Disclaimer: This is not an official Georgia Tech publication, and Georgia Tech does not endorse anything I write here. It is a collection of some ramblings that I wrote for your amusement. ---- June 30, 2008 Ok, I said I would say a few things about George Carlin. This will be one of those postings that you will have to check back on occasion, as I will be adding things to it for a few days. ++++ The first few times I watched Carlin, I quickly came to the opinion that he was a genius. He had a profound mastery of the English language -- no other comedian within the last 50 years had his power of expression -- and his delivery and gestures were unimprovably timed and choreographed. I am sometimes left with similar impressions when I hear a great jazz pianist perform, where every note is placed so exquisitely as to make my back hairs stand on end. And Carlin's comedy was not merely funny, but philosophical. One of his favorite themes was our various hangups over language. Two examples were: Our irrational prohibition from TV of the ``seven dirty words'' (I won't bother to write them down, I think you can guess some of them); and our foolishly redundant, and in some cases contradictory, idiomatic expressions like ``pre-board the plane'' (what does it mean? Get on the plane before you get on the plane?). While I still think of him as a comedic genius, over the years I have learned much more about language and the history of comedy, and now see that his work was anticipated by earlier great performers. Perhaps the best example is Lenny Bruce, who Carlin said had completely changed him upon attending one of his acts. Like Carlin, Bruce was arrested for obscenity; and perhaps Carlin's ``seven dirty words'' act (one for which he was arrested) was directly inspired by Bruce. more later... **** I noticed that I had misspelled Gian-Carlo Rota's name previously -- the hyphen should be with the ``Gian and Carlo'', not the ``Carlo and Rota''. His name is Italian and I don't know of any Italian last names that are hyphenated, so I should have caught this instantly. Hyphenated last names seem to be mainly a British and French phenomena. **** Here is a rather amusing passage about Yale from Rota's book: ++++ The sciences at Yale have always played second fiddle to the humanities. At faculty meetings it is not unusual to witness a professor of literature point with a wide gesture, like a Roman senator, towards Hillhouse Avenue, where most of the science departments are located, and begin an oratorical sentence with the words, ``Even in the sciences...'' ++++ This is certainly descriptive of the ``Men of Letters'' I have encountered in the past. There is something smug and myopic about it. Myopic, because as a mathematician friend of mine pointed out to me, if they (literature professors in particular) were to go to a non-English-speaking (or French-speaking, German-speaking, etc.) country, they would find few who appreciate their work -- what they do is too language- and culture-specific. On the other hand, this is certainly not true of ``the sciences'', which use a culture-blind language across disciplines. Philosophy, another branch of ``the humanities'', is another story. It *does* have a universal language and appeal (the language of logic, or sometimes merely `reason'). But I think here it comes down to a question of definitions: I see philosophy as partly a branch of the sciences, especially analytic and mathematical philosophy. Ethics, a branch of many schools of philosophy (even analytic philosophy), perhaps qualifies as being firmly in the ``humanities'' camp. **** I will get back to the Carlin story soon. There is so much to write, and so little time (did I mention I am a research mathematician with lots of papers to write and referee?) ... **** Here is a little bit of neuroscience I happened upon while watching Nova Science Now the other day -- the following link gives more info, and details the quite interesting experiment conducted by an MIT researcher named Li-Huei Tsai: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/0301/02.html She took mice, put them in a tank with a cloudy white solution, through which they could not see, and let them swim until they found a platform upon which to stand above the liquid (they didn't have to swim once on the platform). After a trial or two on seperate days, they remembered where the platform was, and found it instantly the next time. She then took another group of mice, and repeated the same experiment, except that she dosed them with a substance that destroyed neurons and memory, impairing cognition. These mice were not able to remember where the platform was, and had to hunt around each time she dropped them into the tank. Finally, she took these ``treated'' mice, placed them in an ``enriched environment'' with lots of toys and other mice with which to play, and put them back in the tank. Remarkably, they were able to locate the platform easily. Somehow, their memories came back. The upshot of this experiment seems to be that perhaps complex environments are good for learning and memory, at least for mice. Further study has revealed that, apparently, being in a stimulating, complex social environment (again, mice) activates ``histone acetylation'' in ther brains, which awakens and enhances their cognitive powers. Perhaps the same is true for humans. **** I just made a few changes here and there to the above few postings. ---- July 1, 2008 The price of oil has been going up and up lately. This was all predicted by Ken Deffeyes -- a retired Princeton geologist who also worked for oil companies for many years -- about two or three years ago (in fact longer). He argued that global supply was not enough to keep up with demand, and that prices would quickly shoot way up to unimaginable levels. I tend to take the word of someone like him more seriously than the ``experts'' espousing their opinions on CNN, or in Reason magazine, or even the Economist. I have actually read a fair number of articles by staff reporters, and even a few ``industry analysts'' from some of these magazines in the past two years. They are often very upbeat about the price of oil, and if there is any hint of trouble, they blame such things as the falling value of the dollar (oil is priced in dollars -- weaker dollar, costlier oil), supply disruptions, speculation, and high demand. Occasionally, there is mention of ``tight supply'', which appears to mean ``temporary supply shortfalls... easily correctible, unless otherwise stated''. There are also more conspiracy-minded views such as those put forth by Greg Palast, who argues that the high prices are a direct result of the war in Iraq -- the war limited that country's output to the world market, and given that our president is an oil man, perhaps this was intentional. Such experts trot out lists of numbers and facts about this or that oil field due to come on line, how global production could ``easily'' be increased by 2 million barrels a day if this or that action is taken -- the Bakken oil formation, the fields off the coast of Brazil, etc. etc. That's all well and good, but in order to assess how realistic such predictions are, it seems one really needs to have a deep understanding of these things. A Harvard MBA and some pie charts are simply not enough. Remember Rumsfeld and his rosy predictions about the Iraq war? What I find hard to fathom is why these reporters don't even consider the possibility that ``fundamentals'' (like demand and global, long-term supply shortfalls -- i.e. peak oil) could be to blame. A few, of course, have entertained the notion, such as the economist Paul Krugman in a recent New York Times Op-Ed article. Such ``sages'' who have not may ultimately be proved right -- I myself know absolutely nothing about oil, and cannot judge. If I wanted to begin to learn something about it, I would have to treat it like learning some new mathematics, which would mean spending months and months studying the subject in great depth, something I am not willing to do. **** Here are two articles by Ronald Bailey at Reason magazine: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/118984.html and http://www.reason.com/news/show/125414.html ++++ George Soros seems to think that the high prices are a speculative bubble, created by several different self-reinforcing processes. Here is an article: http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/06/03/soros_oil_bubble_2/ ++++ Here is another article which argues the opposite: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/06/15/ccliam115.xml ++++ Finally, here is Ken Deffeyes's latest posting: http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events.html ++++ If I were the U.S. Government, or a large forward-thinking company (like Google), I would invest large amounts of money into new sources of energy. Not a couple million here, a couple there, but billions on: 1. More efficient cars (e.g. better batteries, such as the recent olivine breakthrough). If a car gets 100 mpg, and costs the same as today's 25 mpg model, then a large part of the energy problem is solved for years to come. 2. More efficient solar cells. Perhaps with a billion in funding, they could be made 60% efficient, and mass producible at a fraction of the cost of today's 15% efficient versions. 3. Huge investment into ``pie in the sky'' solutions, like fusion power. There are several alternatives to the ITER Tokamak design that are currently looking for funding. Will they work? I don't know, but given the potential rewards -- a complete solution to the global energy needs long term -- it is certainly worth a billion or so dollars. ---- July 2, 2008 I have been reading recently about Obama and telecom immunity -- he is willing to compromise and to vote for the FISA bill before Congress, which includes telecom immunity among its provisions. This, and his giving up of public financing of his campaign, has somewhat dumbfounded his progressive supporters. They shouldn't be surprised, as most really knew next to nothing about him when they sent in their checks and organized rallies. Paul Krugman, however, was not fooled. I seem to recall his writing something like that Obama is actually to the right of Hillary on many issues; furthermore, Krugman, a liberal, was more in support of Hillary's policies than he was Obama's. Seeing Obama and Hillary on stage smiling in a show of unity has also perplexed some progressives. Their belief is that it all seems fake, and that Hillary was merely pretending to show support for Obama. Maybe so, but the same can be said of Obama. Also, progressives cannot fathom how Michelle Obama could stand there and say such nice things about Hillary and Bill Clinton. Again, what do such people really know about the Obamas other than sound bites (including the televised `debates') and glossy Abercrombie-and-Fitch-style ads (with Obama looking young, healthy and professionally attired -- all he needed was the Lance Armstrong wristband to complete the effect)? What pieces of legislation has he drafted? What is his record on fighting poverty? Education? Crime? Funding of the sciences? **** Another thing I learned from Krugman, well before the Democratic primary got underway, in his book Conscience of a Liberal (which I read while visiting IAS at Princeton, his institution of residence), was just how big an issue race still is in American politics. He in particular took aim at the notion promoted in the book ``What's the Matter with Kansas'' that religion and culture pressed people in Kansas (among other states) to vote against their economic interests. Krugman wrote that although that book had a seductive thesis, upon looking at the numbers, he came to a different conclusion: It wasn't so much religion and culture as it was race that led to the shift from Democrat to Republican in the South and Midwest (Kansas) during and after Reagan. This is perhaps partly why Obama didn't leave Hillary in the dust during the Democratic primaries, and lost by huge margins in some states. This will be a big issue for him when he goes up against McCain during the general election. **** While we are on the subject of race, I can't resist mentioning a hilarious book titled ``Stuff White People Like'' that I saw at my local Borders bookstore. It is written by a sharp Canadian culture critic named Christian Lander. Here is a sampling: http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/page/4/ I have to say that almost everything he writes in his book, I recognize as annoying fads and habits that perhaps I have complained about before here on this blog (and some of it I have been seduced by myself). For example, when have you not been at a coffee shop only to see a dozen snarky-looking, twentysomething, anorexic thin kids wearing heavy black-rimmed glasses, thin retro 80's t-shirt, complete with silly logos, engaged in conversation about ``the band''? It's all right there in Lander's book. ---- July 5, 2008 I made some minor corrections to the above. **** I was thinking the other day about a particular fallacy of reasoning that I don't think I have seen expounded on before. A good name for it is perhaps the ``fallacity of unification'' or maybe ``fallacy of the soundbite''. The idea is as follows: Often, when someone is asked to give his or her opinion as to the underlying cause or causes of a world event, there is a tendency to give a single, short, all-encompassing answer. However, there is often really no single ``cause'' of a major event; and, if ``history'' has taught us anything, the greater the effect an occurrence will have on future generations (like a major war), the greater the number of independent antecedents it seems to have (e.g. poverty and nationalism). The reason for the word ``unification'' is that I see it as similar to how physicists try to ``unify'' the forces of nature -- to squeeze the laws down to a very short list, with only a tiny number of constants (like the speed of light). It may be, that, ultimately, there is no ``very short list'', but this style of thinking has been highly successful at least as regards elementary particle physics and cosmology (general relativity). In fields like history and political science, there are eternal truths about human nature that figure into the analysis of an event, post facto. But the number of truths and possible exceptions-to-the-rule is simply too great to arrive at short, definitive answers; and certainly not short enough to fit into a TV soundbite. It should therefore be the job of TV news media to be on the lookout for this ``fallacy of unification'', and to question interviewees every time it is noticed. ---- July 7, 2008 Let me start with a puzzle: The other day I went to the Lenox mall in Buckhead Atlanta, and had a hotdog at the Nathan's in the food court. Exactly one of the restaurant stalls was closed. Can you guess which one? **** I recently learned that Atlanta has a new ``Atlanta Science Tavern''. Here is a weblink: http://www.atlantasciencetavern.com/calendar Interesting, but I am afraid that it will quickly degnerate into marathon sessions where a small number of highly outspoken individuals (in love with their own voice and words) will dominate the conversations. Better to chat with a few people you know well, and who will listen and then also teach you something. **** I have come to the opinion that MSNBC is the best cable news channel, certainly better than CNN in my estimation; however, NPR and Democracy Now are superior when it comes to radio and internet broadcasts. Let me begin by detailing what I think of CNN. I will do it program-by-program: ++++ * The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. For a long time I had wondered whether Blitzer might be biased in his reporting on defense and economic issues. I have to say that I have come to the opinion that his program is one of the most objective I have seen on TV (I may have written the opposite in the past, particularly regarding his reporting on the Michael Moore film Sicko), and he does a good job of giving all sides their chance to speak. What led me to look for signs of bias was my knowledge of the following two items: 1. He once was a correspondent for the Jerusalem Post (he was with the Washington Bureau), one of the most conservative newspapers there is. There are two major English newspapers in Israel: The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz. Haaretz seems to be fairly liberal both on defense and economic issues; the Jerusalem Post is conservative across the board. 2. He once wrote a biography of Jonathan Pollard, the American intelligence officer who spied for Israel and was sentenced to life in prison; and, as I recall, Blitzer's book laid out the case that Pollard was betrayed all around. The reason I know about this book is that years ago, while browsing through a used bookstore in Berkeley, California, I happened upon an old hardback edition (or maybe it was an oversized softback -- can't recall). As I recall, it even had an old photo a young Blitzer on its back cover. Personally, I feel sorry for Mr. Pollard, and think he should be released from prison to emigrate to Israel. I am told that the case of Pollard is a very popular one over there, and that there is wide public support to release him. In the U.S. hardly anyone has ever heard of him. An interesting side note: There is a somewhat well-known Israeli mathematician who is a close relative [uncle?] of Mr. Pollard, and with the same last name. Furthermore, there is a well-known British computational number theorist named Pollard after whom ``Pollard's rho method'' and ``Pollard's p-1 method'' are named -- I am not sure if *that* Pollard is a relative. ++++ * Lou Dobbs's program. He is not worth even commenting on. ++++ * Anderson Cooper 360. One thing I don't like about Mr. Cooper's show, though he has done it much less often (if at all) in recent times, is the way he surprises some of his guests -- particularly ones with whom he disagrees -- with rapid-fire questions. Typically, he starts by saying, lightening-fast, and in an accusatory tone, ``You say this, but such and so says the opposite. How do you respond?'' It gives the impression that he had already decided the guy (or gal) was either plain wrong, disingenuous, or a phony in need of being found out. Another thing I don't like about this style of reporting is that it promotes the myths ``The truth is quick. The truth needs no rehearsal. The truth repels the rhetoric of others like oil on teflon.'' The fact of the matter is, if Mr. Cooper had had someone on his show with weak rhetorical skills, and the correct viewpoint (as would perhaps be proved by history in later years) on an issue, but unfortunately for him, one not shared by Mr. Cooper, he would probably be ``proved'' wrong by Mr. Cooper, at least to many of his viewers. On a positive note, one aspect of Mr. Cooper himself that has tempered some of my critical thoughts, is the fact that he can boast a measure of authenticity: Some people in the news media perhaps see their job as, well, ``just a job'' (albeit one that elicits invitations to fancy restaurants in the company of celebrities), but Mr. Cooper has been traveling the world to report on events since at least when he was in college. Although objectively such things shouldn't matter, it clearly colors how people see him (in a positive light), myself included. Finally, a side note: During his show there is often an amusing interlude where he asks Erica Hill (or whatever her name is -- can't remember) to report on some item of the day. Mr. Cooper likes to give the impression that they are good friends... perhaps more. Sometimes he completes his dialogue with her with that especially nice touch, ``see you later''. We are amused, though not fooled ++++ * Larry King Live. An interesting show. Unfortunately, he often doesn't have guests on that I am particularly interested in getting to know. Even so, I don't like seeing someone have to sit in a chair and spill out their life's story on national TV. Though the list of questions is perhaps carefully vetted in advance to avoid certain embarrassing moments, it is off-putting, for example, to see celebrities, who have been caught in scandals, go on national TV to scrub their public images. The best way to learn something about a celebrity is to read a biography. Biographies are usually carefully researched, and perhaps most importantly, shameful moments are presented in the context of a whole life, not blown out of proportion through the sensationalism born of profit motives to sell copy, and the resulting need for teary apologies on a show like Mr. King's. ++++ There are also a couple of shows on CNN that, here and there, are worthwhile. * Sanjay Gupta often gives good advice and information; however, most of what he says is common sense, and seems never to surprise me. Suppose, for example, he does a special on ``diabetes''. The type of information he will deliver is a statement like ``You may be surprised to learn that diabetes and high blood sugar negatively affect cardiovascular health. High blood sugar leads to the breakdown of arteries, veins and heart tissue, increasing the risk of stroke and heart attack.'' Tell me something I don't know. What about cutting-edge research? * Rick Sanchez. Overbearing and appears to have a bit of ``Jethro Clampett'' in him, though is sometimes informative. An example of the latter (informative) is a program he recently aired on truckers, and how they would fare under high gas prices. On this program, many said they would strike if they didn't get paid more to compensate for these high costs. I had not seen this in the newspapers up until that point. Some weeks after his report, however, I did happen across an article or two on the topic, and of course their authors didn't give credit to Mr. Sanchez for his most interesting report. Funny how reporters plagerize each other and get away with it. * Dana Parino. A solid reporter, though I can hardly remember anything she has done that stands out. I have the memory that she once said something I strongly disagreed with, though it may be someone else who made the offending comment (I am too lazy to do a Lexis-Nexis search to be sure). The comment was something like that there is nothing unusual about the U.S. military planting propaganda for the American public, that it had been done through several previous administrations. As I recall, this comment was in reference to the fact that CNN had used retired ``senior military officials'' as analysts and commentators on various shows, and that these same officials had had regular meetings (propaganda brainstorming sessions) on how to persuade the public that the Bush administration's plan of action in the Middle East was sound and just. First of all, the fact that previous administrations did it doesn't make it right. Rather than reacting with equanimity about these past transgressions, as CNN reporters seem to have done, the appropriate response should be outrage. And second, there should be a loud and public apology that CNN had possibly passed along Bush administration talking points without critical reflection, to the public. A warning to reporters who think they can knowingly plant propaganda and get away with it: You might just have your Pulitzers or Polks yanked if you are found out years later. Think not? Consider the William L. Lawrence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_L._Laurence There is talk of having his two Pulitzers taken away from him (posthumously) for false reporting and propaganda. ---- July 8, 2008 I was reflecting the other day on the myths of science, and especially the myth that scientific discovery is a clean and completely logical process. The myth of the scientist who bears her brain to unlock profound, imposing truths, who gets it right the first time (albeit with some effort) by following the tried and true path of the scientific method, is largely a myth. In fact, few scientists could actually quote to you the five steps of the scientific method, though they do roughly follow them during at least some parts of their works. It seems to me that the myth of the scientist largely gets promoted through an act of omission: When a scientific discovery is written or spoken about in the news, all that the public reads or hears is a vague description of the final result, and some background describing its importance. What is left out is the long and sometimes thrilling, sometimes boring route taken to get there. My first memories of being programmed with this myth occurred during a summer camp I attended while in high school. For this camp, all attendees had to choose a ``major'' and a ``minor'' focus of study. I chose math for my major, and the oddly titled ``Science: Good, Bad and Bogus'' for the minor. The title of this minor program was the same as the softback ``textbook'' we used for the course. The textbook tried to give some idea of what science really was, by presenting various perspectives from some semi-famous scientists. One of the ``answers'' given in the book was told by some German scientist -- who it was I have long forgotten -- and roughly translated as ``Science is what scientists do.'' Our instructor was so taken with that answer that she had the class make a large banner out of green construction paper, that spelled out his answer in German, in a Gothic German font. I have to say that I learned very little in that class, as we spent almost all of our time reading about the myth of science, as I now call it. I remeber once that during class, we were asked to read 30 pages out of our book, and then midway through, our instructor stopped the class and asked ``how can you tell that the subject of that chapter was a male?'' The answer was that buried 15 pages in there was a reference to subject's beard. That was the sort of thing that qualified as a scientific education. On the rare occasions where there would be serious discussion, if a student gave a wrong or unskeptical answer, the instructor would laugh while saying ``Bogus''. She was about 60 years old, and somewhat resembled a goblin: Her skin was covered in moles, making her seem toad-like, and when she laughed her frequent ``bogus''es, she would shake and the hide around her chin would wobble. At the time, I was rather intimidated by her, but now I know much better, and appreciate the fact that she volunteered to give up her summer to try to teach us what she thought science was all about, flawed though it was. The first glimmers of light in this course -- that there was much more to science than reading about the myth of science -- came during a suprise visit by a Nobel prize winner in chemistry. Our instructor showed the scientist our textbook, and he quickly flipped through it, slightly frowned, and then said something like that it was not a very good book. He said that we should be using books written by experts, who have better understandings of how science is actually produced, not popular books written by well-known skeptics. His point was that although skeptics know a lot about the scientific process, are very good at protecting the public from baloney, and sometimes are essential at helping scientists see the errors in their thinking, they have little experience in actually doing science -- experience that is invaluable in training youngsters like us to become future scientists.