Archives 2008

A Sri Lankan Mystery

The last thing that came out of recently deceased author Arthur C. Clarke’s printer was a sheet that said:

<blockquote 

lurrlsrtr lurrlsrrt lurrlrtsr lurrlrtrs lurrlrstr lurrlrsrt lurrlrrts

lurrlrrst lurltrsrr lurltrrsr lurlsrtrr lurlsrrtr lurlrtsrr lurlrtrsr

lurlrtrrs lurlrstrr lurlrsrtr lurlrsrrt lurlrrtsr lurlrrtrs lurlrrstr

lurlrrsrt lultrrsrr lulsrrtrr lulrtrsrr lulrtrrsr lulrsrtrr lulrsrrtr

lulrrtsrr lulrrtrsr lulrrtrrs lulrrstrr lulrrsrtr lulrrsrrt ltusrrlrr

ltursrrlr ltursrlrr lturrsrrl lturrsrlr lturrslrr lturrlsrr lturrlrsr

lturrlrrs lturlrsrr lturlrrsr ltulrrsrr ltsurrlrr ltsrurrlr ltsrurlrr

ltsrrurrl ltsrrurlr ltsrrulrr ltsrrlurr ltsrrlrur ltsrrlrru ltsrlrurr

ltsrlrrur ltslrrurr ltrusrrlr ltrusrlrr ltrursrrl ltrursrlr ltrurslrr

ltrurrsrl ltrurrslr ltrurrlsr ltrurrlrs ltrurlsrr ltrurlrsr ltrurlrrs

ltrulrsrr ltrulrrsr ltrsurrlr ltrsurlrr ltrsrurrl ltrsrurlr ltrsrulrr

ltrsrrurl ltrsrrulr ltrsrrlur ltrsrrlru ltrsrlurr ltrsrlrur ltrsrlrru

ltrslrurr ltrslrrur ltrrusrrl ltrrusrlr ltrruslrr ltrrursrl ltrrurslr

ltrrurrsl ltrrurrls ltrrurlsr ltrrurlrs ltrrulsrr ltrrulrsr ltrrulrrs

ltrrsurrl ltrrsurlr ltrrsulrr ltrrsrurl ltrrsrulr ltrrsrrul ltrrsrrlu

ltrrsrlur ltrrsrlru ltrrslurr ltrrslrur ltrrslrru ltrrlusrr ltrrlursr

ltrrlurrs ltrrlsurr ltrrlsrur ltrrlsrru ltrrlrusr ltrrlrurs ltrrlrsur

ltrrlrsru ltrrlrrus ltrrlrrsu ltrlursrr ltrlurrsr ltrlsrurr ltrlsrrur

ltrlrusrr ltrlrursr ltrlrurrs ltrlrsurr ltrlrsrur ltrlrsrru ltrlrrusr

ltrlrrurs ltrlrrsur ltrlrrsru ltlurrsrr ltlsrrurr ltlrursrr ltlrurrsr


At first, it was thought that this was a test pattern, but today, estate executors discovered a storage room in Clarke's home filled with similar pages. The oldest ones were written out by hand in notebooks. Later ones appear on reams of fanfold printer paper, while the most recent ones appear to have been printed on a laser printer and bound together.


No two words are the same. All use only the letters A C E H K L R S T U. It is not known why these letters were significant, nor which rules were used to generate the "words". For instance, although many "words" contain two, three, or four instances of the same letter, never does a letter appear three times in a row.


With ten columns of eighty "words", each double-sided sheet holds 1600 "words". Investigators estimate that the entire collection comprises about nine billion such words.
RIP Arthur C. Clarke

Well, crap.

Arthur C. Clarke has passed away. Not that this was entirely unexpected, but it still sucks.

Creationists Just Can’t Help Quote-Mining

From a post by the Discovery Institute:

Darwinists in Florida are in a tizzy trying to figure out why they oppose the proposed Academic Freedom Act in their state. Sometimes they claim the act isn’t needed because no one who questions Darwin is being denied academic freedom. Other times they insist the act should be rejected because academic freedom is nothing but “smelly crap.”

(emphasis added.)

If you play follow-the-link, you’ll find the original quotation from Florida Citizens for Science:

This academic freedom stuff is merely the next evolutionary step as anti-science folks continue their attempts to shove creationism into the public school classroom. First, there was blatant creationism. Next there was intelligent design. Both failed miserably. Now comes along academic freedom. Same smelly crap, different packaging.

Clearly, in this context, what the Florida Science writer meant was that the Discovery Institute’s new “Academic Freedom™” initiative was the same crap as “Intelligent Design™”, with a new name, not lowercase academic freedom. I swear, these people can’t stop lying and quote-mining. Is it a hobby with them? An addiction? What? Do they even realize they’re lying?

Oh, and I just reread my old post about what I thought creationists would do after the Dover trial. Read More

California Requires Qualified Teachers; Conservatives Upset

An appellate court in Los Angeles has ruled that a California couple must enroll their children in school. In this case, the parents have had several run-ins with protective services, and the intent of this particular ruling seems to be to ensure that someone outside the family can see whether they’re being abused. But it’s potentially more far-reaching than that:

Unlike at least 30 other states, home schooling is not specifically addressed in California law. Under the state education code, students must be enrolled in a public or private school, or can be taught at home by a credentialed tutor.

There are any number of reasons why parents might want to homeschool their children: maybe they’re afraid of school shootings, or think that they can do a better job than the public schools. But some people are obviously afraid that their children might become educated:

Glenn and Kathleen, a Sacramento-area couple who requested that their last name not be used for fear of prosecution, home school their 9-year-old son Hunter because their Christian beliefs would be contradicted in a public school setting, Glenn said. He is troubled by the idea that his son would be exposed to teachings about evolution, homosexuality, same-sex marriage and sex education .

Oh, noes! God forbid kids should learn how their bodies work! Then they might make responsible sexual choices and not accidentally conceive the next generation of warriors for Christ! And they might learn that there are (gasp!) homosexuals in California. Heavens!

But this is what education is all about: learning things and being exposed to new ideas. What these parents are saying, in effect, is that their beliefs can’t hold their own in a free marketplace of ideas, or else that they don’t trust their children to tell good ideas from bad ones on their own. Either way, is this really something that should be encouraged?

If the above summary of California law on education is accurate, then what it boils down to is “If you don’t want to send your kids to public school, that’s fine. You can send them to a private school, or teach them yourself, as long as they’re being taught by someone qualified.” This is the same as saying, “You can take your kids to the state-run hospital to get their shots; or you can take them to a private clinic; or you can even administer the shots yourself, if you’ve demonstrated that you can do it properly.” But apparently that’s not good enough. These people are fighting for the right to have unqualified people teach their kids.

The California constitution, Article XI, says:

A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the Legislature shall encourage by all suitable means the promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural improvement.

Which I guess pretty much constitutes a right to education. As I said above, there are plenty of valid reasons to homeshool one’s children, but keeping them ignorant isn’t one of them.

C-SPAN.edu?

One common meme among the religious right is that universities indoctrinate students.

If you don’t trust academia, what can you do to keep an eye on it? Well, if you don’t trust the government, you can watch C-SPAN and see sausage legislation being made. Wouldn’t it be nice if there were a C-SPAN for academia?

As it turns out, there is: universities aren’t exactly shy about sharing their stuff. A bit of googling turns up all sorts of course videos online. So not only is it possible to keep an eye on those evilibrul academics as they indoctrinate our precious bodily fluids, it’s easier than ever before in history.

So if you’re a creationist or other rightard who thinks universities are out to indoctrinate students, consider this an invitation to watch some courses, in the name of keeping an eye on them.

Dembski: Scientific Literacy = Assault on ID

Bill Dembski warns his fans:

Paul Kurtz’s Center for Inquiry is partnering with SUNY-Buffalo (the State University of New York) to offer an Ed.M. in “scientific literacy”

So? Private organizations team up with educational institutions all the time. What’s so bad about this program?

(which will include a whopping dose of Darwinism and an assault on ID).

It’s okay for the Center for Inquiry to promote atheism in the name of science but anything that even gets close to theism, like design, is streng verboten.

(emphasis in the original).

I couldn’t find the part on CFI’s page where it says that candidates will be required to eat the heart of a cdesign proponentsist while setting fire to a stack of Jonathan Wells books, but Dembski quotes an email message that lays out their nefarious plans:

Explore the methods and outlook of science as they intersect with public culture and public policy. Understand the elements of scientific literacy.

This unique two-year degree, offered entirely online, is ideal for students preparing for careers in research, science education, public policy, and science journalism, as well as further study in sociology, history and philosophy of science, science communication, education, or public administration.

Some of the courses required to complete this 33 credit hour master of education degree program include Scientific Writing; Informal Science Education; Science Curricula; Critical Thinking; History and Philosophy of Science; Science, Technology and Human Values; Research Ethics.

Honestly, I don’t see why Billy’s getting his panties in a twist over this. Does he really think that teaching people what science is and how to think critically constitutes an “assault on ID”? If so, doesn’t this constitute an admission that ID is made of fail and can’t withstand scrutiny?

Or does he think that CFI is a sort of atheist Disco Institute? That would justify his paranoia, since he presumably knows how the DI likes to distort the truth to advance its cause.

How Do I Know This Isn’t Garbage?

I’ve said elsewhere that science can be distilled down to two questions: “What is the world like?” and “How do I know this isn’t garbage?” Richard Feynman stated the second question as:

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.

(Emphasis added.)

Over the years, scientists have discovered a great many ways to fool yourself and others. So It’s nice to read by Peter Norvig, listing some that even professionals get tripped up on. It gives the distinct impression that the hardest part of doing an experiment is not the business with the test tubes or telescopes or particle accelerators or what have you, but simply avoiding all of the mistakes that others have made before you, that could invalidate your results.

He has an equally good companion piece that analyzes a bunch of studies on the effect of intercessory prayer. (Summary: the experiments can be divided into two main groups: those that show no effect, and those that are flawed.) Most interesting for believers is the way that he points out exactly what the flaws in the papers are. Well worth reading.

(HT PZ for the link.)

Tuesday Playlist
  • Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! (A Man After Midnight), Abba
  • Money, Money, Money, Abba
  • Sell Sell Sell, Barenaked Ladies, Maroon
  • Nag Nag Nag, Cabaret Voltaire
  • Tora! Tora! Tora!, Depeche Mode, Speak & Spell
  • Blah-Blah-Blah, Iggy Pop, Blah-Blah-Blah
  • Kiss Kiss Kiss, Yoko Ono, Double Fantasy
  • Well Well Well, The Woodentops
  • Mini Mini Mini, KMFDM, Hau Ruck
  • Die Die Die (Completely Dead Version), Leæther Strip, Double or Nothing
  • Bloc Bloc Bloc, Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark, Crush
  • Yuri Yuri Yuri – Cantar de xesta, Os Resentidos, Surfin’ CCCP
  • Hmm Hmm Hmm, Serge Gainsbourg, Love on the Beat
  • Long, Long, Long, The Beatles, The White Album
  • Hot Hot Hot !!!, The Cure, Kiss Me, Kiss Me, Kiss Me
  • Please Please Please Let Me Get What I Want, The Smiths, Hatful of Hollow
  • Run Run Run, The Velvet Underground, Andy Warhol
  • Spam Spam Spam, Tom Smith, Plugged
  • Lolly, Lolly, Lolly, Get Your Adverbs Here, Buffalo Tom, Schoolhouse Rock! Rocks
  • Zix Zix Zix (666 Mix), Velvet Acid Christ, Calling ov the Dead
  • Spiderbaby (Yeah-Yeah-Yeah), White Zombie, La Sexorcisto: Devil Music Vol. 1
Alan Parsons and Roger Waters Walk Into a Bar…

Mashups are nothing new. Witness, for instance, Pink Project’s 1982 combination of Alan Parsons Project’s Mammagamma and Sirius with Pink Floyd’s Another Brick in the Wall, Part 2:

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAmMvFNyJr8&rel=1]

Fractal Wrongness

I just ran across a wonderful term that must be propagated further:

fractal wrongness

The state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person’s worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person’s worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview.

Debating with a person who is fractally wrong leads to infinite regress, as every refutation you make of that person’s opinions will lead to a rejoinder, full of half-truths, leaps of logic, and outright lies, that requires just as much refutation to debunk as the first one. It is as impossible to convince a fractally wrong person of anything as it is to walk around the edge of the Mandelbrot set in finite time.

If you ever get embroiled in a discussion with a fractally wrong person on the Internet–in mailing lists, newsgroups, or website forums–your best bet is to say your piece once and ignore any replies, thus saving yourself time.