SamMatthewsFirstEssay 4 - 31 May 2017 - Main.SamMatthews
|
|
META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
| |
< < | Is the Great the Enemy of the Good? | | | |
< < | -- By SamMatthews - 12 Mar 2017
On December 2, 1859, John Brown was executed for his raid on Harpers Ferry. Eight days earlier, Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species; earlier that year, Peter Cooper established the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, which would eventually furnish a young Thomas Edison with much of his early education. In 1859, slavery was the world’s greatest injustice. John Brown took what he knew (logistics) and applied it to that problem. Compared to ending slavery, advancing scientific understanding and providing access to education seem rather less pressing concerns. Should Cooper have donated his fortune to abolitionist causes instead? Should T.H. Huxley have foregone his debate with Bishop Wilberforce and traveled to America to debate Josiah C. Nott instead? | > > | Damn the Torpedoes, Proceed Ahead Cautiously and Periodically Check Your Progress. | | | |
< < | Was John Brown’s cause better or more important than the others? In exploring this topic, I will be using “cause” as a stand in for “a series of related goals having to do with combating some injustice or promoting some justice,” and will say that a cause is “better” than another if it does more to make the world a better place. Obviously, this choice of terms could itself be a topic of debate, but I’ll leave that for another essay. By asking the question of which cause is best, I’m really asking a normative question: what should I do? How should I devote my energies? | > > | -- By SamMatthews - 12 Mar 2017 | | | |
< < | In policy circles, the question has been asked “why are we trying to go to Mars when we still have starving children back on Earth?” Our world is full of injustice to be corrected. Lamar Smith, chair of the House Science Committee, denies the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Drug enforcement is heavily biased against minority communities. Big Placebo has successfully convinced millions of consumers that natural means healthy, and that getting E. Coli at Chipotle is preferable to eating a Genetically Modified Organism. An Indian Sikh was shot in Seattle; the shooter told him to “go back to [his] own country.” No one can work to correct all of these. Which should I chose? | | | |
< < | As a scientist, I find myself drawn to injustices related to science. Science advocates are often targeted by SLAPP lawsuits and FOIA requests. Snake-oil salesmen can claim that their worthless products “promote a healthy immune system,” thanks to the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. But here’s the thing: I’m not sure if the anti-vax movement is as serious a problem as police brutality. I can’t say for certain that increasing our nation’s scientific literacy is more important that stamping out islamophobia. An hour spent promoting scientific literacy is an hour not spent combatting unjustified incarceration. Given the choice between two good causes, which do I choose? What balance should I strike between good causes and the best causes? | > > | In an address to the BYU student body entitled The Moral Dilemma of Doing Good, Paul Eastman, professor of mechanical engineering, related the story of a student project to design and build a rocket to be evaluated at an Air Force testing facility. The engine fired, the launch pad filled with smoke, but no rocket emerged from the cloud. When the smoke cleared, the charred husk of their project lay immobile where it had been placed. Consoled by Air Force engineers, who assured them that multi-million dollar projects often perform similarly, the students began to wonder, “If we’d worked a little harder, run another simulation, could this have been avoided?” To Eastman, this was a metaphor for our efforts at social action: we are often faced with uncertainty as to the success (or even the merit) of our efforts, but must proceed ahead regardless. | | | |
< < | It is plausible that, like complex numbers in mathematics, causes cannot be so ranked. The question “is 2 + 3i greater than 3 + 2i?” is conceptually incoherent. Maybe the same thing can be said for causes. If one cause prevents children from contracting malaria, while another combats racism in the American immigration system how do you compare the two? This theory is also attractive because it gets me off the hook. If combatting surveillance state is no more important than defending science advocates in SLAPP lawsuits, then I can’t be faulted for gravitating to the latter over the former.
Attractive as this solution is, it doesn’t feel right to me. In 2014, a group raised $101,000 on Kickstarter to film an unlicensed Star Trek fan film, Axanar. When they were sued by Paramount for copyright infringement, they were defended pro-bono. While fair-use doctrines are important in the marketplace of ideas, I don’t think that this kind of pro-bono work is on the same level as those opposing President Trump’s travel ban. At the far end of the spectrum, “causes” such as Homeopaths Without Borders (yes, this is a real thing) are of no value, and possibly are of detriment, to society. | > > | A Scientific Approach to Uncertainty
Scientists are often caricatured as rigidly dogmatic and blind to nuance. “You can’t analyze that scientifically” seems to be code for “there are no clear answers.” Admittedly, science does have a problem with dogmatism. This may, as Imre Lakatos theorized, be a relic of the theological origins of modern science. If your conjectures about God and the Devil were wrong, you risked eternal damnation. Enlightenment philosophers rejected this, but science was then handed the task previously reserved for the Church: prove propositions beyond doubt. There may also be a selection effect: nuanced scientific discoveries can’t compete with Richard Dawkins for front page coverage. | | | |
< < | On the other hand, I think that there is value to society in advancing a multitude of causes, even if the causes themselves are unequal. Charles Darwin was a scientist, not a politician or a soldier. Had he decided to devote his energies to ending slavery (in my view, the greater cause) rather than study finches on the Galapagos, would he have done more to make the world a better place? I doubt it. Darwin did what he knew, and countless lives have been saved by the scientific advances unlocked by evolutionary theory. | > > | Notwithstanding this reputation, I submit that science, on balance, has a robust approach to uncertainty and ambiguity. Science leans heavily on metaphorical reasoning to conceptualize alien ideas (what could be more ambiguous than wave-particle duality?) and while pop-science articles may not capture the nuance, scientists are keenly aware of the limits of their metaphors.
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, or NMR, is the science underlying MRI machines. It exploits the behavior of protons in a magnetic field. Protons are imagined as positively-charged balls which spin along an axis. We’ve known for more than a century that when a charged ball spins, it creates a magnetic field, as if its axis were a magnet. When that magnet is placed in a larger magnetic field the axis aligns with the field (imagine two bar magnets aligning when they get close). And when you suddenly change the direction of the field, the ball of charge begins to wobble like a spinning top. | | | |
< < | There are so many ways I could combat injustice. John Brown knew logistics. I know science. What I want to do is fight against scientific illiteracy and the proliferation of pseudoscience. By choosing to pursue this, rather than some “better” cause, am I indulging in self-deception and comfortable vanity? I don’t think that of myself. But then again, nobody does. | > > | All of this is well characterized and (apparently) well-understood. But here’s the kicker: We know the charge of a proton. We know the strength of the magnetic it makes by spinning. We can therefore calculate how fast it’s spinning, and when we do, we discover that the surface of the proton is traveling faster than the speed of light, which is impossible (according to our current understanding of relativity). According to everything we know about physics, the magnetic moment generated by a proton can’t be coming from the proton spinning. The statistician George Box once said, “all models are wrong, but some are useful.” When doing NMR, ignore the fact that spinning protons are impossible, and your model is quite useful. | | | |
> > | The Uncertainty of Social Action | | | |
< < | | > > | Scientists simply never know which experiments will pan out. “One of the beautiful things about science is that it allows us to bumble along, getting it wrong time after time, and feel perfectly fine as long as we learn something each time. . . The more comfortable we become with being stupid, the deeper we will wade into the unknown and the more likely we are to make big discoveries.” (Martin A. Schwartz) | | | |
< < | It's not very good arithmetic to assume that if one man can dig a post-host in sixty seconds, sixty men could dig one post-hole in one second, as Ambrose Bierce—who also knew logistics—points out. | > > | Some early abolitionists, seeing that a government elected by white slaveowners would never abolish slavery outright, attempted instead to abolish the slave trade, hoping that slavery would subsequently wither and die. Instead, this ensured that only source of new slaves became the children of current slaves, and, ironically, could have intensified the racial character of American slavery (a theory advanced by Mike Munger). I use this, not as a statement of truth (I haven’t investigated the theory sufficiently), nor to condemn early abolitionist efforts, but rather to illustrate the uncertainty that looms when we try to change the world: we may end up making it worse. On the other hand, some projects which, at the outset, seem to be useless or harmful, may prove surprisingly beneficial. Many “pure” mathematicians, who lauded number theory as being “unsullied by any application,” were sorely disappointed when it proved critical for developments in computation and cryptography. | | | |
< < | So it follows that even if there were a most important cause, almost everybody would have to work on some other one, unless they wanted to screw up the most important cause beyond recognition. | > > | Eight days before John Brown’s, Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species; earlier that year, Peter Cooper established the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, which would eventually furnish a young Thomas Edison with much of his early education. It’s doubtful if T.H. Huxley could have hastened the end of slavery by forgoing his debates with Bishop Wilberforce, instead travelling to America to debate Josiah C. Nott. Might John Brown have doubted the ultimate success of his cause? His execution provided a rallying cry for the Union Army, and may have freed far more slaves than the raid itself ever did. | | | |
< < | Yours is not, therefore, a major worry, so far as I can see. The
important things to do are to figure out exactly what you want to
accomplish, and exactly how to accomplish it. If you have done that
once, you either have the cause, or a cause that will be
important to your life. You will soon see that most troubles occur
in "civil society" because people cannot grant rough equality of
importance to one another's causes, and are unable to let go of the
arithmetically ridiculous opinion that everyone should really be
working on their own. Another draft of this essay, that let go of
the self-doubt and embraced instead the uncertainty would be very
good for the author to have written. | > > | Acting in the Face of Uncertainty | | | |
< < | | > > | Some who self-consciously try to shape the course of human events succeed, some fail, and others may accidentally produce results contrary to their purposes. Others may change the world in ways that they never anticipated. Aristotle thought that every virtue lay as the mean between two opposing vices. I think it unsound advice proceed recklessly, without heeding the risks (while it may have worked for Admiral Farragut, thalidomide provides a striking counterexample), but the “analysis paralysis” that comes from an overabundance of caution can be equally crippling. In life, as in science, the best course is to make use of the information available, and then proceed as seems best, being willing to alter your plans as necessary. | |
|
|
SamMatthewsFirstEssay 3 - 09 May 2017 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
|
META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
| |
< < | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | Is the Great the Enemy of the Good? | | There are so many ways I could combat injustice. John Brown knew logistics. I know science. What I want to do is fight against scientific illiteracy and the proliferation of pseudoscience. By choosing to pursue this, rather than some “better” cause, am I indulging in self-deception and comfortable vanity? I don’t think that of myself. But then again, nobody does. | |
> > |
It's not very good arithmetic to assume that if one man can dig a post-host in sixty seconds, sixty men could dig one post-hole in one second, as Ambrose Bierce—who also knew logistics—points out.
So it follows that even if there were a most important cause, almost everybody would have to work on some other one, unless they wanted to screw up the most important cause beyond recognition.
Yours is not, therefore, a major worry, so far as I can see. The
important things to do are to figure out exactly what you want to
accomplish, and exactly how to accomplish it. If you have done that
once, you either have the cause, or a cause that will be
important to your life. You will soon see that most troubles occur
in "civil society" because people cannot grant rough equality of
importance to one another's causes, and are unable to let go of the
arithmetically ridiculous opinion that everyone should really be
working on their own. Another draft of this essay, that let go of
the self-doubt and embraced instead the uncertainty would be very
good for the author to have written.
| |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |
|
SamMatthewsFirstEssay 2 - 14 Mar 2017 - Main.SamMatthews
|
|
META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | On the other hand, I think that there is value to society in advancing a multitude of causes, even if the causes themselves are unequal. Charles Darwin was a scientist, not a politician or a soldier. Had he decided to devote his energies to ending slavery (in my view, the greater cause) rather than study finches on the Galapagos, would he have done more to make the world a better place? I doubt it. Darwin did what he knew, and countless lives have been saved by the scientific advances unlocked by evolutionary theory. | |
< < | With a law degree and a background in science, there’s so much I could do to combat injustice. John Brown knew logistics. I know science. What I want to do is fight against scientific illiteracy and the proliferation of pseudoscience. By choosing to pursue this, rather than some “better” cause, am I indulging in self-deception and comfortable vanity? I don’t think that of myself. But then again, nobody does. | > > | There are so many ways I could combat injustice. John Brown knew logistics. I know science. What I want to do is fight against scientific illiteracy and the proliferation of pseudoscience. By choosing to pursue this, rather than some “better” cause, am I indulging in self-deception and comfortable vanity? I don’t think that of myself. But then again, nobody does. | | |
|
SamMatthewsFirstEssay 1 - 12 Mar 2017 - Main.SamMatthews
|
|
> > |
META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
Is the Great the Enemy of the Good?
-- By SamMatthews - 12 Mar 2017
On December 2, 1859, John Brown was executed for his raid on Harpers Ferry. Eight days earlier, Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species; earlier that year, Peter Cooper established the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, which would eventually furnish a young Thomas Edison with much of his early education. In 1859, slavery was the world’s greatest injustice. John Brown took what he knew (logistics) and applied it to that problem. Compared to ending slavery, advancing scientific understanding and providing access to education seem rather less pressing concerns. Should Cooper have donated his fortune to abolitionist causes instead? Should T.H. Huxley have foregone his debate with Bishop Wilberforce and traveled to America to debate Josiah C. Nott instead?
Was John Brown’s cause better or more important than the others? In exploring this topic, I will be using “cause” as a stand in for “a series of related goals having to do with combating some injustice or promoting some justice,” and will say that a cause is “better” than another if it does more to make the world a better place. Obviously, this choice of terms could itself be a topic of debate, but I’ll leave that for another essay. By asking the question of which cause is best, I’m really asking a normative question: what should I do? How should I devote my energies?
In policy circles, the question has been asked “why are we trying to go to Mars when we still have starving children back on Earth?” Our world is full of injustice to be corrected. Lamar Smith, chair of the House Science Committee, denies the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Drug enforcement is heavily biased against minority communities. Big Placebo has successfully convinced millions of consumers that natural means healthy, and that getting E. Coli at Chipotle is preferable to eating a Genetically Modified Organism. An Indian Sikh was shot in Seattle; the shooter told him to “go back to [his] own country.” No one can work to correct all of these. Which should I chose?
As a scientist, I find myself drawn to injustices related to science. Science advocates are often targeted by SLAPP lawsuits and FOIA requests. Snake-oil salesmen can claim that their worthless products “promote a healthy immune system,” thanks to the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. But here’s the thing: I’m not sure if the anti-vax movement is as serious a problem as police brutality. I can’t say for certain that increasing our nation’s scientific literacy is more important that stamping out islamophobia. An hour spent promoting scientific literacy is an hour not spent combatting unjustified incarceration. Given the choice between two good causes, which do I choose? What balance should I strike between good causes and the best causes?
It is plausible that, like complex numbers in mathematics, causes cannot be so ranked. The question “is 2 + 3i greater than 3 + 2i?” is conceptually incoherent. Maybe the same thing can be said for causes. If one cause prevents children from contracting malaria, while another combats racism in the American immigration system how do you compare the two? This theory is also attractive because it gets me off the hook. If combatting surveillance state is no more important than defending science advocates in SLAPP lawsuits, then I can’t be faulted for gravitating to the latter over the former.
Attractive as this solution is, it doesn’t feel right to me. In 2014, a group raised $101,000 on Kickstarter to film an unlicensed Star Trek fan film, Axanar. When they were sued by Paramount for copyright infringement, they were defended pro-bono. While fair-use doctrines are important in the marketplace of ideas, I don’t think that this kind of pro-bono work is on the same level as those opposing President Trump’s travel ban. At the far end of the spectrum, “causes” such as Homeopaths Without Borders (yes, this is a real thing) are of no value, and possibly are of detriment, to society.
On the other hand, I think that there is value to society in advancing a multitude of causes, even if the causes themselves are unequal. Charles Darwin was a scientist, not a politician or a soldier. Had he decided to devote his energies to ending slavery (in my view, the greater cause) rather than study finches on the Galapagos, would he have done more to make the world a better place? I doubt it. Darwin did what he knew, and countless lives have been saved by the scientific advances unlocked by evolutionary theory.
With a law degree and a background in science, there’s so much I could do to combat injustice. John Brown knew logistics. I know science. What I want to do is fight against scientific illiteracy and the proliferation of pseudoscience. By choosing to pursue this, rather than some “better” cause, am I indulging in self-deception and comfortable vanity? I don’t think that of myself. But then again, nobody does.
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|
|