Last week a National Academy of Science report was released that addresses what to do to maintain a U.S. advantage in science and technology in this century. With rapid advancement of science and technology R&D in nationas such as China, India, and other Asian countries, and with decreasing enrollments of American students in science, math, engineering, and other technical fields, it is absolutely wise and necessary for us to think longer-term and begin taking real action to address potential future problems if the U.S. were to lose its present lead in these areas. After all, we are the lone superpower due mostly to our technological and scientific advantage since World War II.
Below is an excerpt from a National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) email I just received:
"In the NAS report released last week the number one action item on the panel’s list of recommendations was to improve K-12 science and mathematics education.
Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, which was reported nationwide by Associated Press and the subject of a New York Times op-ed by columnist Tom Friedman, recommends a series of initiatives that include:
- Recruiting 10,000 students annually to become science and math teachers, thereby educating 10 million young minds, by awarding four-year merit-based scholarships to be paid back through a commitment to teach five years in K-12 schools. Teachers serving in hard-to-staff inner city and rural schools would receive an additional bonus.
- Strengthening the skills of 250,000 current teachers thru summer institute training programs, in master programs, and thru Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) training programs.
- Increasing the number of students in AP and IB math and science courses from 1.2 million to 4.5 million by 2010.
Other proposals include sustaining and strengthening the nation’s commitment to basic research and developing strategies to recruit and retain the brightest students from within the United States and abroad into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) careers.
Norman Augustine, the retired chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin and chair of the panel that issued the report, is expected to testify October 20 before the U.S. House of Representatives Science Committee hearing on Science, Technology, and Global Economic Competitiveness. Read the report online at http://www.nap.edu/books/0309100399/html."
I've only begun to skim the nearly 500-page report, but it appears to be very thorough and honest about what to do to improve our situation as well as paints a picture of what our nation may be like if we were to lose our advantage in these areas. It is time for us to make real commitments to improve at all levels, but I agree the top priority is to begin getting serious about K-12 science and math education, as well as to provide incentives for more of our best and brightest to go into science, math and engineering rather than more lucrative fields like law and MBA programs. In order to do this, we need serious collaborations between schools, universities, the federal government, and the tech related business sector who can provide funding, materials, practical expertise, and mentorships for the next generation of students.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Administration of Fantasy Land
It has become increasingly clear to me that the Bush administration has entirely lost its way, and within a couple hours worth of time over the weekend no less than five life-long Republicans I know each expressed their complete lack of faith with Bush and company (it was amusing and oh so coincidental that three of the five came right out and said they were embarrassed by the administration). The breaking point for each of my friends included the well publicized 'candid and unrehearsed' discussion Bush had with ten soldiers in Iraq last Friday. The White House press secretary was asked during a daily press conference if there was the usual staged and well rehearsed setup to this discussion, which this administration is notorious for (of course, with the president's stumbling when he tries to answer questions, his staff limits press conferences of all types more than any other president in the modern era). Scott McClellan, the press secretary, wihtout hesitation replied there was no prepping of the soldiers and that they were, as always, also free to ask qestions of the president. Little did McClellan know that the press had obtained a feed of a full dress rehearsal run by Allison Barber, a Pentagon official, who rehearsed questions the president was asking and the responses the soldiers were to give. Of course, the responses were completely positive and supportive, and were what the president wanted to hear in the face of dismal public opinion polls.
It is one thing to prepare soldiers for something like this, and another to use them as props for a purely political event (which is now a fiasco). This is right up front with landing on the carrier in a flightsuit with the "Mission Accomplished" banner in the background. In fact, the rosy picture the soldiers were asked to give Bush as an answer to a question he asked about the progress being made training Iraqi security forces ran in disagreement with what Pentagon officials reported that same day to Congress, where it was reported the number of 800-man battalions that were completely trained was reduced from three down to one, and training will need to continue for over another year before significant numbers are ready. There seems to be a complete disconnect between Bush and his inner circle and reality, and I am glad to see public opinion polls continuing to drop to weekly record lows. We still have over two years with this guy (I want to pull my finger nails out at that thought), but for the country's sake the administration needs to wake up on all fronts. How can we believe anything they say, as they are caught in blatant lies sch as this and have a record of ignoring science, data and evidence that go against their policy goals? By the way, Harriet Meiers has been quoted as saying Bush is "the most brilliant man I've ever met." This is supposed to be our next Justice on the highest court in the land?
It is one thing to prepare soldiers for something like this, and another to use them as props for a purely political event (which is now a fiasco). This is right up front with landing on the carrier in a flightsuit with the "Mission Accomplished" banner in the background. In fact, the rosy picture the soldiers were asked to give Bush as an answer to a question he asked about the progress being made training Iraqi security forces ran in disagreement with what Pentagon officials reported that same day to Congress, where it was reported the number of 800-man battalions that were completely trained was reduced from three down to one, and training will need to continue for over another year before significant numbers are ready. There seems to be a complete disconnect between Bush and his inner circle and reality, and I am glad to see public opinion polls continuing to drop to weekly record lows. We still have over two years with this guy (I want to pull my finger nails out at that thought), but for the country's sake the administration needs to wake up on all fronts. How can we believe anything they say, as they are caught in blatant lies sch as this and have a record of ignoring science, data and evidence that go against their policy goals? By the way, Harriet Meiers has been quoted as saying Bush is "the most brilliant man I've ever met." This is supposed to be our next Justice on the highest court in the land?
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Our Universe: Continual Emergence
In my last post I tried to offer some mix of examples of systems that involve emergence. Again, emergence refers to many-body systems of all types (physical, biological, social, economic, etc) where the rules/principles that govern the behavior of individual components of the system are different from the organizational rules/principles that govern the behavior of the collective system.
As others pointed out in comments, the field of complex systems and emergent behavior includes phase transitions and environmental concerns and influences as well. This discussion has got me thinking about the role complexity theory and the notion of emergent behavior will play in the next few decades. Being a relatively new area of study (at least new in the sense that large numbers of people are working on it...perhaps on order of 15-20 years), it is difficult to predict exactly where it will end up, but just from a physical science point of view consider the following progression of events and phenomena where new levels of organization, i.e. emergence, are reached:
Big Bang, where energy and spacetime itself emerges from a singularity.
Matter (quarks, leptons, some bosons) emerges from the energy (a type of phase transition).
Fundamental particles, the quarks, organize into baryons (such as protons and neutrons) and mesons, via strong nuclear force.
Nuclei (isotopes of hydrogen, some helium) emerge from a sea of baryons and gluons.
Simplest atoms emerge from sea of hydrogen and helium nuclei and electrons, via electromagnetic force.
Gas molecules of hydrogen and helium emerge from sea of atoms.
Gas clouds emerge from sea of gas atoms, via gravity.
Protostars and stars emerge from gas clouds.
Heavier elements (up to iron) emerge from thermonuclear processes inside star cores (nucleosynthesis).
Clouds of heavier elements (up to uranium) emerge from first generation supernovae.
Second generation stars, first generation planets/solar systems emerge from gas and heavy element clouds.
Primitive atmospheres and terrestrial environments emerge on various planets.
For earth, more complex molecules, including carbon-based molecules, emerge in the chemical mixtures of the atmosphere and oceans (this includes amino acids, which can be formed naturally when lightning occurs in the primitive atmosphere, as shown in experiments).
Still more complicated molecules, including proteins and RNA, emerge, and from this mixture first set of single-celled life emerge.
Multicellular systems emerge from sea of single-celled critters.
Ultimately great variety of life emerges, including humans, from evolutionary processes.
From this point, social organization occurs, language emerges, technology emerges, social networks emerge, economies emerge, and so on.
In each of these separate eras of the development of the universe and life as we know it, we are talking about a transition from simpler, smaller components that organize into larger entities whose behavior and properties are vastly different from the individual components that make it up. We are at the point where we know an awful lot of the physics that describes how particles, atoms, molecules, stars, galaxies, planets, geological processes, and solar systems behave individually. Chemists and biologists know an awful lot about individual reactions, molecules, organelles, cells, tissues, organs, and organisms. This is what science has worked on for the last few centuries. In other words, we know a lot about the basic rules and principles that govern individual components for each individual step of the evolution of the universe and life on earth. However, what we don’t understand very well is how steps make the transition to the next step. We don’t understand the organizational principles or the rules that govern the phase transitions between steps, which means we don’t understand the emergence of complexity in our universe. This is where we are now and, in my opinion, such studies will dominate whole fields of physical science, biological science, mathematics, economics, social science, behavioral science, technology, and even philosophy, for decades to come. To those who have suggested the end of science is near, think again.
As others pointed out in comments, the field of complex systems and emergent behavior includes phase transitions and environmental concerns and influences as well. This discussion has got me thinking about the role complexity theory and the notion of emergent behavior will play in the next few decades. Being a relatively new area of study (at least new in the sense that large numbers of people are working on it...perhaps on order of 15-20 years), it is difficult to predict exactly where it will end up, but just from a physical science point of view consider the following progression of events and phenomena where new levels of organization, i.e. emergence, are reached:
Big Bang, where energy and spacetime itself emerges from a singularity.
Matter (quarks, leptons, some bosons) emerges from the energy (a type of phase transition).
Fundamental particles, the quarks, organize into baryons (such as protons and neutrons) and mesons, via strong nuclear force.
Nuclei (isotopes of hydrogen, some helium) emerge from a sea of baryons and gluons.
Simplest atoms emerge from sea of hydrogen and helium nuclei and electrons, via electromagnetic force.
Gas molecules of hydrogen and helium emerge from sea of atoms.
Gas clouds emerge from sea of gas atoms, via gravity.
Protostars and stars emerge from gas clouds.
Heavier elements (up to iron) emerge from thermonuclear processes inside star cores (nucleosynthesis).
Clouds of heavier elements (up to uranium) emerge from first generation supernovae.
Second generation stars, first generation planets/solar systems emerge from gas and heavy element clouds.
Primitive atmospheres and terrestrial environments emerge on various planets.
For earth, more complex molecules, including carbon-based molecules, emerge in the chemical mixtures of the atmosphere and oceans (this includes amino acids, which can be formed naturally when lightning occurs in the primitive atmosphere, as shown in experiments).
Still more complicated molecules, including proteins and RNA, emerge, and from this mixture first set of single-celled life emerge.
Multicellular systems emerge from sea of single-celled critters.
Ultimately great variety of life emerges, including humans, from evolutionary processes.
From this point, social organization occurs, language emerges, technology emerges, social networks emerge, economies emerge, and so on.
In each of these separate eras of the development of the universe and life as we know it, we are talking about a transition from simpler, smaller components that organize into larger entities whose behavior and properties are vastly different from the individual components that make it up. We are at the point where we know an awful lot of the physics that describes how particles, atoms, molecules, stars, galaxies, planets, geological processes, and solar systems behave individually. Chemists and biologists know an awful lot about individual reactions, molecules, organelles, cells, tissues, organs, and organisms. This is what science has worked on for the last few centuries. In other words, we know a lot about the basic rules and principles that govern individual components for each individual step of the evolution of the universe and life on earth. However, what we don’t understand very well is how steps make the transition to the next step. We don’t understand the organizational principles or the rules that govern the phase transitions between steps, which means we don’t understand the emergence of complexity in our universe. This is where we are now and, in my opinion, such studies will dominate whole fields of physical science, biological science, mathematics, economics, social science, behavioral science, technology, and even philosophy, for decades to come. To those who have suggested the end of science is near, think again.
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Emergence
Recently I have posted about such topics as econophysics and the physics of societal and cultural change, as well as similarities in network structures of the Internet and al Qaeda. I am personally fascinated by the relatively new field of study of complexity and emergent behavior, although I am the first to admit I am an absolute beginner in my understanding of what has been done at the cutting edge over the last ten to twenty years. Some of the comments to my posts as well as questions in emails and additional reading I have done (including a book I have just started: check out “A Different Universe” by Robert Laughlin, Nobel laureate in physics…it is a page turner) have only increased my desire to learn more and develop a deeper understanding of what complexity and emergent behavior means, as well as where physics and science in general is headed in the future.
What I want to do in this post is list some examples of what is meant by “emergence,” and in future posts develop a way of explaining what it might mean for the path science takes in this century. A working definition of emergence: refers to the principles of organization for a many-body system. Such systems consist of individual entities that can act/move randomly, but then the system spontaneously exhibits some sort of collective organized behavior. The details of the individual components are not necessary to understand the system’s behavior. In fact, the emergent behavior is typically not predictable with only the rules of the individual components of a larger system. All of the following are examples of emergent behavior I’ve come across in some of the literature devoted to the study of complex systems.
- magnetism: in most materials individual domains are directed randomly but then can spontaneously be redirected by an external magnetic field so they align, causing the emergence of macroscopic fields.
- When you splash water on a surface and those little beads develop: water molecules inside the bead move randomly, but the bead emerges because of surface tension, giving a fixed structure
- Gases in closed systems: molecules move around randomly, but collectively the system follows set statistical rules such as the ideal gas law, PV = nRT
- Synchronization: there are lots of examples of this, such as an audience that begins clapping randomly, but then the clapping organizes into clapping in unison
- Emergent behavior can refer to phase transitions, such as cooling a liquid so the random motion of molecules stops and those molecules then become fixed in some lattice; a solid emerges from the randomness
- Social networks: individuals meet and know others randomly, but what emerges is a network of fixed mathematical structure, such as a scale-free network
- Galaxies: stars begin by moving randomly and are affected most just by other stars in the local neighborhood, but a swirling structured system emerges
- Random motions of vibrated granular materials can spontaneously form structured patterns such as oscillons
- Mix of people with diverse, varying skills emerge as an economy; the individuals can be free to do what they wish with their money, but the collective behavior is a system with fixed mathematical structure and statistical rules
- Art: think of a Monet painting of flowers…look at it closely and the individual brush strokes are imperfect and essentially random, but collectively structures appear and we have a masterpiece. The details of the individual stroke are not necessary in understanding what the emergent behavior, i.e. the global emergence of the form of the flowers, is
- Music: an instrument such as a violin has a continuum of sounds it can make, and played randomly we would recognize as noise. But some random sounds placed in particular order with timing structure emerges as pleasing music
- Radioactivity: individual uranium atoms decay at random. An individual atom can spontaneously decay as easily in a few seconds from now as tens of thousands of years from now. Collectively, however, millions of uranium atoms emerge as a system that follows select statistical rules with well-defined characteristic times such as a half-life. The individual atoms no longer are important, but rather the emergent statistical behavior, which gives predictable results, matters.
What all of these examples show is that the rules for the individual members of each system become less important, and can actually become irrelevant, to understanding the collective behavior of the system. Rather, what is important for the system is the principle of organization that leads to the collective behavior that has emerged. Statistical rules normally dominate to describe the way the system behaves, and predictable results can be obtained for the system, even though the nature of the individual members of the system can act at random. This is the essence of research in complexity and emergence fields of study, and brings about important changes in the way we think about the science of the natural world as well as social sciences. What are the fundamental rules and laws that help describe and explain what we observe? The rules of the individuals (microscopic, local) or of the emergent behaviors of the collective system (macroscopic, global)? Which are more important to understand? Are the rule sets for the local more important than those for the global? Historically most physical science has been geared in a reductionist mindset, breaking problems down further and further to understand the microscopic system of individual components (that is the essence of my days of research in particle physics, for example). Studies of complex systems, however, have been showing the need to step out of the reductionist mindset many scientists have been in and develop an entirely new way of approaching the science. What’s more, the focus needs to be placed on identifying principles and rules of organization, which are more fundamental for the system’s behavior, than the rules of individual components of the system. In addition, what has been observed is that the organizational rules of what are entirely different systems, such as numerous physical systems and numerous models of economics, are nearly identical. This has allowed for unprecedented collaboration between physicists and economists and has lead to new areas of research in econophysics. Most who work in these new areas of study believe we have only scratched the surface in our understanding of emergent behavior of complex systems.
What I want to do in this post is list some examples of what is meant by “emergence,” and in future posts develop a way of explaining what it might mean for the path science takes in this century. A working definition of emergence: refers to the principles of organization for a many-body system. Such systems consist of individual entities that can act/move randomly, but then the system spontaneously exhibits some sort of collective organized behavior. The details of the individual components are not necessary to understand the system’s behavior. In fact, the emergent behavior is typically not predictable with only the rules of the individual components of a larger system. All of the following are examples of emergent behavior I’ve come across in some of the literature devoted to the study of complex systems.
- magnetism: in most materials individual domains are directed randomly but then can spontaneously be redirected by an external magnetic field so they align, causing the emergence of macroscopic fields.
- When you splash water on a surface and those little beads develop: water molecules inside the bead move randomly, but the bead emerges because of surface tension, giving a fixed structure
- Gases in closed systems: molecules move around randomly, but collectively the system follows set statistical rules such as the ideal gas law, PV = nRT
- Synchronization: there are lots of examples of this, such as an audience that begins clapping randomly, but then the clapping organizes into clapping in unison
- Emergent behavior can refer to phase transitions, such as cooling a liquid so the random motion of molecules stops and those molecules then become fixed in some lattice; a solid emerges from the randomness
- Social networks: individuals meet and know others randomly, but what emerges is a network of fixed mathematical structure, such as a scale-free network
- Galaxies: stars begin by moving randomly and are affected most just by other stars in the local neighborhood, but a swirling structured system emerges
- Random motions of vibrated granular materials can spontaneously form structured patterns such as oscillons
- Mix of people with diverse, varying skills emerge as an economy; the individuals can be free to do what they wish with their money, but the collective behavior is a system with fixed mathematical structure and statistical rules
- Art: think of a Monet painting of flowers…look at it closely and the individual brush strokes are imperfect and essentially random, but collectively structures appear and we have a masterpiece. The details of the individual stroke are not necessary in understanding what the emergent behavior, i.e. the global emergence of the form of the flowers, is
- Music: an instrument such as a violin has a continuum of sounds it can make, and played randomly we would recognize as noise. But some random sounds placed in particular order with timing structure emerges as pleasing music
- Radioactivity: individual uranium atoms decay at random. An individual atom can spontaneously decay as easily in a few seconds from now as tens of thousands of years from now. Collectively, however, millions of uranium atoms emerge as a system that follows select statistical rules with well-defined characteristic times such as a half-life. The individual atoms no longer are important, but rather the emergent statistical behavior, which gives predictable results, matters.
What all of these examples show is that the rules for the individual members of each system become less important, and can actually become irrelevant, to understanding the collective behavior of the system. Rather, what is important for the system is the principle of organization that leads to the collective behavior that has emerged. Statistical rules normally dominate to describe the way the system behaves, and predictable results can be obtained for the system, even though the nature of the individual members of the system can act at random. This is the essence of research in complexity and emergence fields of study, and brings about important changes in the way we think about the science of the natural world as well as social sciences. What are the fundamental rules and laws that help describe and explain what we observe? The rules of the individuals (microscopic, local) or of the emergent behaviors of the collective system (macroscopic, global)? Which are more important to understand? Are the rule sets for the local more important than those for the global? Historically most physical science has been geared in a reductionist mindset, breaking problems down further and further to understand the microscopic system of individual components (that is the essence of my days of research in particle physics, for example). Studies of complex systems, however, have been showing the need to step out of the reductionist mindset many scientists have been in and develop an entirely new way of approaching the science. What’s more, the focus needs to be placed on identifying principles and rules of organization, which are more fundamental for the system’s behavior, than the rules of individual components of the system. In addition, what has been observed is that the organizational rules of what are entirely different systems, such as numerous physical systems and numerous models of economics, are nearly identical. This has allowed for unprecedented collaboration between physicists and economists and has lead to new areas of research in econophysics. Most who work in these new areas of study believe we have only scratched the surface in our understanding of emergent behavior of complex systems.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Nobel Prizes being announced
If you are keeping score, the 2005 Nobel Prizes have been coming out throughout the week. Some Americans have been winners in Chemistry and Physics so far. Any guesses for the Peace Prize?
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Hey, Fellow Math Geeks, Time to Argue About 100 All-Time Greatest Theorems
Check out this site. Someone has posted their list of the 100 greatest math theorems. I've never heard of half of them, but I thought there may be a few out there who woul want to take a look. Enjoy!
Odds and Ends
Ah, our 'values' leadership at work. Tom Delay was formerly indicted by a Texas grand jury Monday for money laundering, including a new, second indictment. And then we are forced to see "the Hammer" on TV pulling a Clinton, about how innocent he is and how others are out to get him for political vindication...he should know this when he sees it, for sure. William Bennett, former Secretary of Education and self-appointed moral authority mentions that aborting Black babies would reduce the crime rate. While he was supposedly talking about hypotheticals, how stupid a comment is this? Go back to the slot machines, Bill. In a party-line vote, Congress passes a stop-gap bill which maintains current spending rates for almost everything through November...except, of course, community block grants for programs for the poorest Americans, which were cut by some 50%. I guess I can understand that since there are tax cuts and wars to fund.
Can someone help me out with Harriet Miers? Like most people, I certainly never heard of her before today. Whether you like John Roberts's decisions and views or not, there certainly is no denying his legal knowledge, scholarship and mind. But does Miers have an extensive background and expertise in constitutional law? I know she has no experience as a judge, which I think would be beneficial although not a requirement. Does she have any sort of extensive public record so we know where she stands on issues and what her legal thinking is? I look at this as an odd choice, and I simply wonder what her credentials are, considering she'll be on the Court for the next twenty years.
Addendum: How could I forget Bill Frist...up for insider trading violations. Yikes!
Can someone help me out with Harriet Miers? Like most people, I certainly never heard of her before today. Whether you like John Roberts's decisions and views or not, there certainly is no denying his legal knowledge, scholarship and mind. But does Miers have an extensive background and expertise in constitutional law? I know she has no experience as a judge, which I think would be beneficial although not a requirement. Does she have any sort of extensive public record so we know where she stands on issues and what her legal thinking is? I look at this as an odd choice, and I simply wonder what her credentials are, considering she'll be on the Court for the next twenty years.
Addendum: How could I forget Bill Frist...up for insider trading violations. Yikes!
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
What is a Gifted Student?
As another round of parent conferences fast approaches, I anticipate at some point being asked if various students should be looking for opportunities to participate in ‘gifted’ programs at universities, online or in other venues. And it is just a matter of time before the next article on ‘giftedness’ makes an appearance in one of the education journals, or one hears other teachers talk about ‘gifted’ students who get A’s on all their tests throughout the school year. But what is “giftedness?” Is there a single definition that can work for the masses? Or is this term one of the most misused, overused and exaggerated terms in the educational vocabulary?
I personally think talk of ‘gifted’ students is entirely overused and misinterpreted. I don’t think one can come up with a single definition, either, largely because of my belief and support for Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences (although perhaps a replacement for ‘intelligence’ is ‘competence’). Whatever the language, a truly gifted person in any particular field or activity is, in my mind, someone whose skill, intellect, or ability is off the charts and at a different level than someone who is merely competent, consistent, or accelerated in that field. As an example, I know many teachers and parents who refer to their straight A students as gifted. Because of my long involvement with the Center for Talent Development at Northwestern University, I know countless parents who place their kids in programs run through universities because their kids are ‘gifted’ and need new challenges that are not available at their respective schools. Having worked with top-tier students for over ten years, it has been more than obvious to me that ‘gifted’ is a term that is as overused and abused in education as ‘genius’ is in the popular media. Terms like 'gifted' and 'genius' are meant to be used for the rare individual whose talents, knowledge, ability, and performance is so far beyond even the most competent in a field that there is not another term that would properly describe them.
Let me stick to my area of expertise and experience to give examples of what gifted might look like in science education. I know many who might consider the typical student in AP classes to be categorized as gifted. After all, students in AP classes are working perhaps one, two or three years ahead of their age-group. These students tend to be motivated, do their homework, listen in class, and have a decent amount of curiosity for the subject. These students are about as ideal for a teacher to work with as you can imagine. But in my ten years working with many hundreds of AP caliber students, there may be a handful who I would classify as ‘gifted’ in science. In my definition of gifted, grades are not part of it. Motivation is not necessarily part of it. Rather, insight and the ability to understand a subject at such a deep level as to make connections between seemingly unrelated topics is part of it. Ability and understanding at such high levels that make me wonder how the student came up with an idea or conclusion that the typical accelerated student would not be able to make fits into the definition. That rare student whose abilities can only be related to others through anecdotes rather than single words fits into the definition.
One example that may sum it up happened a number of years back. After introducing the concept of electromagnetic induction in class, a student who is truly gifted immediately came to me with a comment. This student rarely appeared to ever pay attention in class, because he would be scribbling things on his paper, or have the ‘day dream’ look on his face most of the time. But after knowing him only a few days I knew he was doing something else. He paid attention the first few minutes of class to get the topic, but then took it to new levels on a daily basis in his own mind. Concepts were understood immediately, as soon as he saw where I was headed and what the topic at hand was related to. His day dreaming was normally him deriving in his head or on paper things I was going to do for the class over a week’s worth of time; he knew where it was headed because he intuitively understood at a deep level where it should go. This is hard to put into words, which is why ‘giftedness’ is so difficult to define.
Going back to the electromagnetic induction story, one day he came up to me with a calculation scribbled on a piece of paper. In his mind, he was able to take the concept of time varying electric fields producing (i.e. inducing) magnetic fields and time varying magnetic fields inducing electric fields and apply it in a way that made complete sense to him: a similar thing should be seen with gravitational fields. In fact, he ‘saw’ mathematical similarities between electromagnetic theory and gravitational theory, and deduced a similar phenomenon should exist in an entirely different realm. He came up with gravitomagnetism on his own, which is a prediction Einstein (who, I think we could argue, was somewhat ‘gifted’ in physics) made with general relativity. This sort of intuition or insight is absolutely not the norm, even for knowledgeable, hard working AP level students, who I would classify almost entirely as accelerated students. ‘Gifted’ is a whole other level of understanding that few ever attain, and, at least in science, is based on the deep level of processing and understanding of concepts that allow students to step beyond simply being competent with applying the concept, and rather make connections well beyond the norm. It is the kind of thing as a teacher you recognize and know when you see it.
In sports, one may talk of a Michael Jordan being a gifted basketball player. What separated him from all other players? Others could jump as high and run as fast and dribble as well, but Jordan had ‘instincts’ that no one else did. Some have described it as if he could ‘see’ the play happen and predict what other players would do before it ever happened. It cannot be put into words, and the gifted individuals typically cannot explain how they do it. My student could never explain how he came up with his thoughts or ideas or conclusions…they just ‘appeared’ and ‘made sense.’ Jordan always said he just ‘felt’ where he should go and what he should do on a basketball court, and never thought of it consciously; he just did it. The masters of music simply ‘know’ how to play the notes just right to overwhelm an audience; many others can play the same notes, but there is a quality that separates the truly gifted musician from the masses, and you know it when you hear it. There is not a single definition or word that does it justice.
Addendum: For more comments and observations on this topic, check out Zenpundit.
I personally think talk of ‘gifted’ students is entirely overused and misinterpreted. I don’t think one can come up with a single definition, either, largely because of my belief and support for Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences (although perhaps a replacement for ‘intelligence’ is ‘competence’). Whatever the language, a truly gifted person in any particular field or activity is, in my mind, someone whose skill, intellect, or ability is off the charts and at a different level than someone who is merely competent, consistent, or accelerated in that field. As an example, I know many teachers and parents who refer to their straight A students as gifted. Because of my long involvement with the Center for Talent Development at Northwestern University, I know countless parents who place their kids in programs run through universities because their kids are ‘gifted’ and need new challenges that are not available at their respective schools. Having worked with top-tier students for over ten years, it has been more than obvious to me that ‘gifted’ is a term that is as overused and abused in education as ‘genius’ is in the popular media. Terms like 'gifted' and 'genius' are meant to be used for the rare individual whose talents, knowledge, ability, and performance is so far beyond even the most competent in a field that there is not another term that would properly describe them.
Let me stick to my area of expertise and experience to give examples of what gifted might look like in science education. I know many who might consider the typical student in AP classes to be categorized as gifted. After all, students in AP classes are working perhaps one, two or three years ahead of their age-group. These students tend to be motivated, do their homework, listen in class, and have a decent amount of curiosity for the subject. These students are about as ideal for a teacher to work with as you can imagine. But in my ten years working with many hundreds of AP caliber students, there may be a handful who I would classify as ‘gifted’ in science. In my definition of gifted, grades are not part of it. Motivation is not necessarily part of it. Rather, insight and the ability to understand a subject at such a deep level as to make connections between seemingly unrelated topics is part of it. Ability and understanding at such high levels that make me wonder how the student came up with an idea or conclusion that the typical accelerated student would not be able to make fits into the definition. That rare student whose abilities can only be related to others through anecdotes rather than single words fits into the definition.
One example that may sum it up happened a number of years back. After introducing the concept of electromagnetic induction in class, a student who is truly gifted immediately came to me with a comment. This student rarely appeared to ever pay attention in class, because he would be scribbling things on his paper, or have the ‘day dream’ look on his face most of the time. But after knowing him only a few days I knew he was doing something else. He paid attention the first few minutes of class to get the topic, but then took it to new levels on a daily basis in his own mind. Concepts were understood immediately, as soon as he saw where I was headed and what the topic at hand was related to. His day dreaming was normally him deriving in his head or on paper things I was going to do for the class over a week’s worth of time; he knew where it was headed because he intuitively understood at a deep level where it should go. This is hard to put into words, which is why ‘giftedness’ is so difficult to define.
Going back to the electromagnetic induction story, one day he came up to me with a calculation scribbled on a piece of paper. In his mind, he was able to take the concept of time varying electric fields producing (i.e. inducing) magnetic fields and time varying magnetic fields inducing electric fields and apply it in a way that made complete sense to him: a similar thing should be seen with gravitational fields. In fact, he ‘saw’ mathematical similarities between electromagnetic theory and gravitational theory, and deduced a similar phenomenon should exist in an entirely different realm. He came up with gravitomagnetism on his own, which is a prediction Einstein (who, I think we could argue, was somewhat ‘gifted’ in physics) made with general relativity. This sort of intuition or insight is absolutely not the norm, even for knowledgeable, hard working AP level students, who I would classify almost entirely as accelerated students. ‘Gifted’ is a whole other level of understanding that few ever attain, and, at least in science, is based on the deep level of processing and understanding of concepts that allow students to step beyond simply being competent with applying the concept, and rather make connections well beyond the norm. It is the kind of thing as a teacher you recognize and know when you see it.
In sports, one may talk of a Michael Jordan being a gifted basketball player. What separated him from all other players? Others could jump as high and run as fast and dribble as well, but Jordan had ‘instincts’ that no one else did. Some have described it as if he could ‘see’ the play happen and predict what other players would do before it ever happened. It cannot be put into words, and the gifted individuals typically cannot explain how they do it. My student could never explain how he came up with his thoughts or ideas or conclusions…they just ‘appeared’ and ‘made sense.’ Jordan always said he just ‘felt’ where he should go and what he should do on a basketball court, and never thought of it consciously; he just did it. The masters of music simply ‘know’ how to play the notes just right to overwhelm an audience; many others can play the same notes, but there is a quality that separates the truly gifted musician from the masses, and you know it when you hear it. There is not a single definition or word that does it justice.
Addendum: For more comments and observations on this topic, check out Zenpundit.
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Despicable Stop-Gap Funding Bill
On the way home from work today, I heard a story on NPR that has my blood boiling. The Congress is doing its annual dance of creating stop-gap funding bills because it has yet to pass the necessary budgetary legislation to keep the Federal government running (the fiscal year has just expired, Oct. 1). While that has become the expectation, what has been reported in the details of this particular measure is simply crazy to me. Funding for all federal spending and programs has been extended at the same levels as the past budget, with a very small number of exceptions. One of those exceptions is funding for assistance programs for some of the poorest Americans. Some of those budget lines are cut from 50% to 75%! In a Republican Congress that will almost certainly make tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans permanent when they return from a break, and for Republicans who want to repeal the estate tax, which only affects multimillionaires on up, and for one indicted Tom Delay to say there is "simply no more fat to cut from the budget" (apparently this is the only fat they found), simply saying that I am outraged doesn't cut it.
Democrats in the Senate, led by Tom Harkin, pleaded with the Republican leadership to call for an amendment to return funding for assistance programs for the poorest Americans before midnight last night. But, of course, this could not be done since the House had already adjourned and Representatives were already out of town. It is mindboggling to me how they could do this. Over 4 million children will be affected as of today, who count on funds for after-school programs and assistance to their parents to make ends meet. But many of the poorest Americans don't vote, so screw them...the Bill Gates of the world can enjoy the additional hundreds of millions of dollars they get from the various tax cuts over the past five years. I guess this is fair and right in some minds, but I cannot at all understand it. In particular, I cannot understand how certain leaders who claim to be 'compassionate' can allow the trend for increased numbers of children who live in poverty to continue like this. In the richest nation in the history of the world, 1 in 5 children live in poverty. Many of their parents are the types who may actually deserve to live in those conditions, but the victims are their kids. I'll bet many more of their parents are the working poor, trying to make ends meet by working multiple minimum wage jobs. From my days in the Chicago Public Schools, I know this is the case. I don't know the ultimate answers as to the best way to create an environment where the working poor have a better opportunity to move themselves out of these conditions, but something new has to happen...the kids are the victims, and are born into a world where the odds of making something of their lives are small. With leadership like we currently have, the odds have just been reduced even more.
By the way, poverty rates are up for the 4th consecutive year. It is currently at 12.7%, with some 37 million Americans living in such conditions. Keep in mind that the poverty level is set at $19,127 for a family of four. How they come up with these levels is beyond me, but I cannot imagine what it must be like trying to support a family with two kids on such a income. It is a different world than anyone in Congress can imagine, at least those on the right who voted to cut community service block grants for the poorest of the poor.
Democrats in the Senate, led by Tom Harkin, pleaded with the Republican leadership to call for an amendment to return funding for assistance programs for the poorest Americans before midnight last night. But, of course, this could not be done since the House had already adjourned and Representatives were already out of town. It is mindboggling to me how they could do this. Over 4 million children will be affected as of today, who count on funds for after-school programs and assistance to their parents to make ends meet. But many of the poorest Americans don't vote, so screw them...the Bill Gates of the world can enjoy the additional hundreds of millions of dollars they get from the various tax cuts over the past five years. I guess this is fair and right in some minds, but I cannot at all understand it. In particular, I cannot understand how certain leaders who claim to be 'compassionate' can allow the trend for increased numbers of children who live in poverty to continue like this. In the richest nation in the history of the world, 1 in 5 children live in poverty. Many of their parents are the types who may actually deserve to live in those conditions, but the victims are their kids. I'll bet many more of their parents are the working poor, trying to make ends meet by working multiple minimum wage jobs. From my days in the Chicago Public Schools, I know this is the case. I don't know the ultimate answers as to the best way to create an environment where the working poor have a better opportunity to move themselves out of these conditions, but something new has to happen...the kids are the victims, and are born into a world where the odds of making something of their lives are small. With leadership like we currently have, the odds have just been reduced even more.
By the way, poverty rates are up for the 4th consecutive year. It is currently at 12.7%, with some 37 million Americans living in such conditions. Keep in mind that the poverty level is set at $19,127 for a family of four. How they come up with these levels is beyond me, but I cannot imagine what it must be like trying to support a family with two kids on such a income. It is a different world than anyone in Congress can imagine, at least those on the right who voted to cut community service block grants for the poorest of the poor.
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Go, SOX!!
The White Sox are finding their groove again as the playoffs start next week. Too bad the Cubs cannot join us (not meant as a dig...sort of). Let's see what they can do!
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Econophysics
Not too long ago I tried to make the argument that physical principles may be useful in the analysis of human behavior, as well as societal and cultural phenomena. Well-known physics concepts such as inertia, momentum, force and impulse seem to have analogs in the social and behavioral sciences. There are other reasons that suggest a deeper connection between the physical realm and social realm, as seen in the fields of network theory and complexity. Common mathematical relationships and structures have been discovered over a remarkable range of systems, from the Internet to social networks to business networks, and even in food webs and metabolic chemical networks.
Further evidence of deep links between physical systems and economic models have also been discovered. In the September issue of Physics Today, an article entitled “Is Economics the Next Physical Science?” is featured. Yale professor Martin Shubik and Santa Fe Institute researchers Doyne Farmer and Eric Smith have been working on econophysics, where well-established mathematical methods used by physicists over many years have been used to establish better dynamical economic models. For example, the study of chaotic systems in physical systems as economic analogs in the sense that an economic market can follow very different paths if there are relatively minor changes in the initial conditions of the market. The mathematics used in this type of analysis follows techniques used in physics. The observation of numerous power laws in physical systems and networks (i.e. scale-free networks) over a number of years has led to more refined analysis tools, which are now being used to understand newly discovered power laws in economic theory. These power laws include analysis of price movement in stocks over short periods of time as well as income distributions in capitalistic economies. Production and distribution networks of large corporations have been shown to follow characteristic power laws associated with scale-free networks. What may seem like random trading patterns in the stock market that lead to market swings and patterns may be analogous to random motions of many-body systems that show emergent behavior. Statistical mechanics relationships are being used to study various types of economic models (since probability distribution functions rule).
While standard physics analyses may provide some leads into the deeper understanding of economics, there is still the difficulty of including human beings into the mix. It is not clear that we will be able to model human responses that are based not on logic or deterministic physical laws, but rather raw emotion and the possibility of random response decisions to evolving market conditions that are built around strategies that may or may not be well thought out. We are not yet at the point of creating a Foundation like Harry Seldon did in Isaac Asimov’s classic ‘Foundation Trilogy,’ but this is a fascinating new way of thinking about the possible universality of physical and social sciences.
Further evidence of deep links between physical systems and economic models have also been discovered. In the September issue of Physics Today, an article entitled “Is Economics the Next Physical Science?” is featured. Yale professor Martin Shubik and Santa Fe Institute researchers Doyne Farmer and Eric Smith have been working on econophysics, where well-established mathematical methods used by physicists over many years have been used to establish better dynamical economic models. For example, the study of chaotic systems in physical systems as economic analogs in the sense that an economic market can follow very different paths if there are relatively minor changes in the initial conditions of the market. The mathematics used in this type of analysis follows techniques used in physics. The observation of numerous power laws in physical systems and networks (i.e. scale-free networks) over a number of years has led to more refined analysis tools, which are now being used to understand newly discovered power laws in economic theory. These power laws include analysis of price movement in stocks over short periods of time as well as income distributions in capitalistic economies. Production and distribution networks of large corporations have been shown to follow characteristic power laws associated with scale-free networks. What may seem like random trading patterns in the stock market that lead to market swings and patterns may be analogous to random motions of many-body systems that show emergent behavior. Statistical mechanics relationships are being used to study various types of economic models (since probability distribution functions rule).
While standard physics analyses may provide some leads into the deeper understanding of economics, there is still the difficulty of including human beings into the mix. It is not clear that we will be able to model human responses that are based not on logic or deterministic physical laws, but rather raw emotion and the possibility of random response decisions to evolving market conditions that are built around strategies that may or may not be well thought out. We are not yet at the point of creating a Foundation like Harry Seldon did in Isaac Asimov’s classic ‘Foundation Trilogy,’ but this is a fascinating new way of thinking about the possible universality of physical and social sciences.
Is There a Gap in Wealth in the US?
The nature of capitalism is to have winners and losers, i.e. social Darwinism. Just a few numbers, and I'll let you decide if our capitalistic economy is working in this manner:
- The latest Forbes list of the richest Americans is out, and the wealthiest billionaires increased their wealth by $125 billion in the past year. The top 400 are worth $1.13 trillion.
- In 2003, the income ratio of CEO to worker was 301:1. In 2004, that ratio increased to an astounding 431:1.
- Average worker salaries essentially remain flat with inflation.
My take is that our capitalistic economy remains strong.
- The latest Forbes list of the richest Americans is out, and the wealthiest billionaires increased their wealth by $125 billion in the past year. The top 400 are worth $1.13 trillion.
- In 2003, the income ratio of CEO to worker was 301:1. In 2004, that ratio increased to an astounding 431:1.
- Average worker salaries essentially remain flat with inflation.
My take is that our capitalistic economy remains strong.
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Nobel Laureates Contact Kansas State Board of Ed.
Thirty-eight Nobel prize winning scientists and other notables have contacted the Kansas State Board of Education to request that they reject science standards that include intelligent design. The reason is simple: a model for the development of life that has, as its foundation, the involvement of a supernatural designer or planner (i.e. some sort of creator), cannot be tested by known scientific means. By definition, this type of model is not a scientific model.
Science deals with the physical universe, and its realm includes the study of natural processes. Proposed supernatural processes or entities is outside this realm, making it difficult to justify its inclusion in any science curriculum.
Science deals with the physical universe, and its realm includes the study of natural processes. Proposed supernatural processes or entities is outside this realm, making it difficult to justify its inclusion in any science curriculum.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Site for Displaced Teachers, Students, Researchers
I just got this from the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT). My guess is other professional and community groups around the country are or will be doing the same thing. Please pass along the information to anyone who may need it due to Katrina. My guess is online bulletin boards and job posts will become an invaluable tool for displaced residents who are trying to find work or schools to attend.
"Hurricane Katrina has affected thousands of members of the physics and astronomy community. Physics students in the afflicted areas, fromundergrads to post-docs, are unable to go to their colleges. Physics and astronomy educators at all levels have lost their jobs, their paychecks, and their homes. Displaced students need to get back into classes to continue their educations. Faculty members, post-docs, and high-school teachers need teaching and research jobs.
To help them get back on their feet we have created a physics community bulletin board to advertise immediate, temporary positions for students, teachers, and faculty members. Providers of help will post details; those who need help can apply directly. There also will be some other helpful links. If you know someone from the affected area who is needing to relocate,please refer them to http://www.compadre.org/katrina. If you know of positions at your institution, in your school district, in your state, please list them on the website. Whatever help we can provide those impacted by Hurricane Katrina will be very much appreciated."
"Hurricane Katrina has affected thousands of members of the physics and astronomy community. Physics students in the afflicted areas, fromundergrads to post-docs, are unable to go to their colleges. Physics and astronomy educators at all levels have lost their jobs, their paychecks, and their homes. Displaced students need to get back into classes to continue their educations. Faculty members, post-docs, and high-school teachers need teaching and research jobs.
To help them get back on their feet we have created a physics community bulletin board to advertise immediate, temporary positions for students, teachers, and faculty members. Providers of help will post details; those who need help can apply directly. There also will be some other helpful links. If you know someone from the affected area who is needing to relocate,please refer them to http://www.compadre.org/katrina. If you know of positions at your institution, in your school district, in your state, please list them on the website. Whatever help we can provide those impacted by Hurricane Katrina will be very much appreciated."
Sunday, September 11, 2005
A Recommendation for Science Teaching: Break Down Barriers Presented by Textbook Chapters
There is something that truly bugs me about science textbooks – chapters. In my previous post, I argue that the way we teach science, particularly in middle school and high school, can be misleading to students in the sense that science is made up by a bunch of segregated, unrelated set of disciplines such as biology, chemistry, and physics. While it is undoubtedly important to learn fundamental concepts and principles within a single discipline, rarely do students become acquainted with how science is now done in the real world, which is more and more frequently collaborations consisting of experts from a variety of technical fields where the focus is on the overlap and connections between disciplines. A related problem comes about within a single discipline itself. That problem is the lack of connection and continuity between concepts and principles as presented in traditional textbook chapters.
In a 2002 article I had published in The Science Teacher (December issue, pages 44-47, entitled “Chapterless Science”), the main high school journal published through the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), I begin:
“When I began teaching high school physics seven years ago, I thought I had some idea of what I was doing. After all, with a doctorate in physics I was confident I knew the material. The textbook, course syllabus, and accompanying laboratory and test bank books outlined exact chapters to teach and labs to perform. However, by the end of the first semester students were not getting the most from the course.
Students were not connecting concepts that were clearly related but presented in different chapters. Students seemed to memorize terms and equations for the chapter tests. When we got to a section of a new chapter in which students had to recall ideas from a previous chapter, many had already forgotten what they had memorized for the short term.
After questioning students about why they were taking this approach, they said they assumed material from each chapter was a separate piece of physics. Because the books separated the material, students were not connecting chapters together to form a single, coherent picture of physics.”
The feedback from students was a sort of epiphany for me when it comes to teaching science. Just as many students get the impression that there are no connections between science disciplines because of the way we completely separate them by courses, within an individual course there is a common impression that a discipline is made up of a series of disconnected set of ideas and topics, because they are separated by chapters. Many students go through their schooling thinking that they need to ‘learn’ a subject by memorizing single ideas from single chapters, without attaining a level of fundamental understanding we want to see where fundamental principles can allow one to make connections between a wide variety of topics (i.e. chapters).
For instance, in a physics class, as students are studying the effects of force in general, I include discussions of all types of forces. We consider springs, friction, centripetal force, gravity, electric forces, and magnetic forces, all within the first few weeks of class. All these topics typically have their own chapters well into the textbook. (For example, one textbook has friction in chapter 4, centripetal force in chapter 5, gravity in chapter 12, springs in chapter 13, electric force in chapter 22, and magnetic forces in chapter 28.)
Although I do not go into great detail with all of the examples of force when they are initially introduced (but this also provides a preview of things to come), students learn that connections exist between many different types of forces relevant to a wide variety of phenomena. The consequences, behaviors, and descriptions of the different forces all can be fundamentally understood with the same basic rules. Even though the appearances of various forces can be dramatically different, students learn that they can begin to understand nature at a new, more fundamental level. In addition, students begin to develop the mentality of scientists, looking for patterns to make connections to different situations to make sense of the world, making predictions, and solving problems using fundamental principles. This technique is a powerful way to begin building critical-thinking skills in students.
Some other examples from my classroom include studying the many similar motions that have common connections. For instance, when we study circular motion, a common demonstration and lab includes twirling an object tied to a string over our heads. The concept of centripetal force is then introduced. Typically, other examples in the chapter covering centripetal force include loops in roller coasters, curved roads, and perhaps airplanes diving into circular paths. But I’ll also include orbiting satellites, electrons orbiting around a nucleus, electric charges moving in circles in magnetic fields, pendulum motion, and so on—all of which are spread throughout the textbook in many different chapters. The students pick up the information quickly because earlier they were introduced to the relevant forces and principles for all these examples. The case of circular motion simply reinforces deeper connections and similarities between all these seemingly different phenomena. Even if we do not cover specific problems or experiments dealing with the topics in later chapters of the book, at least the ideas and principles have been introduced.
As with science disciplines seemingly being unrelated to most students because of artificial barriers we place on them by having them taught in separate courses, we end to do the same thing within single disciplines by using traditional chapter-based texts and chapter-based curricula. The interconnectedness of seemingly different phenomena and principles can be lost to students unless we help break down such boundaries and barriers.
In a 2002 article I had published in The Science Teacher (December issue, pages 44-47, entitled “Chapterless Science”), the main high school journal published through the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), I begin:
“When I began teaching high school physics seven years ago, I thought I had some idea of what I was doing. After all, with a doctorate in physics I was confident I knew the material. The textbook, course syllabus, and accompanying laboratory and test bank books outlined exact chapters to teach and labs to perform. However, by the end of the first semester students were not getting the most from the course.
Students were not connecting concepts that were clearly related but presented in different chapters. Students seemed to memorize terms and equations for the chapter tests. When we got to a section of a new chapter in which students had to recall ideas from a previous chapter, many had already forgotten what they had memorized for the short term.
After questioning students about why they were taking this approach, they said they assumed material from each chapter was a separate piece of physics. Because the books separated the material, students were not connecting chapters together to form a single, coherent picture of physics.”
The feedback from students was a sort of epiphany for me when it comes to teaching science. Just as many students get the impression that there are no connections between science disciplines because of the way we completely separate them by courses, within an individual course there is a common impression that a discipline is made up of a series of disconnected set of ideas and topics, because they are separated by chapters. Many students go through their schooling thinking that they need to ‘learn’ a subject by memorizing single ideas from single chapters, without attaining a level of fundamental understanding we want to see where fundamental principles can allow one to make connections between a wide variety of topics (i.e. chapters).
For instance, in a physics class, as students are studying the effects of force in general, I include discussions of all types of forces. We consider springs, friction, centripetal force, gravity, electric forces, and magnetic forces, all within the first few weeks of class. All these topics typically have their own chapters well into the textbook. (For example, one textbook has friction in chapter 4, centripetal force in chapter 5, gravity in chapter 12, springs in chapter 13, electric force in chapter 22, and magnetic forces in chapter 28.)
Although I do not go into great detail with all of the examples of force when they are initially introduced (but this also provides a preview of things to come), students learn that connections exist between many different types of forces relevant to a wide variety of phenomena. The consequences, behaviors, and descriptions of the different forces all can be fundamentally understood with the same basic rules. Even though the appearances of various forces can be dramatically different, students learn that they can begin to understand nature at a new, more fundamental level. In addition, students begin to develop the mentality of scientists, looking for patterns to make connections to different situations to make sense of the world, making predictions, and solving problems using fundamental principles. This technique is a powerful way to begin building critical-thinking skills in students.
Some other examples from my classroom include studying the many similar motions that have common connections. For instance, when we study circular motion, a common demonstration and lab includes twirling an object tied to a string over our heads. The concept of centripetal force is then introduced. Typically, other examples in the chapter covering centripetal force include loops in roller coasters, curved roads, and perhaps airplanes diving into circular paths. But I’ll also include orbiting satellites, electrons orbiting around a nucleus, electric charges moving in circles in magnetic fields, pendulum motion, and so on—all of which are spread throughout the textbook in many different chapters. The students pick up the information quickly because earlier they were introduced to the relevant forces and principles for all these examples. The case of circular motion simply reinforces deeper connections and similarities between all these seemingly different phenomena. Even if we do not cover specific problems or experiments dealing with the topics in later chapters of the book, at least the ideas and principles have been introduced.
As with science disciplines seemingly being unrelated to most students because of artificial barriers we place on them by having them taught in separate courses, we end to do the same thing within single disciplines by using traditional chapter-based texts and chapter-based curricula. The interconnectedness of seemingly different phenomena and principles can be lost to students unless we help break down such boundaries and barriers.
Saturday, September 10, 2005
The nature of science today
When we went through high school, I would have to guess that when we were asked the question “What is science?” we would have answered, depending on the year we were in school and what class we were taking at the moment, biology, chemistry, or physics. Maybe a few of us would have answered earth science. This is how I used to think about science, at least, because of the way it is normally presented in our schooling. Starting in middle school, science is presented as a bunch of disjointed disciplines and we almost never, if ever, hear our teachers talk about how biology is related to chemistry, or how physics and chemistry are related, and so on. Biology is biology, chemistry is chemistry, and physics is physics.
It was not until I actually began doing science later in my undergraduate years and into grad school that I finally learned what science really is. In actual scientific research, the pursuit for finding and understanding the truths of Nature break down the artificial isolation and barriers placed on scientific disciplines we tend to see in high school, and instead modern research labs and collaborations typically include a mix of talent and expertise from across the spectrum of fields. A group run by a professor with a degree in chemical engineering, for instance, includes chemists, a biologist, a geneticist, a computer scientist, a physicist, and other engineering majors. A medical research lab with a focus on cancer research has computer specialists, biophysicists, chemists, microbiologists, and biochemical engineers. These groups also have formed collaborations with engineers and product development specialists in industry, and the research labs also work with others in the college administration on patents and grant writing. My old experimental group, CDF out at Fermilab, had over 400 physicists who helped build and maintain one of the most sophisticated experiments on the planet, but it would not have ever worked had it not been for the steel workers, technicians, computer scientists, electrical engineers, accelerator physicists, administrators, and others in a variety of fields.
The point is, the way most textbooks still present science is best suited for the 19th and early 20th centuries, when most research was in a single discipline. One might say that the ‘easy’ stuff that is pure biology, chemistry or physics has been done, and more modern, cutting-edge research is found in the gray areas that are the overlaps between the major disciplines. Science is not a series of separate subject areas with intellectual boundaries that cut each other off from one another, but rather a continuum or ocean of unknown concepts, principles, and phenomena waiting to be discovered. Some of the broad scientific areas that will dominate future research this century, such as complexity, nanoscience, molecular biology, cosmology, quantum science, research into the brain, social science and economics (via network theory), astrobiology, and even continued searches for the TOE (theory of everything), all will make progress not just from experts in major disciplines, but rather through continued expansion of multi-field and multi-talent collaborations. I personally feel that the training of the next generation of scientists, doctors, social scientists, engineers, and anyone else in technical fields, needs to include and feature such notions about the true nature of science at least by the high school level of their education, because the approach one takes to prepare for such intellectual collaboration requires an awareness of not only the basics of a particular skill set within a discipline, but also limitations within a discipline that need to be filled by others. It is sort of like ‘it takes a village,’ the science way.
It was not until I actually began doing science later in my undergraduate years and into grad school that I finally learned what science really is. In actual scientific research, the pursuit for finding and understanding the truths of Nature break down the artificial isolation and barriers placed on scientific disciplines we tend to see in high school, and instead modern research labs and collaborations typically include a mix of talent and expertise from across the spectrum of fields. A group run by a professor with a degree in chemical engineering, for instance, includes chemists, a biologist, a geneticist, a computer scientist, a physicist, and other engineering majors. A medical research lab with a focus on cancer research has computer specialists, biophysicists, chemists, microbiologists, and biochemical engineers. These groups also have formed collaborations with engineers and product development specialists in industry, and the research labs also work with others in the college administration on patents and grant writing. My old experimental group, CDF out at Fermilab, had over 400 physicists who helped build and maintain one of the most sophisticated experiments on the planet, but it would not have ever worked had it not been for the steel workers, technicians, computer scientists, electrical engineers, accelerator physicists, administrators, and others in a variety of fields.
The point is, the way most textbooks still present science is best suited for the 19th and early 20th centuries, when most research was in a single discipline. One might say that the ‘easy’ stuff that is pure biology, chemistry or physics has been done, and more modern, cutting-edge research is found in the gray areas that are the overlaps between the major disciplines. Science is not a series of separate subject areas with intellectual boundaries that cut each other off from one another, but rather a continuum or ocean of unknown concepts, principles, and phenomena waiting to be discovered. Some of the broad scientific areas that will dominate future research this century, such as complexity, nanoscience, molecular biology, cosmology, quantum science, research into the brain, social science and economics (via network theory), astrobiology, and even continued searches for the TOE (theory of everything), all will make progress not just from experts in major disciplines, but rather through continued expansion of multi-field and multi-talent collaborations. I personally feel that the training of the next generation of scientists, doctors, social scientists, engineers, and anyone else in technical fields, needs to include and feature such notions about the true nature of science at least by the high school level of their education, because the approach one takes to prepare for such intellectual collaboration requires an awareness of not only the basics of a particular skill set within a discipline, but also limitations within a discipline that need to be filled by others. It is sort of like ‘it takes a village,’ the science way.
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Having Respect for Nature
I personally cannot get over Nature. Just on earth, we are witnesses to the awe-inspiring variety of life, the beauty of everything from rainbows to cloud formations, to the Grand Canyon and scenic beauty of the Alaskan wilderness. We have seen the awesome power of Nature last week in the Gulf and with the tsunami, and we will see such fury unleashed again some day.
Many of us lose track of what happens outside of the earth. I was just reminded of this after reading a short article from Scientific American. Astronomers have directly measured a pulsar (i.e. neutron star, a superdense ball of neutrons that just missed becoming a black hole, and one teaspoon of this creature would weigh multiple tons on earth!) that is moving at over 1000 kilometers per second. Talk about impressive. To put this in perspective, human-made space probes, the fastest devices we have built, may cruise through space at several tens of kilometers per second. We have a long way to go to catch up with Nature!
Many of us lose track of what happens outside of the earth. I was just reminded of this after reading a short article from Scientific American. Astronomers have directly measured a pulsar (i.e. neutron star, a superdense ball of neutrons that just missed becoming a black hole, and one teaspoon of this creature would weigh multiple tons on earth!) that is moving at over 1000 kilometers per second. Talk about impressive. To put this in perspective, human-made space probes, the fastest devices we have built, may cruise through space at several tens of kilometers per second. We have a long way to go to catch up with Nature!
FEMA Predictions from 2001
At a 2001 FEMA meeting that discussed the most likely disaster scenarios in the U.S., the top three that were discussed were a terrorist attack in New York, a flood of New Orleans, and a major earthquake in California. How prophetical...it is also absolutely vital that everyone learns from Katrina so the response to the next disaster is speedy and includes as strong a security presence as possible. Without security, everything else ends in chaos (as we also learned in Iraq) and takes many times longer to accomplish than it should. In this case, I do agree with George Will's latest commentary in Newsweek. Another insightful commentary can be found on Zenpundit.
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Theory of 'Intelligent Gravity'
If you like "The Onion," check out the latest report on the Intelligent Design community's efforts on gravity. Many thanks to Mike at Teach and Learn for finding the link! It'll make you giggle.
Looking for advice, recommendations for school reform
As students are heading back to college, I have noticed an increase in readers from the universities. I know some are former students, so 'Hello' to all of you!! I need a favor from you, as well as anyone else who is interested in posting a comment. Now that you have been out of the public school system for one or more years, thinking back, what would the top one or two (or more) things you could have changed be, that in your mind would have made the experience better? If you don't want to leave a comment, feel free to email any suggestions/recommendations you come up with. I think this could start a very interesting and important conversation, as well as many ideas to expand on. Thanks!!
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Recommended reading: Lessons to be learned from Katrina
Kudos to Zenpundit, who has a post today about the lessons to be learned from Katrina. I tend to agree with all his points, including his recommendation that FEMA and other disaster agencies be run by leaders with a military background. Even with the countless billions spent on Homeland Security since 9/11, I think most would say it is obvious we are still staggeringly unprepared for large disasters of any kind that occur within the U.S. It is worth a read...
The Need to Seriously Think Through What to do With Gulf Coast
As countless people who have lived along the Gulf Coast still try to recover from hurricane Katrina, each evening we see leaders and residents alike talk about not letting Mother Nature win, and the need to rebuild New Orleans and other destroyed communities. I love to see such resiliency and determination, but in the heat of the moment there is a strong emotional element that is involved when these statements are made. In the long run, cooler heads need to seriously consider whether such massive investments are the wise thing to do.
On August 8, I wrote about how research showed a key prediction from global warming models has been confirmed. It only took three weeks before we had more supporting evidence with Katrina. The prediction is that with global warming comes warmer surface water temperature, and a consequence of this is not more frequent hurricanes, but rather more intense and destructive hurricanes. I have heard that Katrina was the strongest hurricane ever recorded via air pressure measurements. This was predicted and expected according to scientists who study global weather patterns and models, and the Nature article concluded with the prophetical prediction that
"results suggest that future warming may lead to an upward trend in tropical cyclone destructive potential, and—taking into account an increasing coastal population—a substantial increase in hurricane-related losses in the twenty-first century."
Our leaders need to consider the science and increasing evidence that such ferocious storms will likely happen again before rebuilding begins. Obviously there are serious consequences, and it is time to weigh in hard data before emotional responses are acted upon.
If you can afford to donate for relief efforts, here is a direct link to the Red Cross.
On August 8, I wrote about how research showed a key prediction from global warming models has been confirmed. It only took three weeks before we had more supporting evidence with Katrina. The prediction is that with global warming comes warmer surface water temperature, and a consequence of this is not more frequent hurricanes, but rather more intense and destructive hurricanes. I have heard that Katrina was the strongest hurricane ever recorded via air pressure measurements. This was predicted and expected according to scientists who study global weather patterns and models, and the Nature article concluded with the prophetical prediction that
"results suggest that future warming may lead to an upward trend in tropical cyclone destructive potential, and—taking into account an increasing coastal population—a substantial increase in hurricane-related losses in the twenty-first century."
Our leaders need to consider the science and increasing evidence that such ferocious storms will likely happen again before rebuilding begins. Obviously there are serious consequences, and it is time to weigh in hard data before emotional responses are acted upon.
If you can afford to donate for relief efforts, here is a direct link to the Red Cross.
Saturday, September 03, 2005
A Scientific "Dream" Panel
Zenpundit has an interesting entry concerning ‘dream symposium’ panels. I thought I’d offer one for the topic “First Principles in Science.” Imagine the premise being a discussion about what the fundamental principles are in Nature and how they connect with each other. Such a discussion would presumably help influence where a good portion of science research goes, particularly for understanding complexity.
‘Dream’ panel members (because this is a dream team, not everyone is alive):
Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Murray Gell-Mann, Charles Darwin, Edward Witten, John Pople, Richard Feynman, Michael Faraday, Christian de Duve
Obviously there are many brilliant scientists and scholars who could be placed on such lists (who are/were masters of the fundamentals in their fields and how they relate to the bigger picture), so I welcome and encourage other suggestions…it is fun to think about! In addition, I’ve included some of the all-time greats (only three on the list are still alive). Who should be on the list if we wanted to gather the panel next week?
‘Dream’ panel members (because this is a dream team, not everyone is alive):
Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Murray Gell-Mann, Charles Darwin, Edward Witten, John Pople, Richard Feynman, Michael Faraday, Christian de Duve
Obviously there are many brilliant scientists and scholars who could be placed on such lists (who are/were masters of the fundamentals in their fields and how they relate to the bigger picture), so I welcome and encourage other suggestions…it is fun to think about! In addition, I’ve included some of the all-time greats (only three on the list are still alive). Who should be on the list if we wanted to gather the panel next week?
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
A Couple News Bits That Caught My Eye
Argh!! A new report on scientific literacy in America shows some disturbing results. The study was reported in the NY Times, and was done by Northwestern University political scientist Jon Miller. He reports that only 20-25% of American adults are considered to be scientifically literate (and this is up from past years). For instance, American adults do not understand what molecules are (other than they are really small). Less than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity (how can one make an informed decision about stem cell research without this knowledge?) and 10 percent know what radiation is. Miller attributes much of the nation’s collective scientific ignorance to poor education, particularly in high schools.
For a short article outlining how storms are tracked and measured, check this out.
Finally, a new survey finds more than two-thirds of American adults do not believe a single test fairly assesses how well a school is performing. In addition, 90% believe it is vital that the achievement gap between white students and students of color needs to be closed. Nearly 60% believe it is the responsibility of the public schools to close the gap. There is an interesting discussion that recently took place on Zenpundit's blog, and check out an old entry of one quick fix to testing that could be made to No Child Left Behind, that in my mind would make it more reasonable (assuming we are forced to stay with a test-only assessment model).
For a short article outlining how storms are tracked and measured, check this out.
Finally, a new survey finds more than two-thirds of American adults do not believe a single test fairly assesses how well a school is performing. In addition, 90% believe it is vital that the achievement gap between white students and students of color needs to be closed. Nearly 60% believe it is the responsibility of the public schools to close the gap. There is an interesting discussion that recently took place on Zenpundit's blog, and check out an old entry of one quick fix to testing that could be made to No Child Left Behind, that in my mind would make it more reasonable (assuming we are forced to stay with a test-only assessment model).
Friday, August 26, 2005
The Physics of Societal and Cultural Change
Many politicians and policy makers have grand plans to drive through certain changes within a given society. But many fall into the trap of believing the change will work its way through a society or culture within brief periods of time. More often than not, policy shifts and major initiatives take much longer and require much more effort than initially planned. As examples, think of things like pushing through any changes for social security, a new government in Iraq, changes in the intelligence sector, tax code overhauls, health care reform, and almost any other policy initiative you can think of. Why?
As a physicist, I tend to think in terms of a lesson in an introductory physics course about momentum and impulse. One can think of ‘inertia,’ or a property of an object that is responsible for a resistance to a change in the object’s motion. Momentum is in many ways the inertia of a moving object, and is defined as the product of mass and velocity. Practically we can say an object that is moving wants to keep moving in a straight line at the same speed, thus keeping its momentum constant. In other words, objects want to stay the course and maintain whatever state of motion it is currently in. So how does change come about? A force is required to change the state of motion of an object. One can change direction, speed, or both, and that is a change in momentum. The magnitude of the change in momentum is called impulse. All of this can be wrapped up in Newton’s 3 laws of motion. What is most useful is Newton’s 2nd law of motion, which mathematically relates the magnitude of a force to the resulting impulse. The other factor that comes into play in the 2nd law is time. We can write it down in shorthand as (Impulse) = (Force) x (time of interaction). In other words, if we consider a constant magnitude of impulse, a large force acting on the object for a short period of time is equivalent to a small force acting on the same object for a long period of time. Keep in mind that the 3rd law of motion is summed up by the famous phrase, “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”
In a social context, think about an event like 9/11. This hit the American society (and even the global society) in a very short period of time. Our society changed literally in a few hours, because the force of that one tragic event was unbelievably huge. Such a large change of societal momentum (action) allowed the U.S. to invade Afghanistan with a large amount of force that dislodged the Taliban and al Qaeda in a short period of time (reaction).
What is different about something like Social Security reform? It is an important issue for our society. However, neither the administration and Republican Congress nor the Democrats have produced a plan that has placed a ‘force’ on society great enough to swing the momentum shift in either direction. The political divide in our society is so even that two essentially equal strength forces (i.e. competing philosophies and plans for fixing Social Security) which are acting in opposite political directions have resulted in a state of equilibrium. This is no different to a physical analogue of two equally strong tug-of-war teams pulling with all their might, but in opposite directions; equilibrium results and there is no impulse, i.e. no winner. Someone on either side would need to develop a plan that is radically different that will cause a sensation in society to create a large shift in policy direction, or some event would have to occur that produces an external force on society (depression, collapse of the existing system, etc) that is large enough to create a large impulse.
Continuing this series of analogies to Iraq, the “shock and awe” campaign during the U.S. invasion allowed our military to cause a rapid shift in momentum in Iraqi society, and in that phase, even though there was a small time interval involved, the size of the force was large enough for a large enough impulse (i.e. overthrow of the Baathist regime). The mistake, though, was in the second phase. To stabilize the society immediately in the post-Saddam era in a short period of time requires another large force acting on a society where, almost instantaneously, there was a political vacuum. The U.S. war planners (i.e. Rumsfeld) had a relatively small force available to maintain security. To cause a large enough change in momentum to swing the Iraqis more completely to our side with a smaller force requires a longer period of time. Obviously this is overly simplistic, for there are essentially three societies in Iraq (Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish), making it very much a complex system, but in my mind the general concept seems to make sense. As time dragged on, there were other competing forces in a variety of directions that prevented a momentum shift in the direction we wanted from occurring.
I would be very interested in feedback from those with expertise in economics and military strategy about the concept of societal and cultural momentum and impulse. Economists, for example, speak in terms of equilibrium. Forces such as supply and demand would create the changes in market equilibrium (perhaps we can call this market impulse). Do real market analyses quantify the state of a market with similar analogues to Newton’s 2nd law? Is there a way of quantifying (in both cases it would be presumably be based on statistics & probabilities) military strategies with analogues to impulse, time and force? Can these concepts be used to help devise both winning and exit strategies for Iraq? At this point, I would think not because Iraq has moved beyond the point where equilibrium conditions can be easily reached. The physical analogue seems to be something like a double pendulum that has gone from a state with normal modes to a chaotic state, where the motion is random and unpredictable. Making it even more chaotic are external agents (insurgents) producing perturbing forces on the system. The U.S. entirely missed the brief time window for maintaining an equilibrium state with a smaller occupying force than many outside the administration thought we needed.
As a physicist, I tend to think in terms of a lesson in an introductory physics course about momentum and impulse. One can think of ‘inertia,’ or a property of an object that is responsible for a resistance to a change in the object’s motion. Momentum is in many ways the inertia of a moving object, and is defined as the product of mass and velocity. Practically we can say an object that is moving wants to keep moving in a straight line at the same speed, thus keeping its momentum constant. In other words, objects want to stay the course and maintain whatever state of motion it is currently in. So how does change come about? A force is required to change the state of motion of an object. One can change direction, speed, or both, and that is a change in momentum. The magnitude of the change in momentum is called impulse. All of this can be wrapped up in Newton’s 3 laws of motion. What is most useful is Newton’s 2nd law of motion, which mathematically relates the magnitude of a force to the resulting impulse. The other factor that comes into play in the 2nd law is time. We can write it down in shorthand as (Impulse) = (Force) x (time of interaction). In other words, if we consider a constant magnitude of impulse, a large force acting on the object for a short period of time is equivalent to a small force acting on the same object for a long period of time. Keep in mind that the 3rd law of motion is summed up by the famous phrase, “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”
In a social context, think about an event like 9/11. This hit the American society (and even the global society) in a very short period of time. Our society changed literally in a few hours, because the force of that one tragic event was unbelievably huge. Such a large change of societal momentum (action) allowed the U.S. to invade Afghanistan with a large amount of force that dislodged the Taliban and al Qaeda in a short period of time (reaction).
What is different about something like Social Security reform? It is an important issue for our society. However, neither the administration and Republican Congress nor the Democrats have produced a plan that has placed a ‘force’ on society great enough to swing the momentum shift in either direction. The political divide in our society is so even that two essentially equal strength forces (i.e. competing philosophies and plans for fixing Social Security) which are acting in opposite political directions have resulted in a state of equilibrium. This is no different to a physical analogue of two equally strong tug-of-war teams pulling with all their might, but in opposite directions; equilibrium results and there is no impulse, i.e. no winner. Someone on either side would need to develop a plan that is radically different that will cause a sensation in society to create a large shift in policy direction, or some event would have to occur that produces an external force on society (depression, collapse of the existing system, etc) that is large enough to create a large impulse.
Continuing this series of analogies to Iraq, the “shock and awe” campaign during the U.S. invasion allowed our military to cause a rapid shift in momentum in Iraqi society, and in that phase, even though there was a small time interval involved, the size of the force was large enough for a large enough impulse (i.e. overthrow of the Baathist regime). The mistake, though, was in the second phase. To stabilize the society immediately in the post-Saddam era in a short period of time requires another large force acting on a society where, almost instantaneously, there was a political vacuum. The U.S. war planners (i.e. Rumsfeld) had a relatively small force available to maintain security. To cause a large enough change in momentum to swing the Iraqis more completely to our side with a smaller force requires a longer period of time. Obviously this is overly simplistic, for there are essentially three societies in Iraq (Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish), making it very much a complex system, but in my mind the general concept seems to make sense. As time dragged on, there were other competing forces in a variety of directions that prevented a momentum shift in the direction we wanted from occurring.
I would be very interested in feedback from those with expertise in economics and military strategy about the concept of societal and cultural momentum and impulse. Economists, for example, speak in terms of equilibrium. Forces such as supply and demand would create the changes in market equilibrium (perhaps we can call this market impulse). Do real market analyses quantify the state of a market with similar analogues to Newton’s 2nd law? Is there a way of quantifying (in both cases it would be presumably be based on statistics & probabilities) military strategies with analogues to impulse, time and force? Can these concepts be used to help devise both winning and exit strategies for Iraq? At this point, I would think not because Iraq has moved beyond the point where equilibrium conditions can be easily reached. The physical analogue seems to be something like a double pendulum that has gone from a state with normal modes to a chaotic state, where the motion is random and unpredictable. Making it even more chaotic are external agents (insurgents) producing perturbing forces on the system. The U.S. entirely missed the brief time window for maintaining an equilibrium state with a smaller occupying force than many outside the administration thought we needed.
Discussion of Resilience and Consilience in Social Networks
Earlier this month Zenpundit posted an interesting article on socal networks, with a focus on resilience and consilience. Below is his entry, followed by my comments that he graciously posted on his blog.
"BEYOND RESILIENCE: THE POWER OF CONSILIENCE IN NETWORKS ( Updated)
A while back, Dr. Barnett and Critt Jarvis entered in to a "strategic alliance" between The New Rule-Sets Project and Enterra Solutions, which is the baby of Stephen F. DeAngelis to develop " Enterprise Resilience Management"(TM). It would seem to be at once a concept, a service and a systemic software tool for organizations to efficiently manage dynamic changes in regulations, security, information flow and market environment. From Enterra's website:"Resilient organizations turn security, compliance, information integration and business process management from non-strategic cost items into the strategic components of a sustainable competitive advantage. The positive benefits of Enterprise Resilience Management™ range from increased valuation, marketability and corporate responsibility to a lower cost of insurance and lower total cost of ownership. Additionally, ERM assists in lowering potential damage to an organization's reputation and critical assets. This helps to create internal controls and solutions that protect senior executives and organizations from legal liability."The target demographic are corporations, government agencies and militaries. I'm not qualified or familiar enough to discuss the software aspect but I find the focus on " Resilience" to be very important conceptually.
DeAngelis has written about his ideas on cultivating organizational resilience here and here. Like Tom, DeAngelis is a visionary writer so his pieces tilt toward shifting your perspective on old worldviews and like Dr. Barnett he understands that freely evolving complexity in systems has significant ripple effects - hence his making " resilience" the core of his philosophy.Why is this important ? " Resilience" in free scale networks refers to how resistant the network is removal of its nodes ( removing a node lowers the efficiency of the network by increasing the distance between nodes or disconnecting them entirely). Corporations, government agencies - all groups in fact - are networks. Because most formal organizations in American society still carry the structural and cultural legacy of the industrial revolution they tend to be hierarchical, vertically-organized, culturally-rigid and are less than resilient. Take out key actors - the " nodes" -and institutional paralysis ensues. Possibly collapse.
So the Enterra-NRSP partnership is really selling network efficiency and survivability. In PNM terms, engineering a robust defensive capability against System Perturbations that would allow an organization reeling from cascading effects to " bounce back" from an attack. As I said earlier, resilience a key concept and quality in terms of importance. But what about...offense ? Or expansion of the network or the network's radius of influence ? What about structuring an organizational network to gear its behavior, culture and strategic thinking in terms of
"Consilience " as well?
Consilience was a term rescued from obscurity by Edward O. Wilson, the famous sociobiologist in his book of the same name that means a " jumping together" or unity of knowledge. Consilient thinkers look for the common underlying Rule-sets in disparate phenomena ( all phenomena at their most ambitious) - like Horizontal thinkers they are seeing connections across domains but the interests of Consilient thinkers are directed at the root level - the fundamental laws, principles and axioms applicable to all domains. In Wilson's words:"The trend cannot be reversed by force-feeding students with some of this and some of that across the branches of learning; true reform will aim at the consilience of science with the social sciences and the humanities in scholarship and teaching "You can't get a whole lot more horizontal than that ! What would be the advantages of building " Consilience" in to a network's structure, system and culture ?
Survivability: Like resilience, a high degree of consilience in a network would be likely to improve the network's longitudinal prospects by adapting efficient non-zero sum Rule-sets.
Influence: By adapting principles, practices and concepts that other networks find analogous to their own, the message of the network has more memetic appeal by virtue of being more readily comprehensible.
Compatibility: As with communication and influence, common Rule-sets make potential cooperation, alliances and mergers with other networks more likely as well as more harmonious.
Adaptability: Members of networks with a consciously consilient culture are more apt to themselves become better horizontal and creative thinkers. Their OODA cycle may be faster because they are all - collectively and individually - seeing farther and to wider horizon.
How consilience would be designed in terms of software applicatons is something far beyond my ken but it would seem to be a fruitful conceptual field to explore."
My comments:
"The idea of 'resiliency' is important in scale-free networks. While there are many nodes in any sort of complex network, whether social, business, electronic (i.e. Internet), biological (food webs, metabolic processes, etc.), or other, what makes a network scale-free is that some small number of the nodes have many more links than the vast majority of nodes (which only have a few links). These highly linked nodes are the hubs of the network, and in some sense are responsible for holding the network together.
From the standpoint of software, perhaps the biggest fear is the computer virus wiping out a company's computer network. Of course, the obvious choice is to hit the network servers and routers, which are the hubs. And these hubs are the most obvious parts of the network to protect. But what one cannot forget is that if nodes on the periphery are infected, it is very difficult to kill the virus completely.
Now add in Wilson's idea of 'consiliency.' How can a network make use of fundamental principles from a variety of fields to enhance the performance of the entire network? In everyday terms, to me this almost sounds like multitasking. One needs to have members of the network who have studied and are trained in multiple fields, or small numbers of individuals who know something about a lot of different fields...research shows this multitasking tends to *reduce* productivity if you take the individual route. I may be a bit off on this, but in network theory, there is a hierarchical structure to some real networks that was discovered in ~2002. There are naturally forming, self-emergent networks within networks. There is still a scale-free mathematical structure to the more complex networks, and they are now called modular networks. A large company does this by having different departments, which by themselves are networks of workers. But the hubs, department managers, perhaps, are the links between the departments (modules) to form an ever more complex structure. The Internet and biological cell are naturally occurring modular networks, and the more people look, the more this structure is found in real networks.
Modularity makes use of a variety of local information for the global success of the overall network. The fact that this occurs naturally through the evolution of many types of networks is intriguing. Perhaps this is what Wilson's intuition was telling him. If I were a manager, I suppose I would encourage interaction between my department and others, to cross-feed each other with our knowledge and find out how to push the boundaries of our business.
This is one thing I wish happened more in schools, as Wilson also suggests in education, because teaching techniques and methodologies can be used across disciplines and subject areas...this seems to be an efficient and effective way of promoting horizontal thinking, because teachers can break away from 'standard' ways of teaching our own subject and learn some new ways of teaching from someone else in a different department. We need to take advantage of the departmentalized, intellectually specialized modules in such networks in order to help find new insights and breakthroughs. "
"BEYOND RESILIENCE: THE POWER OF CONSILIENCE IN NETWORKS ( Updated)
A while back, Dr. Barnett and Critt Jarvis entered in to a "strategic alliance" between The New Rule-Sets Project and Enterra Solutions, which is the baby of Stephen F. DeAngelis to develop " Enterprise Resilience Management"(TM). It would seem to be at once a concept, a service and a systemic software tool for organizations to efficiently manage dynamic changes in regulations, security, information flow and market environment. From Enterra's website:"Resilient organizations turn security, compliance, information integration and business process management from non-strategic cost items into the strategic components of a sustainable competitive advantage. The positive benefits of Enterprise Resilience Management™ range from increased valuation, marketability and corporate responsibility to a lower cost of insurance and lower total cost of ownership. Additionally, ERM assists in lowering potential damage to an organization's reputation and critical assets. This helps to create internal controls and solutions that protect senior executives and organizations from legal liability."The target demographic are corporations, government agencies and militaries. I'm not qualified or familiar enough to discuss the software aspect but I find the focus on " Resilience" to be very important conceptually.
DeAngelis has written about his ideas on cultivating organizational resilience here and here. Like Tom, DeAngelis is a visionary writer so his pieces tilt toward shifting your perspective on old worldviews and like Dr. Barnett he understands that freely evolving complexity in systems has significant ripple effects - hence his making " resilience" the core of his philosophy.Why is this important ? " Resilience" in free scale networks refers to how resistant the network is removal of its nodes ( removing a node lowers the efficiency of the network by increasing the distance between nodes or disconnecting them entirely). Corporations, government agencies - all groups in fact - are networks. Because most formal organizations in American society still carry the structural and cultural legacy of the industrial revolution they tend to be hierarchical, vertically-organized, culturally-rigid and are less than resilient. Take out key actors - the " nodes" -and institutional paralysis ensues. Possibly collapse.
So the Enterra-NRSP partnership is really selling network efficiency and survivability. In PNM terms, engineering a robust defensive capability against System Perturbations that would allow an organization reeling from cascading effects to " bounce back" from an attack. As I said earlier, resilience a key concept and quality in terms of importance. But what about...offense ? Or expansion of the network or the network's radius of influence ? What about structuring an organizational network to gear its behavior, culture and strategic thinking in terms of
"Consilience " as well?
Consilience was a term rescued from obscurity by Edward O. Wilson, the famous sociobiologist in his book of the same name that means a " jumping together" or unity of knowledge. Consilient thinkers look for the common underlying Rule-sets in disparate phenomena ( all phenomena at their most ambitious) - like Horizontal thinkers they are seeing connections across domains but the interests of Consilient thinkers are directed at the root level - the fundamental laws, principles and axioms applicable to all domains. In Wilson's words:"The trend cannot be reversed by force-feeding students with some of this and some of that across the branches of learning; true reform will aim at the consilience of science with the social sciences and the humanities in scholarship and teaching "You can't get a whole lot more horizontal than that ! What would be the advantages of building " Consilience" in to a network's structure, system and culture ?
Survivability: Like resilience, a high degree of consilience in a network would be likely to improve the network's longitudinal prospects by adapting efficient non-zero sum Rule-sets.
Influence: By adapting principles, practices and concepts that other networks find analogous to their own, the message of the network has more memetic appeal by virtue of being more readily comprehensible.
Compatibility: As with communication and influence, common Rule-sets make potential cooperation, alliances and mergers with other networks more likely as well as more harmonious.
Adaptability: Members of networks with a consciously consilient culture are more apt to themselves become better horizontal and creative thinkers. Their OODA cycle may be faster because they are all - collectively and individually - seeing farther and to wider horizon.
How consilience would be designed in terms of software applicatons is something far beyond my ken but it would seem to be a fruitful conceptual field to explore."
My comments:
"The idea of 'resiliency' is important in scale-free networks. While there are many nodes in any sort of complex network, whether social, business, electronic (i.e. Internet), biological (food webs, metabolic processes, etc.), or other, what makes a network scale-free is that some small number of the nodes have many more links than the vast majority of nodes (which only have a few links). These highly linked nodes are the hubs of the network, and in some sense are responsible for holding the network together.
From the standpoint of software, perhaps the biggest fear is the computer virus wiping out a company's computer network. Of course, the obvious choice is to hit the network servers and routers, which are the hubs. And these hubs are the most obvious parts of the network to protect. But what one cannot forget is that if nodes on the periphery are infected, it is very difficult to kill the virus completely.
Now add in Wilson's idea of 'consiliency.' How can a network make use of fundamental principles from a variety of fields to enhance the performance of the entire network? In everyday terms, to me this almost sounds like multitasking. One needs to have members of the network who have studied and are trained in multiple fields, or small numbers of individuals who know something about a lot of different fields...research shows this multitasking tends to *reduce* productivity if you take the individual route. I may be a bit off on this, but in network theory, there is a hierarchical structure to some real networks that was discovered in ~2002. There are naturally forming, self-emergent networks within networks. There is still a scale-free mathematical structure to the more complex networks, and they are now called modular networks. A large company does this by having different departments, which by themselves are networks of workers. But the hubs, department managers, perhaps, are the links between the departments (modules) to form an ever more complex structure. The Internet and biological cell are naturally occurring modular networks, and the more people look, the more this structure is found in real networks.
Modularity makes use of a variety of local information for the global success of the overall network. The fact that this occurs naturally through the evolution of many types of networks is intriguing. Perhaps this is what Wilson's intuition was telling him. If I were a manager, I suppose I would encourage interaction between my department and others, to cross-feed each other with our knowledge and find out how to push the boundaries of our business.
This is one thing I wish happened more in schools, as Wilson also suggests in education, because teaching techniques and methodologies can be used across disciplines and subject areas...this seems to be an efficient and effective way of promoting horizontal thinking, because teachers can break away from 'standard' ways of teaching our own subject and learn some new ways of teaching from someone else in a different department. We need to take advantage of the departmentalized, intellectually specialized modules in such networks in order to help find new insights and breakthroughs. "
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Why all the fuss about gas prices, Mr. WIll?
Ah, everyone's favorite columnist, George Will, cannot comprehend what all the fuss is about gas prices of nearly $3 a gallon. He was on TV this past Sunday and wrote his column in Newsweek in this week's issue about how the economy is doing so beautifully and everyone should be happy with the current situation. And, gas prices are not a problem when looked at historically. Perhaps he neglected one piece of information (besides the fact that he is wealthy and wouldn't notice any differences if gas cost $10 or more per gallon). Since Bush took office the cost of crude oil has gone from the mid $20 per barrel to the mid $60 per barrel, or an increase of about 250%, causing gas prices at the pump to increase substantially by ~50% or more. From late 2000 to 2003, for instance, the median U.S. household income decreased over 3%. He also forgets to point out that prices of other necessities, such as groceries, has also been steadily increasing, in part because of higher transportation and distribution costs because of gas prices. Needless to say, when average, middle-class folk are earning less and paying more, we don't really care about other numbers economists and politicians and pundits throw at us to try and convince us we should be smiling and bowing to them for dong a great job. The most important number that matters in real, everyday life is what the balance is in the checkbook. Perhaps that is why the vast majority of people I know are not celebrating Mr. Will's or Mr. Bush's gleeful testimony about the state of the economy. This is a prime, concrete example of wealthy elites being out of touch with us ordinary folk.
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Original Einstein paper found
An original handwritten paper was just found at the University of Leyden. It deals with Einstein's work in 1925 that led to his prediction of Bose-Einstein condensation, where certain tpes of particles and nuclei (bosons) can occupy the same quantum state at very low temperatures. I just thought it was neat!
Now if only Bush would go see...
Climate change in Alaska
Several prominent senators were recently in Alaska to talk with local residents about the effects of climate change. From an article at
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050818/ap_on_go_co/climate_
change_alaska:
Fresh from a trip to Barrow, America's northernmost city, McCain said anecdotes from Alaskans and residents of the Yukon Territory confirm scientific evidence of global warming.
"We are convinced that the overwhelming scientific evidence indicated that climate change is taking place and human activities play a very large role," McCain said.
McCain, accompanied by Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., spoke to villagers in Canada whose spruce trees are being attacked by the northward spread of spruce beetles. On Alaska's northern coast, they met Native Alaskans dealing with melting permafrost and coastal erosion.
Sen. Graham, for example, has been one who in the past has doubted some of the scientific conclusions about the extent of global warming and its consequences, as well as if it is natural or caused by humans. He has resisted any type of legislation that deals with greenhouse emissions, but after his trip he states: "If you can go to the Native people and listen to their stories and walk away with any doubt that something's going on, I just think you're not listening." McCain and Sen. Lieberman are co-sponsoring a new bill that will put some new restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions for industry (this will be, of course, independent of the Kyoto Protocol that much of the world has signed). Even if humans are responsible for a small percentage of the global climate change (and there are mountains of studies and evidence that show we are at least partly to blame), it is vital to actually do something about it while we can have an impact on the problem.
It is encouraging to see some leading Republicans finally step out and look at real situations and direct evidence of what is happening in many parts of the world, and begin hinting that they will break from the traditional position of following industry's every demand and hoping that a volunteer environmental policy will magically work...it obviously has not.
Several prominent senators were recently in Alaska to talk with local residents about the effects of climate change. From an article at
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050818/ap_on_go_co/climate_
change_alaska:
Fresh from a trip to Barrow, America's northernmost city, McCain said anecdotes from Alaskans and residents of the Yukon Territory confirm scientific evidence of global warming.
"We are convinced that the overwhelming scientific evidence indicated that climate change is taking place and human activities play a very large role," McCain said.
McCain, accompanied by Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., spoke to villagers in Canada whose spruce trees are being attacked by the northward spread of spruce beetles. On Alaska's northern coast, they met Native Alaskans dealing with melting permafrost and coastal erosion.
Sen. Graham, for example, has been one who in the past has doubted some of the scientific conclusions about the extent of global warming and its consequences, as well as if it is natural or caused by humans. He has resisted any type of legislation that deals with greenhouse emissions, but after his trip he states: "If you can go to the Native people and listen to their stories and walk away with any doubt that something's going on, I just think you're not listening." McCain and Sen. Lieberman are co-sponsoring a new bill that will put some new restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions for industry (this will be, of course, independent of the Kyoto Protocol that much of the world has signed). Even if humans are responsible for a small percentage of the global climate change (and there are mountains of studies and evidence that show we are at least partly to blame), it is vital to actually do something about it while we can have an impact on the problem.
It is encouraging to see some leading Republicans finally step out and look at real situations and direct evidence of what is happening in many parts of the world, and begin hinting that they will break from the traditional position of following industry's every demand and hoping that a volunteer environmental policy will magically work...it obviously has not.
Friday, August 19, 2005
It's a dimension thing...
Many have heard of 'string theory,' which then turned into 'superstring theory' after supersymmetry was added, and now that has changed names and is called 'M theory.' Whichever name you know it by, it is weird, wild stuff for the imagination. These are theories that are trying to identify the connection between te forces of nature - electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces (strong binds quarks together and holds the nucleus together, weak is responsible for radoactivity), and gravity. Tying in gravity is the hard part, it turns out. In order to do it, many theorists believe there must be extra dimensions besides the four-dimensional world Einstein taught us about. I won't go into all that here since there are many sites dedicated to it already (click here for an outstanding one!), but if interested check out this description from my old Fermilab experiment about how experimental tests are being conducted that search for extra dimensions.
Lightning research
Here is one that just shows some cool research...
It has long been suspected that the cause of lightning relies on friction between ice particles suspended in enormous storm clouds. The mechanism is no different than rubbing balloons to stick them on walls or make your hair stand up with plastic combs, or rub your socked feet on a carpet and touch a doorknob. All of these are the same, electrostatic in nature, and require rubbing things together. Well, nowadays scientists track lightning strikes with satellites and can identify relatively small ice balls in clouds with radar systems, and the first convincing correlation between the two has been established.
It has long been suspected that the cause of lightning relies on friction between ice particles suspended in enormous storm clouds. The mechanism is no different than rubbing balloons to stick them on walls or make your hair stand up with plastic combs, or rub your socked feet on a carpet and touch a doorknob. All of these are the same, electrostatic in nature, and require rubbing things together. Well, nowadays scientists track lightning strikes with satellites and can identify relatively small ice balls in clouds with radar systems, and the first convincing correlation between the two has been established.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Just to think about...
I'm not even sure how the subject came up, but as I was out on the driveway talking with neighbors a female neighbor mentioned how frustrating it was in college when a minority woman was given an academic scholarship instead of her, when my neighbor had a slightly better GPA in similar classes. Because of her personal experience, my neighbor is not a strong supporter of affirmative action. A little later in the conversation, the Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court came up, and I asked my neighbor what she thought. She said without hesitation she was so disappointed that Bush did not choose a woman to replace O'Connor. I asked if she thought there was a better qualified woman she new of over Roberts, or if it was important in other ways just to have a woman. She said it would be nice if the Court had female role models for young girls like her daughter (to prove that there are other career opportunities than being half-naked pop/movie stars) and that the Court as well as Congress should be more representative of the fact women make up a majority of the population.
My neighbor just answered her own question about why the minority woman may have been given the scholarship. We all know life at times is unfair, and that it can never be ideal. If for any other reason, everyone has in their own mind what 'ideal' means, and in the end there is only one reality. Is there a critical mass of women in high positions of government, science, business, and all other fields, that is needed to satisfy most people? And now ask the same question for all subgroups? Is the 'best qualified for the job' the absolute best way to go for a mixed, complex society? Is that the most fair way to approach life? Perhaps, and I think most whites (especially white males) may agree with this. Perhaps not, if you are, say, a black male who has as role models professional athletes or rappers, and you cannot walk into certain stores without being followed by security or walk down a street without a white woman moving to the other side of the street...is life being played on an level playing field for you? What does 'right' mean in these complex discussions on affirmative action, race relations, job opportunities, who gets the scholarship, and all that comes with it?
Of course, I am convinced there is no 'right' answer because it all depends on your own situation and circumstances. It is a relative term. I tend to think that the 'best qualified' for the job or scholarship is absolutely the goal, but I am not convinced it is absolutely 'right' until there is a level playing field. This is something to think about for sure. It would be great to hear any and all thoughts on this one!
My neighbor just answered her own question about why the minority woman may have been given the scholarship. We all know life at times is unfair, and that it can never be ideal. If for any other reason, everyone has in their own mind what 'ideal' means, and in the end there is only one reality. Is there a critical mass of women in high positions of government, science, business, and all other fields, that is needed to satisfy most people? And now ask the same question for all subgroups? Is the 'best qualified for the job' the absolute best way to go for a mixed, complex society? Is that the most fair way to approach life? Perhaps, and I think most whites (especially white males) may agree with this. Perhaps not, if you are, say, a black male who has as role models professional athletes or rappers, and you cannot walk into certain stores without being followed by security or walk down a street without a white woman moving to the other side of the street...is life being played on an level playing field for you? What does 'right' mean in these complex discussions on affirmative action, race relations, job opportunities, who gets the scholarship, and all that comes with it?
Of course, I am convinced there is no 'right' answer because it all depends on your own situation and circumstances. It is a relative term. I tend to think that the 'best qualified' for the job or scholarship is absolutely the goal, but I am not convinced it is absolutely 'right' until there is a level playing field. This is something to think about for sure. It would be great to hear any and all thoughts on this one!
Sunday, August 14, 2005
Some thoughts on Physics First in high schools
The traditional high school science sequence is biology, chemistry, and then, maybe, physics. Logically this is backwards. We start students off with the science of complexity, biology, without a foundation of fundamental physical principles, physics. We don’t build buildings starting off with the roof and lifting the house superstructure to put it all on the foundation, so why do we try to build science education like this?
Nobel Prize winning physicist Leon Lederman took the lead some years back to begin a national campaign called Physics First (or Physics Phirst, as many like to spell it). Start freshman (or even 8th graders) off with a class that focuses on physics, then do chemistry after students know something about energy, forces, collisions, electric charge, and all that makes chemistry work, and then finally get to biology after chemical reactions, molecular structure, atomic theory, and so on have been studied so students may have a better chance of actually making sense of living cells, which are essentially small chemical plants.
After being asked by several others recently to give my personal take on Physics First, here goes. I absolutely agree with this curriculum shift from a philosophical point of view. If our goal is to actually have students learn some biology, rather than memorize it for the test and then forget it because it really makes no sense without some other knowledge, then yes, creating a logical progression of studies is almost a no brainer. The trouble comes in as far as how schools actually can do this logistically. There are key problems most districts will face if they want to even try this at the level of a pilot program.
- if all freshman are to take physics, schools will need significantly more physics teachers. There are large shortages now, with maybe only a third of students ever taking physics, and many of those teachers are not physics majors (rather, converted math or chemistry teachers, etc.).
- many physics teachers worry about the lack of math that would be involved in a freshman physics class. A freshman class would almost certainly have to be a conceptual physics class, which many teachers I personally know are opposed to at some level. I don’t have a problem with it at all, because even with calculus-based physics classes, in my mind conceptual understanding is most important…getting an answer through mathematical manipulation is one thing, knowing what the answer means is another (and that is the physics part anyhow).
- Science departments will need to revamp lab space, hardware, software and textbook inventories at a time most schools are in the red. It could be an expensive endeavor in many cases.
- Believe it or not, I know too many veteran physics teachers who admit they do not want to work with freshman in required classes. They are used to junior and senior students who want to be there in an elective class. In my mind this is a lame excuse, but it is out there (and administrators would have to say, “Tough.”).
The most glaring concern is the first. A lack of teachers will presently mean most districts and schools will not be able to establish a full curriculum shift even if they wanted to, at least not to the point where the program would be as strong as it could or should. There are ways around the other problems, but if a school cannot find qualified teachers, the change won’t be possible. I am not aware of large data sets yet from the few schools that have made the switch as to how well this approach makes in science education.
Nobel Prize winning physicist Leon Lederman took the lead some years back to begin a national campaign called Physics First (or Physics Phirst, as many like to spell it). Start freshman (or even 8th graders) off with a class that focuses on physics, then do chemistry after students know something about energy, forces, collisions, electric charge, and all that makes chemistry work, and then finally get to biology after chemical reactions, molecular structure, atomic theory, and so on have been studied so students may have a better chance of actually making sense of living cells, which are essentially small chemical plants.
After being asked by several others recently to give my personal take on Physics First, here goes. I absolutely agree with this curriculum shift from a philosophical point of view. If our goal is to actually have students learn some biology, rather than memorize it for the test and then forget it because it really makes no sense without some other knowledge, then yes, creating a logical progression of studies is almost a no brainer. The trouble comes in as far as how schools actually can do this logistically. There are key problems most districts will face if they want to even try this at the level of a pilot program.
- if all freshman are to take physics, schools will need significantly more physics teachers. There are large shortages now, with maybe only a third of students ever taking physics, and many of those teachers are not physics majors (rather, converted math or chemistry teachers, etc.).
- many physics teachers worry about the lack of math that would be involved in a freshman physics class. A freshman class would almost certainly have to be a conceptual physics class, which many teachers I personally know are opposed to at some level. I don’t have a problem with it at all, because even with calculus-based physics classes, in my mind conceptual understanding is most important…getting an answer through mathematical manipulation is one thing, knowing what the answer means is another (and that is the physics part anyhow).
- Science departments will need to revamp lab space, hardware, software and textbook inventories at a time most schools are in the red. It could be an expensive endeavor in many cases.
- Believe it or not, I know too many veteran physics teachers who admit they do not want to work with freshman in required classes. They are used to junior and senior students who want to be there in an elective class. In my mind this is a lame excuse, but it is out there (and administrators would have to say, “Tough.”).
The most glaring concern is the first. A lack of teachers will presently mean most districts and schools will not be able to establish a full curriculum shift even if they wanted to, at least not to the point where the program would be as strong as it could or should. There are ways around the other problems, but if a school cannot find qualified teachers, the change won’t be possible. I am not aware of large data sets yet from the few schools that have made the switch as to how well this approach makes in science education.
Friday, August 12, 2005
Pure Science versus Applied Science
A summer science research course I teach always has many good discussions about analysis techniques, the scientific method, and specific areas of research. A topic that always makes an appearance is the debate over what type of research is more valuable, pure or applied. In particular, the class debate peaks when we travel out to Fermilab to visit some of the facilities and labs. Prior to that visit, classes are normally close to split over which is more vital to the progress of science and the U.S. lead world research.
Pure science research is that work which is done in the pursuit of new knowledge. Scientists working in this type of research don’t necessarily have any ideas in mind about applications of their work. They may be testing an existing theory, they may have a new experimental technique they want to try, or they may literally stumble accidentally into a new area of discovery (many of the great discoveries in history occurred by accident, such as X-rays and penicillin). Encompassed in this realm is a good deal of theoretical research, such as those who are working on quantum mechanics, superstrings, theoretical cosmology, and many others.
Applied science research is that which is geared towards applications of knowledge and concrete results that are useful for specific purposes. Engineering is certainly an application of knowledge for finding practical solutions to specific problems. Research into instrumentation, new inventions, and new processes that may improve productivity in industry, as well as medical research geared towards the production of new drugs, are obvious examples of this type of research.
Fermilab, for example, is a mammoth device that is used almost entirely for pure research in particle physics. Scientists look for new forms of matter, study fundamental forces between particles, test theories such as the Standard Model, and test new types of instrumentation. As an ideal example of ‘big’ science, students are wide-eyed when told the power bill is something like $10,000 per hour and that operating budgets, paid for by taxpayer dollars, run in the hundreds of millions (not to mention the billions of dollars that have been spent over the years to build the facility and the main experiments). My question for them is: Is it worth it?
On the surface, most people can think of better uses of billions of dollars. I’ve been asked countless times how scientists can justify the costs of facilities like Fermilab or the price-tag associated with sending another space probe to Mars. What about cures for cancer? New energy sources? Better sources of food that can be grown and used by the third-world? Are these not more important areas of study, especially when the answer to the question, “What good is a top quark?” is “I cannot think of a single application.” Certainly politicians are faced with such questions, and rightly so. We absolutely need to ask these questions and find priorities for limited resources and funding.
Politicians, of course, prefer applied science research. They would love to be able to go to their constituents with news of a new invention or discovery that will make life better, and, gee, since I supported the funding of the research I deserve to be re-elected. While applied science almost always wins out in a class vote of which is more important, as I argue in my last posting that thinking in terms of absolutes can limit progress, my conclusion is BOTH are absolutely essential for the progress of science as well as maintaining our status as a superpower.
Pure science keeps new ideas and discoveries flowing. Progress in almost any field, be it industry, business, or medicine, depends on the amount of knowledge one has access to. Continuing wit Fermilab as our working example, it is true that a discovery such as a top quark almost certainly cannot yield a direct, beneficial application for mankind. But, in order to make that discovery, and what is not obvious to the general public, requires new technologies and breakthroughs that can often lead to spin-offs that revolutionize everyday life. The world of fast computation, massive data storage, and fast electronics has been built on the work that needed to be done to build Fermilab and discover the top quark. Applications of superconductivity took this phenomenon from a fascinating quantum state we can produce in the lab to the world of high-strength magnets necessary for steering particles at the speed of light. Little did anyone originally know that eventually someone would figure out that these same superconducting magnets can be used to create internal images of the body, now called MRI technology. This blog site is possible because of the pioneering computer network (both hardware and software) created by high energy physicists, who found it necessary to share data between experiments in the U.S. and Europe. And most people are unaware of the Cancer Treatment Center at Fermilab, that uses neutron beams created by the main accelerators. There are only four such centers in the U.S., and thousands of patients have been treated over the years.
The point is that pure science is absolutely essential. This type of science ensures that we keep pushing the envelope and continue our quest of deciphering Nature’s puzzles. It leads to the fringe and cutting edge science in all disciplines. While primary work may or may not be useful for the general public in the form of a physical device or process, history shows convincingly that whatever investment is made will usually be paid back (often many times over) in the form of spin-offs. I, for one, have no complaints of some of my tax money going towards a national lab such as Fermilab, or any other facility that promotes pure science research.
Pure science research is that work which is done in the pursuit of new knowledge. Scientists working in this type of research don’t necessarily have any ideas in mind about applications of their work. They may be testing an existing theory, they may have a new experimental technique they want to try, or they may literally stumble accidentally into a new area of discovery (many of the great discoveries in history occurred by accident, such as X-rays and penicillin). Encompassed in this realm is a good deal of theoretical research, such as those who are working on quantum mechanics, superstrings, theoretical cosmology, and many others.
Applied science research is that which is geared towards applications of knowledge and concrete results that are useful for specific purposes. Engineering is certainly an application of knowledge for finding practical solutions to specific problems. Research into instrumentation, new inventions, and new processes that may improve productivity in industry, as well as medical research geared towards the production of new drugs, are obvious examples of this type of research.
Fermilab, for example, is a mammoth device that is used almost entirely for pure research in particle physics. Scientists look for new forms of matter, study fundamental forces between particles, test theories such as the Standard Model, and test new types of instrumentation. As an ideal example of ‘big’ science, students are wide-eyed when told the power bill is something like $10,000 per hour and that operating budgets, paid for by taxpayer dollars, run in the hundreds of millions (not to mention the billions of dollars that have been spent over the years to build the facility and the main experiments). My question for them is: Is it worth it?
On the surface, most people can think of better uses of billions of dollars. I’ve been asked countless times how scientists can justify the costs of facilities like Fermilab or the price-tag associated with sending another space probe to Mars. What about cures for cancer? New energy sources? Better sources of food that can be grown and used by the third-world? Are these not more important areas of study, especially when the answer to the question, “What good is a top quark?” is “I cannot think of a single application.” Certainly politicians are faced with such questions, and rightly so. We absolutely need to ask these questions and find priorities for limited resources and funding.
Politicians, of course, prefer applied science research. They would love to be able to go to their constituents with news of a new invention or discovery that will make life better, and, gee, since I supported the funding of the research I deserve to be re-elected. While applied science almost always wins out in a class vote of which is more important, as I argue in my last posting that thinking in terms of absolutes can limit progress, my conclusion is BOTH are absolutely essential for the progress of science as well as maintaining our status as a superpower.
Pure science keeps new ideas and discoveries flowing. Progress in almost any field, be it industry, business, or medicine, depends on the amount of knowledge one has access to. Continuing wit Fermilab as our working example, it is true that a discovery such as a top quark almost certainly cannot yield a direct, beneficial application for mankind. But, in order to make that discovery, and what is not obvious to the general public, requires new technologies and breakthroughs that can often lead to spin-offs that revolutionize everyday life. The world of fast computation, massive data storage, and fast electronics has been built on the work that needed to be done to build Fermilab and discover the top quark. Applications of superconductivity took this phenomenon from a fascinating quantum state we can produce in the lab to the world of high-strength magnets necessary for steering particles at the speed of light. Little did anyone originally know that eventually someone would figure out that these same superconducting magnets can be used to create internal images of the body, now called MRI technology. This blog site is possible because of the pioneering computer network (both hardware and software) created by high energy physicists, who found it necessary to share data between experiments in the U.S. and Europe. And most people are unaware of the Cancer Treatment Center at Fermilab, that uses neutron beams created by the main accelerators. There are only four such centers in the U.S., and thousands of patients have been treated over the years.
The point is that pure science is absolutely essential. This type of science ensures that we keep pushing the envelope and continue our quest of deciphering Nature’s puzzles. It leads to the fringe and cutting edge science in all disciplines. While primary work may or may not be useful for the general public in the form of a physical device or process, history shows convincingly that whatever investment is made will usually be paid back (often many times over) in the form of spin-offs. I, for one, have no complaints of some of my tax money going towards a national lab such as Fermilab, or any other facility that promotes pure science research.
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
If you have a couple spare minutes....
Try the survey at www.politicalcompass.org. It shows where you fall on the political spectrum (based largely on economic and social views), and takes only a quick few minutes. If anything, it is entertaining. Thanks to James for pointing this out. FYI, I landed right where their point is for Gandhi. Enjoy. :-)
Monday, August 08, 2005
Thank you, John Marburger
Below is a portion of an email released by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the largest professional organization in the country for science teachers, of which I am a proud member. It is addressing President Bush's recent statement and endorsement that Intelligent Design should be taught along with evolution in science classrooms. Of course, it is easy to dismiss this statement from a man whose administration simply ignores science when evidence and facts get in the way of its agenda, but on the other hand it is another slap in the face of science and science education. It gives credibilty to ID as a scientific theory to many Americans who are not following the story; ID is simply NOT a scientific concept. I was thrilled to learn that John Marburger, the President's science advisor, later followed the Bush statement with a clarifying statement that ID is not scientifically valid and does not belong in science classrooms. I only hope Marburger is not taken out back for a whooping by Rove, et. al. For more of my own thoughts, see previous posts from May. Here is the NSTA statement, with links to replies from numerous other science organizations that were sent out immediately after the Bush statement.
"President Bush ignited a media firestorm last week when he voiced his support for “Intelligent Design.” When asked by reporters whether he believed both evolution and intelligent design should be taught in schools, Bush replied that he did “so that people can understand what the debate is about.” The response from the scientific and education communities was immediate and fierce. Statements by NSTA, the American Physical Society (APS), American Geophysical Union (AGU), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AU), American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS), and others helped to shape the controversy for millions nationwide. A statement was also issued by the National Congress on Science Education (NCSE), which is comprised of representatives from NSTA Chapters and Associated Groups.
In a statement released on August 3, NSTA indicated that it was “stunned and disappointed” that President Bush is endorsing intelligent design—effectively opening the door for nonscientific ideas to be taught in the nation’s K-12 science classrooms.
"It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom," said NSTA President Mike Padilla. "Nonscientific viewpoints have little value in increasing students' knowledge of the natural world."
To read the NSTA statement, go to http://www.nsta.org/pressroom&news_story_ID=50794.
To read statements issued by other organizations, go to the following links:
APS: http://www.aps.org/media/pressreleases/080405.cfm
AGU: http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0528.html
AFT: http://www.aft.org/presscenter/releases/2005/080405.htm
AU: http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7497&news_iv_ctrl=1241&abbr=pr
AIBS: http://www.aibs.org/position-statements/050805_aibs_criticizes_.html
To view the statement by the NCSE, visit http://science.nsta.org/nstaexpress/nstaexpress_2005_08_08_ncse.htm.
NSTA also contributed to numerous news articles, including the cover story in this week's issue of TIME magazine. To read a few of the many news articles generated from Bush’s comments, go to the NSTA News Digest at http://www.nsta.org/main/news/stories/education_story.php?news_story_ID=50796."
"President Bush ignited a media firestorm last week when he voiced his support for “Intelligent Design.” When asked by reporters whether he believed both evolution and intelligent design should be taught in schools, Bush replied that he did “so that people can understand what the debate is about.” The response from the scientific and education communities was immediate and fierce. Statements by NSTA, the American Physical Society (APS), American Geophysical Union (AGU), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AU), American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS), and others helped to shape the controversy for millions nationwide. A statement was also issued by the National Congress on Science Education (NCSE), which is comprised of representatives from NSTA Chapters and Associated Groups.
In a statement released on August 3, NSTA indicated that it was “stunned and disappointed” that President Bush is endorsing intelligent design—effectively opening the door for nonscientific ideas to be taught in the nation’s K-12 science classrooms.
"It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom," said NSTA President Mike Padilla. "Nonscientific viewpoints have little value in increasing students' knowledge of the natural world."
To read the NSTA statement, go to http://www.nsta.org/pressroom&news_story_ID=50794.
To read statements issued by other organizations, go to the following links:
APS: http://www.aps.org/media/pressreleases/080405.cfm
AGU: http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0528.html
AFT: http://www.aft.org/presscenter/releases/2005/080405.htm
AU: http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7497&news_iv_ctrl=1241&abbr=pr
AIBS: http://www.aibs.org/position-statements/050805_aibs_criticizes_.html
To view the statement by the NCSE, visit http://science.nsta.org/nstaexpress/nstaexpress_2005_08_08_ncse.htm.
NSTA also contributed to numerous news articles, including the cover story in this week's issue of TIME magazine. To read a few of the many news articles generated from Bush’s comments, go to the NSTA News Digest at http://www.nsta.org/main/news/stories/education_story.php?news_story_ID=50796."
Confirmation of Predictions of Global Warming Models and Theory
Below is an abstract of a new article appearing in the recent edition of the scientific journal Nature (vol. 436, pages 686-688). MIT researcher Kerry Emanuel reports on the increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years, which has been predicted by meteorological theory and gobal warming computer models.
Theory and modelling predict that hurricane intensity should increase with increasing global mean temperatures, but work on the detection of trends in hurricane activity has focused mostly on their frequency and shows no trend. Here I define an index of the potential destructiveness of hurricanes based on the total dissipation of power, integrated over the lifetime of the cyclone, and show that this index has increased markedly since the mid-1970s. This trend is due to both longer storm lifetimes and greater storm intensities. I find that the record of net hurricane power dissipation is highly correlated with tropical sea surface temperature, reflecting well-documented climate signals, including multi-decadal oscillations in the North Atlantic and North Pacific, and global warming. My results suggest that future warming may lead to an upward trend in tropical cyclone destructive potential, and—taking into account an increasing coastal population—a substantial increase in hurricane-related losses in the twenty-first century.
Coincidentally, this goes along with my last post as far as confining one's belief's and arguments to just 'one or the other' views within a particular field. More often than not, in complex problems, there is no single correct solution or theory, but rather combinations from multiple perspectives and ways of thinking together provide a better way of understanding what is going on. Here, the author suggests that both natural oscillations in tropical sea surface temperatures and global warming, which nearly everyone agrees humans play at least a small role, are creating more destructive cyclones and hurricanes. There are no easy, absolute answers with complex systems, be it global weather or what social/societal structure is best for our children.
Theory and modelling predict that hurricane intensity should increase with increasing global mean temperatures, but work on the detection of trends in hurricane activity has focused mostly on their frequency and shows no trend. Here I define an index of the potential destructiveness of hurricanes based on the total dissipation of power, integrated over the lifetime of the cyclone, and show that this index has increased markedly since the mid-1970s. This trend is due to both longer storm lifetimes and greater storm intensities. I find that the record of net hurricane power dissipation is highly correlated with tropical sea surface temperature, reflecting well-documented climate signals, including multi-decadal oscillations in the North Atlantic and North Pacific, and global warming. My results suggest that future warming may lead to an upward trend in tropical cyclone destructive potential, and—taking into account an increasing coastal population—a substantial increase in hurricane-related losses in the twenty-first century.
Coincidentally, this goes along with my last post as far as confining one's belief's and arguments to just 'one or the other' views within a particular field. More often than not, in complex problems, there is no single correct solution or theory, but rather combinations from multiple perspectives and ways of thinking together provide a better way of understanding what is going on. Here, the author suggests that both natural oscillations in tropical sea surface temperatures and global warming, which nearly everyone agrees humans play at least a small role, are creating more destructive cyclones and hurricanes. There are no easy, absolute answers with complex systems, be it global weather or what social/societal structure is best for our children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)