Thoroughly Conscious Ignorance

"Science becomes a series of elegant puzzles and puzzles within puzzles—and who doesn’t like puzzles?"
This is absolutely right. The thrill of contemplating everything we can learn. Yes, I love to learn what is known, but it inspires me to realize that everything we learn means there's more to explore.

Or, to quote a less 'technical' source, "The world is so full of a number of things / I'm sure we should all be as happy as kings." 

From Scientific American, "What Science Wants to Know"

Anti-Intellectual Incompetence

 An interesting post from Massimo Pigliucci at Rationally Speaking.

I was particularly intrigued because I had just read yet another 'discussion' on religion vs. science, where the arguers for religion were chronically unable to discern the difference between proof and belief. If one cannot make that very gaping distinction, there is no hope of discussion. I admit to feeling there is no need for discussion. Religion, in this so global modern world, should be private and personal, and ought not to be imposed on others. My beliefs are mine; theirs are theirs. But provable information -- that is the realm of the public domain.

This article discusses another false dichotomy: intellectualism vs engineers. Timothy Ferris of 'Wired Magazine' argues that only productive technology is worthwhile (does he work for Perry?) and that thinking, ideas, and intellectual processes are a waste of time.

How, I wonder, did he get the education that allowed him to think about this? Not that he did much thinking. It is clear he is bias-promotion rather than genuine reasoning in his article.

Massimo makes several good points, most notably that Ferris "makes his case by cherry picking examples, distorting history, and simply ignoring what is not convenient for his thesis." He provides examples to support this claim.

Later, Massimo says, "five minute of serious reflection should have made Ferris realize that he created a straw man with precious little correspondence to reality." Again, he offers counter arguments worth considering.

I am, as with religion vs science, willing to allow both sides validity. I see them as reflecting different aspects of human nature and need. I have always been grossly suspicious of any premise that requires absolute exclusive validity. Nature vs Nurture. Particle vs Wave. Life is seldom so clear cut. My guiding principle is 'it's a spectrum' and from that beginning, I proceed, cautiously, to determine how dark or light the shades of grey are on any issue.

Well worth reading: http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2011/10/engineers-vs-intellectuals-how-timothy.html

Writers Are Smart, and I'm Angry

I heard this in a conversation yesterday:  "She's so stupid she can't even add 2 + 2. I told her to take Creative Writing courses instead of math."

I am not good with snappy comebacks, and even if I were, the social setting would have precluded responding. I didn't want to be seen as creating a scene*. Besides, I know from experience that the speaker would say, "I didn't mean it that way."

A long history with said speaker has shown that he may like to believe he doesn't mean it that way, but he keeps saying things like that. I am skeptical of his self-knowledge, to say the least.

And yes, he knows I am a writer.

An angry, not stupid writer.

Obviously, as in all things in life, there is a spectrum. There's some really bad writing floating about, and more is put out every day thanks to ebooks and self-publishing.

All that means is there's more to wade through to get to the gems.

It does not mean that all, or even most writers are bad. Or dumb. Or anything else. Any more than a small percentage of fundamentalist maniacs with murder on their brains means that religion is inherently violent, or that a few teenagers who get drunk means that all youth is doomed to alcoholism.

I spend an hour, often closer to two every day reading science, philosophy, psychology; trying to get background for my writing. I read writing blogs trying to understand options, processes, and changing procedures in publishing.

I write. And write. And write, and strive to improve with whatever input I can coax and beg out of anyone who'll read my words.

You don't need to be a math teacher to be smart. You don't need a degree in physics. You do need a questioning mind that is open to -- no, actively seeking new information and new ways to see the world. A good writer spends their life doing just that.

Writers are smart. Talented, determined, brave, and above all, people who can face more rejection, more isolation, more years without any positive feedback on their dreams than any other profession I can think of.

Twitter.  #writersaresmart

I'm curious what you have to say in response to that offensive comment.

*why is it that when someone says or does something, it's always the person who takes them to task that's seen as 'causing a scene', and not the original offender?

What Would You Censor?

This is a great post from 'The Guardian' literary editor and blogger Claire Armitstead.
I enjoyed the comments, too, both the serious and the humorous. Way to go, Gogg. What a horrible thought that people should learn to read -- and, oh horrors! maybe even ask questions and think.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2011/jul/22/harmful-books-censor

Laughter As Philosophy - can it make us see reason?

This sounds to be a movie worth watching. I've looked at several interviews and clips; you can get links to more from youtube.

Bill Maher wants us to see that religion is created by humans to control other humans. As he says, 'no one knows'.

No one knows what happens when you die. Why would you accept the beliefs of someone who claims special knowledge? They're only human - just like you.

He hopes the rational 16% will stand up and be seen.

Maybe comedy will help. It certainly can't hurt.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHH2JItePlc

Why External Evaluation Really Helps

GrrlScientist often posts amazing stuff. Today was no exception.

I've been angsting over my comparative writing ability. I know - really stupid. After a certain technical competence is achieved, and a certain facility with words and style, it is so subjective.

But - this fascinated me. How do we assess ourselves, and others? How accurate are we in those assessments?

Interestingly, the less competent you are, the better you seem to think yourself. Competent people tend to over-rate others' performances, thus lessening their self-perceived skills.

Heartening conclusion: training and education - objective skills, do make us better at these judgements.

illusion of superiority

Science and Uncertainty

Four posts today, all on the topics of what we think we know, what we actually do know, and how we go about distinguishing between the two. And having distinguished, what do we do about it?

First up, recognizing that uncertainty is not an excuse for ignoring probable danger. The context here is global climate change. There is enough evidence to know that the climate is warming. Even if it were entirely natural, we still need to be working hard on ways to minimize the disruption (gentle word) climate shift will cause.  And yet the reaction is all too often complete denial (humorous take on argumentative reasoning here) or accepting it's happening, but not that it will cause problems. Neither response will help. Hence the phrase in Professor Juan Cole's post: "The Big Oil and Big Coal executives attempting to stop efforts to reduce emissions are thus in effect mass murderers of a future generation."

Read also Chris Mooney on uncertainty as a response.

Then there was a delightful post about established beliefs in science. Eventually testing wins over belief. That's why science improves the way we live and belief can't. Without science, we'd all be living in caves eating raw food and dying of simple injuries and diseases. But we'd have our beliefs! Such a comfort. The first hand account by Mpemba is a joy to read. And I loved footnote six. Finding observational information in all sorts of strange places.

Last is a distressing post about how we alter our own behavior to fit perceived stereotypes about ourselves. Apparently the ruling bodies of the Educational Testing Services want to keep women and minorities out of higher education? (don't sue me - change your testing!)