The Drs. Eide have an interesting post titled 'Is Prodigy a Myth?' They make a point that individual children, and I'll add all people, learn at different rates, and I would indeed have to argue that there are "late bloomers" who do not reach their learning stride until later years in school. I don't think prodigy necessarily shows its face at very young ages, but can in some cases begin in later years, meaning middle or high school years. Is this a product of practice, or is there innate ability that develops in the appropriate environment? I think we'd be wise to consider both...the brain is a complicated creature, and there is a broad range of possible outcomes and developments for individuals.
This also falls back to an argument I have made in the past about the American education system, and why I wish we'd not fall into a type of testing fixation (i.e. a test meritocracy) as our definition of learning or academic success...we need variety in schools, and we need to expose children to all subject areas over their entire schooling career so they can find what interests them and provide choices for what to take on and study in later years. I suspect giftedness and prodigy will continue to be debated forever, but my experience leads me to conclude that we must continue to allow individuals to have choice and the ability to 'play the field' of academic areas of study in order to find their own place in society, and where they want to focus their energy and effort. And we should resist the notion that every individual will find that area of study or interest at an early age, and allow those who do happen to develop in the high-age tail of the distribution a chance to do so. I've had students who did not flourish intellectually until late in high school or even in college (and their achievement prior to that on standardized tests as well as school grades suggested average or below average ability), and they ended up excelling once their intellectual skills, interest and motivation caught up with their age. I should metion that this notion is supported by brain research. For example, the highest IQ children tend to fully develop the prefrontal cortex of the brain at later ages (~11 years of age) than average IQ children. This tends to lead to more immature behavior, which may in turn mean they do not perform (or be allowed to perform, if classified as ADD or something similar) in class as a high-IQ individual until they are older. So biologically, some high-IQ kids are late bloomers. We need to be aware of this.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Here's to the Juniors - Voyager
Some of my classes have spent some time learning about what NASA does when it comes to launching spacecraft and sending probes around the solar system. One of the great modern technological miracles, at least in my mind, were the Voyager spacecraft launched back in 1977. These both made trips to Jupiter and Saturn, with one then going on via gravity assists to Uranus and Neptune. We are still receiving signals and data from those probes, after moving through billions of miles of space! In fact, a new discovery was made by this mission 30 years after it began, as the solar system is apparently a bit 'squashed.' This means that the solar wind is not circularly symmetric around the boundaries of the solar system, but rather there are 'dents' in the distribution due to varying magnetic fields in the heliosphere of the solar system.
Check out the Voyager project site, and I, for one, cannot get over the images from the mission; truly beautiful. I also highly recommend the Hubble Space Telescope page.
Check out the Voyager project site, and I, for one, cannot get over the images from the mission; truly beautiful. I also highly recommend the Hubble Space Telescope page.
A Second Wind...Applied vs Pure Science
This is a post I had back in August of 2006. It is the post that has had the most hits over the last 1+ years, so I thought I would re-post it. This goes along with the fact that this blog is now dedicated to my students and classes I teach, as we can extend on discussions from class or start discussions that we do not have time for in class. Feedback is needed, and this will provide yet another means for students to be involved in the world of science and all that comes with it. Let's get going!
A summer science research course I used to teach always had many good discussions about analysis techniques, the scientific method, and specific areas of research. A topic that always made an appearance was the debate over what type of research is more valuable, pure or applied. In particular, the class debate peaked when we traveled 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, houses 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 with 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.
A summer science research course I used to teach always had many good discussions about analysis techniques, the scientific method, and specific areas of research. A topic that always made an appearance was the debate over what type of research is more valuable, pure or applied. In particular, the class debate peaked when we traveled 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, houses 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 with 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.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Much to be Thankful for
It is difficult to keep a grip on reality in this media-driven age, where negativity sells and tends to take command of the news. In the end, as we enter the holiday season, it is important to have a reality check and remember that there is probably much more good in our lives than bad, and for this I know I am thankful. A good majority of people are good are decent, and this includes those in nations across the globe. And in the final analysis, I cannot think of another place I would rather be than right here in the United States.
Enjoy the holidays!
Enjoy the holidays!
Monday, July 30, 2007
Thank you, Iraq...
How nice that the Iraqi parliament is leaving for a month of vacation. It apparently doesn't matter so much to them, since they have our brave men and women fighting for their country and us taking care of the bills. How much more ridiculous can the situation become, and how much more incompetence can we withstand from both the U.S. and Iraqi governments?
With a civil war in Iraq (with no military solution; even our generals admit to this), trouble in Pakistan (a nuclear state with political unrest and a traditional, nuclear rival in India, right next door), near civil war between Palestinian sects, Iran working towards becoming a nuclear power (after having multiple years of near freedom to do so because Iraq occupied all our resources), North Korea mastering the bomb as we have been fighting in Iraq, the Taliban regaining control of some sections of Afghanistan (as we did not finish the job in our rush to go into Iraq), and al Qaeda growing stronger (according to our intelligence reports, not there is much reason to believe them in the first place), it is clear that the president is correct in saying Iraq is the front line in the war on terror. What he does not tell us, though, is that it is looking more like the front line in our losing the war on terror. The next president, regardless of who it is or from which party he or she is from, is going to inherit a foreign policy disaster/fiasco. It is anyone's guess what the state of the world will be in the fall of 2008, but it is clear at this moment that there could be any number of flare-ups in multiple regions of the world, and, depending on the seriousness of a situation, we may not have the resources to respond. May we learn our lessons well from the present administration's lack of planning, predicting, and what will likely go down in history as one of most, if not the most, incompetent presidencies in our history.
With a civil war in Iraq (with no military solution; even our generals admit to this), trouble in Pakistan (a nuclear state with political unrest and a traditional, nuclear rival in India, right next door), near civil war between Palestinian sects, Iran working towards becoming a nuclear power (after having multiple years of near freedom to do so because Iraq occupied all our resources), North Korea mastering the bomb as we have been fighting in Iraq, the Taliban regaining control of some sections of Afghanistan (as we did not finish the job in our rush to go into Iraq), and al Qaeda growing stronger (according to our intelligence reports, not there is much reason to believe them in the first place), it is clear that the president is correct in saying Iraq is the front line in the war on terror. What he does not tell us, though, is that it is looking more like the front line in our losing the war on terror. The next president, regardless of who it is or from which party he or she is from, is going to inherit a foreign policy disaster/fiasco. It is anyone's guess what the state of the world will be in the fall of 2008, but it is clear at this moment that there could be any number of flare-ups in multiple regions of the world, and, depending on the seriousness of a situation, we may not have the resources to respond. May we learn our lessons well from the present administration's lack of planning, predicting, and what will likely go down in history as one of most, if not the most, incompetent presidencies in our history.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Site for High School Science Research
It has been more than a short hiatus from this blog, but here goes.
For years, I searched around for sites dedicated to high school independent science research, but essentially came up with nothing. I've been putting together a site that is intended to be 'one-stop-shopping' for high school teachers and students, particularly those in the Chicagoland area. Please check it out if interested, and I'd really enjoy hearing back from anyone who has other resources or favorite sites that could be included.
For years, I searched around for sites dedicated to high school independent science research, but essentially came up with nothing. I've been putting together a site that is intended to be 'one-stop-shopping' for high school teachers and students, particularly those in the Chicagoland area. Please check it out if interested, and I'd really enjoy hearing back from anyone who has other resources or favorite sites that could be included.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Modularity, Resiliency, and the Superbots
There has been a growing interest in many fields about the idea of resiliency, that is, having the ability to adapt quickly when problems arise to create a new environment so one can survive and move on. This is becoming a priority with institutions such as the military, homeland security, businesses, the Internet and other computer networks (to survive cyberattacks, for example), and so on.
One way to do this is for an institution's structure to be modular. Modularity and modular networks are built around the idea that a business, for example, has different departments to do different jobs and services, and that those departments are loosely held together so that if one has issues, the others continue to function. One could also envision that key jobs and services (that are essential to the institution's survival) could be done, at least in part, by multiple modules so that if one has issues, there is some level of back-up and redundancy in order to keep the institution as a whole operating.
I just found it fascinating that these concepts are now being introduced and perfected in robotics, where a USC group is demonstrating that robotic modules can act independently, but when combined can communicate with each other, adapt, and perform multiple functions. There are numerous videos of these modular robots, called superbots, in action below:
Superbot Videos:
Caterpillar Motion
Walk Like a Human
Roll Across the Room
Climbing a Rope
Syncrhonized Autonomous Movement
Communication and Shape Shifting
Searching and Hooking Up
Climbing a Fishnet
Climbing a Hill
Sidewinder Motion
Butterfly Motion
More to Explore:
Real Robots: VOTE for Your Favorite
Image Gallery: Cutting-Edge Robots
All About Robots
Check them out, as we see physical systems becoming resilient.
One way to do this is for an institution's structure to be modular. Modularity and modular networks are built around the idea that a business, for example, has different departments to do different jobs and services, and that those departments are loosely held together so that if one has issues, the others continue to function. One could also envision that key jobs and services (that are essential to the institution's survival) could be done, at least in part, by multiple modules so that if one has issues, there is some level of back-up and redundancy in order to keep the institution as a whole operating.
I just found it fascinating that these concepts are now being introduced and perfected in robotics, where a USC group is demonstrating that robotic modules can act independently, but when combined can communicate with each other, adapt, and perform multiple functions. There are numerous videos of these modular robots, called superbots, in action below:
Superbot Videos:
Caterpillar Motion
Walk Like a Human
Roll Across the Room
Climbing a Rope
Syncrhonized Autonomous Movement
Communication and Shape Shifting
Searching and Hooking Up
Climbing a Fishnet
Climbing a Hill
Sidewinder Motion
Butterfly Motion
More to Explore:
Real Robots: VOTE for Your Favorite
Image Gallery: Cutting-Edge Robots
All About Robots
Check them out, as we see physical systems becoming resilient.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
US Should Absolutely Try to Get the International Linear Collider
I've been meaning to write about this for a while, and a post by Zenpundit finally got me going. I could not agree more with an article in Seed that argues the U.S. needs to make a strong bid in order to have the International Linear Collider (ILC) built in the states. A likely spot for construction could be at the current Stanford Linear Collider (SLAC) site.
The U.S. presently has the world's most energetic particle physics facility at Fermilab, but its days of world dominance are numbered. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will presumably be commissioned next year or early 2008 at the European facility CERN, in Geneva, and it will nearly double the energy of Fermilab. Of course, the most frequent question any particle physicist gets from students, family and friends, the general public (who would likely pay for a good portion of the ILC if the U.S. gets it), and politicians is, "Why on earth would we spend multiple billions of dollars on particle research?" That is a fundamental question to ask that must be answered in this age of record budget deficits.
Particle accelerators are the necessary tools to study the basic constituents of matter and the fundamental forces of Nature. This is what particle physics is all about. But what many people do not understand about science and technology is that there are generally two types of science, pure and applied. I've posted on these before, including the panel that was formed to determine the best course for particle physics as well as pure versus applied science. While I am the first to admit that determining the mass of a top quark means nothing to the average person, and top quarks are not going to have any direct applications to improve one's life, gaining knowledge has some worth. Human curiosity has no bounds, and we are a species that is driven to find answers to the questions we develop. How did the universe begin? What are we made of? What makes the universe tick the way it does? These are fundamental questions we all ask at some point, and partcle accelerators have been the tools used to start finding the answers to those questions. This is pure science, and we never know what some new discovery will lead to in the long-term. Scientists do not have crystal balls, and cannot know what applications will exist if the fundamental knowledge is not there.
But many still have a difficult time justifying the costs a machine like the ILC will have. So we can think of it this way: Fermilab has more than paid for itself over its lifetime. In fact, it has paid for itself many times over. Why would I say this, after saying a major discovery like the top quark has no direct applications? Because there are indirect benefits and applications that develop from the types of technology that are created to do this type of work. Building accelerators that are many miles long, and make antimatter and subatomic particles move at essentially the speed of light does not include going to Radio Shack and buying the hardware one needs. The technology did not exist when the blueprints were drawn up. Scientists and technicians had to work over a period of many years to build the machinery, write the software, and develop the electronics and computing power that eventually led to the accelerator and various experimental detectors at these major labs.
In the marketplace, these types of technologies were, at the time, nonexistent and meant nothing to society. As the technology developed, however, think of the following spin-offs: personal computers, the Internet, particle detection systems that now form the basis of detectors being developed by homeland security (to detect nuclear materials, for example), laser applications, fiber optic technology, superconductors and superconducting magnets that now allow MRIs to be available in hospitals, new levels of technological complexity (my old experiment, CDF at Fermilab, has to coordinate a couple hundred thousand individual lines of data to recreate an event, see if it is worth keeping, record it, and reset the detectors in about a microsecond..it is amazing it works), and even new experience in tunneling technology to dig the vast tunnels several stories below ground. Engineering breakthroughs were required to get one of the most complicated machines in history working. New cancer treatments have been discovered, such as the neutron therapy center at Fermilab that treats several thousand cancer patients each year. And yes, the military has been dabbling with particle beam weapons for years. A large lab employs several thousand people. And, something one cannot really put a pricetag on, these massive laboratories are training grounds for generations of American scientists, engineers, and technicians.
We live in a technology driven world. New technologies develop at places where new questions are asked and new solutions required. Creative solutions and problem-solving flourish. And new applications we do not dream of now will undoubtedly arise over time. The U.S. can either make the investment for the long-term health of its scientific and technological base that has led to its status as the world's only current superpower, or it won't, and some portion of the next generation of scientists will leave and go where the experimental facilities are located. We blew it with the SSC back in the early 1990's when Congress pulled the plug. Let us not repeat history and allow a major science facility go elsewhere.
The U.S. presently has the world's most energetic particle physics facility at Fermilab, but its days of world dominance are numbered. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will presumably be commissioned next year or early 2008 at the European facility CERN, in Geneva, and it will nearly double the energy of Fermilab. Of course, the most frequent question any particle physicist gets from students, family and friends, the general public (who would likely pay for a good portion of the ILC if the U.S. gets it), and politicians is, "Why on earth would we spend multiple billions of dollars on particle research?" That is a fundamental question to ask that must be answered in this age of record budget deficits.
Particle accelerators are the necessary tools to study the basic constituents of matter and the fundamental forces of Nature. This is what particle physics is all about. But what many people do not understand about science and technology is that there are generally two types of science, pure and applied. I've posted on these before, including the panel that was formed to determine the best course for particle physics as well as pure versus applied science. While I am the first to admit that determining the mass of a top quark means nothing to the average person, and top quarks are not going to have any direct applications to improve one's life, gaining knowledge has some worth. Human curiosity has no bounds, and we are a species that is driven to find answers to the questions we develop. How did the universe begin? What are we made of? What makes the universe tick the way it does? These are fundamental questions we all ask at some point, and partcle accelerators have been the tools used to start finding the answers to those questions. This is pure science, and we never know what some new discovery will lead to in the long-term. Scientists do not have crystal balls, and cannot know what applications will exist if the fundamental knowledge is not there.
But many still have a difficult time justifying the costs a machine like the ILC will have. So we can think of it this way: Fermilab has more than paid for itself over its lifetime. In fact, it has paid for itself many times over. Why would I say this, after saying a major discovery like the top quark has no direct applications? Because there are indirect benefits and applications that develop from the types of technology that are created to do this type of work. Building accelerators that are many miles long, and make antimatter and subatomic particles move at essentially the speed of light does not include going to Radio Shack and buying the hardware one needs. The technology did not exist when the blueprints were drawn up. Scientists and technicians had to work over a period of many years to build the machinery, write the software, and develop the electronics and computing power that eventually led to the accelerator and various experimental detectors at these major labs.
In the marketplace, these types of technologies were, at the time, nonexistent and meant nothing to society. As the technology developed, however, think of the following spin-offs: personal computers, the Internet, particle detection systems that now form the basis of detectors being developed by homeland security (to detect nuclear materials, for example), laser applications, fiber optic technology, superconductors and superconducting magnets that now allow MRIs to be available in hospitals, new levels of technological complexity (my old experiment, CDF at Fermilab, has to coordinate a couple hundred thousand individual lines of data to recreate an event, see if it is worth keeping, record it, and reset the detectors in about a microsecond..it is amazing it works), and even new experience in tunneling technology to dig the vast tunnels several stories below ground. Engineering breakthroughs were required to get one of the most complicated machines in history working. New cancer treatments have been discovered, such as the neutron therapy center at Fermilab that treats several thousand cancer patients each year. And yes, the military has been dabbling with particle beam weapons for years. A large lab employs several thousand people. And, something one cannot really put a pricetag on, these massive laboratories are training grounds for generations of American scientists, engineers, and technicians.
We live in a technology driven world. New technologies develop at places where new questions are asked and new solutions required. Creative solutions and problem-solving flourish. And new applications we do not dream of now will undoubtedly arise over time. The U.S. can either make the investment for the long-term health of its scientific and technological base that has led to its status as the world's only current superpower, or it won't, and some portion of the next generation of scientists will leave and go where the experimental facilities are located. We blew it with the SSC back in the early 1990's when Congress pulled the plug. Let us not repeat history and allow a major science facility go elsewhere.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Physics is a Good Domain for Horizontal Thinking
Well, Zenpundit had a thought provoking post, about what field of expertise might be best as a vertical thinking domain that would lead to productive horizontal thinking. Among his possible choices was physics, which is, of course, near and dear to my heart. Simply because of personal bias, I would have to say physics is the best domain to start from in terms of horizontal productivity (besides, physicists are known as being quite arrogant about the range of problems, like everything, they feel trained to tackle). But when I think about this seriously, it seems to make the most sense, at least to me.
Physics deals with fundamentals. It is the branch of science that looks to understand the quantities and phenomena that literally make up everything in the universe. In order to do high-level physics, mathematics, another field of study on Zen's list, is essential. So is mathematics a more important domain as far as making progress horizontally? I guess I swing back to physics only because, in the end, to solve real problems, one must have at least one eye that can see reality. One can also look at history when Isaac Newton, not a bad horizontal thinker/visionary, had to create calculus in order to solve a physics problem: gravity. I think one of the great examples of horizontal thinking in all of history was Newton's great leap that the force making an apple fall is the same as the force keeping the moon in orbit. That is not at all obvious to mere mortals!
Because physics is a science, it tackles problems through logic, common sense, observation, and experimentation. It studies the basic ingredients of the universe, energy, matter, and forces. And, it is built around the idea of finding the relationships, or interconnectedness, between all physical quantities for any physical system, no matter how simple or complex. It is the combination of these three features, mathematical preciseness and logic, fundamentals, and interconnectedness, that would allow a trained mind to expand on and attempt to tackle the most complex problems. It is the nature of a physicists mind to think we may be capable of a true 'theory of everything.' Now that is arrogance, but may turn out to not be that far-fetched an idea!
It appears that using physics as a 'training grounds' to horizontal breakthroughs is already playing out. The most intriguing areas in human thought right now tend to deal with complex systems. How is globalization going to affect both local and global societies and economies? What are the political, environmental, military, and socioeconomic consequences of global climate change? How do geopolitical hotspots, such as the Mideast, affect the global economy? What is the nature of terror organizations? Where does religion fit into the mix as far as East-West relationships? Now, in each of these examples, complexity reigns supreme because each big question being considered consists of multiple interacting agents that make up a given system. In complexity, the interrelationships between the quantities or principles are key to understanding how the system is going to evolve. This is the essence of what physicists do, and how they are trained to think and analyze problems. And, physicists have an advantage over mathematicians...not only are physicists trained in advanced mathematics and abstract thinking, but they are also trained as scientists, and are driven to always think in terms of basing conclusions on some type of real evidence - some kind of connection to the real world.
Already, domains of study such as economics have begun using mathematical analysis techniques developed by physicists to revolutionize economic theory. Econophysics is being born. Chemistry and biology are working at the molecular and atomic level, which is the realm of the physicist. Technology is driven by nanotechnology and electronics, the realms of physicists (both classical electromagnetic theory and quantum mechanics). Engineering in general is essentially applied physics. The exploding realm of computational science was given birth by theoretical physicists. And, going back to Newton, even the notion of using mathematical analysis of real systems began by addressing physics questions. Such mathematical analysis is now dominating areas such as network theory and complex systems, which includes social systems. Even modern areas of psychology, from a research perspective, are at the level of looking at information dispersal and signal processing in neural networks in terms of electrical pulses at the molecular level, which is a biophysical process.
In the end, physics, or at least a physicist's mentality and approach to problem solving, will likely lead to many horizontal breakthroughs in the future. However, I happen to believe certain issues cannot be thoroughly analyzed without some amount of historical analysis. Zen and I have had some amazing discussions over many years by taking historical features and precedents combined with technological and scientific advancements (which tend to throw off historical analogies, since the hyperspeed with which technology expands on a global scale is in fact creating situations with no historical analogs), so trying to attack some modern problems will require a mix of domains (i.e. consilient analyses), to be sure. New visions can also occur in unexpected ways, where accidental discoveries might trigger some new thought, or a creative mind that was trained in some field that is not directly related to a given problem. In the information age, some groups get it that it is imperative to build working teams of people triained in multiple disciplines, but much more of this will be needed in order to tackle the truly complex problems that affect the world presently.
Physics deals with fundamentals. It is the branch of science that looks to understand the quantities and phenomena that literally make up everything in the universe. In order to do high-level physics, mathematics, another field of study on Zen's list, is essential. So is mathematics a more important domain as far as making progress horizontally? I guess I swing back to physics only because, in the end, to solve real problems, one must have at least one eye that can see reality. One can also look at history when Isaac Newton, not a bad horizontal thinker/visionary, had to create calculus in order to solve a physics problem: gravity. I think one of the great examples of horizontal thinking in all of history was Newton's great leap that the force making an apple fall is the same as the force keeping the moon in orbit. That is not at all obvious to mere mortals!
Because physics is a science, it tackles problems through logic, common sense, observation, and experimentation. It studies the basic ingredients of the universe, energy, matter, and forces. And, it is built around the idea of finding the relationships, or interconnectedness, between all physical quantities for any physical system, no matter how simple or complex. It is the combination of these three features, mathematical preciseness and logic, fundamentals, and interconnectedness, that would allow a trained mind to expand on and attempt to tackle the most complex problems. It is the nature of a physicists mind to think we may be capable of a true 'theory of everything.' Now that is arrogance, but may turn out to not be that far-fetched an idea!
It appears that using physics as a 'training grounds' to horizontal breakthroughs is already playing out. The most intriguing areas in human thought right now tend to deal with complex systems. How is globalization going to affect both local and global societies and economies? What are the political, environmental, military, and socioeconomic consequences of global climate change? How do geopolitical hotspots, such as the Mideast, affect the global economy? What is the nature of terror organizations? Where does religion fit into the mix as far as East-West relationships? Now, in each of these examples, complexity reigns supreme because each big question being considered consists of multiple interacting agents that make up a given system. In complexity, the interrelationships between the quantities or principles are key to understanding how the system is going to evolve. This is the essence of what physicists do, and how they are trained to think and analyze problems. And, physicists have an advantage over mathematicians...not only are physicists trained in advanced mathematics and abstract thinking, but they are also trained as scientists, and are driven to always think in terms of basing conclusions on some type of real evidence - some kind of connection to the real world.
Already, domains of study such as economics have begun using mathematical analysis techniques developed by physicists to revolutionize economic theory. Econophysics is being born. Chemistry and biology are working at the molecular and atomic level, which is the realm of the physicist. Technology is driven by nanotechnology and electronics, the realms of physicists (both classical electromagnetic theory and quantum mechanics). Engineering in general is essentially applied physics. The exploding realm of computational science was given birth by theoretical physicists. And, going back to Newton, even the notion of using mathematical analysis of real systems began by addressing physics questions. Such mathematical analysis is now dominating areas such as network theory and complex systems, which includes social systems. Even modern areas of psychology, from a research perspective, are at the level of looking at information dispersal and signal processing in neural networks in terms of electrical pulses at the molecular level, which is a biophysical process.
In the end, physics, or at least a physicist's mentality and approach to problem solving, will likely lead to many horizontal breakthroughs in the future. However, I happen to believe certain issues cannot be thoroughly analyzed without some amount of historical analysis. Zen and I have had some amazing discussions over many years by taking historical features and precedents combined with technological and scientific advancements (which tend to throw off historical analogies, since the hyperspeed with which technology expands on a global scale is in fact creating situations with no historical analogs), so trying to attack some modern problems will require a mix of domains (i.e. consilient analyses), to be sure. New visions can also occur in unexpected ways, where accidental discoveries might trigger some new thought, or a creative mind that was trained in some field that is not directly related to a given problem. In the information age, some groups get it that it is imperative to build working teams of people triained in multiple disciplines, but much more of this will be needed in order to tackle the truly complex problems that affect the world presently.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Unintended EMP strike
A quick story I just found. A military (Air Force) radio signal was being tested in Colorado that would be used to communicate with first responders during some future disaster...the problem is it is in the same electromagnetic band as the signals used in 50 million garage door openers. Hundreds of calls were received by residents who could no longer operate their garage doors. While this is a bit amusing, it also should keep in the front of our minds how easy it is to cause widespread disruptions of everyday life with common, cheap technology. We need to have plans in place for a future EMP attack, where redundant and resilient features are built into our electronic, computerized society.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Woodland Consolidated School District 50 - Running for Board of Education
I will be taking on a new challenge before long: running for the school board of the elementary and middle schools my kids are and will be in. There is the old saying that 'all politics is local,' and the village hall and local school district have the single biggest impact on a community. I've devoted my adult life to helping kids in the classroom, and now it is time to try and help at the community level. I like to think I have a broad range of experiences that will make me useful on a school board; and I know what goes on in schools and, most importantly, in classrooms. Otherwise, what is the point in running.
Education is the one thing that cannot be taken from an individual, and having a good education is something that opens doors and gives a person options and opportunities in life, and nothing is more important to me than to give my own children a good school experience in which they can grow. The first step is to get the signatures, and then do some addtional paperwork to get on the April, 2007, ballot. Campaigning will soon follow. I'm excited that the present Board has begun 3-5 year strategic planning, of which I have been involved on a community committee, and if I am fortunate enough to get elected I can play a direct role in making sure priorties are set in such a way as to develop a strong school experience that will help our kids reach a point where they can truly compete in a global community, rather than just a local or national community.
Education is the one thing that cannot be taken from an individual, and having a good education is something that opens doors and gives a person options and opportunities in life, and nothing is more important to me than to give my own children a good school experience in which they can grow. The first step is to get the signatures, and then do some addtional paperwork to get on the April, 2007, ballot. Campaigning will soon follow. I'm excited that the present Board has begun 3-5 year strategic planning, of which I have been involved on a community committee, and if I am fortunate enough to get elected I can play a direct role in making sure priorties are set in such a way as to develop a strong school experience that will help our kids reach a point where they can truly compete in a global community, rather than just a local or national community.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Perhaps Environment will be a New Focus After the Election
I am more hopeful, after this last election where a Democratic tidal wave overtook the nation, that environmental and global climate change will get more attention, and most importantly, some actual action. The past six years of complete Republican control of the government has set back environmental agendas and action, even as mountains of evidence and environmental change have been rapidly taking place world wide. Yet another report is out as of last Thursday, where the famous glaciers on some of Africa's mountains are melting and receding at unprecedented rates. For instance, the glaciers on Mt. Kilimanjaro have been reduced by a staggering 80% over the past century and those on the Rwenzori mountains (between Congo and Uganda) have been reduced by 60%, as temperatures rise in Africa. Runoff from these glaciers provide the region with some of the rare fresh water that the people get, and if these glaciers disappear entirely, as will happen within only a couple more decades, the only source of water during the dry season will also vanish. We will see mass migrations of people if and when this occurs, which is not what one wants in an already troubled region of the world. Water supplies will be threatened in similar ways around the world if climate change continues to progress at the accelerating rates we have been seeing over the past few decades.
It is imperative that something, anything, gets done soon in the U.S. so we begin to contribute to working on the environment. It is in both our interests as well as the world interests that the current leader in the production of greenhouse gases take a leading role in doing something to clean up this mess, and the new Democratic leadership in Congress can have an impact as they will get to set the agenda come January.
It is imperative that something, anything, gets done soon in the U.S. so we begin to contribute to working on the environment. It is in both our interests as well as the world interests that the current leader in the production of greenhouse gases take a leading role in doing something to clean up this mess, and the new Democratic leadership in Congress can have an impact as they will get to set the agenda come January.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Get out and Vote!
It is clear that this is an important midterm election. There is a divide in the country about what the best path is during the last two years of the current administration, and it is time to use one of our most sacred rights we have, the power of the vote, the power of numbers, to let those in leadership positions know your view. Get out and vote, and we'll then see what happens. If you don't at least vote, then I certainly don't want to hear complaints about the way things are or how they should be....get involved if you care, and voting is a great way to do so!
Monday, October 30, 2006
Something we just never hear about - world hunger
I just wanted to make note of a study done by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization about world hunger. Nearly 860 million people, mostly in developing nations, are severely undernourished. In 1996, a world summit on hunger set the goal that the number of undernourished people would be halved by 2015, but so far it is estimated that only 3 million have been served...this is such a small percentage that it is not statistically significant. The world is richer, there is more food, there is better agricultural technology, and there are better communications and distributions networks and technologies, but virtually no progress has been made when it comes to hunger (and I would like to know the percentage of this group who are children, essentially with no future in life). It is heartbreaking to think of these staggering numbers.
Check out Zenpundit - Super-Empowered Individuals
A thought-provoking entry has led to a wide discussion on super-empowerment, or how an individual can single handedly have enormous influence on some given system, over on Zenpundit. More comments can be found here. My own comment that I emailed to Zen was:
"This post is one of the natural extensions of what we have been discussing. I don't think there is any doubt that it is inevitable. I suppose the 'when' depends on what system is perturbed/attacked. It will be done as our understanding of network theory and complexity advance; to have, say, an individual do tremendous damage, that person will need the means of mapping out and understanding the levels of connectivity inherent to the system, whether that system is social, electronic, environmental, industrial, etc. Even with a lack of understanding of the system's multi-dimensional topology in whatever relevant phase space, I can imagine someone developing and using one of these newer adaptive genetic computer algorithms...this type of program can 'learn' as it crunches data, and can adapt itself to the system. It is along the lines of the programming being tried for intelligent robots, etc. That is probably the scariest scenario to me."
My thinking is that at some point, as these types of algorithms and technology further develop and become more widespread, cheaper, and user-friendly, it will no longer take an expert in the relevant fields to do damage to different systems of concern...some amateur hacker type can just unleash a virus built around such software and the software will be 'intelligent' enough to do damage on its own. As all aspects of life become computerized at some level, this form of super-empowerment is, in my mind at least, the single greatest technology security issue that faces us in the future (and is on a level near that or arguably equivalent to nuclear and biological terrorism...while it may not cause immediate death and physical destruction, the potential to adversely affect countless millions of people is there). Resilience in all computer systems and networks is absolutely essential.
Zen, good job as always, my friend.
"This post is one of the natural extensions of what we have been discussing. I don't think there is any doubt that it is inevitable. I suppose the 'when' depends on what system is perturbed/attacked. It will be done as our understanding of network theory and complexity advance; to have, say, an individual do tremendous damage, that person will need the means of mapping out and understanding the levels of connectivity inherent to the system, whether that system is social, electronic, environmental, industrial, etc. Even with a lack of understanding of the system's multi-dimensional topology in whatever relevant phase space, I can imagine someone developing and using one of these newer adaptive genetic computer algorithms...this type of program can 'learn' as it crunches data, and can adapt itself to the system. It is along the lines of the programming being tried for intelligent robots, etc. That is probably the scariest scenario to me."
My thinking is that at some point, as these types of algorithms and technology further develop and become more widespread, cheaper, and user-friendly, it will no longer take an expert in the relevant fields to do damage to different systems of concern...some amateur hacker type can just unleash a virus built around such software and the software will be 'intelligent' enough to do damage on its own. As all aspects of life become computerized at some level, this form of super-empowerment is, in my mind at least, the single greatest technology security issue that faces us in the future (and is on a level near that or arguably equivalent to nuclear and biological terrorism...while it may not cause immediate death and physical destruction, the potential to adversely affect countless millions of people is there). Resilience in all computer systems and networks is absolutely essential.
Zen, good job as always, my friend.
Saturday, October 28, 2006
A Nice Example of How Science Works - The Case of the Pentaquark
It is clear that most people do not have a good grasp of the fundamental nature of science. I think the fact that a large number of Americans believe that things like creationism/intelligent design should be taught in high school biology classes is evidence of this conclusion. Ths si why, as a science educator, I am always on the lookout for examples that give a clear snapshot of how science works. A recent example is the case of the pentaquark. A nice, understandable article regarding the pentaquark can be found in Symmetry Magazine, a joint publication from the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC) and the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL, or simply Fermilab).
In a nutshell, quantum chromodynamics (QCD), which is the current quantum field theory that describes the strong nuclear force (responsible for binding quarks into observed particles, as well as holding the nuclei of atoms together), allows for particles that are combinations of five quarks, hence the name pentaquarks. This is very different than the particles that we observe normally, which are baryons (3-quark combos, such as protons and neutrons) and mesons (2-quark combos). When the possibility of pentaquarks was first theoretically predicted in 1997, experimentalists at a variety of labs around the world began looking for evidence of this potentially strange breed of particle. In 2003, the first announcement that there was some evidence for pentaquarks was made.
This doesn't seem like much right now. A well-established theory predicts something, and when it is looked for it is found. However, that is just the beginning in science. What many people don't understand about the nature and process of science is that just because one person or one group say they found evidence for something, that doesn't mean we should believe it. Rather, the opposite is true. When new discoveries are announced, the scientific community takes on the role of skeptic. The articles announcing the discovery are looked at with a fine-tooth comb, at least this is how it is supposed to work. Other scientists in that particular field think about the analysis and methodolgies used in the research. Statistical standards must be met within the field in order to announce discovery. The article was peer-reviewed before even being published. The whole community is supposed to try and find flaws in the work. In the case of the pentaquark, the concept of reproducibility took place, where independent groups at different labs try and reproduce the results.
As other groups designed and ran experiments specifically to look for pentaquark signatures and collected greater volumes of data, better statistical results were determined, and the new conclusion from several independent groups was that there was actually no reliable evidence for pentaquarks. The original studies suggesting there could be this new type of particle were isputed by better experiments and data sets. Does this mean the original experimentalists fabricated their data or did not know what they were doing? Not at all. There could have been a variety of reasons why they reached their conclusions, such as statistical fluctuations in the data, high background rates, detector issues, low statistics, unknown systematic errors, and so on.
The point is, science is always evolving. As technology improves, as new knowledge is developed, and as old, accepted ideas are re-examined under new points of view and studies, if there is evidence that suggests old, accepted theories or ideas are incorrect and need to be modified, then the appropriate changes based on the best new information are made. Perhaps the most impressive example is when young Albert Einstein, with a new, fresh point of view, came out and said that the bedrock foundation of physics, Newton's laws, were fundamentally flawed and simply did not work when objects moved at a substantial fraction of the speed of light. He presented a new theory, the special theory of relativity, which did a better job of describing Nature.
Science is self-correcting. It is skeptical. It challenges us to not accept something the way it may appear at first glance, but rather what it is after exhaustive study. Science bases its conclusions on observation, reality and evidence, rather than on common sense and logic. If at all possible, scientific conclusions and discoveries should be re-tested independently and either confirmed or disputed. It can be a slow process at times, but this is simply the nature of this realm of human thought and productivity.
Philosophy differs from science in that logic dominates the process. This does not necessarily allow us to accurately describe the world, though, as we found out when heavy objects don't fall faster than lighter objects, as Aristotle argued based on logic/common sense, but rather at the same rate. We also see a complete loss of comon sense and logic in something like quantum mechanics...but all physical tests of the many bizarre predictions of the theory have confirmed the theory. Religion also differs in its process of understanding the world around us, as religious texts lay down down exactly what should be believed. There is little to no room for skepticism in religion, for one either accepts the word of the Creator or not, and typically it is left at that. And religion lacks physical tests or evidence to prove a Creator exists; rather one's faith in the Creator is necessary for one's religious development.
Do pentaquarks exist? The best evidence suggests we have not found them. Does this mean we accept this and never look again? Definitely not. Perhaps in a future experiment there will be some strange signal that appears and we get one of the 'accidental' discoveries that are comon in science (such as penicillin or X-rays). Perhaps the calculations that led to the prediction were not done accurately and pentaquarks are in reality heavier than first thought, and it will take a new facility to produce them. Who knows? But this is what continues to drive science forward as it tries to figure out how the physical world around us works. And it is a very different approach than what is done in philosophy and religion.
In a nutshell, quantum chromodynamics (QCD), which is the current quantum field theory that describes the strong nuclear force (responsible for binding quarks into observed particles, as well as holding the nuclei of atoms together), allows for particles that are combinations of five quarks, hence the name pentaquarks. This is very different than the particles that we observe normally, which are baryons (3-quark combos, such as protons and neutrons) and mesons (2-quark combos). When the possibility of pentaquarks was first theoretically predicted in 1997, experimentalists at a variety of labs around the world began looking for evidence of this potentially strange breed of particle. In 2003, the first announcement that there was some evidence for pentaquarks was made.
This doesn't seem like much right now. A well-established theory predicts something, and when it is looked for it is found. However, that is just the beginning in science. What many people don't understand about the nature and process of science is that just because one person or one group say they found evidence for something, that doesn't mean we should believe it. Rather, the opposite is true. When new discoveries are announced, the scientific community takes on the role of skeptic. The articles announcing the discovery are looked at with a fine-tooth comb, at least this is how it is supposed to work. Other scientists in that particular field think about the analysis and methodolgies used in the research. Statistical standards must be met within the field in order to announce discovery. The article was peer-reviewed before even being published. The whole community is supposed to try and find flaws in the work. In the case of the pentaquark, the concept of reproducibility took place, where independent groups at different labs try and reproduce the results.
As other groups designed and ran experiments specifically to look for pentaquark signatures and collected greater volumes of data, better statistical results were determined, and the new conclusion from several independent groups was that there was actually no reliable evidence for pentaquarks. The original studies suggesting there could be this new type of particle were isputed by better experiments and data sets. Does this mean the original experimentalists fabricated their data or did not know what they were doing? Not at all. There could have been a variety of reasons why they reached their conclusions, such as statistical fluctuations in the data, high background rates, detector issues, low statistics, unknown systematic errors, and so on.
The point is, science is always evolving. As technology improves, as new knowledge is developed, and as old, accepted ideas are re-examined under new points of view and studies, if there is evidence that suggests old, accepted theories or ideas are incorrect and need to be modified, then the appropriate changes based on the best new information are made. Perhaps the most impressive example is when young Albert Einstein, with a new, fresh point of view, came out and said that the bedrock foundation of physics, Newton's laws, were fundamentally flawed and simply did not work when objects moved at a substantial fraction of the speed of light. He presented a new theory, the special theory of relativity, which did a better job of describing Nature.
Science is self-correcting. It is skeptical. It challenges us to not accept something the way it may appear at first glance, but rather what it is after exhaustive study. Science bases its conclusions on observation, reality and evidence, rather than on common sense and logic. If at all possible, scientific conclusions and discoveries should be re-tested independently and either confirmed or disputed. It can be a slow process at times, but this is simply the nature of this realm of human thought and productivity.
Philosophy differs from science in that logic dominates the process. This does not necessarily allow us to accurately describe the world, though, as we found out when heavy objects don't fall faster than lighter objects, as Aristotle argued based on logic/common sense, but rather at the same rate. We also see a complete loss of comon sense and logic in something like quantum mechanics...but all physical tests of the many bizarre predictions of the theory have confirmed the theory. Religion also differs in its process of understanding the world around us, as religious texts lay down down exactly what should be believed. There is little to no room for skepticism in religion, for one either accepts the word of the Creator or not, and typically it is left at that. And religion lacks physical tests or evidence to prove a Creator exists; rather one's faith in the Creator is necessary for one's religious development.
Do pentaquarks exist? The best evidence suggests we have not found them. Does this mean we accept this and never look again? Definitely not. Perhaps in a future experiment there will be some strange signal that appears and we get one of the 'accidental' discoveries that are comon in science (such as penicillin or X-rays). Perhaps the calculations that led to the prediction were not done accurately and pentaquarks are in reality heavier than first thought, and it will take a new facility to produce them. Who knows? But this is what continues to drive science forward as it tries to figure out how the physical world around us works. And it is a very different approach than what is done in philosophy and religion.
An Amusing Quote...Not
The president is out on the campaign trail in a last gasp effort to help some GOP congressman hold their seats. One of his main points is that Democrats cannot be trusted to have control of Congress "because they don't know how to win in Iraq." I guess I have been blinded by reality, having been under the impression that the administration's handlng of Iraq is as close to an overall disaster as one can imagine...clearly Bush has the answers of how to win in Iraq (how silly of me to use the evidence of reality on which I base my own conclusions). I want to say that Bush's stump speeches are laughable, but unfortunately things are too serious for our troops to just be sarcastic.
For three long years the GOP-controlled Congress has allowed this president to get us into this mess without any serious objections, oversight, demands for accountability, or suggestions to at least rethink strategy because of the poor results and steady deterioration of conditions on the ground. Only when the polls turned did one see the consistent GOP calls to "stay the course" fade away. Many Republicans who have consistently backed Bush on the war now hope to be seen as independents, including my congressman (Mark Kirk), because they now call for changes in strategy and suggest that timelines, benchmarks, and redeployment need to be considered...the same conclusions reached by most Democrats a year or more ago. They are running for cover, trying to distance themselves from their multiple years' worth of support for Bush's policies on Iraq (and we cannot forget that the Taliban is essentially in control of several regions in Afghanistan, to the point where the top NATO commander said that things need to significantly improve in the next 6 months or else we will lose the Afghan people to the Taliban). Democrats who demanded that we do the job right in Afghanistan, against those who were actually responsible for killing 3000 Americans, before going into Iraq were chastised, and simply dismissed as 'unpatriotic' for daring to question Bush. And the standard line Republican candidates still use against Democrats who want some sort of change in Iraq policy and strategy is "cutting and running," even as the Republicans suddenly say the same thing as the Democrats have been saying. This is ridiculous and infuriating, and as both sides resort to what is likely the most negative campaigning in our history, it is the troops who will continue to suffer because of a lack of leadership from Washington.
I am fairly certain that there is absolutely no person on the planet right now who knows how to achieve true victory in Iraq, largely because I honestly do not know what victory means, and I have not heard anyone give a convincing argument/definition of what victory is. I cannot grasp in my mind (and I have tried) how anyone can listen to Bush's latest speeches and regard them as believable or credible, as if the president knows what victory in Iraq looks like.
For three long years the GOP-controlled Congress has allowed this president to get us into this mess without any serious objections, oversight, demands for accountability, or suggestions to at least rethink strategy because of the poor results and steady deterioration of conditions on the ground. Only when the polls turned did one see the consistent GOP calls to "stay the course" fade away. Many Republicans who have consistently backed Bush on the war now hope to be seen as independents, including my congressman (Mark Kirk), because they now call for changes in strategy and suggest that timelines, benchmarks, and redeployment need to be considered...the same conclusions reached by most Democrats a year or more ago. They are running for cover, trying to distance themselves from their multiple years' worth of support for Bush's policies on Iraq (and we cannot forget that the Taliban is essentially in control of several regions in Afghanistan, to the point where the top NATO commander said that things need to significantly improve in the next 6 months or else we will lose the Afghan people to the Taliban). Democrats who demanded that we do the job right in Afghanistan, against those who were actually responsible for killing 3000 Americans, before going into Iraq were chastised, and simply dismissed as 'unpatriotic' for daring to question Bush. And the standard line Republican candidates still use against Democrats who want some sort of change in Iraq policy and strategy is "cutting and running," even as the Republicans suddenly say the same thing as the Democrats have been saying. This is ridiculous and infuriating, and as both sides resort to what is likely the most negative campaigning in our history, it is the troops who will continue to suffer because of a lack of leadership from Washington.
I am fairly certain that there is absolutely no person on the planet right now who knows how to achieve true victory in Iraq, largely because I honestly do not know what victory means, and I have not heard anyone give a convincing argument/definition of what victory is. I cannot grasp in my mind (and I have tried) how anyone can listen to Bush's latest speeches and regard them as believable or credible, as if the president knows what victory in Iraq looks like.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Report Slams Teacher Education Programs
This is a report I have been waiting for. When you talk with teachers about the quality and relevance of their courses and programs that prepared them to teach and become certified, chances are most will say that, by and large, the coursework and preparation was largely not helpful or relevant to what goes on in the classroom. In my own experience, I cannot think of too many things that prepared me for my first teaching job in a Chicago public high school, where over 60 languages were spoken, 75% of my students had English as a second language, and 95% of the 1800 students were from low-income families. I was decidedly unprepared in terms of what to expect and strategies to use in the actual classes I was teaching, and instead had to very quickly learn on the fly. This is from the NSTA Express:
"Despite some examples of success, the majority of today's teacher-education programs are engaged in a "pursuit of irrelevance," having failed to keep pace with substantial changes in technology, student demographics, and global competition, according to a new report from the non-partisan Education Schools Project. The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education said it welcomed the report and agreed with some, though not all, of its recommendations. To read the eSchool News article, visit http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/showStory.cfm?ArticleID=6587. To read more about the report Educating School Teachers, visit http://www.edschools.org/teacher_report.htm."
If you are a teacher, it is worth a read. Real reform and improvement in student achievement on a large scale will not be possible unless teacher training and education is improved on a large scale. Quality teacher preparation and training in reformed teacher education colleges/programs needs to be a central pillar to any future education policy, without question.
"Despite some examples of success, the majority of today's teacher-education programs are engaged in a "pursuit of irrelevance," having failed to keep pace with substantial changes in technology, student demographics, and global competition, according to a new report from the non-partisan Education Schools Project. The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education said it welcomed the report and agreed with some, though not all, of its recommendations. To read the eSchool News article, visit http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/showStory.cfm?ArticleID=6587. To read more about the report Educating School Teachers, visit http://www.edschools.org/teacher_report.htm."
If you are a teacher, it is worth a read. Real reform and improvement in student achievement on a large scale will not be possible unless teacher training and education is improved on a large scale. Quality teacher preparation and training in reformed teacher education colleges/programs needs to be a central pillar to any future education policy, without question.
It is time to get some balance back in the federal government
As you might suspect, I tend to agree more with the Democrats compared to the Republicans. Not on all issues to be sure, but a good majority of them.
But as I look at where the country is headed and the major problems looming in the distance, I can't help but think back to what happened in 1994. In that year's midterm election, President Clinton was brought back to the middle after the Republicans took control of the House. Clinton was being pulled to the left since Democrats had control of the government from 1992 to 1994. Most memorable was the national healthcare proposal that Hillary Clinton and her committee developed, and which became a symbol for big government and a bureaucratic nightmare.
In my opinion, the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994 was the best thing that could have happened during the Clinton presidency, as far as the country was concerned. It forced Clinton back to the center, which is where I think he wanted to be anyhow (the far left has just as many nuts as the far right). It brought back policymaking to the middle, which is where most Americans are. Surely, there is gridlock, and bickering, and partisan maneuvering, but at the end of the day we had checks and balances back in place that forced both sides to non-extreme policies and governing.
We are at a point where we desperately need a similar changing of the guard in Congress. The single best thing for the country is undoubtedly for the Democrats to take back at least the House. The far right has helped pull our policy away from center, and the fact that the GOP has had full control of the government for the last 6 years has created some real problems. Perhaps the biggest problem of all is the lack of checks and balances, with the executive having a nearly free reign over foreign policy. There is a near complete lack of accountability and oversight of the White House. Having such a large degree of power has led to extensive and ever expanding corruption and scandal among GOP lawmakers (and today Bob Ney has indeed submitted a guilty plea of accepting bribes, etc.). I do hope that the polling data is accurate, and that there is a legitimate chance (and some would say likely) for the Dems to win back the House, and an outside chance of winning the Senate.
But as I look at where the country is headed and the major problems looming in the distance, I can't help but think back to what happened in 1994. In that year's midterm election, President Clinton was brought back to the middle after the Republicans took control of the House. Clinton was being pulled to the left since Democrats had control of the government from 1992 to 1994. Most memorable was the national healthcare proposal that Hillary Clinton and her committee developed, and which became a symbol for big government and a bureaucratic nightmare.
In my opinion, the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994 was the best thing that could have happened during the Clinton presidency, as far as the country was concerned. It forced Clinton back to the center, which is where I think he wanted to be anyhow (the far left has just as many nuts as the far right). It brought back policymaking to the middle, which is where most Americans are. Surely, there is gridlock, and bickering, and partisan maneuvering, but at the end of the day we had checks and balances back in place that forced both sides to non-extreme policies and governing.
We are at a point where we desperately need a similar changing of the guard in Congress. The single best thing for the country is undoubtedly for the Democrats to take back at least the House. The far right has helped pull our policy away from center, and the fact that the GOP has had full control of the government for the last 6 years has created some real problems. Perhaps the biggest problem of all is the lack of checks and balances, with the executive having a nearly free reign over foreign policy. There is a near complete lack of accountability and oversight of the White House. Having such a large degree of power has led to extensive and ever expanding corruption and scandal among GOP lawmakers (and today Bob Ney has indeed submitted a guilty plea of accepting bribes, etc.). I do hope that the polling data is accurate, and that there is a legitimate chance (and some would say likely) for the Dems to win back the House, and an outside chance of winning the Senate.
US Sweeps Science Nobels
For the first time since 1983, the medicine, physics and chemistry Nobel Prizes all went to five American scientists. An American also won the economics Nobel Prize. There is a good deal of information on the Nobel Prizes here.
As might be expected, American science educators are thrilled by this development, but one should not forget that while our top level students and scientists are typically the best in the world, and that the U.S. has by far the largest monetary commitment to research, the science education the average American student receives does not compare well with the rest of the developed world. USA Today has a nice summary article.
As might be expected, American science educators are thrilled by this development, but one should not forget that while our top level students and scientists are typically the best in the world, and that the U.S. has by far the largest monetary commitment to research, the science education the average American student receives does not compare well with the rest of the developed world. USA Today has a nice summary article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)