how a representative can be torn on how to vote. Rep. Bean is a career small businesswoman, and went on to defeat the powerful, long-time incumbent Phil Crane in a “David vs Goliath” campaign in 2004. She is more of a fiscal conservative with some more liberal social views who ran in a strong Republican district. Now, almost half of her campaign funds came from unions, who of course were overwhelmingly against CAFTA. However, the two largest employers (I believe) in the 8th District are Motorola and Abbot Labs, who were strongly for CAFTA. A majority of her constituents were for the trade agreement, and it is almost a certainty that she is on top of Karl Rove’s hit-list for the 2006 midterm elections.
This is as close to a win-lose position as a representative will get. Vote against it, and she shows party loyalty and rewards some of her top contributors, but then face the wrath of the national GOP as well as many of her constituents in 2006. Vote for it, and break the confidence from loyal supporters as well as the DNC, but do what most of your constituents want as well as win likely corporate support and contributions (and perhaps Rove and company take it a bit easier on her in 2006). As a supporter of Bean when I lived in the 8th District, I was admittedly disappointed with her vote, but I can understand how much pressure both sides must have put on her and why she voted that way. It will be interesting to see how this affects the 2006 campaign, and it is an interesting example of what many public servants go through in tight, controversial votes.
It is unfair to suggest she alone caused it to pass (as I have heard some say), as about 30 other Dems voted for it. But this provides an interesting example of how a representative can be torn on how to vote. Rep. Bean is a career small businesswoman, and went on to defeat the powerful, long-time incumbent Phil Crane in a “David vs Goliath” campaign in 2004. She is more of a fiscal conservative with some more liberal social views who ran in a strong Republican district. Now, almost half of her campaign funds came from unions, who of course were overwhelmingly against CAFTA. However, the two largest employers (I believe) in the 8th District are Motorola and Abbot Labs, who were strongly for CAFTA. A majority of her constituents were for the trade agreement, and it is almost a certainty that she is on top of Karl Rove’s hit-list for the 2006 midterm elections.
This is as close to a win-lose position as a representative will get. Vote against it, and she shows party loyalty and rewards some of her top contributors, but then face the wrath of the national GOP as well as many of her constituents in 2006. Vote for it, and break the confidence from loyal supporters as well as the DNC, but do what most of your constituents want as well as win likely corporate support and contributions (and perhaps Rove and company take it a bit easier on her in 2006). As a supporter of Bean when I lived in the 8th District, I was admittedly disappointed with her vote, but I can understand how much pressure both sides must have put on her and why she voted that way. It will be interesting to see how this affects the 2006 campaign, and it is an interesting example of what many public servants go through in tight, controversial votes.
Business Helping Out With STEM Education
After a bit of an absence for many, many reasons, I wanted to throw out there a headline from an NSTA brief:
“15 Leading Business Groups Launch Action Plan To Improve Science and Math Education; Call for Doubling of STEM Graduates in 10 Years
15 major business groups representing business of every size and from every sector of the economy—led by the CEO members of the Business Roundtable—last week called for doubling the number of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) graduates by the year 2015 and issued an action plan to do this by:
Launching an awareness campaign to make improvements in STEM fields a national priority;
Motivating students and adults to study and enter careers in these disciplines;
Upgrading elementary and secondary teaching in math and science;
Reforming visa and immigration policies to enable the U.S. to attract and retain top STEM students; and
Boosting and sustaining funding for basic research.
In a press statement Business Roundtable President John Castellani says the business community would “take the lead in building public awareness and support for greater interest, investment, and performance in science, technology, engineering, and math by:
Expanding the successful State Scholars program that encourages students to take rigorous courses in high school;
Offering more opportunities for company employees to serve as role models and mentors in these fields;
Providing teachers with materials that will show students the importance of math and science in a wide range of careers;
Funding scholarships for students and professional development for math and science teachers;
Working with education groups, the media, and the entertainment industry on messages showing how math and science learning leads to a wide range of interesting careers; and
Meeting with and lobbying Governors and Members of Congress to carry out the report's recommendations.”
This is, in my opinion, a positive bit of news. Too often one reads about the complaints of the industrial and business sectors about the lack of qualified candidates for technical jobs. The level of lobbying and influence business groups like this have is substantial, and if they follow through on the rhetoric some positive things are likely in the world of science and technology education. Especially important for classroom teachers is a call for providing materials to help show students the importance and relevance of math and science in everyday life as well as in longer timeframes, i.e. careers. It is my experience that making a subject relevant to students’ lives is perhaps the single biggest thing any teacher can do, and achieving this level of presentation in a classroom is as close to a guarantee of engaging students there is…and engaged students tend to learn and accomplish much more than those who are not. I hope this action influences other business leaders to join in on a wide scale, and we will see where efforts like this can lead.
“15 Leading Business Groups Launch Action Plan To Improve Science and Math Education; Call for Doubling of STEM Graduates in 10 Years
15 major business groups representing business of every size and from every sector of the economy—led by the CEO members of the Business Roundtable—last week called for doubling the number of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) graduates by the year 2015 and issued an action plan to do this by:
Launching an awareness campaign to make improvements in STEM fields a national priority;
Motivating students and adults to study and enter careers in these disciplines;
Upgrading elementary and secondary teaching in math and science;
Reforming visa and immigration policies to enable the U.S. to attract and retain top STEM students; and
Boosting and sustaining funding for basic research.
In a press statement Business Roundtable President John Castellani says the business community would “take the lead in building public awareness and support for greater interest, investment, and performance in science, technology, engineering, and math by:
Expanding the successful State Scholars program that encourages students to take rigorous courses in high school;
Offering more opportunities for company employees to serve as role models and mentors in these fields;
Providing teachers with materials that will show students the importance of math and science in a wide range of careers;
Funding scholarships for students and professional development for math and science teachers;
Working with education groups, the media, and the entertainment industry on messages showing how math and science learning leads to a wide range of interesting careers; and
Meeting with and lobbying Governors and Members of Congress to carry out the report's recommendations.”
This is, in my opinion, a positive bit of news. Too often one reads about the complaints of the industrial and business sectors about the lack of qualified candidates for technical jobs. The level of lobbying and influence business groups like this have is substantial, and if they follow through on the rhetoric some positive things are likely in the world of science and technology education. Especially important for classroom teachers is a call for providing materials to help show students the importance and relevance of math and science in everyday life as well as in longer timeframes, i.e. careers. It is my experience that making a subject relevant to students’ lives is perhaps the single biggest thing any teacher can do, and achieving this level of presentation in a classroom is as close to a guarantee of engaging students there is…and engaged students tend to learn and accomplish much more than those who are not. I hope this action influences other business leaders to join in on a wide scale, and we will see where efforts like this can lead.
Saturday, July 16, 2005
Why Support Public Education?
In a commencement address at Knox College, Senator Barack Obama (D, IL) mentioned the following:
“As Tom Friedman points out in his new book, The World Is Flat, over the last decade or so, these forces - technology and globalization - have combined like never before. So that while most of us have been paying attention to how much easier technology has made our lives - sending emails on blackberries, surfing the web on our cell phones, instant messaging with friends across the world - a quiet revolution has been breaking down barriers and connecting the world’s economies. Now, businesses not only have the ability to move jobs wherever there’s a factory, but wherever there’s an internet connection.
Countries like India and China realized this. They understood that now they need not just be a source of cheap labor or cheap exports. They can compete with us on a global scale. The one resource they still needed was a skilled, educated labor force. So they started schooling their kids earlier, longer, and with a greater emphasis on math, science, and technology, until their most talented students realized they don’t have to immigrate to America to have a decent life - they can stay right where they are.
The result? China is graduating four times the number of engineers that the United States is graduating. Not only are those Maytag employees competing with Chinese and Indonesian and Mexican workers, now you are too. Today, accounting firms are emailing your tax returns to workers in India who will figure them out and send them back as fast as any worker in Indiana could.
When you lose your luggage in a Boston airport, tracking it down may involve a call to an agent in Bangalore, who will find it by making a phone call to Baltimore. Even the Associated Press has outsourced some of their jobs to writers all over the world who can send in a story with the click of a mouse.As British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said, in this new economy, “talent is 21st century wealth.” If you’ve got the skills, you’ve got the education, and you have the opportunity to upgrade and improve both, you’ll be able to compete and win anywhere. If not, the fall will be further and harder than ever before.
So what do we do about this? How does America find our way in this new, global economy? What will our place in history be?
Like so much of the American story, once again, we face a choice. Once again, there are those who believe that there isn’t much we can do about this as a nation. That the best idea is to give everyone one big refund on their government - divvy it up into individual portions, hand it out, and encourage everyone to use their share to go buy their own health care, their own retirement plan, their own child care, education, and so forth.
In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it - Social Darwinism, every man and woman for him or herself. It’s a tempting idea, because it doesn’t require much thought or ingenuity. It allows us to say to those whose health care or tuition may rise faster than they can afford - tough luck. It allows us to say to the Maytag workers who have lost their job - life isn’t fair. It let’s us say to the child born into poverty - pull yourself up by your bootstraps. And it is especially tempting because each of us believes that we will always be the winner in life’s lottery, that we will be Donald Trump, or at least that we won’t be the chump that he tells: “You’re fired!”
But there is a problem. It won’t work. It ignores our history. It ignores the fact that it has been government research and investment that made the railways and the internet possible. It has been the creation of a massive middle class, through decent wages and benefits and public schools - that has allowed all of us to prosper. Our economic dominance has depended on individual initiative and belief in the free market; but it has also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, the idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we’re all in it together and everybody’s got a shot at opportunity - that has produced our unrivaled political stability.”
As always, there are those who think the government needs to go away and let individuals and the market determine everything, and there are those who think government involvement and regulation can allow for prosperity for all. And, as is so often the case, the hard part is that, in reality, the best and most efficient way for providing an environment where everyone has some chance of building the life they want is somewhere in between. I absolutely agree with Obama that in this age of global competition education is the single-most important key to opportunity. Tony Blair’s observation that, “Talent is 21st Century wealth,” is also an interesting way of thinking about it. Natural talents take many forms, but as with anything else there is a need to further develop and refine one’s talents, and there is a need to have the opportunity to experience how talents can be applied. This is what schooling is all about, and why education is the closest thing to a silver bullet for continued personal and national success. This leads me to conclude that purely partisan rhetoric and the need to insist that only the right’s philosophy or the left’s philosophy is correct is pure nonsense, and serious support for public education (which accounts for the education of 90% of our children) is absolutely essential.
“As Tom Friedman points out in his new book, The World Is Flat, over the last decade or so, these forces - technology and globalization - have combined like never before. So that while most of us have been paying attention to how much easier technology has made our lives - sending emails on blackberries, surfing the web on our cell phones, instant messaging with friends across the world - a quiet revolution has been breaking down barriers and connecting the world’s economies. Now, businesses not only have the ability to move jobs wherever there’s a factory, but wherever there’s an internet connection.
Countries like India and China realized this. They understood that now they need not just be a source of cheap labor or cheap exports. They can compete with us on a global scale. The one resource they still needed was a skilled, educated labor force. So they started schooling their kids earlier, longer, and with a greater emphasis on math, science, and technology, until their most talented students realized they don’t have to immigrate to America to have a decent life - they can stay right where they are.
The result? China is graduating four times the number of engineers that the United States is graduating. Not only are those Maytag employees competing with Chinese and Indonesian and Mexican workers, now you are too. Today, accounting firms are emailing your tax returns to workers in India who will figure them out and send them back as fast as any worker in Indiana could.
When you lose your luggage in a Boston airport, tracking it down may involve a call to an agent in Bangalore, who will find it by making a phone call to Baltimore. Even the Associated Press has outsourced some of their jobs to writers all over the world who can send in a story with the click of a mouse.As British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said, in this new economy, “talent is 21st century wealth.” If you’ve got the skills, you’ve got the education, and you have the opportunity to upgrade and improve both, you’ll be able to compete and win anywhere. If not, the fall will be further and harder than ever before.
So what do we do about this? How does America find our way in this new, global economy? What will our place in history be?
Like so much of the American story, once again, we face a choice. Once again, there are those who believe that there isn’t much we can do about this as a nation. That the best idea is to give everyone one big refund on their government - divvy it up into individual portions, hand it out, and encourage everyone to use their share to go buy their own health care, their own retirement plan, their own child care, education, and so forth.
In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it - Social Darwinism, every man and woman for him or herself. It’s a tempting idea, because it doesn’t require much thought or ingenuity. It allows us to say to those whose health care or tuition may rise faster than they can afford - tough luck. It allows us to say to the Maytag workers who have lost their job - life isn’t fair. It let’s us say to the child born into poverty - pull yourself up by your bootstraps. And it is especially tempting because each of us believes that we will always be the winner in life’s lottery, that we will be Donald Trump, or at least that we won’t be the chump that he tells: “You’re fired!”
But there is a problem. It won’t work. It ignores our history. It ignores the fact that it has been government research and investment that made the railways and the internet possible. It has been the creation of a massive middle class, through decent wages and benefits and public schools - that has allowed all of us to prosper. Our economic dominance has depended on individual initiative and belief in the free market; but it has also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, the idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we’re all in it together and everybody’s got a shot at opportunity - that has produced our unrivaled political stability.”
As always, there are those who think the government needs to go away and let individuals and the market determine everything, and there are those who think government involvement and regulation can allow for prosperity for all. And, as is so often the case, the hard part is that, in reality, the best and most efficient way for providing an environment where everyone has some chance of building the life they want is somewhere in between. I absolutely agree with Obama that in this age of global competition education is the single-most important key to opportunity. Tony Blair’s observation that, “Talent is 21st Century wealth,” is also an interesting way of thinking about it. Natural talents take many forms, but as with anything else there is a need to further develop and refine one’s talents, and there is a need to have the opportunity to experience how talents can be applied. This is what schooling is all about, and why education is the closest thing to a silver bullet for continued personal and national success. This leads me to conclude that purely partisan rhetoric and the need to insist that only the right’s philosophy or the left’s philosophy is correct is pure nonsense, and serious support for public education (which accounts for the education of 90% of our children) is absolutely essential.
Sunday, July 10, 2005
Network Theory with Emphasis on Al Qaeda
A relatively new field that has permeated its way into numerous other scientific, economic, and social science fields is network theory. As researchers have been focusing on complexity in our world, and how seemingly random connections between different entities can self-organize into something with structure, within the last decade or so some breakthroughs have been made that have helped in our understanding of such strange bedfellows as the Internet, World Wide Web, food webs, the spread of disease through social networks, how businesses live and die in the marketplace, and biochemical networks within our cells. Such completely different systems are linked together through the same mathematical organization, which is the basis of network theory.
A great introduction into the field is Albert-Laszlo Barabasi’s book “Linked.” Barabasi and his team discovered that the systems mentioned above (and more) are so-called scale-free networks. The idea is built around the concept of a hub, which is a node or component of a system that is linked to other nodes of the system. The World Wide Web, for instance, has as its nodes websites. There are, of course, billions of websites currently. But the vast majority of individual websites may only have a couple other websites that link to it. Only a very small number have large numbers of other websites that link to it. Some examples of popular websites are Yahoo, Google, CNN, and so on. These popular sites are hubs. Hubs essentially can be thought of as holding large portions of the network together. Problems can conceivably arise if a hub fails. The Internet is a similar sort of network with servers, personal computers, and routers as its hubs. A good summary article is in the May, 2003 Scientific American.
One can understand from this model how computer viruses are so effective and can spread so quickly around the world. If a single, typical node (perhaps my computer) is ‘infected’ by a virus sent out (normally via email) to the Internet, and if that node were to somehow contain it and not send an email out to anyone else, nothing would happen to the rest of the network. But if I were to send emails to a number of friends and acquaintances, or if the virus were sent to numerous nodes in the network, as each node sent out emails the virus spreads to each of those nodes, and before long it is possible to have a cascading effect. Now, if a hub is infected, and it is linked to many, many other nodes of the Internet network, large numbers of nodes of the Internet may be infected almost simultaneously, perhaps before an ‘antidote’ piece of software can be made available. On the other hand, let’s suppose hubs are ‘cured’ of a virus relatively quickly, but some of the small, peripheral nodes are infected. The virus is not extinguished just because hubs are cured. In fact, computer viruses can persist for long periods of time (6 months to as long as 14 months after antidote software is available) even without infected hubs because they can still move around, albeit slowly, between the poorly connected nodes of the network.
One interesting aspect of this is to think of a social network such as Al Qaeda. This organization follows scale-free network structures, rather than some other types of social network structures. Other types may be a hub-and-spoke structure like a dictatorship, where a central hub runs the entire network. A tree structure is also possible, with a set chain of command (much like a typical military organization, where more minor decisions can be made locally in parts of the network, and major, global decisions made by someone like the President or a top general, and this decision cascades down to lower parts of the network simultaneously. Al Qaeda is neither of these, but rather a ‘web without a spider.’ An analysis was done after the 9/11 attacks to determine the structure of the cell responsible for the attacks (this is outlined in Barabasi’s book). Mohamed Atta was indeed a hub of the suspected 34-person cell. But, he only had links with 16 other nodes. Marwan Al-Shehhi was linked with only 14 other members of the cell. Most of the other members only may have had one or two known links to other nodes, which is a signature structure for a scale-free network. If we assume the entire Al Qaeda organization is similarly structured, what we are fighting is indeed a network that is very flexible and can tolerate some number of internal failures. If Atta was captured prior to 9/11, that event would not have necessarily crippled the cell, and the attacks may have very well gone as planned. The reason is that the other nodes still had the links to hold together the cell, so even taking out the leader of the cell does not disconnect all the other links. Killing Bin Laden will not in itself cripple Al Qaeda for the same reason. In fact we have seen this because a number of Bin Laden’s very well-connected lieutenants (i.e. other hubs) have been killed or captured, and yet the attacks and killing by the periphery of Al Qaeda continue unabated. This is completely analogous to viruses in the Internet, where if a hub is ‘cured’ (i.e. Bin Laden removed) the virus may still be able to do damage through poorly connected nodes (small cells on the periphery of Al Qaeda’s network, acting almost independently). This is part of the power of a scale-free network structure.
If Al Qaeda had more of a military structure, taking out Bin Laden and some key lieutenants would likely cripple and possibly defeat the organization, much like taking out key generals in a war can have devastating consequences for the outcome of battles and perhaps the war itself. Unfortunately, it is not so simple with the terrorist organizations we are facing.
Thanks to Zenpundit for asking me to write up something on this. I am not an expert, but hopefully this helps in some small way for understanding bare basics of a network like Al Qaeda.
A great introduction into the field is Albert-Laszlo Barabasi’s book “Linked.” Barabasi and his team discovered that the systems mentioned above (and more) are so-called scale-free networks. The idea is built around the concept of a hub, which is a node or component of a system that is linked to other nodes of the system. The World Wide Web, for instance, has as its nodes websites. There are, of course, billions of websites currently. But the vast majority of individual websites may only have a couple other websites that link to it. Only a very small number have large numbers of other websites that link to it. Some examples of popular websites are Yahoo, Google, CNN, and so on. These popular sites are hubs. Hubs essentially can be thought of as holding large portions of the network together. Problems can conceivably arise if a hub fails. The Internet is a similar sort of network with servers, personal computers, and routers as its hubs. A good summary article is in the May, 2003 Scientific American.
One can understand from this model how computer viruses are so effective and can spread so quickly around the world. If a single, typical node (perhaps my computer) is ‘infected’ by a virus sent out (normally via email) to the Internet, and if that node were to somehow contain it and not send an email out to anyone else, nothing would happen to the rest of the network. But if I were to send emails to a number of friends and acquaintances, or if the virus were sent to numerous nodes in the network, as each node sent out emails the virus spreads to each of those nodes, and before long it is possible to have a cascading effect. Now, if a hub is infected, and it is linked to many, many other nodes of the Internet network, large numbers of nodes of the Internet may be infected almost simultaneously, perhaps before an ‘antidote’ piece of software can be made available. On the other hand, let’s suppose hubs are ‘cured’ of a virus relatively quickly, but some of the small, peripheral nodes are infected. The virus is not extinguished just because hubs are cured. In fact, computer viruses can persist for long periods of time (6 months to as long as 14 months after antidote software is available) even without infected hubs because they can still move around, albeit slowly, between the poorly connected nodes of the network.
One interesting aspect of this is to think of a social network such as Al Qaeda. This organization follows scale-free network structures, rather than some other types of social network structures. Other types may be a hub-and-spoke structure like a dictatorship, where a central hub runs the entire network. A tree structure is also possible, with a set chain of command (much like a typical military organization, where more minor decisions can be made locally in parts of the network, and major, global decisions made by someone like the President or a top general, and this decision cascades down to lower parts of the network simultaneously. Al Qaeda is neither of these, but rather a ‘web without a spider.’ An analysis was done after the 9/11 attacks to determine the structure of the cell responsible for the attacks (this is outlined in Barabasi’s book). Mohamed Atta was indeed a hub of the suspected 34-person cell. But, he only had links with 16 other nodes. Marwan Al-Shehhi was linked with only 14 other members of the cell. Most of the other members only may have had one or two known links to other nodes, which is a signature structure for a scale-free network. If we assume the entire Al Qaeda organization is similarly structured, what we are fighting is indeed a network that is very flexible and can tolerate some number of internal failures. If Atta was captured prior to 9/11, that event would not have necessarily crippled the cell, and the attacks may have very well gone as planned. The reason is that the other nodes still had the links to hold together the cell, so even taking out the leader of the cell does not disconnect all the other links. Killing Bin Laden will not in itself cripple Al Qaeda for the same reason. In fact we have seen this because a number of Bin Laden’s very well-connected lieutenants (i.e. other hubs) have been killed or captured, and yet the attacks and killing by the periphery of Al Qaeda continue unabated. This is completely analogous to viruses in the Internet, where if a hub is ‘cured’ (i.e. Bin Laden removed) the virus may still be able to do damage through poorly connected nodes (small cells on the periphery of Al Qaeda’s network, acting almost independently). This is part of the power of a scale-free network structure.
If Al Qaeda had more of a military structure, taking out Bin Laden and some key lieutenants would likely cripple and possibly defeat the organization, much like taking out key generals in a war can have devastating consequences for the outcome of battles and perhaps the war itself. Unfortunately, it is not so simple with the terrorist organizations we are facing.
Thanks to Zenpundit for asking me to write up something on this. I am not an expert, but hopefully this helps in some small way for understanding bare basics of a network like Al Qaeda.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
A Most Amusing Lawsuit
A Russian astrologer has filed a $300 million lawsuit against NASA for colliding the Deep Impact probe into a comet. The collision has "ruined the natural forces in the universe" and has caused emotional stress since her horoscope has been thrown off. No kidding, this is a real story! I cannot think of a thing to say about this or have any amusing or sarcastic remarks because it speaks for itself. I'd love to hear your comments, though! It is a pity NASA may actually have to deal with this, though.
Monday, July 04, 2005
A Brief Note of Interest to the Biologists
As I perused the Current Science page of the Scientific American website, I came across something from June. A photosynthetic bacterium has been discovered 2400 meters below the ocean surface. Now, sunlight doesn't reach down that far. What is the source of some very dim light? Hydrothermal vents! These critters live in the 300 degree Celsius water, and are identified as a member of the green sulfur bacteria family (which live solely on products coming from photosynthetic reactions). Some suspect life may have originated in such environments. I am continually amazed at the variety, complexity, and strangeness of life, and suspect like most biologists that there are still numerous species out there we have not yet seen or identified. We are finding that life of some type can exist and thrive in every environment we have looked on earth, and it just strengthens my belief that there must be some form of life (not necessarily little green men, but certainly microorganisms) on numerous worlds scattered throughout the universe.
Now This is the Type of Fireworks Worth Mentioning...
NASA did it! For the first time a manmade spacecraft has hit a comet. Deep Impact, a nearly half-ton probe, performed a sicide mission and slammed into the comet Tempel 1 at around 23,000 mph. The collision took place around 83 million miles from earth. NASA has a wonderful website dedicated to the mission, with some truly remarkable pictures as the impact neared and then took place. Scientists should be able to get a better idea of the composition of comets, which si significant because it could reveal some answers to questions about the early solar system. For example, when the earth was first formed some 4.5 billion years ago, one source of getting water on the new planet may have been comets (which are suspected to be largely big ice balls). There were presumably countless collisions between meteors, asteroids and comets in the early days of the formation of earth, and certain chemicals (even amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, which have been found on meteors) may have been delivered in those collisions. In any case, what a great mission!
Friday, July 01, 2005
Check this out...
I just wanted to reciprocate the plug Mike Lach gave me on his blog, Teach and Learn. Mike is Director of Science in the Chicago Public Schools, and is leading the effort to make significant improvements and changes in big-city science education. You da man, Mike!
Kudos to Will Smith
I just wanted to praise rapper/actor Will Smith for taking a stand on the influence tough “gangster” rappers have on Black youth, and the call for rappers to understand their power as role models and the need for more positive messages in rap songs. Smith has taken a hit by certain Black radio stations that won’t play his latest songs, perhaps because, as he states in some lyrics, he is not “black enough” if he doesn’t talk about violence or other thuggish themes. It is encouraging to see high-profile and well respected African-Americans such as Smith and Bill Cosby (who was just featured on Nightline) trying to bring attention to several problems in inner city America. Perhaps it is a naïve mission on their part, but if it helps perpetuate progress in individual homes and communities, and if a few lives are saved (in both the literal and figurative sense), the more power to them.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Another Reason for Iran and North Korea to Take a Hard-Line Nuclear Stance
In case you missed it, the U.S. is in the process of making more Plutonium-238. The U.S. has not produced this isotope of plutonium since the 1980s and the end of the Cold War. While it is not to my knowledge used in nuclear weapons (that would be Plutonium-239), it is one of the more deadly materials known to man if ingested. Plutonium-238 is used for nuclear powered batteries/power cells. According to the New York Times, the Department of Energy is making several hundred pounds over a several decade period for “secret purposes,” and that it is necessary for “national security reasons.” My guess is it will be used to power drones used for intelligence gathering, and so on.
I cannot help but wonder if this and other nuclear activities the U.S. has tried to undertake has played a role in, say, the recent election of a hard-line, ultraconservative to be the next Iranian president, who almost immediately said in victory speeches Iran has no intentions of getting rid of its nuclear program. The same can be said for North Korea’s defiance in negotiations to stop its nuclear programs. Putting oneself in their shoes, if the U.S. and other nations (especially Israel) can have nuclear weapons and programs meant for “national security” why can’t Iran or North Korea (who have been singled out by the U.S.) have nuclear programs at least for commercial use, if not for their national security? How and why would you, as an Iranian or North Korean leader, have any faith in the negotiating position of the U.S. when it is so hypocritical? As a superpower we may just be able to ultimately get our way on both fronts, but our actions do seem to be counterproductive and only encourage other nations to take hard-line positions in negotiations.
I cannot help but wonder if this and other nuclear activities the U.S. has tried to undertake has played a role in, say, the recent election of a hard-line, ultraconservative to be the next Iranian president, who almost immediately said in victory speeches Iran has no intentions of getting rid of its nuclear program. The same can be said for North Korea’s defiance in negotiations to stop its nuclear programs. Putting oneself in their shoes, if the U.S. and other nations (especially Israel) can have nuclear weapons and programs meant for “national security” why can’t Iran or North Korea (who have been singled out by the U.S.) have nuclear programs at least for commercial use, if not for their national security? How and why would you, as an Iranian or North Korean leader, have any faith in the negotiating position of the U.S. when it is so hypocritical? As a superpower we may just be able to ultimately get our way on both fronts, but our actions do seem to be counterproductive and only encourage other nations to take hard-line positions in negotiations.
"Tweakers" Discussion
There was an interesting post on the Neurolearning site concerning the education of "tweakers." As defined by the Drs. Eide,
"Tweakers are people who have creative discontent. They are not just critics, but intrinsically motivated people who seem to be striving toward perfection. Tweakers are generally confident that the way things are can generally be made better, and that they can find some way to do it. "
They then present some successful environments that help cultivate and enhance these types of students, as well as some environments that are discourage such students. I found this interesting because I, and likely all science teachers, have had tweakers in class at some point. As for how to keep them engaged in a classroom, here is a portion of the comment I left on Neurolearning:
One approach that works very well with them is to include variety in everything that is being taught. We look at new material by using mini-labs for students to try and figure out new relationships for phenomena before even mentioning them formally in class; readings; journal articles; traditional lectures; multiple demos; appropriate videos; more formal experiments; students presenting individual research results; computer simulations; small group work focused on applications and problem solving; and even links to to politics, industry, history, other areas of science or technology, and whatever else comes to mind. The point is, by working in an environment where the same material or problem is looked at from multiple perspectives, 'tweakers,' as well as most students, tend to keep their focus and interest in the material being studied. 'Tweakers' in particular tend to go into intellectual overdrive, since they develop so many new ideas to try and attack a problem or device. In addition, because everyone learns in different ways, variety tends to keep all students engaged, which is ultimately what we are after.
Many thanks to Zenpundit for pointing me to this discussion.
"Tweakers are people who have creative discontent. They are not just critics, but intrinsically motivated people who seem to be striving toward perfection. Tweakers are generally confident that the way things are can generally be made better, and that they can find some way to do it. "
They then present some successful environments that help cultivate and enhance these types of students, as well as some environments that are discourage such students. I found this interesting because I, and likely all science teachers, have had tweakers in class at some point. As for how to keep them engaged in a classroom, here is a portion of the comment I left on Neurolearning:
One approach that works very well with them is to include variety in everything that is being taught. We look at new material by using mini-labs for students to try and figure out new relationships for phenomena before even mentioning them formally in class; readings; journal articles; traditional lectures; multiple demos; appropriate videos; more formal experiments; students presenting individual research results; computer simulations; small group work focused on applications and problem solving; and even links to to politics, industry, history, other areas of science or technology, and whatever else comes to mind. The point is, by working in an environment where the same material or problem is looked at from multiple perspectives, 'tweakers,' as well as most students, tend to keep their focus and interest in the material being studied. 'Tweakers' in particular tend to go into intellectual overdrive, since they develop so many new ideas to try and attack a problem or device. In addition, because everyone learns in different ways, variety tends to keep all students engaged, which is ultimately what we are after.
Many thanks to Zenpundit for pointing me to this discussion.
Friday, June 24, 2005
So Much for an "Ownership Society"
The current administration has a vision of an "ownership society." However, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has now handed the well-to-do and corporate America another feather for their caps. Local governments can force you to leave your home for economic development of the community (which almost certainly guarantees someone or some small group a nice payday along the way). Something about this stinks. Isn’t this something the U.S. has routinely lectured other governments about not doing? Anybody have an opinion on this one?
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Neutrinos in the Early Universe
Big Bang models for the creation of the universe make a variety of predictions that come out of the equations of the models. As technology for astrophysical sciences improves and computer simulations and observational methodologies are generated and tested by a variety of means, some sensitive tests are now being done to check the validity of the Big Bang predictions. For example, the rate at which the universe is expanding, star formation and life cycles, and cosmic background radiation distributions have been tested for some number of years and support Big Bang predictions (as well as inflationary models, which are refined Big Bang models).
A new test has been done and reported in the latest edition of the scientific journal Nature. Detailed studies of the cosmic background radiation map of the universe have revealed small asymmetric patterns and clumping in the data, as predicted by inflation. However, at very small levels there is a ‘smoothing’ effect that has been observed that matches a prediction that in the early universe neutrinos could have affected the gravitational interaction of clumps of matter. Very interesting, indeed!
A new test has been done and reported in the latest edition of the scientific journal Nature. Detailed studies of the cosmic background radiation map of the universe have revealed small asymmetric patterns and clumping in the data, as predicted by inflation. However, at very small levels there is a ‘smoothing’ effect that has been observed that matches a prediction that in the early universe neutrinos could have affected the gravitational interaction of clumps of matter. Very interesting, indeed!
A Call for Thoughts and Ideas on Education
Here is a chance to share thoughts and ideas about education. I'd lke to develop this over time so anyone can (hopefully) gain new insights or ideas that are useful for those in education or with interest in education.
The first topic I want to encourage discussion, commentary and contributions on deals with education in general. Questions to think about include: What is good and bad about American public schools (can be elementary, middle or high school level)? What can government, industry, business, and universities do, if anything, to help improve primary and secondary education? Should there be a national standard and law (such as No Child Left Behind) to drive public schools? I have already begun to add my own thoughts at
http://vonscience.blogspot.com/2005/06/suggested-modification-to-no-child.html and http://vonscience.blogspot.com/2005/05/american-model-of-public-schools-needs.html.
Thanks for anything you have to offer on these or any other topics I've touched on below.
The first topic I want to encourage discussion, commentary and contributions on deals with education in general. Questions to think about include: What is good and bad about American public schools (can be elementary, middle or high school level)? What can government, industry, business, and universities do, if anything, to help improve primary and secondary education? Should there be a national standard and law (such as No Child Left Behind) to drive public schools? I have already begun to add my own thoughts at
http://vonscience.blogspot.com/2005/06/suggested-modification-to-no-child.html and http://vonscience.blogspot.com/2005/05/american-model-of-public-schools-needs.html.
Thanks for anything you have to offer on these or any other topics I've touched on below.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Nuclear Renaissance Awaits, But...
In solving America’s problem of too much dependence on foreign oil, the Bush energy plan places a significant emphasis on the re-emergence of nuclear power plants. While in principle this is reasonable, it is important to solve existing problems, ranging from cost overruns that plagued the construction of reactors in the 1970s and 1980s after Three-Mile Island; a flood of safety, construction and environmental regulations that need to be considered before even starting to dig on a site; terrorist attack scenarios; as well as the long-term problem of storage of nuclear waste. Until all this is done, it may be a number of years before we see the first new reactor in almost three decades built and operating (perhaps in ten years, perhaps longer). New technologies make this a safer and more cost effective source of energy than existing reactors (of which there are nearly 100 operating facilities), but there is no technology that deals with the waste issue effectively. With some 50,000 tons of nuclear waste in the country already spread around at over 100 facilities, and the Yucca Mountain “solution” up in the air, this is an enormous problem from both an environmental and national security perspective.
If the money and resources for R&D are put into these problems, I am confident our scientists and engineers will be able to one day solve such problems. In addition, one cannot forget to commit and push in other directions of energy production, whether it is solar, wind, geothermal, or others that get beyond the use of limited natural resources that will cease to exist one day. The long-term prosperity of civilization ultimately depends on energy and the environment, so it is vital that our leadership truly get serious about all the issues that will lead to actual progress in this area.
If the money and resources for R&D are put into these problems, I am confident our scientists and engineers will be able to one day solve such problems. In addition, one cannot forget to commit and push in other directions of energy production, whether it is solar, wind, geothermal, or others that get beyond the use of limited natural resources that will cease to exist one day. The long-term prosperity of civilization ultimately depends on energy and the environment, so it is vital that our leadership truly get serious about all the issues that will lead to actual progress in this area.
House Passes Flag Burning Amendment
Once again there is a flag burning debate in Washington. The House passed a potential amendment to the Constitution with over 60% of Representatives voting for its passage, and, as in the past, the Senate will decide whether it gets through.
No American enjoys seeing the Stars and Stripes burned. But, in my mind, as disgusting and disrespectful an act as I personally find it, I need to agree that it is a right of our citizens. While the flag is our ultimate symbol around the world, the more important piece of the puzzle is the fact that Americans can protest in any way we choose, as long as it does not directly hurt someone. I find KKK marches equally disgusting because of what that group stands for, but in this day and age of a war on terrorism, we still allow this group that practiced terrorism on our land a chance to have their day in the public’s eye. Being able to speak out or protest is as fundamental a right as each one of us has, and creating amendments that begin to limit that right need to be considered with great care. One other thing to consider, when is the last time anyone has seen an instance of flag burning in the U.S.? It is common overseas, but I cannot recall anything here for a very long time.
I encourage those who read this to share your views, whether for or against such an amendment, because it really is an important decision our leaders will be making.
No American enjoys seeing the Stars and Stripes burned. But, in my mind, as disgusting and disrespectful an act as I personally find it, I need to agree that it is a right of our citizens. While the flag is our ultimate symbol around the world, the more important piece of the puzzle is the fact that Americans can protest in any way we choose, as long as it does not directly hurt someone. I find KKK marches equally disgusting because of what that group stands for, but in this day and age of a war on terrorism, we still allow this group that practiced terrorism on our land a chance to have their day in the public’s eye. Being able to speak out or protest is as fundamental a right as each one of us has, and creating amendments that begin to limit that right need to be considered with great care. One other thing to consider, when is the last time anyone has seen an instance of flag burning in the U.S.? It is common overseas, but I cannot recall anything here for a very long time.
I encourage those who read this to share your views, whether for or against such an amendment, because it really is an important decision our leaders will be making.
Saturday, June 18, 2005
Check Out Some Public School Successes: High School Science Research
Public schools have taken a real beating the past few years. How often do we hear positive news about our public school system? Probably not very often (with the possible excpetion of high school sports). I just wanted to point out some independent science research projects done by high school students, and the level of work that can be accomplished (many have earned national recognition). There is hope for the future, really, with many of the kids who are coming through the public school pipeline!
Friday, June 17, 2005
Why is the U.S. Making Non-Proliferation Talks More Difficult?
Iran and North Korea are playing games with the U.S. and other nations when it comes to talks regarding their nuclear programs. North Korea has not been shy to state they have nuclear weapons already, whereas Iran insists their program is strictly for civilian nuclear power (which they are allowed to do as a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), although in 2002 they were forced to admit they had been secretly trying to enrich uranium, a first step for weapons production). Even with today’s elections, Iranian officials state a new president will not affect or alter nuclear policy. The U.S. and European nations that have been trying to engage these members of the Bush ‘axis of evil’ do not, of course, trust the Iranians or North Koreans, with good reason based on past actions.
However, it seems to me that we are making things more difficult for ourselves because of the hypocrisy demonstrated by the Bush administration’s program to develop a new nuclear based generation of ‘bunker busting’ bombs. The so-called mini-nukes have been quietly researched over the past two to three years. In negotiations with any nation over non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, how can any government be expected to take such negotiations seriously if the U.S. is involved? The ‘might makes right’ and ‘do as I say, not as I do’ mentality we have demonstrated can only make serious negotiation and progress towards non-proliferation more difficult. For a known sponsor of terrorists such as Iran and a secretive, isolated regime such as we find in North Korea, when they are backed into a corner by the U.S. with threats and tough rhetoric, the response they will exhibit loses any practical, predictive level. Throw in hypocrisy over nuclear weapons and we have just given them incentive to continue to play games; what reason do we offer that other nations can trust us?
It is no secret I think hitting Iraq when we did was a mistake. Iraq was contained at the time with no-fly zones and inspectors on the ground. If the Bush administration had actually let the inspectors do their job we likely would have avoided war if the true reason was to disarm Iraq from WMDs. From the recent publication of the British Downing Street memo stating war plans were drawn up many months before public talk about a possible war, it is more clear than ever this was not necessarily the case. Be that as it may, by saving our military from an Iraq conflict, we would be in better position to back up our tough talk with Iran and North Korea. Even three or four years ago Iran and North Korea were thought to have more established WMD programs than Iraq, and we gave the other two axes of the evil triangle multiple years worth of time to dig in and likely expand their programs. With few military options left for these countries presently, and hypocrisy taking away a truly persuasive argument to dismiss the intent to develop nuclear weapons, we should not be surprised by the continued difficulties we face with Iran and North Korea. Besides these negotiations, the U.S., in my opinion, should be making a much greater effort to get the Russians to stabilize their nuclear stockpiles from the black market, which is likely the greatest threat for a nuclear weapon to get in the hands of a terrorist group.
For some articles on the effects of ‘mini-nukes,’ check this out.
However, it seems to me that we are making things more difficult for ourselves because of the hypocrisy demonstrated by the Bush administration’s program to develop a new nuclear based generation of ‘bunker busting’ bombs. The so-called mini-nukes have been quietly researched over the past two to three years. In negotiations with any nation over non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, how can any government be expected to take such negotiations seriously if the U.S. is involved? The ‘might makes right’ and ‘do as I say, not as I do’ mentality we have demonstrated can only make serious negotiation and progress towards non-proliferation more difficult. For a known sponsor of terrorists such as Iran and a secretive, isolated regime such as we find in North Korea, when they are backed into a corner by the U.S. with threats and tough rhetoric, the response they will exhibit loses any practical, predictive level. Throw in hypocrisy over nuclear weapons and we have just given them incentive to continue to play games; what reason do we offer that other nations can trust us?
It is no secret I think hitting Iraq when we did was a mistake. Iraq was contained at the time with no-fly zones and inspectors on the ground. If the Bush administration had actually let the inspectors do their job we likely would have avoided war if the true reason was to disarm Iraq from WMDs. From the recent publication of the British Downing Street memo stating war plans were drawn up many months before public talk about a possible war, it is more clear than ever this was not necessarily the case. Be that as it may, by saving our military from an Iraq conflict, we would be in better position to back up our tough talk with Iran and North Korea. Even three or four years ago Iran and North Korea were thought to have more established WMD programs than Iraq, and we gave the other two axes of the evil triangle multiple years worth of time to dig in and likely expand their programs. With few military options left for these countries presently, and hypocrisy taking away a truly persuasive argument to dismiss the intent to develop nuclear weapons, we should not be surprised by the continued difficulties we face with Iran and North Korea. Besides these negotiations, the U.S., in my opinion, should be making a much greater effort to get the Russians to stabilize their nuclear stockpiles from the black market, which is likely the greatest threat for a nuclear weapon to get in the hands of a terrorist group.
For some articles on the effects of ‘mini-nukes,’ check this out.
Friday, June 10, 2005
Some thoughts on Global Warming and the current Adminstration
Tony Blair was just in Washington and tried to cash in some of the political capital he earned by supporting President Bush on the Iraq war. One of the main topics of conversation was the global environment. The Brits, of course, along with the rest of the industrial world, favor the Kyoto Protocol for reducing the amount of emissions of greenhouse gases. The U.S., which is by far the world’s biggest producer of pollution and greenhouse gases (~25%, with ~5% of the world’s population), has, under Bush, refused to sign the treaty. Instead, the current administration favors voluntary reductions by industry, and has in fact relaxed various restrictions on various emitted pollutants (such as mercury) and weakened the Clean Air and Water Act. The argument, which was restated by Bush at a joint press conference with Blair, is that the science needs to be better before we can state that humans have contributed to global warming and climate change. This view held by the administration is contrary to the view held by the overwhelming number and percentage of scientists who study this topic, and contradicts previous administration admissions that human emissions do play a role in global climate changes. Perhaps Bush is holding out for an exact figure of the effect humans have had, and no scientist at the moment can give a firm number due to uncertainties in the data and computer models. While the magnitude of the effect humans have on the global environment is debatable, the vast majority of world experts don’t doubt we play a significant role in global warming and environment change.
What is interesting, though, is the latest news reported by the New York Times that a White House staffer (who happens to be a former oil lobbyist) has repeatedly edited scientific reports to downplay the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming. This goes along with a continued pattern of this administration ignoring, editing, or spinning not just scientific data and evidence that may go against a wanted policy initiative, but other types of evidence (or lack thereof) that may hinder an initiative, such as Iraq (where inspectors found no weapons of mass destruction at sites provided by intelligence agencies, which suggested major flaws in the intelligence being used to justify war). While spinning data and studies to suit the needs of an administration occurs at some level in all administrations, the lack of respect for hard facts and validated scientific results has seemed to flourish the past five years under Bush. Perhaps no other policy area demonstrates this more than environmental policy.
For example, a 2000 blue ribbon commission of government and independent scientists reported on the national assessment of what continued warming could mean for the U.S. This was published shortly before Bush took office, so they could not censor the report itself. Instead, the current administration has censored the findings and recommendations from the record for development of all subsequent significant associated public policy decisions and science program reports. Bush dismissed a 2002 report that the State Department submitted to the U.N reporting on the findings of an EPA report that concluded global warming is “due in large part to human activity,” as simply “a report put out by the bureaucracy.” (Whatever that is supposed to mean) He dismissed a 1999 study of record rises in global temperatures over the previous decade, as well as a National Research Council report in 2001 (that Bush actually commissioned himself) that had the same conclusions as the other scientific reports. In 2003, another EPA report saw a section deleted by the White House. Why? It was a section that stated there is conclusive evidence that global warming is affected by car and factory emissions. Shortly after that an internal memo was leaked to the New York Times where an EPA official was quoted as saying the White House policies for the environment, “no longer accurately represents the scientific consensus on climate change.” And shortly after all this happened, Christine Todd Whitman resigned as EPA administrator. And on it goes.
Worldwide we are seeing signs of global warming - unprecedented rates of increase in temperature, record droughts in some parts of the world, unprecedented rates of glacial melting, the beginnings of migrations of disease to new areas, changing ocean currents (which drive global weather patterns), changes in coral reefs, and so on. No one knows the extent of devastation that may occur on a global scale because the global weather system is so complex we have not yet figured it out completely enough for computer models. But the best science we have right now all suggest that some part of the climate changes we are seeing, along with the consequences, is do to us, and putting the policies that may help reduce global changes in place need to happen sooner than later because changes are occurring at a rapid pace. Yes, no one doubts part of the changes are part of natural climatic cycles. Yes, it will cost large sums of money to make necessary changes to help reduce certain types of greenhouse emissions. Yes, there are gaps in and legitimate questions that can be asked of the data. But if we can start preemptive wars where many tens of thousands of people die based on questionable evidence, can we not help preserve our world for our kids and future generations, where literally billions of people will be affected in some way? Most of the rest of the world is willing to make an effort, but their efforts will almost certainly be in vain if the U.S. does not participate. It is easy to keep the environment off of your radar screen in times of war and social security issues, but it is vital to the future of human civilization, period.
What is interesting, though, is the latest news reported by the New York Times that a White House staffer (who happens to be a former oil lobbyist) has repeatedly edited scientific reports to downplay the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming. This goes along with a continued pattern of this administration ignoring, editing, or spinning not just scientific data and evidence that may go against a wanted policy initiative, but other types of evidence (or lack thereof) that may hinder an initiative, such as Iraq (where inspectors found no weapons of mass destruction at sites provided by intelligence agencies, which suggested major flaws in the intelligence being used to justify war). While spinning data and studies to suit the needs of an administration occurs at some level in all administrations, the lack of respect for hard facts and validated scientific results has seemed to flourish the past five years under Bush. Perhaps no other policy area demonstrates this more than environmental policy.
For example, a 2000 blue ribbon commission of government and independent scientists reported on the national assessment of what continued warming could mean for the U.S. This was published shortly before Bush took office, so they could not censor the report itself. Instead, the current administration has censored the findings and recommendations from the record for development of all subsequent significant associated public policy decisions and science program reports. Bush dismissed a 2002 report that the State Department submitted to the U.N reporting on the findings of an EPA report that concluded global warming is “due in large part to human activity,” as simply “a report put out by the bureaucracy.” (Whatever that is supposed to mean) He dismissed a 1999 study of record rises in global temperatures over the previous decade, as well as a National Research Council report in 2001 (that Bush actually commissioned himself) that had the same conclusions as the other scientific reports. In 2003, another EPA report saw a section deleted by the White House. Why? It was a section that stated there is conclusive evidence that global warming is affected by car and factory emissions. Shortly after that an internal memo was leaked to the New York Times where an EPA official was quoted as saying the White House policies for the environment, “no longer accurately represents the scientific consensus on climate change.” And shortly after all this happened, Christine Todd Whitman resigned as EPA administrator. And on it goes.
Worldwide we are seeing signs of global warming - unprecedented rates of increase in temperature, record droughts in some parts of the world, unprecedented rates of glacial melting, the beginnings of migrations of disease to new areas, changing ocean currents (which drive global weather patterns), changes in coral reefs, and so on. No one knows the extent of devastation that may occur on a global scale because the global weather system is so complex we have not yet figured it out completely enough for computer models. But the best science we have right now all suggest that some part of the climate changes we are seeing, along with the consequences, is do to us, and putting the policies that may help reduce global changes in place need to happen sooner than later because changes are occurring at a rapid pace. Yes, no one doubts part of the changes are part of natural climatic cycles. Yes, it will cost large sums of money to make necessary changes to help reduce certain types of greenhouse emissions. Yes, there are gaps in and legitimate questions that can be asked of the data. But if we can start preemptive wars where many tens of thousands of people die based on questionable evidence, can we not help preserve our world for our kids and future generations, where literally billions of people will be affected in some way? Most of the rest of the world is willing to make an effort, but their efforts will almost certainly be in vain if the U.S. does not participate. It is easy to keep the environment off of your radar screen in times of war and social security issues, but it is vital to the future of human civilization, period.
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Suggested Modification to No Child Left Behind
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law was established in 2002. This is the national education reform package the Bush administration and Congress passed early in Bush’s first term, and was sold as a new, far reaching, and near revolutionary approach to education. My first comment needs to be that there really aren’t many new ideas in NCLB. It is based on the need to see consistent improvements in state standardized test scores, places an emphasis on math, reading and writing, and has accountability of schools (including watch lists and lists of failing schools) built into it. There are consequences for schools that don’t improve fast enough, such as giving parents and students options to go to other non-failing schools and taking money away from poorly performing schools. It also requires tutoring and other extracurricular options for students at failing schools and mandates that ‘highly qualified teachers’ are necessary in all classrooms.
Of all that, there really isn’t any new, visionary, or revolutionary approach to fixing many of the nation’s public schools. Most, if not all, states had some sort of state testing system in place well before Bush first took office. I teach in an Illinois public high school and used to teach in the Chicago Public Schools, and there have been state standards, state testing, and watch lists for years. In Chicago, early in the Clinton administration, the public school system (once called the nation’s worst by Bill Bennett) became the national model for large systems by ridding itself of social promotion, requiring improvement in reading scores at all levels of schooling, placing schools on probation, instituting local control for all schools, taking over the worst schools and replacing ineffective principals and staff. Chicago has always allowed students to attend any high school in the city, depending on waiting lists and enrollments after neighborhood kids had first dibs. Much of this sounds like NCLB, which Bush of course takes credit for. Having said that, I do think there is some good in NCLB. Perhaps the best aspect of the NCLB law is that it requires schools to look at data for all demographic groups of the population rather than just overall averages. While many schools already have been doing this, not all were looking at breakdowns specifically between White students and minority students, male and female, low income students, and students with disabilities or in special education programs. This is valuable, and at many schools with diverse populations, the minority student achievement gaps that have gained national attention truly begin to stand out. NCLB continues to emphasize mathematics, reading and writing, which are the essential skills necessary for learning in all other subjects, and soon science will be added to the list. This is all very good and necessary for schools to address and fix.
I, and the overwhelming number of colleagues and educators I know, do have a number of issues with NCLB, however. While testing is absolutely a necessary piece of the assessment process, one problem is that NCLB uses standardized tests as the sole assessment for students and schools. Testing gives a single snapshot at a single time, and any educator knows that a single test is not at all indicative of how much a student knows. Just think about tests you have taken during your school years, and afterward wanted to kick yourself for making silly mistakes, running out of time even though you knew the rest of the problems, taking the exam while being ill, or not getting enough sleep the night before. What’s worse, the scores used in NCLB for evaluating each year in school are not used in a longitudinal manner. In other words, the kids in 5th grade being tested this year to assess the 5th grade move on to the 6th grade next year. Next year’s scores to see if there was improvement for the 5th grade will come from next year’s 5th graders, a completely different and independent set of kids. Comparing this year’s 5th grade scores with next year’s does not necessarily measure what you want to see, which is the academic improvement for a given child.
The other problem I and many others have is that an arbitrary cutoff of 40% was used last year to assess schools. What do I mean by this? In a high school, for instance, juniors take a state exam that tests them on state standards for reading, math, and science. The results of those tests are the broken down in terms of the percentage of students who meet or exceed standards and those who do not meet the standards. Last year, for a school to be deemed a ‘passing’ school, 40% of students needed to meet or exceed standards. Each sub-group of students need to meet this percentage, rather than the overall school average. Each successive year needs to increase that percentage by 5%, and ultimately 100% need to meet or exceed standards. The arbitrary 40% will put numerous schools on ‘failing’ lists even though they may make remarkable progress from one year to the next, especially inner-city schools and schools with large immigrant populations. Such schools may start off with 10% - 20% of students meeting reading standards. These schools tend to have all the major problems ranging from large-scale poverty, gangs and drugs, lack of resources and qualified teachers, and large percentages of students where English is their second language.
Let’s say a school starting off at 10% of students meeting reading standards makes a major school-wide push and doubles their scores to 20% meeting or exceeding standards. This is not easy and requires a school-wide focus on reading, as I can personally account for when I taught at a city school where 95% of students were from low income families and 75% had English as a second language and we made such gains. Well, so much for the effort because that school will be put on a failing list. Even if the next year saw an additional 10% increase, it would still be far below the increasing cutoff percentage, and this ‘school on the rise doing remarkable work’ will continue to be a ‘failing’ school and will eventually begin to lose money even though mandated reforms will require more money. Most of these schools are already in the red, by the way. Parents will be given the option for their children to attend a nearby school, if that other school is willing to take in more students, but guess what? Chances are other city schools are also failing and overcrowded, and cannot handle more students. Nearby private schools tend to not take in more students, either. What I would like to see is for a school to be assessed on the current baseline scores, and then require yearly improvements from that baseline. Why should schools making very good progress under very difficult circumstances be punished? This would be a common sense and more fair method for assessing schools under the current structure of the law.
Hopefully, by suggesting this, the administration will not refer to me as a ‘terrorist’ since I disagree with how their reforms are being implemented (although I am, accordng to former Ed. secretary Paige, a member of a 'terrorist organization,' the NEA).
Of all that, there really isn’t any new, visionary, or revolutionary approach to fixing many of the nation’s public schools. Most, if not all, states had some sort of state testing system in place well before Bush first took office. I teach in an Illinois public high school and used to teach in the Chicago Public Schools, and there have been state standards, state testing, and watch lists for years. In Chicago, early in the Clinton administration, the public school system (once called the nation’s worst by Bill Bennett) became the national model for large systems by ridding itself of social promotion, requiring improvement in reading scores at all levels of schooling, placing schools on probation, instituting local control for all schools, taking over the worst schools and replacing ineffective principals and staff. Chicago has always allowed students to attend any high school in the city, depending on waiting lists and enrollments after neighborhood kids had first dibs. Much of this sounds like NCLB, which Bush of course takes credit for. Having said that, I do think there is some good in NCLB. Perhaps the best aspect of the NCLB law is that it requires schools to look at data for all demographic groups of the population rather than just overall averages. While many schools already have been doing this, not all were looking at breakdowns specifically between White students and minority students, male and female, low income students, and students with disabilities or in special education programs. This is valuable, and at many schools with diverse populations, the minority student achievement gaps that have gained national attention truly begin to stand out. NCLB continues to emphasize mathematics, reading and writing, which are the essential skills necessary for learning in all other subjects, and soon science will be added to the list. This is all very good and necessary for schools to address and fix.
I, and the overwhelming number of colleagues and educators I know, do have a number of issues with NCLB, however. While testing is absolutely a necessary piece of the assessment process, one problem is that NCLB uses standardized tests as the sole assessment for students and schools. Testing gives a single snapshot at a single time, and any educator knows that a single test is not at all indicative of how much a student knows. Just think about tests you have taken during your school years, and afterward wanted to kick yourself for making silly mistakes, running out of time even though you knew the rest of the problems, taking the exam while being ill, or not getting enough sleep the night before. What’s worse, the scores used in NCLB for evaluating each year in school are not used in a longitudinal manner. In other words, the kids in 5th grade being tested this year to assess the 5th grade move on to the 6th grade next year. Next year’s scores to see if there was improvement for the 5th grade will come from next year’s 5th graders, a completely different and independent set of kids. Comparing this year’s 5th grade scores with next year’s does not necessarily measure what you want to see, which is the academic improvement for a given child.
The other problem I and many others have is that an arbitrary cutoff of 40% was used last year to assess schools. What do I mean by this? In a high school, for instance, juniors take a state exam that tests them on state standards for reading, math, and science. The results of those tests are the broken down in terms of the percentage of students who meet or exceed standards and those who do not meet the standards. Last year, for a school to be deemed a ‘passing’ school, 40% of students needed to meet or exceed standards. Each sub-group of students need to meet this percentage, rather than the overall school average. Each successive year needs to increase that percentage by 5%, and ultimately 100% need to meet or exceed standards. The arbitrary 40% will put numerous schools on ‘failing’ lists even though they may make remarkable progress from one year to the next, especially inner-city schools and schools with large immigrant populations. Such schools may start off with 10% - 20% of students meeting reading standards. These schools tend to have all the major problems ranging from large-scale poverty, gangs and drugs, lack of resources and qualified teachers, and large percentages of students where English is their second language.
Let’s say a school starting off at 10% of students meeting reading standards makes a major school-wide push and doubles their scores to 20% meeting or exceeding standards. This is not easy and requires a school-wide focus on reading, as I can personally account for when I taught at a city school where 95% of students were from low income families and 75% had English as a second language and we made such gains. Well, so much for the effort because that school will be put on a failing list. Even if the next year saw an additional 10% increase, it would still be far below the increasing cutoff percentage, and this ‘school on the rise doing remarkable work’ will continue to be a ‘failing’ school and will eventually begin to lose money even though mandated reforms will require more money. Most of these schools are already in the red, by the way. Parents will be given the option for their children to attend a nearby school, if that other school is willing to take in more students, but guess what? Chances are other city schools are also failing and overcrowded, and cannot handle more students. Nearby private schools tend to not take in more students, either. What I would like to see is for a school to be assessed on the current baseline scores, and then require yearly improvements from that baseline. Why should schools making very good progress under very difficult circumstances be punished? This would be a common sense and more fair method for assessing schools under the current structure of the law.
Hopefully, by suggesting this, the administration will not refer to me as a ‘terrorist’ since I disagree with how their reforms are being implemented (although I am, accordng to former Ed. secretary Paige, a member of a 'terrorist organization,' the NEA).
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Creative People
I’m into an interesting book by Howard Gardner, called Creating Minds. He does an analysis of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Eliot, Stravinski, Graham, and Gandhi, and looks for any connecting trends/characteristics/personality traits that lead to a definition of what it takes to be creative in one’s field. Much of the book is historical and biographical, but the second part is an analysis of what Gardner believes he has found. The seven figures do share one trait, which is that they revolutionized their fields. They also were contemporaries.
Main conclusions reached by Gardner:
- each came from middle-class homes and were close to one parent
- each was encouraged to learn and work hard
- each made a first breakthrough about 10 years into a career, followed by a second breakthrough after another 10 years; after a third ten-year period, no more works that can be called ‘breakthroughs’ but rather they were elder statesmen or got into more philosophical work related to their fields
- each had periods of isolation where work was the priority
- each had friend or small support network that were used as sounding boards for the work; these friends/colleagues were also easily put by the wayside by the creator, and simply used to check the work
- each had child-like characteristics and connections
- each had no problem with dismissing authority figures in their respective fields
The seven individuals profiled by Gardner each had the “Eureka!” moment that is fantasized by so many individuals in all fields of study. A very interesting analysis of such moments of insight was done by Zenpundit back in April, and there are indeed many connections between Gardner’s analysis and Zen’s I would like to point out.
I found it most interesting that the seven featured giants had the ten year periods of insight and creativity. Insight, as outlined in Zen’s analysis, is built around the interplay of horizontal (visionary thinking) and vertical (expertise or mastery of a given domain) thinking. I agree that modern Western society is built around vertical thinking, if for any other reason there is so much knowledge in any field of study that individuals need to specialize and master one specific field. The seven creators are no exceptions to this rule. One needs to know what is happening in a field before one can revolutionize and change the field (unless one is actually creating a new field and there is no previous experience to build from). The more difficult aspect of a revolution is horizontal thinking, which is identified by both Gardner and Zen as being connected to children. To be a visionary, one needs to think outside the box and be open-minded and risk-taking, as children naturally are (children, though, do not possess the expertise to know whether or not any thoughts are even relevant to a given field). I think the key here, at least with the seven creators, is that they all did two things. They isolated themselves (which is what is needed for adults to think outside the box), and they did not hesitate to step on and dismiss existing foundations of their fields.
I am most familiar with Einstein, and an example of this revolutionary attitude is shown by the ease in which he threw out the notion of ‘the ether,’ a mysterious entity that supposedly permeated all space and was the medium responsible for light wave propagation. Experiments designed to test and prove the existence of ether failed (Michelson-Morley experiments), and theorists such as Lorentz (the leading expert of Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory in the late 19th century) developed theories to explain the failure of the experiments while keeping the ether hypothesis intact. Lorentz suggested that objects shrink in the direction of motion they are following, and he developed a series of equations that showed the magnitude of such a phenomenon. Lorentz actually came up with the correct equations (now known as the Lorentz transformations) but for all the wrong reasons. Einstein, who was isolated from mainstream physicists because he was in a patent office job rather than in a formal academic position, simply went against all the experts and dismissed the entire concept of the ether. He reasoned from two postulates that space and time are interconnected and derived, from first principles, all the equations proposed by Lorentz, and much more. This was the special theory of relativity. Because of his isolation and the ease of which he was willing to dismiss the physics foundations of the day, Einstein had made one of the great discoveries in the history of science.
It becomes, generally speaking, more difficult to make significant, creative contributions to a field as one ages, and there are several reasons for this. Perhaps most significant is the amount of bias one develops over time. It becomes more difficult to see outside the box and remain as open-minded as in younger days, since experience creates biases. Normally as you age, more responsibilities are placed on you, whether it is family and children or requests for lectures or performances of previous works, and there are more distractions, which can take away time for isolation. And many creative figures in certain fields may develop interests in other fields, or simply experience ‘burnout.’ Whatever the reasons for a particular individual, these are some reasons why significant contributions seem to die out after about twenty years, as suggested by Gardner.
Main conclusions reached by Gardner:
- each came from middle-class homes and were close to one parent
- each was encouraged to learn and work hard
- each made a first breakthrough about 10 years into a career, followed by a second breakthrough after another 10 years; after a third ten-year period, no more works that can be called ‘breakthroughs’ but rather they were elder statesmen or got into more philosophical work related to their fields
- each had periods of isolation where work was the priority
- each had friend or small support network that were used as sounding boards for the work; these friends/colleagues were also easily put by the wayside by the creator, and simply used to check the work
- each had child-like characteristics and connections
- each had no problem with dismissing authority figures in their respective fields
The seven individuals profiled by Gardner each had the “Eureka!” moment that is fantasized by so many individuals in all fields of study. A very interesting analysis of such moments of insight was done by Zenpundit back in April, and there are indeed many connections between Gardner’s analysis and Zen’s I would like to point out.
I found it most interesting that the seven featured giants had the ten year periods of insight and creativity. Insight, as outlined in Zen’s analysis, is built around the interplay of horizontal (visionary thinking) and vertical (expertise or mastery of a given domain) thinking. I agree that modern Western society is built around vertical thinking, if for any other reason there is so much knowledge in any field of study that individuals need to specialize and master one specific field. The seven creators are no exceptions to this rule. One needs to know what is happening in a field before one can revolutionize and change the field (unless one is actually creating a new field and there is no previous experience to build from). The more difficult aspect of a revolution is horizontal thinking, which is identified by both Gardner and Zen as being connected to children. To be a visionary, one needs to think outside the box and be open-minded and risk-taking, as children naturally are (children, though, do not possess the expertise to know whether or not any thoughts are even relevant to a given field). I think the key here, at least with the seven creators, is that they all did two things. They isolated themselves (which is what is needed for adults to think outside the box), and they did not hesitate to step on and dismiss existing foundations of their fields.
I am most familiar with Einstein, and an example of this revolutionary attitude is shown by the ease in which he threw out the notion of ‘the ether,’ a mysterious entity that supposedly permeated all space and was the medium responsible for light wave propagation. Experiments designed to test and prove the existence of ether failed (Michelson-Morley experiments), and theorists such as Lorentz (the leading expert of Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory in the late 19th century) developed theories to explain the failure of the experiments while keeping the ether hypothesis intact. Lorentz suggested that objects shrink in the direction of motion they are following, and he developed a series of equations that showed the magnitude of such a phenomenon. Lorentz actually came up with the correct equations (now known as the Lorentz transformations) but for all the wrong reasons. Einstein, who was isolated from mainstream physicists because he was in a patent office job rather than in a formal academic position, simply went against all the experts and dismissed the entire concept of the ether. He reasoned from two postulates that space and time are interconnected and derived, from first principles, all the equations proposed by Lorentz, and much more. This was the special theory of relativity. Because of his isolation and the ease of which he was willing to dismiss the physics foundations of the day, Einstein had made one of the great discoveries in the history of science.
It becomes, generally speaking, more difficult to make significant, creative contributions to a field as one ages, and there are several reasons for this. Perhaps most significant is the amount of bias one develops over time. It becomes more difficult to see outside the box and remain as open-minded as in younger days, since experience creates biases. Normally as you age, more responsibilities are placed on you, whether it is family and children or requests for lectures or performances of previous works, and there are more distractions, which can take away time for isolation. And many creative figures in certain fields may develop interests in other fields, or simply experience ‘burnout.’ Whatever the reasons for a particular individual, these are some reasons why significant contributions seem to die out after about twenty years, as suggested by Gardner.
Monday, May 23, 2005
1905 - A Year to Remember in Physics
Almost everyone knows the story. A 26-year old patent clerk, who at the time was a no-name in the world of physics, publishes five papers and revolutionizes not only physics, but the whole worldview of our place in the universe. In addition, his discoveries paved the way to a nuclear age. Albert Einstein’s 1905 was indeed special and likely unparalleled in the history of not only science, but human thought.
Consider that he laid the mathematical foundation for molecular motion (in describing Brownian motion); quantum mechanics (explaining the photoelectric effect); and revolutionizing our understanding of space and time. Oh, and he also came up with E = mc2. Each of these discoveries is worthy of scientific immortality, but Einstein wrote the articles largely in a four-month period. There are countless articles and books explaining Einstein’s science and life, so it is not my place to repeat what has already been said.
What I want to point out are a couple of science nuggets Einstein worked on that are not as well known as special and general relativity and the photoelectric effect. Two examples are stimulated emission and Bose-Einstein condensation. The theories for each of these phenomena were developed by Einstein via quantum mechanics, which is ironic since he spent a good portion of his career trying desperately to develop an alternative to Quantum mechanics and its probabilistic handling of the subatomic universe.
Stimulated Emission is the ‘se’ segment of laser, which stands for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. Einstein was able to reason (around 1917) that in certain types of systems, population inversion is possible. This means there are more atoms in an excited state than in a ground state. Photons, or ‘particles’ of light (hypothesized by Einstein in 1905 to explain the photoelectric effect), that are in the system are therefore more likely to stimulate the emission of other photons from an excited atom than to be absorbed by an atom. It turns out that a photon that is emitted by stimulated emission will have the same frequency (i.e. be the same color) and have the same phase as the original photon. This is called coherent light, and it is the reason laser light is so intense and remains focused over large distances. Presently lasers are used in everything from laser pointers to communications to price scanners to leveling tools to surgery. They are also used in a process called laser cooling, which makes use of a photon’s momentum (yes, relativity says things with no mass can have momentum!) to slow atoms to almost zero speed; this means the temperature can approach one-billionth of a Kelvin, which is nearly absolute zero!
Ultra-cold temperatures are just what the doctor ordered to make a strange state of matter called a Bose-Einstein condensate. These gentlemen predicted back in the early 1920s that certain particles called bosons, or particles with integer values of spin, can occupy the same energy states when cooled down. Einstein and Bose made use of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (you know a theory is weird when a rule of nature is uncertainty) in quantum mechanics to reason that at very low temperatures, where motion almost ceases to exist, the momentum of the boson is well-known. The uncertainty principle states that is the momentum is well-known, the position cannot be well-known. Because quantum mechanics treats particles as waves, and waves can overlap and interfere with each other, the wave functions of the bosons are spread out and overlap, meaning we can think of multiple bosons as occupying the same volume of physical space. Think of moving your fists towards each other, and instead of hitting each other and stopping, your fists merged together and occupied the same space like a ghost’s fists might do. Sounds weird, no?! This goes against almost everything we were taught in our science classes. The trouble is this does happen. Over the past decade, as ultra-low temperatures became possible, scientists have created Bose-Einstein condensates. A possible use of this phenomenon may lie in quantum computing, but we will almost certainly see applications in the near future.
We are still testing Einstein’s theories fifty years after his death. This year has been designated the World Year in Physics to commemorate the centennial of Einstein’s big year.
Consider that he laid the mathematical foundation for molecular motion (in describing Brownian motion); quantum mechanics (explaining the photoelectric effect); and revolutionizing our understanding of space and time. Oh, and he also came up with E = mc2. Each of these discoveries is worthy of scientific immortality, but Einstein wrote the articles largely in a four-month period. There are countless articles and books explaining Einstein’s science and life, so it is not my place to repeat what has already been said.
What I want to point out are a couple of science nuggets Einstein worked on that are not as well known as special and general relativity and the photoelectric effect. Two examples are stimulated emission and Bose-Einstein condensation. The theories for each of these phenomena were developed by Einstein via quantum mechanics, which is ironic since he spent a good portion of his career trying desperately to develop an alternative to Quantum mechanics and its probabilistic handling of the subatomic universe.
Stimulated Emission is the ‘se’ segment of laser, which stands for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. Einstein was able to reason (around 1917) that in certain types of systems, population inversion is possible. This means there are more atoms in an excited state than in a ground state. Photons, or ‘particles’ of light (hypothesized by Einstein in 1905 to explain the photoelectric effect), that are in the system are therefore more likely to stimulate the emission of other photons from an excited atom than to be absorbed by an atom. It turns out that a photon that is emitted by stimulated emission will have the same frequency (i.e. be the same color) and have the same phase as the original photon. This is called coherent light, and it is the reason laser light is so intense and remains focused over large distances. Presently lasers are used in everything from laser pointers to communications to price scanners to leveling tools to surgery. They are also used in a process called laser cooling, which makes use of a photon’s momentum (yes, relativity says things with no mass can have momentum!) to slow atoms to almost zero speed; this means the temperature can approach one-billionth of a Kelvin, which is nearly absolute zero!
Ultra-cold temperatures are just what the doctor ordered to make a strange state of matter called a Bose-Einstein condensate. These gentlemen predicted back in the early 1920s that certain particles called bosons, or particles with integer values of spin, can occupy the same energy states when cooled down. Einstein and Bose made use of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (you know a theory is weird when a rule of nature is uncertainty) in quantum mechanics to reason that at very low temperatures, where motion almost ceases to exist, the momentum of the boson is well-known. The uncertainty principle states that is the momentum is well-known, the position cannot be well-known. Because quantum mechanics treats particles as waves, and waves can overlap and interfere with each other, the wave functions of the bosons are spread out and overlap, meaning we can think of multiple bosons as occupying the same volume of physical space. Think of moving your fists towards each other, and instead of hitting each other and stopping, your fists merged together and occupied the same space like a ghost’s fists might do. Sounds weird, no?! This goes against almost everything we were taught in our science classes. The trouble is this does happen. Over the past decade, as ultra-low temperatures became possible, scientists have created Bose-Einstein condensates. A possible use of this phenomenon may lie in quantum computing, but we will almost certainly see applications in the near future.
We are still testing Einstein’s theories fifty years after his death. This year has been designated the World Year in Physics to commemorate the centennial of Einstein’s big year.
Sunday, May 22, 2005
American Model of Public Schools Needs to be Kept Intact
American public education makes for an easy target for America’s woes. How often do we hear or read that American schools are in shambles, that our kids are not learning, that rather large minority student achievement gaps exist, or that we are falling behind the world in education. There is some merit to these complaints and claims, but on the flip side, like most things, there is also some good that comes from our public schools. For instance, our top science and math students can and do hold their own in international competition (last year, for example, the U.S. Physics Team won in international competition), we have the highest worker productivity in the world, record numbers of students are taking AP exams in high school, and the U.S. has one of the highest literacy rates in the world .
One aspect of our education system that is often overlooked is the amount of freedom students have, compared to students in other countries, to choose courses both in high school and college. Sure, there are graduation requirements in core subjects such as English, math, science, social studies and history. But there is also the choice of electives that we can take advantage of to pursue personal interests or to check out because of curiosity that forms a major strength of our education system. The U.S. does not presently require high-stakes testing that determines a career path or college choice. Even colleges look beyond SAT or ACT exams in a more portfolio-based admissions process.
This is not the case in other Western, industrialized nations or many Asian/Pacific nations, however. In Germany, for example, those students who will go on to the university are identified by the 4th grade year of school. The same type of national curriculum and/or exam and relatively early determination of the path an individual student is to take is done in Great Britain, France, Russia, Japan, China, Singapore, and others. The results of a single exam or impressions of academic ability at a relatively early age largely determine the future of children in those countries. As an educator, this educational model disturbs me because I have seen firsthand numerous examples of students who are highly intelligent, but have test anxiety or work slowly to ensure they are correct, and these types of students do not do as well as they should on standardized exams. I know of many other young scholars who simply did not mature intellectually until their junior or senior year of high school, or even later in college, and then they were well on their way to successful careers in technical fields. If the U.S. had a similar system in place as the other countries mentioned above, these bright minds may very well have been stuck in a lower tier school or career, and the talents and potential contributions to society they may have made would never have a chance to be realized.
With the high-stakes testing brought about by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law, I do have fears of a national testing system that parallels much of Europe and Asia. Whether or not this is part of the right’s agenda, I know it would be a terrible mistake to edge closer to those other models. We need academic freedom for all students, so they may discover and learn about the areas of study they love and are competent in, even if it takes one a little longer than the average. The Harvard educator Howard Gardner developed the theory of multiple intelligences back in 1983, and I am a firm believer in the concept behind his theory (although I would replace the word ‘intelligence’ with ‘competency’). Whatever the language, I think each of us knows we have certain strengths in some subjects and are noticeably weaker in other areas of study. But in the U.S. we have a chance to be exposed to all areas of study throughout our school years. We have the freedom to choose whether we pursue the sciences, math, languages, athletics, the arts, or other non-academic paths after high school. We discover what our ‘intelligences’ are and then pursue them, or perhaps even work and gain experience in other areas we are weaker in. Many nations do not allow their students these same options, at least not to the same extent as American students. In my mind the American public education model, even with the obvious problems that exist, has played a significant and overlooked role in our development as a superpower, because individuals choose what paths they take rather than the state, based on some exam result (it is interesting to note that the Brits, as of this year, are beginning to allow more personalization and breadth in their high school equivalent grades, as stated in an Education White Paper, perhaps influenced by the American model). Maintaining and strengthening our public education system is therefore vital to the future of the U.S. Without it and the academic freedom built into the system, I am convinced we will run the risk of losing our status and place as a global leader.
One aspect of our education system that is often overlooked is the amount of freedom students have, compared to students in other countries, to choose courses both in high school and college. Sure, there are graduation requirements in core subjects such as English, math, science, social studies and history. But there is also the choice of electives that we can take advantage of to pursue personal interests or to check out because of curiosity that forms a major strength of our education system. The U.S. does not presently require high-stakes testing that determines a career path or college choice. Even colleges look beyond SAT or ACT exams in a more portfolio-based admissions process.
This is not the case in other Western, industrialized nations or many Asian/Pacific nations, however. In Germany, for example, those students who will go on to the university are identified by the 4th grade year of school. The same type of national curriculum and/or exam and relatively early determination of the path an individual student is to take is done in Great Britain, France, Russia, Japan, China, Singapore, and others. The results of a single exam or impressions of academic ability at a relatively early age largely determine the future of children in those countries. As an educator, this educational model disturbs me because I have seen firsthand numerous examples of students who are highly intelligent, but have test anxiety or work slowly to ensure they are correct, and these types of students do not do as well as they should on standardized exams. I know of many other young scholars who simply did not mature intellectually until their junior or senior year of high school, or even later in college, and then they were well on their way to successful careers in technical fields. If the U.S. had a similar system in place as the other countries mentioned above, these bright minds may very well have been stuck in a lower tier school or career, and the talents and potential contributions to society they may have made would never have a chance to be realized.
With the high-stakes testing brought about by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law, I do have fears of a national testing system that parallels much of Europe and Asia. Whether or not this is part of the right’s agenda, I know it would be a terrible mistake to edge closer to those other models. We need academic freedom for all students, so they may discover and learn about the areas of study they love and are competent in, even if it takes one a little longer than the average. The Harvard educator Howard Gardner developed the theory of multiple intelligences back in 1983, and I am a firm believer in the concept behind his theory (although I would replace the word ‘intelligence’ with ‘competency’). Whatever the language, I think each of us knows we have certain strengths in some subjects and are noticeably weaker in other areas of study. But in the U.S. we have a chance to be exposed to all areas of study throughout our school years. We have the freedom to choose whether we pursue the sciences, math, languages, athletics, the arts, or other non-academic paths after high school. We discover what our ‘intelligences’ are and then pursue them, or perhaps even work and gain experience in other areas we are weaker in. Many nations do not allow their students these same options, at least not to the same extent as American students. In my mind the American public education model, even with the obvious problems that exist, has played a significant and overlooked role in our development as a superpower, because individuals choose what paths they take rather than the state, based on some exam result (it is interesting to note that the Brits, as of this year, are beginning to allow more personalization and breadth in their high school equivalent grades, as stated in an Education White Paper, perhaps influenced by the American model). Maintaining and strengthening our public education system is therefore vital to the future of the U.S. Without it and the academic freedom built into the system, I am convinced we will run the risk of losing our status and place as a global leader.
Saturday, May 14, 2005
The Growing Concern of the U.S. Losing Its Science/Technology Lead
There is a growing number of articles in the popular press that are picking up on the notion the U.S. is steadily losing its once dominating lead in science and technology. Clearly numerous other nations have begun massive expansions of their own R&D budgets, most notably Asian countries such as China, India, and, for some time now, Japan.
Some indicators of our diminishing lead include a large and growing dependence on foreign graduate students to keep our research programs (especially university) running, an increasing percentage (nearly half) of U.S. patents going to foreigners, a smaller percentage of scientific publications (e.g. only 29% of articles in Physical Review in 2003, down from a peak of 61% in 1983), and fewer Nobel Prizes going to Americans in the sciences (only half since the late 1990s). There is also the usual concern about the performance of American students on international math and science exams, where we have fallen behind numerous countries. The U.S. will lose its lead in areas like high energy physics in two years, when the Europeans commission the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva (and after we scrapped the Superconducting Supercollider back in the early 1990s), and we have lost our lead in some medical research areas such as stem-cell research. While we have tens of thousands high school students participate in science fairs and science competitions, China has 3 million doing the same.
Our superpower status was developed largely on the back of our science/technology/engineering dominance. The U.S. economy has been dependent on technology for the amazing gains in productivity in manufacturing, agriculture, and energy sectors. Clearly, our military dominance is based almost entirely on our technology lead. But, as our research universities, still the envy of the world, have educated many in the rest of the world, larger percentages of foreign students have been taking their knowledge and experience back to their home countries. Again, Asian students are leading the way.
One question I have been interested in deals with whether we have a shortage of American students going into science, math, and engineering. While that has been largely assumed and discussed by academics and politicians, I came across two articles that present quantitative arguments that no such shortage exists. The arguments are based on job markets for engineers and scientists. For example, Richard Ellis and George McClure point out problems with The National Science Board’s conclusions in 2003 about the decline of the U.S. lead in science and engineering. One point is that there is a “glut” of PhDs in America, where typically hundreds of applicants try to gain small numbers of tenure-track positions in university science departments. They also point out that by 2015, there could be as many as 3 million technical jobs outsourced by American companies. Sustained unemployment among engineers and computer scientists also suggest that the talent is there, but there is no place for them to go. A second article by Michael Teitelbaum, program director for the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, a major supporter of science research, asks the question, “Do we need more scientists?” He points our similar statistics about unemployment in various science fields as well as the fact that there are other, more lucrative and attractive fields of study our best and brightest may opt for, such as legal or business professions.
Both articles cited above make valid points. Most analyses have focused on the supply of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians. However, the statistics concerning the demand for scientists and engineers have been overlooked. Quite simply, if young, bright American students who are looking at the job market to try and decide on a major see tremendous outsourcing in technical fields, unemployment trends, and smaller salary potential in technical fields, they will choose other majors. This is hard to argue with. Until demand and incentive catches up with supply, the U.S. should expect to see the rest of the world continue to make gains on the U.S. lead in science and technology, if not take the lead away from the U.S. in more and more technical areas.
Some indicators of our diminishing lead include a large and growing dependence on foreign graduate students to keep our research programs (especially university) running, an increasing percentage (nearly half) of U.S. patents going to foreigners, a smaller percentage of scientific publications (e.g. only 29% of articles in Physical Review in 2003, down from a peak of 61% in 1983), and fewer Nobel Prizes going to Americans in the sciences (only half since the late 1990s). There is also the usual concern about the performance of American students on international math and science exams, where we have fallen behind numerous countries. The U.S. will lose its lead in areas like high energy physics in two years, when the Europeans commission the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva (and after we scrapped the Superconducting Supercollider back in the early 1990s), and we have lost our lead in some medical research areas such as stem-cell research. While we have tens of thousands high school students participate in science fairs and science competitions, China has 3 million doing the same.
Our superpower status was developed largely on the back of our science/technology/engineering dominance. The U.S. economy has been dependent on technology for the amazing gains in productivity in manufacturing, agriculture, and energy sectors. Clearly, our military dominance is based almost entirely on our technology lead. But, as our research universities, still the envy of the world, have educated many in the rest of the world, larger percentages of foreign students have been taking their knowledge and experience back to their home countries. Again, Asian students are leading the way.
One question I have been interested in deals with whether we have a shortage of American students going into science, math, and engineering. While that has been largely assumed and discussed by academics and politicians, I came across two articles that present quantitative arguments that no such shortage exists. The arguments are based on job markets for engineers and scientists. For example, Richard Ellis and George McClure point out problems with The National Science Board’s conclusions in 2003 about the decline of the U.S. lead in science and engineering. One point is that there is a “glut” of PhDs in America, where typically hundreds of applicants try to gain small numbers of tenure-track positions in university science departments. They also point out that by 2015, there could be as many as 3 million technical jobs outsourced by American companies. Sustained unemployment among engineers and computer scientists also suggest that the talent is there, but there is no place for them to go. A second article by Michael Teitelbaum, program director for the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, a major supporter of science research, asks the question, “Do we need more scientists?” He points our similar statistics about unemployment in various science fields as well as the fact that there are other, more lucrative and attractive fields of study our best and brightest may opt for, such as legal or business professions.
Both articles cited above make valid points. Most analyses have focused on the supply of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians. However, the statistics concerning the demand for scientists and engineers have been overlooked. Quite simply, if young, bright American students who are looking at the job market to try and decide on a major see tremendous outsourcing in technical fields, unemployment trends, and smaller salary potential in technical fields, they will choose other majors. This is hard to argue with. Until demand and incentive catches up with supply, the U.S. should expect to see the rest of the world continue to make gains on the U.S. lead in science and technology, if not take the lead away from the U.S. in more and more technical areas.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Scientists and Teachers Fight Back Against Attacks on Science Curricula
It is important to challenge efforts to include creationism and intelligent design in science curricula. This is taken from NSTA Express (May 10, 2005):
Teachers, Scientists Vow to Fight Challenge to Evolution
As the Kansas State Board of Education began hearings last week to determine the fate of the state’s science standards, a story in The Washington Post looked at the efforts of teachers and scientists to address the evolving tactics of intelligent design proponents who are gaining ground with their “carefully marketed theory.” According to the article, “…scientists and teachers are mobilizing to fight back, asserting that educational standards are being threatened by what they consider a stealth campaign to return creationism to public schools.” The article looks at the outcomes of various evolution battles fought by scientists and educators and notes a tactical shift to become more active in the political debate. To read The Washington Post article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/04/AR2005050402022.html.
In a letter to the members of the Kansas State Board of Education, NSTA supports Kansas Science Education Revision Committee's Draft Two of the standards because it represents the “best practices of the National Science Education Standards and exemplifies good science.” To read the letter, go to http://www.nsta.org/pressroom&news_story_ID=50528.
Teachers, Scientists Vow to Fight Challenge to Evolution
As the Kansas State Board of Education began hearings last week to determine the fate of the state’s science standards, a story in The Washington Post looked at the efforts of teachers and scientists to address the evolving tactics of intelligent design proponents who are gaining ground with their “carefully marketed theory.” According to the article, “…scientists and teachers are mobilizing to fight back, asserting that educational standards are being threatened by what they consider a stealth campaign to return creationism to public schools.” The article looks at the outcomes of various evolution battles fought by scientists and educators and notes a tactical shift to become more active in the political debate. To read The Washington Post article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/04/AR2005050402022.html.
In a letter to the members of the Kansas State Board of Education, NSTA supports Kansas Science Education Revision Committee's Draft Two of the standards because it represents the “best practices of the National Science Education Standards and exemplifies good science.” To read the letter, go to http://www.nsta.org/pressroom&news_story_ID=50528.
Saturday, May 07, 2005
Cool Site - Interactive Modern Physics
Kudos to the U. of Colorado at Boulder's Physics Department for their interactive site dealing with some modern physics topics. Check it out if you are interested in fundamental quantum mechanics and how a number of modern devices work.
Friday, May 06, 2005
New Class of Bunker-Busting Nuclear Weapons
A news brief in the science journal Nature (Nature 435, 8-9 (5 May 2005)) reports results of a study by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that looked at the consequences of so-called ‘mini-nukes’ the Bush administration would like to use as bunker busting bombs. The results suggest that civilian casualties could be as high as one million, if a bomb powerful enough to destroy facilities hundreds of meters below ground was used near population centers. See Nature 423, 469; 2003 for an earlier article about the spread of radioactive material from such explosions. The NAS study suggests conventional weapons may be nearly as effective, without such devastating risks to civilians.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Electromagnetic Pulses
Zenpundit asked about electromagnetic pulse weapons and a basic description of how they work, so I hope this helps.
A growing concern relating to potential terror attacks on the U.S. is the use of Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) weapons. EMPs were first observed in the 1940’s when a variety of atomic bomb tests were conducted. In order to understand, in a very basic way, how pulses of electromagnetic radiation are created, one needs to understand that, according to classical electromagnetic theory, electromagnetic radiation (which includes microwave, radio, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, X-ray, and gamma radiations) is formed when charged particles are accelerated.
When an atomic bomb detonates, for example, whole nuclei of heavy atoms such as uranium and plutonium are literally ‘blown apart,’ and large amounts of charged particles (electrons and nuclear ions) as well as photons (‘particles of light,’ or pure electromagnetic energy) are produced. The charged particles are accelerated at very high rates, creating additional photons that can have high energies in the gamma ray region. The highest intensity occurs in a very short time period, the result of which is a sudden burst of electromagnetic energy, or pulse, that radiates outward from the detonation point.
Perhaps you already have experienced a ‘mini-EMP’ during lightning storms. A lightning bolt is a stream of electrons that is accelerated down from clouds, and some times your radio or television reception is momentarily disrupted due to lower level electromagnetic radiation produced by the accelerated electron stream. This gives one an idea of the effect EMPs may have on electronic equipment and infrastructure. If a power grid, transformer substation, power lines, satellites, airplane, radio transmitter, telecommunications centers, or anything electronic is irradiated with a high energy, high intensity EMP, not only can signals be disrupted but large induced electric currents (via electromagnetic induction) can form that physically damage the circuitry of the device. Especially vulnerable are microprocessors and any sort of computer chips, which are meant to work with small electric currents. Obviously, this is an amazingly dangerous class of weapons that could cause chaos on battlefields as well as in cities. And unlike nuclear weapons, EMP devices can, in principle, be made relatively easily and cheaply.
As one may expect, much interest in EMP weaponry has existed since WWII. It has been suggested that a substantial EMP weapon could be produced with some basic materials for a price of $400, and here lies a major threat since al Qaeda and other organizations or rogue nations would be able to afford and build them in large quantities. One design that would be relatively simple to build and cheap to produce is called a flux compression generator, where a tube of explosives is placed inside a coil of copper, and a bank of charged capacitors (devices that can store electric charge) provides energy for a magnetic field. When the explosives detonate at one end of the tube, one can imagine the magnetic field being compressed out of the other end of the tube, creating the pulse. There are other types of EMP bombs and devices that have been considered. For a detailed article on EMP weaponry and their consequences, see http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/ebomb.html.
A growing concern relating to potential terror attacks on the U.S. is the use of Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) weapons. EMPs were first observed in the 1940’s when a variety of atomic bomb tests were conducted. In order to understand, in a very basic way, how pulses of electromagnetic radiation are created, one needs to understand that, according to classical electromagnetic theory, electromagnetic radiation (which includes microwave, radio, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, X-ray, and gamma radiations) is formed when charged particles are accelerated.
When an atomic bomb detonates, for example, whole nuclei of heavy atoms such as uranium and plutonium are literally ‘blown apart,’ and large amounts of charged particles (electrons and nuclear ions) as well as photons (‘particles of light,’ or pure electromagnetic energy) are produced. The charged particles are accelerated at very high rates, creating additional photons that can have high energies in the gamma ray region. The highest intensity occurs in a very short time period, the result of which is a sudden burst of electromagnetic energy, or pulse, that radiates outward from the detonation point.
Perhaps you already have experienced a ‘mini-EMP’ during lightning storms. A lightning bolt is a stream of electrons that is accelerated down from clouds, and some times your radio or television reception is momentarily disrupted due to lower level electromagnetic radiation produced by the accelerated electron stream. This gives one an idea of the effect EMPs may have on electronic equipment and infrastructure. If a power grid, transformer substation, power lines, satellites, airplane, radio transmitter, telecommunications centers, or anything electronic is irradiated with a high energy, high intensity EMP, not only can signals be disrupted but large induced electric currents (via electromagnetic induction) can form that physically damage the circuitry of the device. Especially vulnerable are microprocessors and any sort of computer chips, which are meant to work with small electric currents. Obviously, this is an amazingly dangerous class of weapons that could cause chaos on battlefields as well as in cities. And unlike nuclear weapons, EMP devices can, in principle, be made relatively easily and cheaply.
As one may expect, much interest in EMP weaponry has existed since WWII. It has been suggested that a substantial EMP weapon could be produced with some basic materials for a price of $400, and here lies a major threat since al Qaeda and other organizations or rogue nations would be able to afford and build them in large quantities. One design that would be relatively simple to build and cheap to produce is called a flux compression generator, where a tube of explosives is placed inside a coil of copper, and a bank of charged capacitors (devices that can store electric charge) provides energy for a magnetic field. When the explosives detonate at one end of the tube, one can imagine the magnetic field being compressed out of the other end of the tube, creating the pulse. There are other types of EMP bombs and devices that have been considered. For a detailed article on EMP weaponry and their consequences, see http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/ebomb.html.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Evolution is a Scientific Theory
In my previous post, I argue why Creationism and Intelligent Design are not scientific theories because there is no test or observations that provide physical evidence for the underlying foundation of those models, which is a Creator or supernatural intelligent entity. Why, then, is evolution the dominant and overwhelmingly favored scientific theory that tries to account for the development and variety of life?
Science uses physical evidence as the cornerstone of many conclusions it reaches. This may be direct evidence as well as indirect evidence, where patterns emerge that support a particular conclusion. My background, for example, is in high energy particle physics. As a member of the team at Fermilab that discovered the top quark, I can state from firsthand knowledge that I, or anyone else, have never seen a top quark! And yet we claimed discovery. To many, this may seem odd and contradictory. The way it worked in the case of the top quark was that a theory, called the Standard Model (SM), predicted that a top quark should exist (for a variety of reasons). The SM makes a series of predictions about the properties of a top quark such as what other sets of particles it can decay into (the top quark is radioactive, and spontaneously ‘dies’ and turns into other types of particles). The SM can even predict probabilities for decaying into each set of particles. The top quark lives for an incredibly short period of time before it decays, and we simply do not have the means to observe something directly for such a short period of time. What we looked for were the second and third generation particles from the original decay. Like a puzzle, those pieces were put together in various ways to see where they came from. When this was done, one has a consistent and conclusive result, along with specific mass and measurement of other properties of a particle that is unique and fits into the theory, so we were confident that it was a top quark. This result was published and scrutinized by the rest of the scientific world, and the results were confirmed at another independent experiment at Fermilab. The study of evolution, as well as many other areas of science, works in similar ways.
Over the past century and a half, literally thousands of scientists have independently studied the theory of Darwin. The main premise of evolution is that all life forms evolved from common ancestors. Billions of years ago single-celled organisms developed naturally, and over time genetic mutations transformed those organisms into new species. Evolution does not address how the first organisms formed, but rather describes a process where new species form from older species. Those that are best suited to survive in the environment survive, those who are disadvantaged perish…the ‘survival of the fittest’ concept, or natural selection. How does one test this theory? One way is to look for evidence that supports the idea of new species that resemble earlier species (ancestors), as well as evidence for an increasing variety of species over time. This evidence has been found in fossil records, and more recently in genetic patterns that suggest links between related species.
Evolution suggests that a great period of time is required for speciation to take place, and ample evidence exists that the Earth is multiple billions of years old. While some like to argue there are holes in the fossil record (but it is worth mentioning that these holes tend to fill in more and more each year as new fossils are routinely discovered around the world), the case for evolutionary principles becomes more convincing when evolution can be observed directly with modern, living organisms. No, I am not talking about seeing a man develop from apes. Instead, within relatively short periods of time one can observe many generations of shorter lived organisms such as bacteria. It is becoming apparent that antibacterial soaps lose their effectiveness over time. Why? Because the types of bacteria the soaps initially killed mutate relatively frequently and sometimes the offspring have a new genetic makeup that allows them to resist the effects of the soap. Those offspring are better fit to survive the environment, and they prosper. Before long the original species of bacteria is terminated but a new strain persists and flourishes. Think about new strains of flu and cold viruses, and so on. We are observing evolution in real time.
Of all the thousands of scientists who have done experiments and studied the stacks of evidence related to an evolutionary hypothesis, the overwhelming majority has reached the same conclusion: the principles of evolution are supported by multiple streams of data, observations, and experiments. This is the scientific process, and evolution is a grand example of a scientific theory. Creationism and intelligent design have not been supported in a similar scientific manner, and remain in the realms of religion and philosophy.
Science uses physical evidence as the cornerstone of many conclusions it reaches. This may be direct evidence as well as indirect evidence, where patterns emerge that support a particular conclusion. My background, for example, is in high energy particle physics. As a member of the team at Fermilab that discovered the top quark, I can state from firsthand knowledge that I, or anyone else, have never seen a top quark! And yet we claimed discovery. To many, this may seem odd and contradictory. The way it worked in the case of the top quark was that a theory, called the Standard Model (SM), predicted that a top quark should exist (for a variety of reasons). The SM makes a series of predictions about the properties of a top quark such as what other sets of particles it can decay into (the top quark is radioactive, and spontaneously ‘dies’ and turns into other types of particles). The SM can even predict probabilities for decaying into each set of particles. The top quark lives for an incredibly short period of time before it decays, and we simply do not have the means to observe something directly for such a short period of time. What we looked for were the second and third generation particles from the original decay. Like a puzzle, those pieces were put together in various ways to see where they came from. When this was done, one has a consistent and conclusive result, along with specific mass and measurement of other properties of a particle that is unique and fits into the theory, so we were confident that it was a top quark. This result was published and scrutinized by the rest of the scientific world, and the results were confirmed at another independent experiment at Fermilab. The study of evolution, as well as many other areas of science, works in similar ways.
Over the past century and a half, literally thousands of scientists have independently studied the theory of Darwin. The main premise of evolution is that all life forms evolved from common ancestors. Billions of years ago single-celled organisms developed naturally, and over time genetic mutations transformed those organisms into new species. Evolution does not address how the first organisms formed, but rather describes a process where new species form from older species. Those that are best suited to survive in the environment survive, those who are disadvantaged perish…the ‘survival of the fittest’ concept, or natural selection. How does one test this theory? One way is to look for evidence that supports the idea of new species that resemble earlier species (ancestors), as well as evidence for an increasing variety of species over time. This evidence has been found in fossil records, and more recently in genetic patterns that suggest links between related species.
Evolution suggests that a great period of time is required for speciation to take place, and ample evidence exists that the Earth is multiple billions of years old. While some like to argue there are holes in the fossil record (but it is worth mentioning that these holes tend to fill in more and more each year as new fossils are routinely discovered around the world), the case for evolutionary principles becomes more convincing when evolution can be observed directly with modern, living organisms. No, I am not talking about seeing a man develop from apes. Instead, within relatively short periods of time one can observe many generations of shorter lived organisms such as bacteria. It is becoming apparent that antibacterial soaps lose their effectiveness over time. Why? Because the types of bacteria the soaps initially killed mutate relatively frequently and sometimes the offspring have a new genetic makeup that allows them to resist the effects of the soap. Those offspring are better fit to survive the environment, and they prosper. Before long the original species of bacteria is terminated but a new strain persists and flourishes. Think about new strains of flu and cold viruses, and so on. We are observing evolution in real time.
Of all the thousands of scientists who have done experiments and studied the stacks of evidence related to an evolutionary hypothesis, the overwhelming majority has reached the same conclusion: the principles of evolution are supported by multiple streams of data, observations, and experiments. This is the scientific process, and evolution is a grand example of a scientific theory. Creationism and intelligent design have not been supported in a similar scientific manner, and remain in the realms of religion and philosophy.
Why Creationism and Intelligent Design Do NOT Belong in the Science Classroom
Presently nineteen states are considering proposals that would require including Creationist/Intellectual Design (C/ID) models of the origin of life in high school science curricula. It is argued that these are alternative explanations of the origin of life to evolution, and therefore need to be presented side-by-side so students can choose what they believe. However, there is one serious problem with the inclusion of C/ID in a science class: C/ID are not scientific theories, and simply are not appropriate to study in a science class.
Science is a process that is used to try and understand the world around us. Scientists are child-like in the sense we ask countless questions about why and how things work the way they do. But, of course, religion and philosophy are also areas of human intellectualism that attempt to understand the world around us, so a natural question becomes how is science different? In a word, experimentation. In other words, scientists base conclusions on observations and results of controlled experiments that are repeatable by other, independent groups. Models, theories, and conclusions that cannot be tested in a way that yields direct, physical evidence that conclusions can be based on are not scientific. As a brief example, Aristotle concluded by philosophical/logical arguments that heavy objects should fall faster than light objects. This logical, intuitive conclusion makes sense to most people, and in fact that was the understanding for many hundreds of years. The problem is, the conclusion is incorrect when one actually observes the physical world. In the absence of air, a feather really does fall at the same rate as a 1-ton boulder.
Creationism and, more recently, intelligent design, argue that a Creator (God) or supernatural intelligent entity is responsible for the complexity of life, in particular human beings. In intelligent design, for example, it is argued that even a single-celled organism, let alone a human being, is so complex that it is difficult to believe that it could have developed through natural, random processes. Only something that had a plan in mind could have produced the end result. This is a perfectly valid way of thinking, and it is the simplest way to explain the complexity of life. My question is, how does one test for the existence of the intelligent, supernatural being? What experiment can one do that can produce evidence that this model is correct? Almost by definition one cannot create a controlled experiment for the existence of God or some other entity. Because of the lack of experimentation for the basic foundation of Creationism and Intelligent Design, these ‘theories’ are absolutely not scientific. These belong in a science class as much as evolution belongs in a Sunday school class.
A future post will conclude this commentary about the essence of evolution, and why those who study science overwhelmingly believe in it. As a science educator, it is important for the general public to gain a better grasp of the nature of science and why we need to try to prevent movements that attack science from making their way into science curricula.
Science is a process that is used to try and understand the world around us. Scientists are child-like in the sense we ask countless questions about why and how things work the way they do. But, of course, religion and philosophy are also areas of human intellectualism that attempt to understand the world around us, so a natural question becomes how is science different? In a word, experimentation. In other words, scientists base conclusions on observations and results of controlled experiments that are repeatable by other, independent groups. Models, theories, and conclusions that cannot be tested in a way that yields direct, physical evidence that conclusions can be based on are not scientific. As a brief example, Aristotle concluded by philosophical/logical arguments that heavy objects should fall faster than light objects. This logical, intuitive conclusion makes sense to most people, and in fact that was the understanding for many hundreds of years. The problem is, the conclusion is incorrect when one actually observes the physical world. In the absence of air, a feather really does fall at the same rate as a 1-ton boulder.
Creationism and, more recently, intelligent design, argue that a Creator (God) or supernatural intelligent entity is responsible for the complexity of life, in particular human beings. In intelligent design, for example, it is argued that even a single-celled organism, let alone a human being, is so complex that it is difficult to believe that it could have developed through natural, random processes. Only something that had a plan in mind could have produced the end result. This is a perfectly valid way of thinking, and it is the simplest way to explain the complexity of life. My question is, how does one test for the existence of the intelligent, supernatural being? What experiment can one do that can produce evidence that this model is correct? Almost by definition one cannot create a controlled experiment for the existence of God or some other entity. Because of the lack of experimentation for the basic foundation of Creationism and Intelligent Design, these ‘theories’ are absolutely not scientific. These belong in a science class as much as evolution belongs in a Sunday school class.
A future post will conclude this commentary about the essence of evolution, and why those who study science overwhelmingly believe in it. As a science educator, it is important for the general public to gain a better grasp of the nature of science and why we need to try to prevent movements that attack science from making their way into science curricula.
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Possibility of making mini black holes
The concept of mini black holes has been around for a number of years, thanks to work done by Steven Hawking. Scientists are now pondering the prospects of creating mini black holes in the lab, when the Large Hadron Collider is commissioned in Geneva in a few years. Tests of quantum mechanics, general relativity and perhaps even string theory's (now called M-theory) prediction of multiple, unseen dimensions, may be possible.
What lies about Iraq?
I've been frustrated by the lack of any answer to a question I have had for a long time concerning the war in Iraq. It goes back to before the U.S invaded, and deals with THE reason the American people were sold on the war. We were to disarm Saddam Hussain. Saddam had large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), including a substantial nuclear program. In addition, he had direct ties to al Qaeda, and Iraq played a role in the 9/11 attacks. Remember, President Bush originally did not say we were going in to change regimes, or install democracy in the Mideast, or fight al Qaeda in Iraq rather than in America, but rather disarm Saddam. In fact, it was implied that if Saddam somehow complied with a variety of United Nations (U.N.) resolutions, Saddam would likely remain in power.
We were able to put U.N. weapons inspectors on the ground as troops were being deployed to the Iraq border. Here is where my question comes into play. The weapons inspectors, headed by Hans Blix, had checked numerous sites around Iraq, including presidential palaces and military installations. Mr. Blix reported to the media that no weapons were found at the obvious places to look, and that was not a surprise. The decision to go to war, which is the ultimate decision any president will ever make, had to be based on "our best intelligence at the time." Well, the problem with the decision, in my mind at least, that Mr. Bush made is that he and the national security team had to have known our best intelligence was questionable at best, and likely bogus. The reason I say this is because I, sitting in my living room every night watching the news, realized our intelligence was flawed. How? Because the weapons inspectors reported that they were checking flagged sites provided by various intelligence agencies, including the CIA and British intelligence services, and highly suspected sites had no WMDs (I am trying to find the exact date of an NPR interview with Hans Blix where he explicitly stated this).
We were able to put U.N. weapons inspectors on the ground as troops were being deployed to the Iraq border. Here is where my question comes into play. The weapons inspectors, headed by Hans Blix, had checked numerous sites around Iraq, including presidential palaces and military installations. Mr. Blix reported to the media that no weapons were found at the obvious places to look, and that was not a surprise. The decision to go to war, which is the ultimate decision any president will ever make, had to be based on "our best intelligence at the time." Well, the problem with the decision, in my mind at least, that Mr. Bush made is that he and the national security team had to have known our best intelligence was questionable at best, and likely bogus. The reason I say this is because I, sitting in my living room every night watching the news, realized our intelligence was flawed. How? Because the weapons inspectors reported that they were checking flagged sites provided by various intelligence agencies, including the CIA and British intelligence services, and highly suspected sites had no WMDs (I am trying to find the exact date of an NPR interview with Hans Blix where he explicitly stated this).
In other words, if we were checking high-confidence sites provided by the CIA, and every one of those sites turned out to be free from any hint of WMD, how could the president have any confidence at all in our intelligence?
Is this why Mr. Bush rushed to war, and rushed the inspectors out well before they were finished with their mission? Because no WMDs were found, why would the president not allow inspectors to continue to check more suspected sites to try and collect convincing evidence that would justify war? It is obvious that the war was going to happen regardless of what evidence existed, and the American people were, simply stated, lied to about why our troops had to go to war with an enemy that was not in any way an imminent threat or perpetrator of 9/11.
I have posed this question to my Republican Congressman, Mark Kirk, to the White House, to local papers, to friends who are supporters of the war, and I have received no satisfactory answer at all.
At this point we need to complete the task at hand and place the Iraqis in position to try and establish the rule of law and run their country with a more or less democratic government. The Bush administration has finally found a reason, after three or four attempts, to justify the war beyond an, "oops, we were not quite correct" sort of reason. I hope this all ultimately works out for the best, so our 10,000-plus troops and the 100,000-plus Iraqis will not have died or been wounded for nothing. Of course we all want eventual peace and, ideally, democracy in the Mideast, but we cannot forget the questions stated above. We have set a dangerous precedent for going to war, and we cannot let this happen again or be lied to by our leaders when the stakes are so high.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)