Your Man Friday's Ideas

2012-05-11—REDEFINING CREATIVITY

Ken Stange — Fri, 11 May 2012 14:13:10 +0000

Creativity is one of the words for which there are so many different individual definitions that it is difficult to have any reasonable discourse about it. Yet it is a word for something profoundly important. Here are three talks on it.

SCIENCE REDEFINING CREATIVITY
Ken Stange. (Please excuse Your Man Friday’s promotion of his puppet master’s views.)

CREATIVITY DEFINED AS APPLIED IMAGINATION
Ken Robinson.

CREATIVITY DEFINED AS PLAY
Tim Brown.

2012-05-04—THE POWER OF CARTOONS

Ken Stange — Fri, 04 May 2012 17:58:30 +0000

Humour is the last refuge of freedom of expression in an increasingly censorial and litigious world. And the double whammy of an image with pithy text is one of the most effective ways of speaking one’s mind safely. Cartoonists are our court jesters, the least likely to get in trouble for their sarcasm and satire.

THE ART OF POLITICAL CARTOONS
“Outside of general intelligence, there is nothing more important to a political cartoonist than ill will.”

HOW HUMOUR CAN CHANGE OUR MIND
Argument builds walls around beliefs and biases, but humour sneaks in the back gate.

SOME CAN’T TAKE A JOKE AND SOME CAN
Lawyers have no sense of humour, but clearly Jane Goodall does.

2012-04-27—PSYCHOLOGY’S PRETENSIONS

Ken Stange — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:11:12 +0000

Psychology is a ‘wannabe’ science. Ever since it tried to usurp the territory occupied by philosophy, it has claimed to be a science. The status associated with being a science has given psychology (and the other social sciences) more credibility in the public’s mind than deserved, just as the lab coat worn by some actor in a commercial helps gives the product more credibility. But is it really a science? Or is it just wearing the lab coat? It is classed as a “soft science” as opposed to the “hard sciences” such as physics or chemistry or biology. Only fairly recently has a significant part of what is called ‘psychology’ actually achieved the status of ‘hard’ science, because it actually is the hard science of biology; i.e., neuroscience. Is the rest, the ‘soft’ part, just bogus?

IS PSYCHOLOGY REALLY A SCIENCE?
Here is the case for denying it that status.

IS PSYCHOLOGY ABOUT TO COME UNDONE?
There are two necessary criteria for a finding to be considered scientifically sound: validity and reliability. Validity is defined as actually measuring what you think—or you claim—you are measuring. (Certainly the validity of alleged tests for intelligence or personality traits is questionable.) Reliability is consistent replication of the results of the measurement. So how is psychology doing in the replication department?

IS PSYCHOLOGY TAKEN SERIOUSLY BY ‘HARD’ SCIENTISTS?
Are the ‘soft’ sciences just pseudosciences? Here is what is probably not an uncommon view of social science by Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics and often considered Einstein’s equal in scientific brilliance.

2012-04-20—FIXING SCIENCE

Ken Stange — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:11:13 +0000

“If it ain’t broken don’t fix it!” is good advice. However, if it is broken, then one should fix it—not discard it! There are plenty of people who so dislike the way scientists (from Galileo through Darwin) have damaged our overblown egos that they are quite willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Of course science as practised isn’t perfect, and thus, like any complex system, has parts that need constant repairing or fine-tuning. It is unfortunate, but inevitable, that creationists and conspiracy theorists interpret this self-correcting principle of science as a flaw, while actually it is the guiding principle of the scientific method and its greatest guarantee of arriving at truth.

REPLICATION
Scientific findings are always tentative, so replication of results is crucial to confirming any initial findings. The social sciences have a pretty low bar to jump over to claim a ‘significant’ finding. The statistical confidence level of the conclusion need only be 95% (which effectively means the likelihood of it being wrong is 1 time out of 20). This deems it is worthy of publication, and, only too often, uncritical acceptance as a scientific ‘fact’. (Physicists set the bar a lot higher: before confirmation of a finding in physics is deemed a real effect the statistical chance of it being wrong has to be 1 out of 3,488,555!) So it isn’t really surprising that replication is a big problem in the ‘soft’ sciences. But the real problem is that attempts at replication are so infrequently made, so interesting findings get entrenched that are often going to be wrong!

PUBLISH OR PERISH
Information wants to be free. But when it comes to scientific information, not only is it costly to get access to it, but also it often costs scientists to give it out! Of course they’ll pay up, for it pays back in increased professional status—and salary.

FIXING SCIENCE – SYSTEMS AND POLITICS
Scientist as a ‘profession’ is quite new. The label ‘scientist’ was only coined in the middle of the Nineteenth Century. (Darwin disliked the term, preferring to call himself a naturalist.) With the professionalization of doing science came a lot of problems about objectivity. This is a well thought-out series of suggestions for patching some of the flaws in the system.

2012-04-13—WEIRD FACTS

Ken Stange — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:03:12 +0000

One of the great pleasures of surfing the Net is learning facts that are inherently interesting because they are so odd. Everybody enjoys collecting weird trivia. But don’t believe everything you read! Some of these odd things ‘learned’ are not actually true. However, for sceptics there is the subsequent pleasure of checking on what you’ve ‘learned’ and discovering what facts are not really facts—but just fascinating and convincing falsehoods.

20 THINGS YOU DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT…
Here is a reasonably reputable source with a fascinating list of facts about a variety of specific topics, such as math or languages or digestion.

STRANGE FACTS
Here is another less organized hodgepodge of strange facts that a very superficial check seems to substantiate. But before repeating any of these as a ‘fact’, it would be worth researching it—which will be interesting no matter what its veracity.

THE FACT CHECKER
Snopes calls itself “the definitive Internet reference source for urban legends, folklore, myths, rumours, and misinformation.” If you check on them, you’ll find they really do a good job of living up to this claim. It’s an especially useful resource when something you read sounds suspicious or you get a mass emailing about some rumour.

2012-04-06—DECLINE AND FALL OF THE EDUCATIONAL EMPIRE

Ken Stange — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 15:26:17 +0000

There is plenty of justification for academics being called hypocrites. We carry on about maintaining standards, but our livelihood depends on the continual expansion of the income generated by students (or more often their parents) willing to pay for a ‘formal’ education and that magical piece of paper handed out at graduation that is falsely advertised as guaranteeing life-long financial security. The common (and justified) complaint of professors is that university administration is more interested in how many warm bodies they can recruit than in the quality of the students or the education delivered. Yet without those warm, lucrative bodies showing up for classes (which grade inflation allows them to pass and so continue paying tuition), there would be a lot of unemployed profs. But education is being radically democratized, and it is looking like the current university structure is going to either crumble or change drastically. One can only hope that as education becomes more widely available and virtually free for those who really want it, the world will be a better place. But all revolutions have victims, and all radical change involves the loss of something of value.

THE RADICAL STANFORD EXPERIMENT
Take Stanford graduate level courses without a prerequisite—and for free.

THE KHAN ACADEMY
The originator of this idea, Salmon Khan, gives a wonderful explanation of its genesis on TED, which is easy to find and worth watching. This is the link to the resources currently available for teachers or independent learners.

THE iTUNES U. PROJECT
Steve Jobs long ago remarked, “Computers themselves, and software yet to be developed, will revolutionize the way we learn.” He was right. Apple has always claimed it was devoted to using technology to promote the humanities. Whatever one might think of the somewhat Draconian Apple ‘ecosystem’, it has to be admitted that Apple has lived up to that promise. The wealth of educational material available as podcasts through iTunes has now been expanded with the iTunes U. project.

2012-03-30—THE TED PHENOMENA

Ken Stange — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:08:28 +0000

The TED annual conferences began in 1990 with a focus on technology. But it gradually broadened its scope to become a venue for the presentation of new ideas in virtually every field of creative endeavour. In June 2006, the talks (each always limited to about 20 minutes or less) were made available on the Internet at TED.com. They immediately became extremely popular and the audience has continued to grow at a phenomenal rate. It seems there really is an audience for ideas presented concisely and dramatically! By 2009 these talks had been viewed 50 million times, and by June 2011 it was up to 500 million. There are currently 900 TED talks available online. The TED concept caught on, so they started the TEDx series, which are independently organized, curated, and sponsored TED events that follow the format of the regular TED lectures.

TED-ED LAUNCHES ON YOUTUBE
Many educators use the TED lectures as supplementary AV material in their courses, so now refining (and shortening) the format to create free pedagogical tools is the latest elaboration of the TED concept.

BEHIND THE TED TALK
Having had the nerve-wracking honour of giving a Nipissing University sponsored TEDx talk recently, I can’t begin to imagine the stress of having to present in front of a potential audience of millions. Many TED presenters are more accustomed to wrestling with ideas alone or with colleagues than with playing the role of media ‘personalities’

HOW TED MAKES IDEAS SMALLER
It has to be said that TED is not without critics. It has been accused of dumbing down complex ideas to what can be stuffed into 18 minutes, and of shifting the focus from the ideas to presentation skills. One significant criticism is that the talks are actually too entertaining, and are often judged on that criterion rather than the value of the ideas. Here is one somewhat sceptical and considered opinion.

2012-03-23—PIRACY

Ken Stange — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:36:34 +0000

It is sometimes call “reproductive technology”, but not as a reference to artificial insemination or cloning. It refers to the technology that allows us to reproduce images, text, music, and other results of human creativity. It is undeniable that it has democratized access to content that once was only available to a very affluent few. You don’t have to be among the elite of the Viennese aristocracy to hear Mozart’s music brilliantly performed. And you don’t have to travel to the great public and private galleries of the world to view the works of the great masters. And it would be belabouring the point to mention the effects of the Gutenberg Revolution. Is there a downside to this? It is true that scarcity adds value. But is a Van Gogh really less valuable now that one can view a high-resolution image of it on the Internet, or purchase a fine print of it for a few bucks, or even buy a perfectly executed forgery for what is still a fraction of the cost of the original? Does having a larger audience really disadvantage the creator financially? Or only his agent or publisher, who are taking most of the profits? Are we really stealing from a musician if we first listen to his music for free? Or does he build an audience and reputation that more than compensates him in sales he wouldn’t have otherwise had, in concert attendance, and in the other perks that accrue to having created something that is widely valued and appreciated?

ARE THE COSTS OF DIGITAL PIRACY EXAGGERATED?
Mark Twain remarked that “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.” Are the multi-million-dollar music and film industries using stats to lay a guilt trip on us for sharing something we appreciate and admire?

THE CULTURE OF COPYING WHERE IT SEEMS TO WORK
Are those creative endeavours that don’t have “protection” from copying suffering?

INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE
There may be something to be learned by noting that many of the incredibly valuable and respectable sources for the sharing of information and creative endeavour voluntarily chose to shut down for 24 hours to protest the U.S. government’s attempt to pass so-called “anti-piracy” legislation.

2012-03-16—ALIEN INVASIONS

Ken Stange — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 21:04:38 +0000

They came from outer space! No, actually they just came from a different ecosystem. It is a strange and somewhat paradoxical idea that introducing a new species to an ecosystem can decrease, rather than increase, biodiversity. One would think that it must occur naturally all the time. But for various reasons these alien invaders are proving quite undesirable.

THE BOTANICAL INVASION OF THE ANTARCTIC
Bad seed!

THE REPTILIAN INVASION OF FLORIDA
Giant serpents!

THE AQUATIC INVASION OF CANADA
It came from the Deep!

2012-03-09—MAGIC SCIENCE

Ken Stange — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 17:15:29 +0000

Just as artists knew the tricks of perception long before scientists studied perception, so too magicians understood these quirks long before they were studied systematically. Artists and magicians may not have understood exactly how they worked, but they certainly knew how to apply them. Now there is serious collaboration between those studying how we perceive and those expert at manipulating what we perceive.

TELLER TELLS SECRETS
Teller reveals “a few principles magicians employ when they want to alter your perceptions.”

CHANGE BLINDNESS
There is a trick inside the trick.

SELECTIVE ATTENTION
Be sure to scroll down and watch the video before reading the article.