Critical Thinking in our Education System.

[Johnathan Clayborn]

I had originally wanted to write about this some weeks ago, but I got side tracked with other posts and homework. Now I'm circling back to it because I still think it's an important discussion. I follow some people that I find rather interesting on my Facebook page; Neil Degrasse Tyson, Dr. Michio Kaku, and others. Dr. Kaku posted a link with a comment advocating that we should stop trying to teach critical thinking in our education system. At first I was taken aback. I respect Dr. Kaku a great deal, and I've long held the belief that we need to teach more critical thinking in the classroom. How could he say such a thing?
Then I read the article and I understood and I agree with him.
The main point that the article was making is that in too many classrooms across the country the concept of "critical thinking" is often mislabled and passed along under as a guise for political or policy reform. Teachers bemoan certain policies or political views that they dislike and present their side of the argument to the children under the guise of "Critical Thinking". Some Science teachers will publicly lament that they are not allowed to teach their religious beliefs about creation to the students but are instead forced to teach concepts such as the Big Bang and Evolution. This is not critical thinking.

Far too often many of us are victims of our own minds, trapped inside of our firmly held beliefs and ideologies that we succumb to psychological traps like confirmation bias. We're all guilty of it from time to time, but some of us are worse than others. I pride myself on being a truly critical thinker. I enjoy debating with people who have a different opinion than I do, not because I want be right and win the debate, but because that I'm hoping beyond hope that they can articulate why they believe what they believe with logic and reason and possibly support their position with facts. This forces me to re-evaluate what I believe; do I believe what I believe because it's the right thing to believe, or do I believe if because someone once told me that I should and I've never questioned it? Many of my friends have acknowledged this trait about me and some of them have managed to convince me to change my mind on certain topics. I have many friends whom I respect a great deal and yet we have vastly different opinions on certain topics. That's perfectly okay.

But sadly that's not commonplace. And it's not what happens in many classrooms either. If I am not capable of actually critically analyzing a situation, how can I teach others to be that way as well? If I physically don't understand the concept of critical thinking or I refuse to participate in it, how can I realistically expect others to do it?

The one thing that is clear from this article is that the concept of critical thinking in a classroom setting needs to come from a complete revamp and overhaul of the curriculum and instructional methodology that is being used in schools today. I promote critical thinking in my son all of the time. He will often ask me: "Dad, how does X work?" Instead of just telling him what I want him to know or to think, I ask him what does he know about X, and based on what he knows about X, what does he think? How does he think X works? And, where can he learn more about X? This is a process that I will always continue. I will never presume to push my religious or political beliefs onto my children. If they have a different view than I do, great. If not, that's great too. Either way they should arrive at their own conclusions in their own way.

When it comes to conversations of "critical thinking" that take place in most places today I'm reminded of Inigo Montaya again..."you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means". And since any explanation I might give would invariably miss some of the finer points of this conversation, I encourage you to read the article in the link below.


Links:
http://io9.com/lets-stop-trying-to-teach-students-critical-thinking-1618729143?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_facebook&utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

The measure of a man

[Johnathan Clayborn]

Recently I've found myself asking what makes a person a "good person". Sure, the obvious answers are they have a sense of ethics and morals. But, ethical and moral codes are subjective and dependent entirely on the cultures and religions that define them. What is considered perfectly ethical one in culture is not ethical in another culture. But, beyond that, what makes a person a good person? Are there universal traits that make a person "good"?

Respect for other people is probably one trait that I would mark highly on the list of a good person. Do they treat people equally and fairly in all situations? Do they think themselves equal to everyone or do they see themselves as superior to others? Do they treat service staff like human beings instead of servants? Do they treat everyone with the respect and dignity that they deserve, or they think that they own other people directly or indirectly?

Falling right along those lines similarly is compassion. Do they have compassion for others? Are they likely to give up their last $5 so that  someone starving and homeless on the street  can get some food, or are they likely to walk past saying that they deserve it? Do they protect those who are weaker than they are, or do they prey on them?

What about integrity? Is this a mandate of a good person? Many would argue, Yes. I would be inclined to agree with them. In it's most basic form integrity means doing what you say that you are going to do and doing the right thing even when no one is looking. It means being able to live with yourself after all is said and done.

What about selflessness? I would argue yes again here as well. are they willing to go out of their way to help others? Are they willing to help others at all? Would they park at the top of a freeway off-ramp and walk 1/2 mile back down the hill to help some poor sap push their 1974 Cadillac up the hill in August in Phoenix asking for nothing in return, or would they continue to drive by? Would they spend $100 of their own money to buy wooden cross necklaces for the homeless just to give them a glimmer of hope, or do they think that homeless people should have to work for everything that they need too?

What about community improvement/civic duty? Are they requirements for a good person? Do they volunteer in things that make not just their own lives better, but increase the betterment of the whole neighborhood? Is that a requirement for a good person, or does that play a factor at all?

If these general codes are the essence of a good person, how much margin of error is a person, a human being, allowed before they go from being a good person to a bad person? Is it one strike and you're suddenly a bad person? By this criteria I hit every single mark of a good person on this list. So that makes me a good person, right? But what I've lied? What if I've made mistakes? what if I had allowed myself to develop a bad behavior due to an intense emotional stimulus? Am I still a good person then, or does that mistake overwrite all of the good that's within me?

When we judge other people we should take care not judge people by their behaviors alone, but by the entirety of their character and their intent and motivations for those behaviors. Someone very dear to me told me that they didn't believe that people can change. I think that for the most part this is true, but with a critically important caveat; a person's nature cannot change, but a person's behavior can. If a person is self-absorbed and is only interested in getting what they can for themselves, then they will not likely change that nature save for an act of divine intervention. However, if a person has developed a bad habit, a bad behavior, or something about them that is otherwise negative we should take care to ask ourselves if the cause for this behavior can be removed or changed, or if we are going to discard all of the positive traits that a person has because of a temporary situation. Addicts of all sorts successfully go through rehabilitation programs all of the time. They are usually good people who are in a bad spot. But, someone saw enough good in them to help them through their situation and give them a different set of behaviors, a way to change their pattern and their stimulus that drives that behavior. Shouldn't we afford that same chance to everyone? Shouldn't everyone be given a second chance to demonstrate that they have the propensity to change, and that they can go from being good people to wonderfully amazing people? At what point are people resigned to their sins and deemed hopeless?

Much adverse human behavior is predicated by one solitary emotion: fear. What each of us fears is different, but fear compels us to act in strange ways that are outside of our normal character and pattern of behavior. A very good friend of mine once told me that fear is nothing but "False Emotions Appearing Real". I really wish I had remembered that advice sooner, but I can tell you from experience that fear can cast a pretty intensive and realistic hallucination on your mind if you let it and in the process you can ruin the best things that have ever happened to you and the things that matter most in life. If you find yourself stuck in a situation of inaction as I was, or overly nervous about doing something, like forgiving, trusting, or making a change in your life, ask yourself what is it that you are truly afraid of. Dig deep, find the cause, and wipe it out. Fear has never done anything good for anyone and only serves to allow many of the best things to become tarnished, broken, or lost completely. Don't let the wonderful people in your life slip away because of fear. That is a regret that you will have forever because, sadly, there was no real reason for it in the first place.

The Problem with Science

[Johnathan Clayborn]

Before reading further, take a moment and watch this video. It's not very long, a little over 3 minutes: Bill Nye on CNN

This video struck a sour note with me. It seems as though this video exemplifies a lot of what is wrong with our society today. A debate about a politically charged controversial subject? No, not that part. The part at the very end. The part where the reporter says that the "science group" bullies people who don't agree with them.

Here's what I think is the biggest problem; people have opinions and ideas. Don't misunderstand me, ideas in and of themselves aren't what's wrong, no. But when we stubbornly and resolutely cling to an idea because we thought it up at some point, that's where it becomes a problem. As human beings we are subject to logical fallacies such as confirmation bias; I believe that what I think is right so much that I will refute whatever evidence is presented that might suggest otherwise, no matter how numerous or credible. In extreme cases of this, you start to develop wild conspiracy theories to defend my thought. In fact, human beings are so good at using logical fallacies that we have 2 dozen of them in our arsenal (for a breakdown of them check out this fun site: Your Logical Fallacy).

The main crux of the problem is that people believe that science is merely someone's opinion and can be argued against. Science isn't just my opinion, though. It's much more than that. Science is developed through the use of the Scientific Method, which all true scientists use. Sure, there are some crackpot "scientists" out there, but those people are to science what the Westboro Baptist Church is to Christianity; crazy extremists who do not represent the vast majority.

The scientific method can be a little complicated for people who are unfamiliar with it, but Neil DeGrasse Tyson sums it up nicely:
     "generations of searchers strictly adhering to a simple set of rules: 
      test ideas by experiment and observation; 
      build on those ideas that pass the test; 
      reject the ones that fail;
      follow the evidence wherever it leads; 
      and question everything."

By using the scientific method we can ensure that the data is accurate. I can conduct an experiment. I can write down exactly how I did the experiment; what tools I used, when I did the experiment, what was being experimented on, and under what conditions. I can take very thorough notes and record my results. Then, another scientist can do a repeatability test and replicate my experiment. If they also achieve the same results, then the test is accurate and the results are true; we can put value in those results. For example, if I look into a powerful enough microscope I can see that water is comprised of 2 atoms of hydrogen and 1 atom of oxygen. This is true all of water, everywhere. It is scientific fact.

Where we, as a society, run into trouble is when we encounter someone who believes differently. Maybe this person thinks that water is HO2. Or maybe they think something crazy like H2S. No matter how much you try to explain that water is, in fact, H2O, they don't believe you. They employ their arsenal of logical fallacies and they stoutly and resolutely reject the truth with a determination that is sadly admirable. You can't help but admire their conviction, however misguided it may be.

But here's the other part of the problem; scientists themselves. As a PhD student I consider myself one of them, so this next part applies to me very much. Every scientist that I've ever met or read about or conversed with in any way has two major character flaws. 1) We are intensely curious people. We want to know everything. We learn as much as we can about as many things as we can. We read, a lot. We read non-fiction. While the rest of the world is watching American Idol or reading Game of Thrones, we are reading books on thermonuclear dynamics and astrophysics and contemplating the nature of the universe. This is kind of what compels us to do research and become scientists; an insatiable drive to know and to learn, to understand. But, this leads us directly to our other flaw: 2) We have a need to share, to teach, and to enlighten. We completely fall prey to the social bias, projection bias, where we assume that everyone must also share our love of learning and knowledge. To scientists, the idea that anyone would not want know the truth seems incredulous. Therefore, whenever we encounter someone who has a belief that doesn't fit with what we know to be accurate, scientifically speaking, then we are compelled to enlighten that person. This isn't done out of malice or hate. It's certainly not an attack on the person or their intelligence. After all, if we as scientists didn't think that you were intellectually capable of comprehending the information, it would be a futile endeavor to try to explain it to you in the first place. But, most scientists have the same problem as I do; the deep-seated compulsion to stamp out incorrect information. The problem is that not everyone wants that incorrect information stamped out, and that concept is so completely foreign to scientists that they can only react by trying harder to make you understand. It's a vicious cycle. It's not that scientists are trying to bully anyone. If you asked any scientist, I would wager large sums of money that they would say that they are simply trying to impart the gift of knowledge.

Some scientists are getting a little better about this and realizing that sometimes it's just better to leave well enough alone. But, sometimes these people who have such strongly held convictions that their belief is right and science is wrong are also very outspoken. The result of this is that other people begin to believe them and what started out as one person having a crazy notion snowballs into a movement, one that stands in the way of progress and scientific advancement. Scientists try to react to these movements by pointing out that it doesn't make sense or by demonstrating that they actually don't know that much about science. That's how we end up with satirical sites like this one that explains the dangers of water: http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html.

For me, my hope for the world is that everyone would be a little more open to the evidence and would actually critique their opinions and their beliefs and be okay with the idea that their belief might be wrong. Scientists do this frequently. They often publish retractions or corrections, such as when Dr. Stephen Hawking, published that he might have been wrong about black holes recently.

A Question of Viable Scientific Questions

[Johnathan Clayborn]

As part of my PhD coursework several of my classes have me referring back to a book called "A Primer in Theory Construction" by Paul D. Reynolds. Overall the book is pretty solid and discusses the ins and outs of developing a scientifically sound theory in great detail. I was rereading the introduction to the book the other night and one particular passage jumped out at me:

"Such questions as 'why is there a moon?' or 'why are there societies?' or 'why is there life?' are beyond the capacity of science. These 'why does it exist?' questions are more of a religious or philosophical nature and cannot be answered by science." 

I completely disagree with Dr. Reynolds on this particular point. Dr. Reynolds has certainly had a long and prestigious career and I mean him no personal disrespect, but I still maintain that "why"?" is certainly a scientific question, and that is a point that I will vociferously advocate.

"Why?" is a question for the ages. It is a question of intense curiosity and one of the first questions that we, as human beings, learn to ask. How many of us as children annoyed our parents with countless iterations of this query? How many of our own children ask us this same inquiry? The pursuit of science is simply a journey of discovery to uncover the truth, whatever it may be. So-called "scientists" who falsify data in order to support politically or commercially biased results do an injustice to science and knowledge everywhere. The first scientists who ever experimented with anything did so to answer a curiosity of some kind that they observed. "Why does this happen?" was a common question that plagues the minds of the curious.

In many respects, philosophically speaking, the question of why is intrinsically linked to the question of how. You could even go so far as to argue that these two questions are really one and the same. For example, if someone were to ask "why is there a moon?" the answer would be "because back during the formation of the solar system a smaller planet collided with the Earth and the remnants of that planet coalesced into the moon that we know today, that's why we have a moon."  Unsurprisingly, the answer to this question is the as the answer to the question "how was the moon formed?". Questions such as "what purpose does the moon serve?" are philosophically pointless; the moon doesn't serve any purpose, it simply exists.

Entire fields of study have been created to answer the question of "Why?". I would argue that, as a scientist, the question of Why is what drives us to seek out that knowledge and understanding. "Why did the dinosaurs become extinct?" was a question that drove paleontologists the world over to keep searching for an answer. This even gave rise to multidisciplinary studies between paleontology and geology. Even questions like "why do societies exist?" can be answered through the study of sociology. By understanding what a society does, it can be argued why the human species and other branches of the animal kingdom have established them.

I believe that Dr. Reynolds' statement should be more accurately phrased as "Science cannot test the question of why, only the question of how.", but to say that the question of "why" is not within the realm of science is a preposterous folly. As it stands now there are several questions that should be within the realm of science to answer, but to which science is unquestionably befuddled; what caused the big bang to occur? We know When it happened. We know where it happened. But we don't know what caused it or how it formed. We're not even sure of the exact processes that lead up to it.

Scientific study is about investigation and understanding; how do things happen? what relationships exist between things? What things influence other things? And, perhaps as the most basic question of all, why do things happen? 

Ethics in Practice

[Johnathan Clayborn]

This isn't the first article that I've written on the topic of Ethics. But this article will take a different approach. First, I would like to start by making the assertion that Ethics and Morals are not interchangeable concepts, not completely. Ethics are concepts that are defined as right and wrong by the societal normalization of acceptable behavior. These are defined in our laws, our professional standards and guidelines, and the infamous Court of Public Opinion. This is wholly separate from the concept of Morals, which are defined as a much more personal belief of right and wrong. This belief typically arises from a number of factors, but the most prominent seem to be familial upbringing and religious influence.

Having established this distinction it should be somewhat obvious that cultures, countries, and people will not always align in these areas. sometimes two groups will have the same basic morals, but will be ethically unbalanced. For example, it may be morally unjust in both countries to kill someone. However, one country may believe that lying your way to the top is perfectly ethical behavior whereas the other country frowns upon it. Or, the two groups could be ethically aligned, but morally diametrically opposed. For example, in both countries dishonesty is severly frowned upon and highly unethical, however, country A is perfectly fine with the practice of infanticide so long as they are honest about it, while country B would never dream of it.

The class that I just started is PSYC 8703 - Ethical Standards in Psychology. I was reading some things on the internet today that got be wondering about the ethics of research, not just in the field of psychology, but research in general. Two years ago I conducted an informal experiment on Wikipedia. I wanted to test the accuracy of the information there (on a general level) and present the null hypothesis that "anyone can change the data", as is so often the case. To test this I set about creating a fake profile. I kept a spreadsheet of each page I visited, what the date and the time was, and exactly what change I made to that page. Some changes were blatantly fake, but others were much more subtle. In 100% of the cases, Wikipedia found my error and corrected it, within 15 minutes. Pretty damned impressive, really. After that they also made sure to revoke my edit access and then they banned my IP address. One of the administrators sent me a scathing email accusing me of vandalizing the wikipedia site. I explained that I was conducting an experiment and had a full record to put everything back the correct way and that my intent wasn't to valdalize anything, but instead to test Wikipedia's integrity. He pointed out that this study had been done already. I pointed out that most scientific studies need to be repeated with similar results before they are wholly accepted as fact, at which point he permanantly banned my fake account after accusing me of being unethical. Maybe he's right, I don't know. For me, it wasn't an unethical action as my intent was pure and in pursuit of truth. How can I independently verify the accuracy and efficacy of the site if they know that I'm breaking it? That test would have to be done blind. Is that unethical? I don't know.

But it's certainly not the first time something like this has been done. I learned today that several MIT grad students had done essentially this very same behavior. They created a software program called SCIGen that will randomly write "scientific research journals". Anyone who has any understanding of computer science can tell that these are obviously fake, but to the untrained eye they may appear legitimate. The three students submitted these fake papers to some of the largest journal publishers in the world, and more than 205 of them were accepted for publication (Slate, 2014). These researchers intentionally submitted ficticious data to a reference source to verify the accuracy of what was being published. They obviously kept records of what they submitted, and they told the publishers about their findings, but not until after the fact. That begs the question, if their test of the journal's Peer Review Process was the same as the general procedure that I employed to test Wikipedia, then would that make it unethical also? By comparison it seems that, at least according to the Wikipedia admin who banned me, yes it would. If not, what's different about their situation as compared to mine?

This tactic is fairly old for testing the accuracy of things. In 1973 a famous psychologist, Dr. David L. Rosenhan began what later became known as the Rosenhan experiment. Dr. Rosenhan and 7 friends and colleagues went to a dozen different psychiatric emergency rooms claiming that they heard voices. They gave fake names and jobs, but otherwise were honest and did not mislead the staff in any other way (Wikipedia). In all cases the testers were admitted for anywhere between 7 and 52 days. Once admitted they began behaving normally again and were all eventually discharged with diagnoses of "schizophrenia, in remission" (Slate, 2006). When he published his findings the article another local teaching hospital reputed his findings saying that his staff would not make those same errors. Rosenhan informed the hospital that they would be testing them and would be sending random imposters to their hospital over the next 3 months. At the end of the period the hospital director jubiantly reported that out of 193 patients they had identified 41 as definite imposters and another 42 as possible imposters. His victory was short-lived when Dr. Rosenhan wrote back saying that, in truth, he sent no imposters at all (Wikipedia). It's been quite some time since this test was conducted, but the realm of psychiatry has advanced since then. There's a well-established, peer-reviewed set of guidelines called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) that outlines the conditions for mental disorders. It was recently revised again and the 5th edition, DSM-5, was just released. The practices of medical insurance billing muddy the efficiacy of this tool somewhat, but it certainly helps in preventing erroneous diagnosis. Some recent experiments have attempted to replicate Rosenhan's experiement with varying degrees of success, but at least one journalist argued that the practice of sending fake patients to a hospital for the purpose of testing their diagnostic efficacy was "ethically dubious" (Slate, 2006).

That really is the crux of the question for today's article; is it ethically dubious to test if a system is really working by knowingly submitting false data to that system to see if it errors out? This is a standard practice in computer programming, but computers aren't people. As a psychology doctoral student, I can say with certainty that people behave different when they are being observed and tested than when they are not. Since the vast majority of times these human-driven systems are operating without direct supervision or observation, it becomes necessary to test them in a manner that replicates their day-to-day operation. This happens all of the time in our daily lives. Think about the old Fire Drills. Did they ever tell you that they were doing them? No. It defeats the purpose of the test if you're ready for it. What about so-called Secret Shoppers than companies employ to test to see if their stores are following proper procedures? They certainly don't tell the stores that they are coming. There are countless examples of this in daily life. If these examples of submitting false data to a system and observing the result are not ethically dubious, then what separates them from the examples above? Where does one draw the line? Is it when there's a monetary value associated to the test? Or when the consent from the test comes from the stakeholders themselves? What about situations where the test subject is being offered as a public service or a public domain? Since all of these are intrinsically the exact same operation, what could lead to some of them being ethically acceptable and others not?  

References:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/02/27/how_nonsense_papers_ended_up_in_respected_scientific_journals.html

SCIgen Website: http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2006/06/take_the_shrink_challenge.html

The Nature of Human Nature II

[Johnathan Clayborn]

I know, I write about all of these weird philosophical topics a lot. Human nature is one that I constantly find myself coming back to over and over. I have this deep-rooted desire to understand everything, especially why I am the way that I am and how I fit into the larger structure that is human civilization. 

I have been reading several books lately, among them is How the Irish Saved Civilization, by Thomas Cahill. I've been enjoying it thoroughly so far. At one part of the book the author mentions something in passing that really struck a chord with me and I immediately took it and applied a different context to it. 

The author had mentioned how emotional the Irish were, and how their emotions that they had back them have not changed and we still feel the same way today. That was an epiphany of sorts for me. This entire time I have been looking at the answers for human nature as a cognitive or behavioral function. But it occurs to me now that this is folly. Our behavior, as individuals and as a society, changes over time. Our thought processes, individually and collectively, also change over time as we learn new things. But our emotions remain constant. For thousands upon thousands of years the emotions of the human spectrum have not changed. 

We are gifted with a wide range of emotions; angst, fear, love, hope, anxiety, despair, sorrow, joy, grief, sadness, pride, depression, fury, terror, jealousy, happiness, regret, euphoria, anger, faith, rage, remorse, pity, compassion, peace, a broad, wonderful, beautiful range of emotions. The despair and terror that we feel today are just as powerful and overwhelming as our ancestors who lived hundreds of thousands of years ago. 

I suggest, that human nature is not defined by specific actions that we take individually or collectively, but rather by the range of our emotions. Simply put; human nature is to feel. That is the curse and the blessing of the human condition. Whether the feelings be good or bad, slight or overwhelming, it is those very feelings that let us know that we are alive. 

The Platonic Fallacy

[Johnathan Clayborn]

Those of you who know me well know that I am a voracious reader. I read lots of book on a wide variety of topics. I've been reading a fascinating book on Irish History (one that I lost and had to buy again) called "How the Irish saved Civilization" by Thomas Cahill. It's a pretty good book, and quite insightful. One of the things that he mentions at one point is the Platonic Fallacy, which was something that I wanted to delve into a little more.

The Platonic Fallacy, of course, derives from the great Greek philosopher, Plato. The crux of the fallacy is the thought that "knowledge is virtue". This is something that I had encountered before as a youth and as a teenager, but I never really paid much attention to the deeper meaning of it until now, especially not in the context of what Plato actually meant.

According to Plato, knowledge is virtue. In his mind, the two words are synonymous and interchangeable. But are they really? The dictionary defines virtue as "behavior showing high moral standards", and lists synonyms; goodness, righteousness, morality, integrity, dignity, rectitude, honor, decency, respectability, purity, etc. Never once does the dictionary list knowledge as a literal synonym for virtue. 

Knowledge is many things. As one adage expresses, knowledge is power. That might be true, but if knowledge is power, and if Plato was right, wouldn't that also make power equal virtue? Power is many things, but Virtue it is not. As another old adage says, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". So, either this adage is wrong and power is virtue, or else Plato is wrong. Based on the words and actions of the people who are often in power, I would tend to believe that the adage is right and Plato is wrong.

Knowledge can be many things. Knowledge can be respectable. Knowledge can be pure (especially knowledge that is pursued for the sake of simply knowing and not trying to prove or disprove anything). Knowledge can also be dignified, to a point. But that is where I think the similarities between knowledge and virtue end. Am I saying that knowledge is an ill-gotten endeavor to be discredited and shunned? Hardly. I wouldn't be a PhD student if I felt that way. But, I am saying that knowledge itself does not posses any intrinsic properties which make it morally just or righteous. Knowledge is a tool. And, like all tools, the purpose and intent of the tool is shaped and defined by the will of the person who wields that tool.

Let's think about this in more depth. There are ethics; rules by which society mandates we should abide. Then there are morals; rules that our own personal beliefs and convictions mandate that we must abide. Knowledge may help shape and inform these different rules, but knowledge in and of itself is not the same as these rules.

To put this into a practical, philosophical example, let us speak of the digital age and computers. With practice, experience, and a little tutelage, anyone can learn to use computers, and learn to use them well. With copious amounts of practice, and knowledge gained through experience, some people can become quite skilled at modifying lines of computer code to change the way that the computer behaves. This is knowledge. By itself this knowledge is neither good, nor evil. It is simply knowledge that exists in a state completely devoid of moral or ethical implications, as all knowledge does. But, when a person decides to use this knowledge, then it takes on the moral and ethical implications of their actions. For example, if a person decides to use the knowledge of changing lines of computer code to steal information, or forge fake identities, or steal money, then society would typically say that the knowledge of "hacking" is evil and shouldn't be learned. However, without understanding how hacking works, then other people cannot use that same knowledge to build software and tools to protect people from those who would use that knowledge for ill.

Just because a person possesses knowledge does not automatically make them virtuous; their actions determine that. And there are certainly many people who perform virtuous actions that do not have much education or knowledge. The amount of education that a person has doesn't automatically make them better than anyone else, or more important, and certainly not more virtuous. Virtue has one simple and unequivocal measure; the intent and actions of an individual. I have more to say on that topic, so maybe "intent" will be the topic of another post in the near future. 

The Nature of Human Nature

[Johnathan Clayborn]

As many of you who know me well know, I often volunteer my time for various activities and organizations. I've been part of Relay for Life committees, been on the public safety council for my city, and fed the homeless more times than I can count. One of the volunteer things that I do is answer questions on AllExperts.com. I volunteer both as an English language expert, and in the "writer's block" category.

For the most part the people who ask questions there are learning to speak English and they want to know if they've used to the correct verb tense, or the correct adverb, etc. However, every now then one of my regular, recurring questioners asks me something profound. Today I got an email from one such person in Poland who has emailed me several times. As they learn more about me and my background and experiences a few of them sometimes use that channel to ask questions about philosophy of psychology. Last time I heard from this gentleman in Poland he was asking me to interpret what a particular author was saying about different kinds of love and whether or not I agreed. Here's was today's question for me:

Hello Mr. Johnathan. 
Once again I'm not going to ask about grammar or writing, but rather about psychology. 

Last time I asked you about love. Today my question pertains to a similar subject, I think. 

Do you think that all people, by nature, need someone else to share their life with? It seems to me that most of the people cannot live alone, they feel they need someone and sooner or later find him or her. Of course there are monks/priests/nuns etc. who live in celibacy, but aren't they, in this way, going against their nature? 

I think I heard or read somewhere that we are, in a sense, (I'm not sure which word is correct here) imperfect or handicapped because we cannot live (or at least it's not comfortable for us to live)without the other person - of course I'm talking about a relationship between a man and a woman.

What are your thoughts on this?

I rather enjoy this more philosophical questions as they break up the tedium of explaining verb-tense agreement and other such grammatical rules. 

This is a very complex question, with many different factors to consider and many different possible philosophical lenses to view the question from. 

I'll start with the easier part of this question, whether or not people can live their lives alone. This, in and of itself, is a complex question. Intrinsically humans are very social creatures. We like to belong to groups. As Professor Diamond explains in his book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel", this is a throwback of evolutionary psychology from our hunter-gatherer stage. Being part of a group meant that that you would have a much better chance of survival. This component of human psychology has carried over to modern society. We, as a species, do prefer to be part of a group. We often find ways to associate ourselves with a group and we actually strive for and foster that "us versus them" mentality. When there are no ready-made groups available, we often invent some so that we can develop this sense of belonging, which is one of the steps in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. With the advent of the internet, this is much, much easier than ever before in history. Now we have the ability to divide ourselves along racial lines, nationalities, political lines, religious beliefs, sports teams, which games and shows and band we like, etc. 

Just because humans have a natural tendency for socialization and belonging doesn't mean that people as individuals are always well-suited for this. There was an article in a recent issue of Psychology Today magazine that talked about the growing demographic of deliberately unmarried single adults, people who have chosen to live a single lifestyle because they are happier being by themselves than with a partner (a concept that seems strange to me, personally). As humans I do think that we all want to belong, that we all want to love and be loved, and that we all want someone to share our joys, our achievements, and our heartaches with. But I do think that there are a number of people out there who are not only capable of living alone, but who actually prefer it. Many of these people date, and fulfill their need for intimate human contact with either friends who understand the boundaries of that relationship, or with people whom they meet randomly every so often. 

But, this brings us to the question of whether or not this behavior is in violation of human nature. When I was younger I used to do a philosophy exercise. I would pick a question or a topic and then on one day I would make arguments in favor of that position. On the next day I would argue the opposite point. I would pick random things like "Can one person really make a difference?" and argue the point back and forth with myself for weeks. One of my questions was "is there really such a thing as human nature at all"? To this day I am convinced that if there really is a such thing as human nature, it is not a cleanly-defined set of rules or parameters for behavior. I think it's much more complex and abstract than that. The reason that I think this is that almost every type of human behavior that you can think of has a counter-part and opposite behavior that exists in dichotomous opposition to the first behavior. For example; there are those people who would donate and give away most of the things that they own to help others, but there are others would who steal and horde things away for themselves. There are those who would stand up and protect the weak and the infirm, but there are also those who would pick on them and prey on them. There are those who say that human nature is to believe in something greater (perhaps God), but there are also those not only don't believe in religion but don't believe that there is anything greater. I could go on, but the point is; how can any of these behaviors be "human nature" if there exists another behavior that is the exact opposite? If it were human nature, then wouldn't all people be more or less compelled to be that way through the intrinsic properties of human DNA? So, I propose to you, that maybe human nature is to be in conflict, with ourselves, and with each other, in such a way that there are no clearly-defined rules that define the human experience. 

The Speed of Dark?

[Johnathan Clayborn]
Here's a fun philosophical/physics quandary for you, a conversation I had with several of my coworkers a few years ago: what is the speed of dark? This question isn't intended as a joke, but as a serious thought for discussion. Logically, this question only has two possible answers: either the speed of dark is 0, or the speed of dark is the same as the speed of light. Scientifically this could be expressed as ds=0 or ds=ls.

To answer to this question it is going to require a little bit of discussion about the nature of dark. What exactly is dark anyway?

When this question first came up in the original discussion one of my coworkers immediately fired back with the comment that there was "no such thing as dark". I found this to be a perplexing statement. No such thing as Dark? Really? When I questioned him he said that Dark was really just the absence of light, and therefore not a real construct. But, if Dark is just the absence of light, and therefore not real, then what possible way would they have to measure that light against in order to assign it a lumens rating, or candlepower? It could be argued that "Dark" is simply 0 on the lumens scale, but being that it is an integral part of that scale and the basis of all luminosity measurements, then it certainly seems like it would be a real and valid construct.

Okay, so if we operate on the assumption that dark is a valid theoretical construct, how does that help us to understand how fast this thing moves? The answer to that question lies in understanding the nature of that thing. How does it work? What is it comprised of? In the case of light, this is easily understand. Light is an energy wave that is comprised of photons. These photon have energy, but no mass. So light is not a solid thing. What about darkness?

Darkness, on the other hand, does not intrinsically contain photons, although it does abosorb them. It then converts these photons into heat energy (which is why black cars are hotter than white cars). These heat-releated properties are explained by many of the principles of thermodynamics.

To recap, light is an energy wave that contains protons and moves with momentum. Darkness is a construct that absorbs photon energy and re-emits it as heat. But does it move? What happens when light spills into a void where darkness once was? Does the darkness vacate that space at the same speed at which the light enters? Or does the darkness linger and allow the light to permeate through it?

Although not immediately obvious, the answer, is that the speed of darkness is actually 0. Darkness doesn't flee before the light. Darkness absorbs the light until a specific threshold is reached and no more photons can be absorbed, and then it essentially becomes light.

How can we know that this is true? The answer has been in front of us the whole time: light and dark can occupy the same space at the same time. We know this because dimmer switches are possible. It is possible to adjust how much light floods a space by increasing the intensity of the light emissions. Once the light stops being emitted, the influx of photons ceases and the darkness bleeds off the photons it has absorbed and returns to being darkness once more.

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumen_(unit)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics

The Necessary Art of Self-Deception

[Johnathan Clayborn]
I know that as a blogger I'm not doing a very good job of posting regular articles. But, to be perfectly honest this pursuit is at least of quatinary importance to me falling in line after school, family, and work obligations are met (not necessarily in that order). So, it should come as no surprise that I haven't posted in a while. These last few months have kept me very busy, but on the up side I have officially completed my 1st year of my PhD progam.

I had many interesting conversations and topics come up during the last couple of months, but didn't have the time to write about them. I'm going to use this opportunity to write about one of the more recent conversations that came up in school during my Culture and Ethics class.

As human beings we are amazingly good at the art of self-deception. We also have this amusingly frustrating ability to define things in the absolute. This is particularly true when it comes to questions and topics of a moral or ethical nature.

One thing that I've noticed of late is that humans are generally very quick to point the blame and criticize or ridicule those whom they feel have violated their preconceived notions of morality. We have our own set of moral codes and beliefs that we staunchly and stoutly cling to, safely believing that our moral code is infallible and that we would adhere to these rules unquestionably.

In truth, life is simply not that simple. Now, mind you, I'm not advocating the creative implementation of excuses to defy your moral code. I'm not even suggesting that you should actively seek opportunities to do so. But, I am saying that when it comes to how we evaluate our actions and behavior perhaps there is a little too much confirmation bias at play.

Often I have been in conversations with people who say things like "I would never steal anything". Really? Never? Never ever? That's an interesting lie that you're telling yourself. Now, for 1 person out of 1,000 this might be true, with emphasis on might. But for the vast majority of us we're engaging in self-deception. Does this mean that most people are thieves and crooks? No. But, what I am suggesting is that there might exist an extenuating circumstance so grievious that the most logical choice of action would be to break your moral code.

Take, for example, a natural disaster or a public crisis. Suppose that your city is in panic. Power is out. Your refridgerator is no longer working. Instead of having 2 weeks of food on hand (which is the national average according to FEMA, by the way), your cold goods are now bad and you have 5 days worth of dry goods to eat. In a survival situation people should keep in mind the rule of 3's: people can generally not survive more than 3 minutes without air, 3 days without water, and 3 weeks without food. Now, bearing this in mind, if you were in this siutation where you had no electricity and little food, if you were to fast-forward 2 weeks to the point where you have haven't eaten in days and you're starving. Maybe you have small children to think of as well. If you came across a store that had food inside, would break in and steal it? Most people would when faced with that situation, even those people who devoutly profess that they would never steal anything. What if there was someone who was hoarding food? Would you physically attack them to try to take food for your own family? If they think they could take them in a fight or they were desperate enough, most people would. Of course, it's easy to deny it now when everything is kosher and say that you're above all of that, but if you ever find yourself in such a situation see what you think then.

So why is it that we do this? Why do we have this inherent need to lie to ourselves? The answer, simply, is because we have to. We have to beleive that we are good people and are incapable of egregious acts like what I described above. To admit to ourselves that we would, in fact, break many or of our own moral codes if the situation mandated that we must presents us with a logical fallacy that our cognitive brains are not capable of

reconciling. Granted, the tipping point for most people to cross their ethical and moral boundaries is quite varied. For some people it doesn't take much, but for others the situation has to be extraordinary. A lot of this self-deception is the fault of our own egos and super-egos, which are the psychological process that our brains use to develop our self image. We tend to be happier and healthier when we can picture ourselves as good people, incapable of any wrongdoing at any time.

Counting Creation

[Greg Bullock]
The Schwarzschild radius of a mass is the size that the mass must be compressed to for it to become a black hole. For our sun, the Schwarzschild radius is about 3 km, much smaller than the sun's radius, so the sun is not a black hole.

Black holes are formed when stars much larger than our sun collapse under their own gravity until they are compressed to a size smaller than their Schwarzschild radius. At that point, the event horizon of the black hole forms at the radius. Our own universe appears to contain enough matter so that it is effectively in the interior of a black hole, with the event horizon occurring at the universe's cosmological horizon.

There is an upper limit to the amount of information contained in a black hole, and it is determined not by the volume of the black hole, but by the area of the two-dimensional surface of its event horizon. For our universe, this upper limit is estimated to be 10^122 bits. An incomprehensibly powerful computer (located outside of our universe) could store the state of the universe at a particular instant by recording the state of these 10^122 bits.

Time is not infinitely divisible. The smallest unit of time that has any meaning is Planck time, the time it takes light to travel a distance of one Planck length. Storing the state of the universe at each interval of Plank time would enable the simulation of the universe, by playing back the states in order. Constructing such a computer would be tantamount to constructing the universe.

It is not possible to build such a computer because the state of the universe cannot be completely determined, due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal. There is a way, however, to build a computer to accomplish the same thing without having to determine or store any configurations of the universe.

All that is necessary is to build a computer that counts in binary. Given an infinite amount of time, the computer will eventually count up to a configuration state of our universe. In fact, the computer will eventually count to a vast number that represents all successive configurations of our universe, from the first instant of creation to the last evaporating black hole. In the process of counting to infinity, it will not only calculate our entire universe's full history, but all possible universes and their histories.

It may be that everything we perceive in the universe, as well as we who are doing the perceiving are nothing more than numbers reached by counting—no different from the counting we learned to do when we were small children, first realizing there was no limit to how high we could count.

Mature Politics

[Greg Bullock]
As people age, they are said to become more "mature." The term implies not only increasing chronological age, but also changes in temperament and outlook that typically, though not invariably, come with age.

The traits associated with maturity are those such as self-control, generosity, and the ability to plan for the future. These sorts of characteristics are conspicuously lacking in young children, and to a more-or-less degree in immature adults. Although the attributes of maturity seem to have little to do with one another aside from being correlated with chronological age they do share a common feature: increasingly broad horizons of perspective.

People who are mature do not focus on themselves alone or on the immediate at the expense of the future. They are able to understand the perspectives of others and exhibit sympathy. They make sacrifices over the long term to secure a better future. They exhibit emotional self control, because they understand other viewpoints and the implications of irrational behavior. They can deal with setbacks and frustrations, because they can draw on experience to anticipate that things will eventually get better.

Maturity seems to be increasingly lacking in our society. In fact, a lack of maturity is the central problem in politics today.

People cannot engage in civil discourse because they are incapable of understanding others' points of view. They pursue policies that benefit themselves regardless of the consequences for others. They even favor policies that benefit themselves in the short run at the expense of harm in the long run. The mature not only care about their own immediate future, but also the well being of future generations. They are willing to compromise because they appreciate the concerns of others and don't feel the need to vilify opponents as evil or ignorant.

The maturity of the founders of this country is palpable when you read what they wrote. Ironically, as our country has matured chronologically, it has regressed emotionally. It is difficult to see a way forward, but another trait shared by the mature is persistence motivated by hope and a determination to move forward one step at a time rather than giving into cynicism or despair.

The woes of standardized testing

[Johnathan Clayborn]

I've been extremely busy lately and haven't had much time to write. But, this week's discussion question in my Psych 8760 - Ed Psych class proved to be worthy of a post here. This week we're talking about standardized testing and their role in the school system. Honestly, I've sort of been waiting for this discussion to come up. I have rather strong opinions about this topic as I've witnessed this phenomenon firsthand.
One must understand the potential benefits of standardized tests, of which there are many. First, standardized tests can be used effectively in the formation of summative assessments that can potentially be used as a guide to determine how much information a student has retained (note: this does not prove, necessarily, what they have understood). To this end summative assessments and standardized testing can also be used to uncover flaws in the curriculum itself (a technique I employ frequently). If 80% of the students of a given class miss the exact same question on the test there are only two logical possibilities; the question is poorly written and confusing, or the information pertaining to that question was not effectively delivered. Standardized testing can also be used in a secondary capacity to measure the teaching ability of a teacher; all things being equal (classes made up of the same demographic, teachers with access to the same curriculum and same resources), then the scores of multiple classes should be within a few points of each other, in theory. Any deviation above or below the median scores by a significant amount would warrant a closer look to determine what's going on.


The biggest problem that I have, personally, with standardized testing is that they are over-hyped and over-emphasized by morons in politics. Bean counters in Washington and at the State and County levels wanted a way that they could easily track and compare data about how much a student has learned and make a determination if a school is being "effective" or not, which in turn directly affects the decision of how much money the school receives. Reading  essay questions would take too much time and be impractical, so they forced the standardized testing down the school system's collective throat. People who have little to no background in education are dictating policy on how the education system should be run; a recipe for disaster. Now they are even beginning to tie teachers' annual pay raises (and even their continued employment) to how well their classes do on these tests! Is it any wonder that 50% of all new teachers quit within the first 5 years and that education is quickly becoming one of the professions with the highest turnover rates? 

I say that I've seen what's going on first-hand because I have experienced it in other areas. In the IT Industry, which I have worked professionally for many years, the certification that everyone wants/needs is called the "A+ Cert". It is a standardized test consisting of about 120 questions. There are literally "boot camps" that you can attend for a nominal fee they will cram the test answers in your head through rote memorization long enough for you to pass the test. Hooray! Now you have your A+ certification on paper, but you quickly forget the material for the questions, and worse yet, you have no idea what any of it means. You know that the answer to question 27 is B, but you have no idea why the answer is B. Under those conditions, is that certification actually even worth the paper that it is printed on? I don't think so. But, that's all that matters to the companies who seek out such candidates. Our school systems are quickly emulating these behavior patterns with more and more teachers "teaching to the test" because they, and their districts, have a vested financial interest in how well the students do on them. 

Because the very system that we use to measure our students is flawed, every decision that is based on that information is also flawed as a result. Our school systems are performing poorly you say? Well, let's just throw more money at the problem blindly, because clearly if we just push enough money at the problem it will simply go away. Yet, annual studies by the US Department of Education comparing students from the G8 countries of the same age and grade reveal that while the US has the single most expensive primary and secondary education system in the entire world, our test scores and student performance is only middle-of-the-pack. Other countries are performing better with less money. Clearly, a change in our methodology is required to bring about effective changes in our scores. In that regard, I propose that teaching is just as much an art form as it is a science. In much the same way that you could not adequately measure the ability of a painter with a standardized test, it should not be the end-all, be-all of educational measurements either. Which would you rather have; the caricature painter at the fair who can crack out 100 paintings in a day, or Leonardo DaVinci who only paints 1 painting in a week? The quality of the student's cognition should be of paramount importance, more so than the quantity of their recollection. I would rather see students who are taught how to think, to reason, to research, to experiment and explore rather than to see students blindly parrot back the same information that I told them verbatim, devoid of intellect, curiosity, or desire to learn.

But, as good as standardized tests are, there are also many drawbacks. One drawback is that they make poor formative assessments. Another drawback is that they cannot measure how much a studentunderstands about a subject. They also do not necessarily translate well to cultures, languages, or ethnic groups that are non-English speaking (a critique also shared by the Stanford-Binet IQ tests).

With regards to what manner is best for measuring students, I think it has to be a mixed approach; one that utilizes both standardized testing and cognitive assessments of reasoning ability. This is the same solution that was posited by Sanders and Horn (1995). 

References:

Sanders, W., & Horn, S. (1995). Educational assessment reassessed: The usefulness of standardized and alternative measures of student achievement as indicators for the assessment of educational outcomes. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 3(6). Retrieved fromhttp://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/649/771

What is a Superhero?

[Johnathan Clayborn]
I was at work the other day on a conference call. During the start of the call the host wanted us to identify ourselves and had us do an ice-breaker by stating who our favorite superhero is. Most people had answers to this question right away, and I gave an answer too, but as the meeting progressed I really started thinking about the question in a lot more detail. What IS a superhero anyway?

To many the obvious answer would be someone with super powers. Some of the iconic superheroes of modern times, like Superman, for example, were born with their powers. Others, like Spiderman and the Fantastic 4, went through an event that changed their physiology to turn them into superheroes. Still others, like the X-Men, are a combination of both methods, but their powers are the result of genetic mutations rather than some kind of magical force. But, is that really what defines a superhero?

Let's examine this for a moment. Superheroes have super powers, sure. But, then again, so do super villains. Look at Magento, for example. He has super powers, he just chooses to use them for different purposes. So, clearly being a superhero is more than just having awesome abilities. A lot of it boils down to the choices that you make; what do you use your abilities for? If you use your abilities for evil or simply to further your own personal gains, then by most people's definitions you would not be a superhero. But, if you used your powers for the betterment of mankind and to combat evil, then surely that would qualify you as a superhero.

So, with that concept in mind let's re-examine our opening criteria; what is a superhero anyway? It's someone who has super powers and uses their abilities for the betterment of the greater good. Right? Well, what about Batman? Here's a superhero who defies that logic. He's just a regular person, granted, he's a rich, intellectual person, but he has no super powers. All he has is cool gadgets. He chooses to spend his immeasurable fortune on developing things that he needs to be able to fight crime and make a positive difference in the world. What about Ironman? Sure, he has a power-reactor built into his chest, but, he's in the same category as Batman, basically he's just a regular dude who happens to have tons of money and intellect. But, like Batman he uses his fortune to help others. Without his suit, like Batman, he's very vulnerable. So, based on these two immensely popular superheroes, clearly having super powers isn't necessarily a prerequiste to being a superhero.

So, based on that information, is it possible that a superhero is simply someone who sacrifices their own safety, well-being, and monetary gain to make a positive difference in the world for the betterment of the greater good? If that's true, then it seems to me that the world is full of real-life super heroes who are overlooked and ignored; paramedics, firefighters, police officers, military personnel. Wouldn't they qualify as superhero status also? Or are the gadgets that they use not high-tech enough?

The Atomic Fallacy

[Greg Bullock]

Wikipedia cites the following speech to illustrate the meaning and origins of the so-called “If-by-whiskey” fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey]:

My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, here is how I feel about whiskey:

If when you say whiskey you mean the devil's brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.

But, if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman's step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life's great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.

This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.

I believe that the original speech from which the term is derived may have been misinterpreted, and that calling the "if-by-whiskey" concept a fallacy is itself fallacious.

The lawmaker’s speech is equally likely intended to be a sardonic mockery of what I would term the “atomic fallacy”–the idea that a concept represented by the conventional shorthand term for a controversial topic is an atomic proposition, which a rational person is logically bound to be wholly “for” or “against.”

Contemporary examples  of such terms would be “global warming” or “gun control.” Because discourse on a controversy tends to be dominated by its most zealous ideologues, debate reinforces the idea that these types of terms refer to a simple atomic proposition, rather than a collection of propositions. In fact, a concept such as “global warming” enfolds many separate propositions, propositions about which intelligent people could–with logical consistency and good sense–hold multiple divergent opinions.

The multiple propositions implied by the term “global warming” include: humans are able to detect and quantify the average temperature of the earth, the earth's average temperature is increasing, increased CO2 is the cause, human activity is the cause of increased CO2, the causal activity consists of oxidation of carbon fuels, CO2 is the most significant contributor to warming, the combined effects of warming are on balance negative, warming is not likely to be countered by offsetting natural effects, humans should take action to reduce CO2, humans can take action to reduce CO2, the actions taken should center on reducing oxidation of carbon fuels, actions that can be taken can be significant enough to reduce warming, actions will not have unintended effects worse than warming, effects will not fail to due unanticipated counter effects, and record high temperatures are evidence for global warming.

The last point is related to why advocates of the global warming concept have switched to the term "climate change." People might naively think due to attention directed to record high temperatures that extreme examples of cold temperatures would therefore imply evidence against global warming. Since increasing temperatures can cause shifts in ocean currents that can cause cold weather, average warming could plausibly cause cold effects. The change in terminology is intended to avoid counting cold temperatures as evidence against average temperature increases.

Most areas of public policy debate are discussed using convenient shorthand terms. In many cases, the advocates for a cause attempt to control which terms are used. In the case of abortion, the terms used were historically different for each side, with proponents of one side using “pro-choice,” and the other using “pro-life.” In these cases, the terms were intentionally selected to draw the mind towards an atomic, single concept and imply that any other view is opposed to that concept. Few people discussing a more abstract topic would consider themselves  opposed to “choice” or “life.” The debate over the terminology demonstrates the power that the atomic fallacy gives to the term that comes to be used when discussing a topic.

The atomic fallacy impedes constructive discussion of controversial topics. Failing to examine the deeper multiple realities behind a politically charged term may lead people to believe that compromise is not possible and to view those on the opposed side as closed-minded and evil. The result is polarization, gridlock, and conflict..

Seeing through the fallacy enables people to find common ground. They may even be able to make progress on some of the contributing causes to a problem when the ultimate controversies are not resolvable. Discovering the reality of a controversy becomes less of an intractable problem, because people can pursue specific lines of questioning, in contrast to the hurling of arbitrary “facts” and slogans into which debates tend to degenerate. Most importantly, awareness of the tendency to think in atomic terms and the deliberate exploitation of this tendency for propaganda purposes can allow someone to take a more rational and deliberative approach to both thinking and personal action.

The Paradox of Computer Simulated Time Travel

[Johnathan Clayborn]

Earlier today I was reading a thoroughly fascinating article on Discovery.com. The article (link below for the curious) posited that universe very well might be an artificially manufactured construct created by an Intelligent Design, although not in the sense that most people might think of. While not proposing that God in the biblical sense is responsible for the universe, there are some scientists and philosophers who are arguing that intelligent design might indeed be why we are here reading this blog right now.

The main part of this theory, in summary, is the fact that the universe, our solar system, even our planet all essentially won the intergalactic lottery and had conditions that were just right for life to develop. They argue that if the universe were designed this way, it would certainly explain why everything is just right. Also, even more mind-boggling; if the universe were custom designed for us it would explain the Formi Paradox and answer the question of why there are no other aliens. But, if God is not responsible for this, then who? According these scientists; we are.

Our current day technology allows us to use supercomputers to model, predict, and analyze minute parts of the universe and try to understand it. As our computer technology increases, then the amount of things that we would be able to model would increase also. Theoretically, with a large enough computer, we should be able to model the entire universe.

The researchers hypothesize that our far-distant future descendants might have hypothetically reached that point and are running a simulation right now; a simulation that we are all part of. The researchers even hypothesize that humans might have created artificial intelligence, which created artificial intelligence, and so on and it is this non-living descendant that is actually running the simulation out of curiosity about how their ancient biological ancestors might have lived. While that would conveniently answers questions like the Formi Paradox and the Big Bang, it still leaves a lot of questions unanswered.

For one thing, as with many poorly written time-travel examples from Hollywood, this hypothesis still doesn’t account for the standard temporal paradox that always associates time travel. If, hypothetically, this theory were true, then it would certainly mean our descendants had to have lived in the real universe long enough to make progeny that would have advanced to the point where they would be technologically capable of even running the experiment. But, if this carefully modeled, carefully constructed universe is indeed a simulation and was intended to make everything just right for us to exist and the odds of that happening are a billion to one, then how, pray tell, did our real descendants come to be in the real, uncontrolled universe in the first place? Surely some place that wasn’t carefully constructed would have had even more risk factors and less favorable conditions. So, the researchers would have us believe that we originally existed in an even more tumultuous reality and having somehow, miraculously survived that one, created this just right universe to model how ancient people lived?

Also, another blaring question that is raised by this; computer simulations, even mega simulations, are governed by a specific set of rules and laws. According to the scientists, there is a test that can be performed that would determine if our version of reality really is real. Suppose they find out that it really is just a simulation, then what? What would be the purpose of having a computer simulation be self-aware that it is living in a simulation? Surely, from a scientific process this would ruin their experiment. This type of experiment is known as naturalistic observation and conclusion about the behavior of the people or animals involved are entirely dependent on the fact that they are not aware that they are being watched. As soon as an organism becomes aware that it is being watched its behavior changes and then the results become biased. So why make this super-elaborate experiment only to have it ruined by self-awareness?

While this hypothesis is certainly interesting, it doesn’t seem all that logical to me. Either way it will be interesting to see what results the scientists turn up from their experiments to prove or disprove this theory.

Reference:

http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation-2-121216.html#mkcpgn=fbdsc17  

Grief & Loss

[Johnathan Clayborn]

My heart at aches heavily at the news of the shooting at Sandy Point Elementary School earlier this morning. As of this writing the estimates are that 27 people are dead and 18 of them are school children, most of them in Kindergarten. This really hits home for me as my own son, William, is in first grade and is almost the same age as many of these victims.

Grief is complex, powerful emotion. Zoologists have shown that even animals feel grief. Grief can be slight or it can be completely and totally debilitating. It can just appear suddenly without warning, particularly in cases where the grief is the result of a disaster or catastrophe.

What’s rather interesting is how we handle grief. For one thing, if people perish as the result of a natural disaster; a flood, a hurricane, etc, then it seems like we have a somewhat easier time dealing with that. Sure, there is still grief, particularly for those who lost loved ones, but we sort of recognize on some level that the situation was completely out of our hands. However, when the grief is the result of an act of senselessness, like this shooting, we have a much harder time processing this. Part of that seems to be due to the fact that perpetrators of these heinous acts actually have a choice. They are choosing to commit these acts and they are choosing to take the lives of others. When we cannot process what thought patterns would lead a human being to make such a senseless, irrational decision, we falter in our ability to process and handle the grief.

Another strange quirk of grief; grief is amplified by its proximity to salvation. You might be wondering what I mean by that. Suppose that you have a plane full of people and the plane crashes in the middle of the ocean and everyone perishes. It’s sad, a horrible tragedy to be sure. However, if that exact same plan crashed within a few miles of the runway they were trying to reach, it seems like a far worse tragedy. What changed? The same number of people perished either way. The biggest difference is the fact the people almost made it; they were almost safe. Being that close to being safe and falling short seems to make any disaster worse.

This certainly isn't the blog post I was intending on making today, but I felt compelled to discuss grief and its complexity. You’ll have to forgive me if this isn't one of my longer posts, I’m going to go take some time to myself and try to make sense of this tragedy. 

Questions Follow Answers

[Johnathan Clayborn]

Most people wish that they had answers for certain things. Many of us sit around and accept the likelihood that those answers will never come. This is certainly true with me in my attempts to uncover my genetic family roots. But, some scientists are lucky enough to find the answers that they seek. Ironically, those answers are only bittersweet as they almost immediately yield more questions, particularly when discussing the ancient world.

In my next article I’ll discuss some of the mind-boggling, scientific quandaries that make us question our very understanding of the ancient world. In the meantime I want to summarize a fascinating show that I was watching on TV last night about why Egypt fell.

The show started out by following two different scientists working independently in different parts of Egypt; one studying ancient ruins and pyramids, and the other studying the migration and habitation pattern of the Nile delta.  Both came to the same independent conclusions; when Pharaoh Pepi  II of Egypt died (2184 BC) and was buried Egypt was at the height of its power building pyramids and other large structures. Then, rather suddenly, Egypt was gone without reason or explanation. In terms of historical accounting “suddenly” means within one generation. By 2150 BC, 34 years later, Egypt had fallen.

Knowing that the fall of Egypt was a rather sudden and cataclysmic event both scientists set out in search of answers. Within a rather short time, both scientists came to the exact same conclusion; a drought.  The scientist studying the ruins and the pyramids saw evidence of a sudden stoppage in construction. Since most of the materials were borne to the job sites via waterways the foregone conclusion was that there may not have been enough water to get the supplies there. But, this was after Pepi II died because there was still enough water to transport his sarcophagus, the largest ever built.  The scientist studying habitation patterns in the delta used satellites to locate ancient settlements without having to dig up the entire area. What she found was that people rapidly abandoned those settlements to migrate towards the larger cities where they could pool their resources.  Since most of these smaller villages were along the tributaries of the Nile, she concluded that they abandoned them because of a lack of food and that they lacked food because the water had dried up.

Of course, all of this was only a theory that needed proof. So, they set out to find it. One of the scientists was also an archeologist and took core samples near the areas where there were known to have been deep lakes. What he found was a layer of wind-blown, arid sand. This meant that no water reached that site whatsoever. Not only did he find the sand he looking for, the thickness of the layer indicated that this area suffered a drought that lasted for roughly four decades.  In fact, conditions of the drought were so bad that some reports indicate that they may have resorted to eating their own children to survive.

After publishing their findings researchers in Turkey, Iran, Mesopotamia and Greece have all uncovered the same drought conditions in those regions at the exact same time. Not only was Egypt affected, but the entire Mediterranean Sea area was affected as well. Besides Egypt, this drought, which is now called the 4.2 Kiloyear Event, was also responsible for the fall of the Akkadian Empire. Although not wiped out to the point of extinction there is some evidence to suggest that the drought at least influenced the development of the Persian Empire and several cultures that inhabited China.

So, they answered the question of what happened to Ancient Egypt, and in the process they uncovered a much more important discovery. But, this answer begot another question; what caused this drought to begin with? The current theories center on the concept that the Atlantic Current stopped moving. This current sends warm air into the atmosphere and helps regulate the temperature around the world. If this current stops flowing, then the Mediterranean region undergoes a severe drought while the continental US will undergo a small Ice Age. According to the fossil record in North America, there was an Ice Age in 2200, B.C., which is exactly what they expected to find.

Now they’ve answered the question about what caused the drought, which is exciting, but a more disturbing question looms; what caused that current to stop flowing? Evidence suggests that it has stopped several times throughout the Earth’s history. But no one knows why.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2_kiloyear_event

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/24/science/collapse-of-earliest-known-empire-is-linked-to-long-harsh-drought.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

http://www.viewzone.com/2200BC.html

http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/aryan-harappan-myth.html

Are We Evolving?

[Johnathan Clayborn]
This question was posed to me earlier today and it got me thinking. I don't think that most people I know would argue against the notion that evolution has infact happened. Assuming that evolution is true, I think the more obvious questions with regards to evolution should be: are we still evolving, and if so, how much?

From a purely biological perspective with regards to physical characteristics, I would argue that the answer would be "not really", and I'll explain that in a minute.

The sociocultural aspect of our collective societies is evolving; of that there seems to be little doubt. Humans have always evolved culturally. (A fascinating read on the overall topic of human civilizations and evolutionary behaviors is Guns, Germs and Steel by Prof. Jared Diamond). In our modern digital world it seems as though our current cultural evolutionary process is leading us to world that is more close-knit and united.

One of the interesting side-effects of becoming more multicultural as a species is that it invariably leads to interracial breeding on a scale not seen before. There have been several studies on the impacts of this. A quick survey of the census records in the US also show this to the be the case as more and more immigrants from other countries move here. Cultural behavior, and certainly multicultural behavior certainly shapes our genetic makeup as we trade and mix DNA with an ever-growing host of potential mates that was not readily available 100 years ago. The October 2011 issues of Psychology Today discusses this very issue citing a 2003 study conducted by Joan Chiao of Northwestern University. The study linked DNA to behavior in ways that were not so expected; such as China's idolization of Communism and the Western culture's adoration of independence. These behaviors are now understood to be driven by genetics. By that logic, changing our genetic makeup will certainly change our behavior. As other's pointed out, I'm not convinced that this would make us any less pliable or adaptable as a species.

Certainly having a genetic admixture will result in noticable physiological changes; skin tone, hair color and type, height, etc. But, from a biological standpoint the question that I find myself asking is: so what? Okay, so my descendants will one day have a skin tone that is more coppery than my fair Irish skin. Does that afford them any special advantages? No. Does having a different height or a different hair type help ensure their survival? Not really. In today's technological world medicine and medications have gone a long way in stamping out things which would have eradicated "weaker specimens" even just a hundred years ago. From that standpoint the introduction of "weak" genes into the genepool persists whence it would have been stamped out before.

From a fundamental standpoint the purpose of evolution is to provide those specimens with the strongest genes the best chance to reproduce and spread healthy offspring. From what I've seen none of the physiological changes that are occurring in our current admixtures of genes seem to be doing this. Sure, they change our physical appearances, but that's about it. This example dealing with shark Genetics (http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/futureoftech/australias-hybrid-shark-reveals-evolution-action-904726) reveals a more arguable demonstration of evolution in action; the sharks are adapting to endure different temperature climates than what they were otherwise used to. What primary advantages does the admixture of modern human genetics provide us? We have houses to shelter us from the elements, we have medicine to cure our illnesses. Even within the human species the sexual dimorphism of Homo Sapiens is already far less pronounced than in other species in our genus. The rest of our traits are spread across a wide array of polymorphic attributes.

From a Taxonomy viewpoint the consideration of the human species in general is rather fascinating. For every other species on the planet we break down their taxonomical classifications into distinct sub-groups based on geography and physical characteristics. For example; the Willow Warbler is divided into three distinct sub-species that are genetically identical and the only differences between them is the location of their habitat and the coloring of their plumage. Their skeletal structures are identical. Humans, Homo Sapiens Sapiens in particular, have a wide range of skin colors, hair colors, natural habitats, slightly genetic makeups that, although compatible, are slightly different. And yet, we are all lumped into the exact same genus and sub-species despite obvious polymorphic differences. Surely this muddles the question of evolution and genetic admixture. If you were to break human beings into separate sub-species based on their genetic haplogroups, then because the specific traits that are being analyzed are so narrow, it would certainly argue a stronger case for continuing evolution.

As you might have guessed I can relate to both sides of the debate that humans are and are not evolving. I personally don't have a strong opinion about it one way or the other. However, I do feel compelled to point out that in my own studies of evolution over a long period of time the driving factor in pushing major physiological changes within a species seems to be either radical climate change or natural disaster on an epic scale (like a giant meteor). Fossil records of human settlements show that our physiology has remained largely unchanged for the last 200,000 years. If this is true, then how much evolutionary process is truly going on now within the span of a few centuries?