Critical Ranting

Looking back on that last post (You know, the one about science, in case you forgot), I couldn’t help but think that there was something missing.  I imparted to you the idea of what science is, but it’s not really enough. It’s not the real point I wanted to make.  There is something vital missing to us as a society today, and it’s not the overarching concept of “SCIENCE!”  While science is very important, there’s a more basic piece that needs to be grasped by everyone--the piece that holds science together.

What we need is critical thinking. Yes, I’m serious. That term that gets thrown around in English class. Except when I say it, I don’t mean “find some subtext that the author never actually intended and then write a 12-page essay about it”.  When I say critical thinking, I mean thinking, critically--taking your ideas, your assumptions, and questioning them; not taking information for granted; backing up argument with fact; the ability to evaluate the worth of the information you are given.

I’m pretty sure I can’t impart the importance and usefulness of critical thinking in a blog post.  Critical thinking is a skill that needs to be practiced and built up, like any other skill.   I think what I’m hoping to relay is just that critical thinking is a critical component in modern thought, and that without it we’re an easily misled mob of savages.  

Why is critical thinking important?  Well, if you don’t stop and ponder the information you’re given, it cements itself in your mind.  Whether the information is correct or incorrect, it becomes the truth to the person who doesn’t examine it. And when you are not confronted about your viewpoints, you will not understand how someone else could have opposing views.

I am of the opinion that most stupid people aren’t just born stupid, they’re taught to be stupid; they are not taught how to evaluate information.  They are raised being fed facts with no regard for how those facts are garnered.

You might have heard a while ago that people eat on average about 8 spiders a year in their sleep.  In fact, I’d wager 12 yen you’ve heard it so often it’s essentially a fact for you. Well, it’s wrong. Someone made it up.  That is a false bit of information that we all just assumed was true, for no other reason than because someone told it to us.  But this time, don’t just take my word for it, there’s references:

This is a link to the relevant Snopes article.

This also has far-reaching implications when it comes to politics, but that’s a long rant that I’ll have to save for later. And what a rant I’m sure it’ll be.

You’ll recall the cornerstone of my definition of “science” (Yes, you need to read that post first! Haha!) was that it relies on data and evidence to form conclusions. Critical thinking is the piece that lets you go from data and experiments to making a theory and conclusions. 

Of course, science isn’t the only profession relying on critical thinking (just the most important, amiright?).  Programmers must use critical thinking skills to debug or troubleshoot.   Philosophers must take logic classes to learn to form cogent arguments.  In fact, before scientists were called scientists, they were called natural philosophers. And, you know, other professions that I can’t really think of offhand.

I bring up professions because critical thinking shouldn’t simply be a skill, it should be part of our lifestyles.  We should be able to evaluate all information we take in for its merit.

Alright, all this talk of critical thinking is completely asinine if we don’t actually connect it to something real. Here’s a critical thinking problem, one you can solve with your skill set. I guarantee you have the mathematical knowledge to solve it.

Three men are staying at a hotel one evening.  This apparently a few decades ago and the hotel only costs $30 for the night.  So in the spirit of fairness, each of the men pays $10 to the bellboy.  The bellboy gets the money to the desk and the desk manager says “We’ve got a sale tonight, the room’s only $25, go give their change”.  So the bellboy heads back, and, realizing that the $5 refund does not divide into 3 people (no fractions), decides to give $1 back to each man and keep the remaining $2 for tip.  

So in the end, each man paid $9, for a total of $27, plus the $2 the bellboy kept is $29, so where is the last dollar of the original $30?

Think about that for a few minutes, then I’ll try and walk you through it.

---------------------------

Have you figured it out? 

It’s been a while since I first heard this problem, but I think this was my line of thought. 

-Total money involved: $30

-Cost of room: $25

-Total refund $5

-Tip: $2

-Remaining Refund: $3

-Money Spent 1:  $30 = $25 + $2 +$3

-Final cost per capita: $9

-Money Spent 2:  $9 x 3 = 27 ; $27 +$2 = $29

My “Money Spent” lines are not consistent. That must be where the problem is. 

Let’s back up. Where is the money now? The men have $1 each of the original $30, the hotel has $25, and the bellboy has $2.

They spent $25 on their hotel room, then $2 for the bellboy, so that’s $27. Then $2 to the bellboy for $29… wait a second.  I already added the tip in to get $27. That original $30 was $25 + $2 +$3, or $27 spent + $3 refund. 

So wait, what? 

It was a ruse! I like the Bellboy problem because it so easily demonstrates all the bases for critical thinking. First, the whole problem is based on you getting fast-talked--you are lied to directly with $27+$2, and you lose track of the real meaning of the numbers. Second, there’s no need for some zany creative solution; the solution is there for you to find, once you’ve sorted the facts. You rely purely on logical deductions. And third, the math is simple. You don’t need any advanced knowledge of calculus to grasp this problem.

And now I’d like to end with a similar riddle for you to parse out.  You’re on your own for this one, but after that last one, this should be a piece of cake.

13 people come to a hotel that only has 12 vacancies.  Once again, the bellboy thinks he has the perfect solution to this problem.  He takes the thirteenth guest and has him wait with the first guest in room 1.  With 2 people waiting in room 1, the bellboy puts the third guest into room 2, fourth into room 3, on down until the twelfth guest into room 11. Finally, he goes back to the beginning, grabs the thirteenth guest out of room 1 and puts him in room 12, and now everyone has a room to themself.  Why doesn’t this plan work?

Lesson 1: What is science?

This is the Introduction
Ok, time for you to learn some stuff.  Now, it's pretty vitally important that we start off with the more basic concepts before we move on to ultra-hard super-physics.  So let's start with a condescendingly simple question:  What is science?

America’s math and science comprehension is pretty bad. Like, rarely breaking the top 10 bad.

A bit outdated, but I don't really care.

Although those numbers might be cherry-picked, according to a Tau Beta Pi report, there still exists a huge internal gap in scientific literacy between upper and lower classes in America

As an aspiring edutainer, it falls on me to bridge this gap by any means I can.  I’m assuming all the responsibilities here, so tell your 8^th grade science teacher she can relax and take the year off.

So What Exactly Is Science? 
Seriously, what is it? What does it mean to use science or to be a scientist?  And is its meaning even important?  Well, assumedly the answer to that last question is yes, because I took the time to write this essay.

Now obviously there are many facets of math and science that just require practice to really understand.

  I don’t feel like giving you homework; I’m just going to give you lectures about it, to give you a basic familiarity with the subject matter.  So, sit down, shut up, and pay attention. I’ve got things to teach you.

My physics homework is annoying, so you don't have to do it.

I checked a lot of places for a suitable definition of science. “Science” was brought to us by the Romans, with the word scientia, meaning “knowledge” in Latin. The Oxford Dictionary defines science as “ the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment”.  That’s a mouthful. Maybe using the OED for this definition wasn’t a good idea.  There’s got to be a more concise way of describing science.  Maybe just call it the study of the universe and be done with it?

Offhand I can’t think of a good definition for science, so I’m going to list some facts about it, then at the end try to cobble together a definition.  And I’m not saying that for drama, I really can’t think of a good definition at the moment.  That’s going to make editing this entry pretty strange.

So here are some points about 
What Science Is and What Science Isn’t:

* Science is about studying the universe.  And all the stuff in the universe. That much is true. But there’s more to it than that. Science is really a way to go about gathering this knowledge; it’s about adding knowledge to the collective human library.

* There’s no single “scientific method”. Observation, hypothesis, experiment, conclusion, modified hypothesis, however you might have been told their interplay, it’s more of a way of thinking than a procedure.  The important part of the scientific method is this: you modify your hypothesis to fit the data.  You don’t have to have a hypothesis to start with, but it usually helps. You make observations, or create an experiment to test this hypothesis, or to look at some phenomenon. Then you make conclusions and modifications based on that data. Note, experimental observations don’t necessarily require labs; zoologists often study animals in the wild, cosmologists look out into the galaxy for data.

* The purpose of science is to get chicks

This guy does science to impress these girls

* Science supposes that the universe behaves consistently. The observations you make today, under the same circumstances, are what you’d see tomorrow.  It requires a certain level of “repeatability”, ie, if you do the same experiment twice, you’ll get the same result.  This is why experiments and science are useful at all.  If you create a theory that describes something you’ve seen, you can expect that theory to explain the same phenomena happening later on. 

* Science is not a repository of information.  Though sometimes “science” might refer to the knowledge we’ve gained from science.  This is something that grade school might have done, drilling into us that science is a list of facts about the earth, the universe, ecology, the human body, etc. While these could be called scientific knowledge, as science is used to determine these facts, the facts themselves are not really what science is.  Science deals with finding new facts, not memorizing old ones.

This book will never exist

* Similarly, science is not absolute.  New evidence can overturn centuries-old scientific facts. Science ultimately comes down to finding the best conclusion fitting the data, and when the data changes, so too must the conclusion.

* Science does not prove things.  Unless a scientist is talking to a very immature crowd, or the evidence is completely overwhelming, the term “proof” will not be used in a scientific context.  Scientists have data and evidence, which support theories.  This is because of the above point--new data can often change conclusions. Any scientific fact is falsifiable.  If something is proved, it is absolute and immutable. 

* Scientific thinking requires one to always be skeptical in lack of evidence.  Without evidence, to support a theory, the theory is worthless scientifically, and if someone puts forth an absurd claim, they better be able to back it up--as the “Sagan Standard” says, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.  Of course, this is countered by Sherlock Holmes’ own motto: “When you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”.  The point is, evidence--data---is the most important factor in determining the veracity of a scientific statement.

* Science requires a lab coat. Ok, actually, lab coats are used to protect your clothes from chemicals you might spill on yourself.  Mostly chemists and biologists wear them. Physicists essentially just wear whatever they want, unless they’re in a clean room.

Lab coats are also good for boxing in

* Theory does not mean what you think it means. Law and Theory are not different levels of truth; a theory doesn’t get promoted into being a law.  They are different kinds of descriptions. The law is the observable piece--for these given circumstances, this particular thing will happen-- the theory is the machinery that causes it to work--this is why that particular thing happened. In science, a theory is a framework. It’s the explanation of how a natural process works. For example, Newton’s Law of Gravitation is F= G m1 m2/r^2 , while Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity says that the speed of light is a constant.

* Math isn’t science. Sometimes.  Math is intimately connected to science.  The theories and models in science often require math to explain them, and the deductive reasoning and rationale of math are required for science, too. Math is often taught in science departments at colleges.  But because of the more purely logical nature of math, many mathematical facts can be proven and are not falsifiable, which I mentioned is important for science.  There are, however, frontiers in math that can’t be reduced to logic alone, and the methods used in math are often coincident with science.  Whether or not math can be considered a science will the often depend on the kind of math one is discussing.

* Art isn’t science.  Many will find this patently obvious, others will think this patently false.  Science and art are similar to science and math.  There is an art to doing science.  But in the end, like math, art is not falsifiable. There’s no right or wrong art.There is, however a theme of “elegance” when it comes to science.  There are generally numerous ways to come to a conclusion, numerous ways to design an experiment, and numerous possible correct answers. The manner of doing science is left to the taste of the scientist, and so there is art. Also, scientists make really pretty pictures, like this one I made as an undergrad:

That's right, science is friggin beautiful.

* Engineering is not science.  Engineering is an application of science.  It’s taking scientific principles and using them to solve a problem.   Once again, the use of scientific principles gives engineering huge overlap with science, but it is not science itself.

* Science isn’t a religion. Religion relies on faith in an existence beyond the universe, and as such is neither provable nor falsifiable.  Science does not require faith; it is readily observable in our own universe.  The idea of a deity at all requires that he be beyond the laws that govern the universe, by definition.  To that end, neither science nor religion will contradict each other except on more minor details.  I will likely expand on this point in a later post.

Executive Summary in Charge of What are We Talking About?

Ok, I suppose I have to come up with a better definition of science now.  So what do we have? 

-Science represents any given field of study of the universe

-Science is about adding info to our collective knowledgebase

-Science suppose the universe behaves consistently

-Scientific conclusions are based on data and observations.

So if we mix these together, we get something like “Any study of the behavior of the universe, based on the supposition that the universe behaves consistently, wherein conclusions are drawn from observations, data, and logical reasoning.”  Well that’s a mouthful, too. Let me try and boil it down to its essence. “A study of the universe’s behavior, whose conclusions are based on data and logical reasoning.”

Does anyone else believe they have a better definition, or something I left out?


==========================


Edit: Just one week after I published this post, Neil DeGrasse Tyson was asked how he would personally like to change science education. His response was “I would teach how science works as much as I would teach what science knows. I would assert (given that essentially, everyone will learn to read) that science literacy is the most important kind of literacy they can take into the 21st century. I would undervalue grades based on knowing things and find ways to reward curiosity. In the end, it's the people who are curious who change the world.” So I’m kinda proud I just beat him to the punch.

Rifftrax and iRiffs: Making fun of movies

No sooner had I started this blog than it was time for the big plasma physics conference--putting together a poster, throwing together the last bits of our machinery, getting results, schmoozing for a week, then back just in time to get ready for Thanksgiving. Now it’s finally Black Friday and I have time to put together a new post.  I always appreciated the irony of using vacations to catch up on work.

Anyways, I love bad movies and by extension, mystery science theater 3000 (mst3k).  

Here’s a paragraph explaining what MST3K is, because I need to explain everything to you people: mst3k was a tv show in the ‘90s, essentially about 3 people (2 of whom are robots) viewing bad movies and making fun of them while they watched. Essentially they’re a very cynical commentary track. After 10 seasons, MST3K came to an end, but its creators  continued on, under different headings. Much of the crew and the original host, Joel, went on to create Cinematic Titanic, while Mike, the later host, and a few regulars created Rifftrax. Cinematic Titanic keeps to MST3K’s theme of riffing on low-quality B-movies, while Rifftrax mostly works on mainstream and Hollywood movies (though they will still work on the low-budget schlock from time to time).

Rifftrax is pleasant enough to have an entire community dedicated to fan-generated tracks, iRiffs. On the consumer end, iRiffs is identical to Rifftrax--you buy a riff mp3 ( usually $3-4 for Rifftrax, under $2 for iRiffs), and you play it alongside the movie (movie sold separately), with audio cues to help you line them up.

Now I bring this up because one of my old college roommates, Jared Shaffer, and I love watching bad movies enough that we’ve made a couple such commentary tracks. And below I’d like to present them. I encourage you to support us by clicking on the posters and downloading the tracks to watch with these terrible, terrible movies.

If you happen to be a cheapskate, or poor, or something, and don’t want to pay for our iRiffs, let Jared or me know and we’ll help you out.  We would honestly have distributed for free, but iRiffs seems to be the most popular distribution site. These were labors of love, and considering how long it took to make these, with how much our time is worth, we’re never going to break even on them if we’re looking for profit. 

I have a blog now!

Salutations, reader(s)!

In case you don't know who I am (in which case, how did you get here?), I am Zachary Tobin, Chief Executive President of Tobincorporated™, an enterprise I made up to brand my creative endeavors.

After years of impediment, I decided to finally start forcing myself to progress in the hopes of someday decapitating Bill Nye and Neil DeGrasse Tyson, thus assuming their powers.  Having no networking or people skills to speak of, though, I'll have to start small, here.

I have no specific goals or tasks for this weblog. The primary purpose is to keep me on task.  My current plans are to post about my projects, opinion pieces, and maybe some remedial science lessons. That's right, pay attention and you might learn something.