Another year goes by
...and I still didn't get my genius grant.
It's starting to get kind of cramped under this bushel....
« August 2002 | Main | October 2002 »
...and I still didn't get my genius grant.
It's starting to get kind of cramped under this bushel....
As the 1950s continue, the boy scientists undertake experiments with real people to advance their game theories. 'They don't act rationally,' the scientists say of their subjects, when the experimental results aren't what they expected. Rational and 'without heart' are not synonyms. The narrow definition of rational, that seems to believe it means 'without heart,' doesn't encompass the world. The people who appear to wish it did don't act any more 'rational' than the rest of us, but they're not afraid to use the word against their opponents if it helps to win arguments or at least shuts people up.
And John Milnor agrees with me about game theory:
As with any theory which constructs a mathematical model for some real-life problem, we must ask how realistic the model is. Does it help us to understand the real world? Does it make predictions which can be tested?...First let us ask about the realism of the underlying model. The hypothesis is that all of the players are rational, that they understand the precise rules of the game, and that they have complete information about the objectives of all of the other players. Clearly, this is seldom completely true.
On one of the streets I regularly walk on, there's a house with a one-step front stoop about five feet from the sidewalk. The people who live there have a cat and they often put the cat outside on a long line.
I'm trying to figure out what this cat would think about sitting out there on the stoop. Either:
I'm the Ruler of the Universe
or
Oh my god, I'm going to be EATEN BY A DOG!!!!
I figure it must spend its time switching rapidly between these two opposing states.
I had a brief discussion a few days ago with IronGall about preparing for and taking tests. It reminded me of an essay which I promised to dig up (turns out this was a really good thing as the essay in question had managed to disappear completely from my hard drive and all I had was a single hard copy left). Thanks to the modern magic of touch typing I have recreated it in electronic form for your entertainment.
Ordering up the Day is about testing and preparation and living and dogs and tracking:
According to Bruce Fogle in his book, The Dog’s Mind, a dog’s ability to smell and particularly to distinguish origin and direction of a particular scent is so far beyond our human ability as to render meaningless any comparison. It is not ‘better’ than ours, this ability. It is, if anything, completely different in a way that we can’t even imagine. Riley has successfully followed a track across a softball field. The track had been laid an hour earlier. A softball game finished seconds before she began the track. Imagine if someone walked across that softball field wearing sneakers with blue paint on the soles. Then, fifteen other people came along and ran and jumped and played softball on that field. They also had blue paint on the soles of their shoes, but it was a shade lighter than the original paint. Imagine trying to follow the original path. That’s what Riley can do with her nose.
The full essay is here.
Electric signals can be transmitted at least four times faster than the speed of light using only basic equipment that would be found in virtually any college science department according to New Scientist.
I can't say I'm surprised. I always expected it to be doable, easy even. But my logic and the logic of world-famous physicists do not always coincide.
While I was on vacation last week, I read three mysteries, a media tie-in novel, two true crime books, and A Beautiful Mind (which I'm still reading).
The three mysteries:
Garden View by Mary Freeman
A Sensitive Kind of Murder by Jaqueline Gardner
All Signs Point to Murder by Kat Goldring
were decent and I mostly enjoyed reading them, but they were not a good choice to read one right after the other. Each of them involved at least some characters more quirky than sympathetic, telegraphed the 'bad guy' by paying too much attention to them in ways calculated to raise the sympathy of readers, and had distractions typical of 'cosies' (mother trouble, sibling trouble, spouse trouble), which get on my nerves after awhile, said distractions usually coming right when the main character is about to ask a critical question or finally open the mail, or make that one all-important call that will Reveal All.
The media tie-in was Little Things a Buffy the Vampire Slayer book in which the central MacGuffin was vampire fairies. Cool idea. Plus, you know, Spike was in it.
That leaves:
A Warrant to Kill by Kathryn Casey
A Death in White Bear Lake by Barry Siegal
Not a bad weekend, reading-wise.
I've seen the movie and now I'm reading the book. The movie wasn't bad, but the book is really excellent. It has marvelous research and takes good, careful time to show us the world where Nash lived, the people he knew, the time in which he lived and finally, in great complicated detail, Nash himself.
Notes I've made so far:
When mathematicians with no social skills eliminated the public good. Boys without women remake the world by pretending it's all brain and no heart. That's what it feels like reading the game theory part of A Beautiful Mind. It's as if they remade the world the way they wished it worked or the way they worked and somehow it made greed and stomping on people to get ahead and using people to make more money for yourself because, by god, those great Princeton mathematicians say that's the way the world works anyway.
But it's clear that the world doesn't work that way, that a great many people act with their hearts ahead of their mind. And, geez, what were we thinking, listening to them--boys living with boys--no real world anywhere near them.
And I can't say I'm not jealous of what they had there in Princeton in the 40s and 50s--time and space and encouragement. My god, I'd kill for that, right now. I'd be so goddamned brilliant if I got a year of that, six months. If I got two years of time and space and encouragement, I'd remake the goddamned world.
And, later, this:
I'm still working my way through Nash's bio which is fascinating, even though it's pissing me off. Apparently, the mathematics of economics pisses me off. Because it's stupid. You can't take people out of equations that have people in them just because it's convenient. You can't say, well, if we make the scale big enough...because there will still be people in it. You can't say because I act like a son of a bitch all the time, other people will act like sons of bitches given half a chance.
But, of course, you understand why they think like that, because the world rewards smart sons of bitches even when they're killing us. Even when we know the world doesn't work that way, we say, oh yeah, must be right because the smart sons of bitches say so.
The only reason--only reason--any smart son of a bitch theory ever worked for even a fraction of a second is because someone--often equally as smart--who actually cares about people--is walking around cleaning up their stupid messes. Sacrificed their life, probably, to clean up the messes of smart sons of bitches who don't care about people.
People count. Not how much you can steal at the expense of others. Not what super slick thing that makes no one's life but your own better and is rilly rilly cool...
People.
Count.
And don't tell me that this guy you're admiring worked oh, so, hard and was oh, so, smart. If he had no conscience and was willing to use those who did, That's not deserving. And it's not truly smart.
More to come....
There's a good essay in the October, 2002 Harpers (the print, no online version) about recombinant bovine growth hormone. The article by David Ehrenfeld does a good job of laying out the issues with rBGH, the discussion that the government and Monsanto would like us to have, and the other important factors that should also be included in the discussion, like ethics, the ecology of small dairy farms, health of dairy cattle, health of dairy farmers, health of all the rest of us, and many more issues.
When we define the discussion too narrowly we can often miss the true cost, the true consequence or the true benefit.
The essay ends thus:
...We also forget that science and the exercise of reason cannot by themselves provide the moral framework we need to judge our own inventions. If we restrict the context of our ethical inquiries to a narrow review of selected scientific facts, if we respect only technical information, we will never reach the sources of wisdom best suited to guide us on a just and sustainable path.
The best that you can say about science is that it is value-neutral (which I do not say because the people doing science are never value-neutral and that affects the questions being asked, the interpretation of results, the setting of parameters). And while science is a fascinating, exciting, and wondrous tool, it is still a tool. We get to decide what's progress and what isn't.
Ehrenfeld has a book out from Oxford University Press, Swimming Lessons: Keeping Afloat in the Age of Technology.
Nice vacation. Decent weather. Much reading. A little writing.
Be talking in complete sentences some time soon.
on vacation for the rest of this week.
Cabin on the river. Dog. Books. Hiking. Ahhh.....
...bumper sticker at the dog show today.
They're turning the old Country Kitchen restaurant into a bank. They call it remodeling, but there's only about two support pillars and half a roof left of the Country Kitchen. In five years no one will remember what it was.
Directly across from the actual Pizza Hut, there's a coffee house that used to be a Pizza Hut. On the other side of town there's a Mexican restaurant. It used to be a Pizza Hut, too. Unlike the Country Kitchen/bank, you can tell they used to be Pizza Hut restaurants, because, face it, it's hard to disguise trapezoidal windows.
The law school at Duke University has just received an anonymous one million dollar donation to fund a center to look at finding a balance between intellectual property rights and the public domain.
I'm a writer. And I've made money off my writing, and I think this is a good thing. Continually extending the life of copyright, the current DMCA, and even more draconian proposed laws affect all of us, they regulate how we create, what we can build from the past and how we learn and grow. When the balance leans too heavily either way--control of intellectual property or general public use, either one--the public good suffers. Balance is a good thing.
I wish them well in their endeavors.
This is really cool: The Theban Mapping Project.
Maps and expert narration and tours of tombs. Oh my....
At the credit union drive-thru today, I saw this sign:
To protect our valued members, we may ask you for identification.
So, does that mean, if they ask me for identifcation, that I can figure I'm not a valued member--To protect our valued members, we may ask you, who are clearly not a valued member for identifcation.
Excepting that it would eliminate the tacit insult, how would this lose meaning if it just read:
We may ask you for identification.
There's a new study from the Freedom Forum that says that people are more willing than ever before to give up freedom of speech (more accurately, First Amendment rights) for security.
What I say on the subject is what Benjamin Franklin said:
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Of course, I note as I scan the study that mostly we're willing that other Americans give up their freedoms for our security....
The following is probably more than you ever wanted to know....
There's a sentence in Federalist paper #2 that I'm thinking wouldn't make it in a modern essay:
This intelligent people perceived and regretted these defects.
What Hamilton means is:
Intelligent people perceived defects. And, having perceived them, regretted them.
Two issues make this a difficult sentence to parse in its original form. First, we want to read it as 'This intelligent people' which doesn't make sense rather than 'This [the defects], intelligent people perceived'
And then, our (okay, my) modern eyes want to give 'perceived' and 'regretted' equal footing since they're simply separated here by 'and.' But then, the impression is that the perceiving and the regretting take place simultaneously, or at least serially, one defect after another--perceived/regretted, perceived/regretted.... This is especially confusing when combined with the beginning of the sentence. Even after you figure out that 'this' doesn't modify 'intelligent people', you're still left with: This, intelligent people perceived and regretted these defects. Without a 'stop' between perceived and regretted, 'these defects' seems to be redundant. 'This' does all the necessary work and so, 'these defects,' which is important when the sentence is read correctly doesn't make any sense. If you think of it as 'Intelligent people perceived this and regretted these defects.' it makes more sense though it's still awkward.
This intelligent people preceived and regretted these defects.
is a succinct way to say what Hamilton wanted to say. It's just that it's almost impossible to make sense out of.
And, of course, after all these years and editions, it could be that it's just edited badly....
Okay, look, says Hamilton, we conceived a country and put together a government, but we were in a big hurry--being at war with England at the time and all. The war's over. We've been living with things for awhile and now we have the chance to do it better.
That's kind of cool, actually. Instead of saying--hey, this is the way it is, we will now defend it against all comers. Or, look, let's just let things slide and see what happens. What they said is, let's take a good look at ourselves and what we said we wanted when we declared our independency. Let's figure out what will make us great. Then, let's do that!
Although some people did say--let's go back to: what's yours is yours and what's mine is mine and DON'T YOU DARE CROSS THAT STATE LINE.
I watched this three-hour special on the Discovery channel today called 'Making Marines' (and, yes, I did have better things to do).
It was fascinating, watching these kids before and during and after--kind of like 'Survivors' except with a POINT.
But you know, and maybe this is because I've lived with Rottweilers a long time now, I thought the drill sergeants were kind of sweet....
...It seems to have been reserved to the people of this country to decide...whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice.
In the Federalist paper #1, Hamilton says that you don't have to be a good person to do good things.
...we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are activated by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, parity, opposition and many other motives not more laudable than these are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question.
This isn't a particularly new concept (well, I mean, it wasn't even particularly new when Hamilton said it) but it bears repeating--often. It's also worth saying that redefining 'bad' so that it means 'stuff this guy does because I hate this guy and everything he stands for' is also not helpful.
To say this man or woman is bad and therefore we need not listen to him or her does us no good, most likely does us harm, really.
When we talk, we might do better, then, to talk about the fundamental freedoms that the USA PATRIOT act and other dubious government actions in the name of questionable incarnations of 'safe' and 'secure.' Not about whether Hilary Clinton dresses funny or Al Gore is wearing a polo shirt instead of a tie.
Hamilton also says that smart people can be wrong and good people can be wrong and arguments laden with error and fallacy can still persuade.
Think for yourselves, says Hamilton, which, like many other things is easier said than done.
I was in the bookstore the other day and, as usual, spent more money than I'd intended. One of the items I purchased was the Modern Classic edition of the Federalist papers. Written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, their purpose was to make a case for ratifying the Constitution. In all 85 papers were published.
It will be a slow process for me, reading them. Heck, the introduction alone is 50 pages. But I'll try to post my thoughts and reactions as I go.
So far, I gotta tell you, the big action in the Introduction is who wrote which papers, a source of much controversy with memos hidden in books, deathbed confessions and contradictions among those who were there....so far, I don't know why I'm supposed to care who wrote what, but maybe, later on, it will all become clear.