Thomas Kuhn and the Structure of Scientific Revolutions: Part II

The discussion of Kuhn in class was a little disappointing. We didn't so much focus on the deeper implications of the work in the course of science, but merely discussed the nature of how some of his thoughts work in a science (of 'today') and policy context.

Questions like, "Do you agree with the assessment that 'normal science' is intrinsically interesting or important, and unable to solve the real pressing problems (since these problems are not the 'puzzles' that 'normal science' considers)? Does this apply to your own work?" and "What are some answers that Kuhn suggests to the assessment of paradigm anomalies, and can you think of others in science or in policy?" and "What does Kuhn say about political and scientific revolutions? What is the 'relevant community' and how do we know who is in it and who is not?" were the three that were specifically focused on.

I didn't feel that these questions were really good for eliciting a high level of ivory-towered discussion. However, they did get the ball rolling on many discussion points and tangents that I did find interesting - such as the discussion of 'relevant community' in the modern sense compared to imagining to whom Kuhn was writing in 1962.

One point I thought was interesting was looking at the emergence of quantum mechanics during the early 20th Century, how it was tied to political dogma, and how both physics and political dogma had to change once it became clear that many aspects of quantum mechanics theory was entering into tangible reality (aka 'the A-bomb'). In brief (and from what I remember of such things from history), the field that became quantum mechanics was deemed as "unworthy" by totalitarian regimes in Europe, due to the (apparently) strong connections with either the Jewish identity (in Nazi Germany) or the perceived non-compatibility of quantum theory with Communist ideology (in Soviet Russia). Since it was deemed an "unworthy" avenue of study in these two countries, it wasn't for a long time that any serious public funding was given to these fields by either country until near the end of WWII (at which point it was too late for both the Nazis and the Soviets). Another example of the problem with dying paradigms and ideological politics was the impacts of Lysenkoism and (similarly) the great fervor leading to the Maoist "Great Leap Forward".

What surprised me the most was that in a room full of PhD scientists from various fields and a few Masters-in-Public-Policy students, NOT ONE [apparently] knew who Lysenko was, or what was the outfall of his ideology-based science policy. Who knew that you could get a degree in any sort of biological or agricultural science, or public health (and there were a few in these fields) and not ever hear of Lysenko? Maybe this is a good thing (for example, making sure that people work in their scientific field only along the accepted paradigms and keeping their noses out of politics), but I don't think so (since people in both policy and science backgrounds need to learn about the problems of assuming that science delivers exactly what some theories - which turn out to be based on a faulty paradigm - predict). Of course we're safe, because this would never happens these days... No. Never. Nuh-uh. Not in this day and age.

I think that a greater discussion could well have happened on the topic of what "science" really "is" and "is not"; how the mathematics-heavy sciences differ from the mathematics-lighter sciences; how social sciences are becoming more "scientific", while changing the paradigm of what constitutes a "science." Of course, all these things are topics that I - as a PhD student about to take prelims with the likely chance of having a question on the definition of science - am interested.

Rev. Moon = Scary.

Bounced over to this full-length BBC documentary on Google Video about Reverend Moon.

Kuhn, paradigms, rules, and concepts of water

Kuhn makes the point that a scientific discipline does not need a set of articulated rules, even though it works within a paradigm. Moreover, uncovering any rules may be a frustrating and fruitless process for the academic.

In many ways, characterizing the concept of water within a paradigmatic framework is analogous to having rules bounding the definition of the concept of water within a discipline. For example, in your discipline:

• Which water do you account for?
  
• How do you measure water?
• What are the more important characteristics of water that one might try and quantify?
• How can your area of interest (with regard to water) be modeled?
  
• What is a preferred result in a model scenario (assuming that a modeled scenario is preferred)?

Kuhn makes the observation that as paradigms come under question, the importance of rules becomes greater. In an analogous manner, this occurred with regard to the Augusta Ck project on which I worked. Explicit rules of the quantification of different, discipline-important aspects of water emerged (although I don't think we ever "defined" a unified theory of water). Kuhn doesn't make mention of cross-disciplinary work (at least as of chapter VII), but it makes sense to me that one way in which paradigms come under question is in such a setting, and when one works with various scientists, engineers, and other professionals, any (or all) of whom may not have a strong understanding of the origins and implications of their own discipline's central tenets, arriving at a unified goal (let alone an agreed-upon set of rules of procedure) appears (to the insider - me) all the more daunting.

Apparently, I'm Xander.

According to the OKCupid! Buffy Personality Test, I'm Xander: "Loyal, brave, true, and passionate. Perhaps the best friend a person could have, always willing to jump into the frey [sic] to help out his buddies."

Xander is also the one in the series who would jump into a fray that is well above his level of competence. Being a lucky (and lovable) bugger is probably his one big saving grace (that, and his knowing a whole bunch of really powerful - physically and magically - women).

Thomas Kuhn and the Structure of Scientific Revolutions: Part I

I started reading Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions the other day, mainly for a class I am currently taking in the Ford School of Public Policy. Having read about Kuhn makes reading his actual (long) essay on the structure of science/scientific revolutions pretty easy-going. I wonder how much of this is goblety-gook for the policy students in the course. (Of course, for the majority of students in the course - scientists and engineers - much of this might be obvious. But then again, maybe not. In any case, the discussion of the concepts of physical science to which Kuhn alludes should not be difficult for them to understand.) So far, my main complaint with Kuhn is that he doesn't get straight to the point, but uses several examples to flesh out his point. In this way, this work is similar to what he writes about in a pre-paradigm period:

"But though this sort of fact-collecting has been essential to the origin of many significant sciences, anyone who examines, for example, Pliny's encyclopedic writings or the Baconian natural histories of the seventeenth century will discover that it produces a morass. One somehow hesitates to call the literature that results scientific. The Baconian "histories" of heat, color, wind, mining, and so on, are filled with information, some of it recondite. But they juxtapose facts what will later prove revealing (e.g., heating by mixture) with others (e.g., the warmth of dung heaps) that will for some time remain too complex to be integrated with theory at all. ... Only very occasionally, as in the cases of ancient statics, dynamics, and geometrical optics, do facts collected with so little guidance from pre-established theory speak with sufficient clarity to permit the emergence of a first paradigm."

I'm not saying that Kuhn's writing is encyclopedic, but he uses so many examples to discuss his point without actually stating directly what his point is.

I like the (apparent) jibes he makes of scientists, as well:

"One of the reasons why normal science seems to progress so rapidly is that its practitioners on problems that only their own lack of ingenuity should keep them from solving."

I start chapter V. More on Kuhn later.

No amount of measurement or operationism bails out bad concepts

“The precise and exact naming of variables is important in research. It is both essential to and a result of good operationalization. Variables names quite often evolve from an iterative process of forming a conceptual definition, then an operational definition, then renaming the concept to better match what can or will be measured.” Patricia Fisher

This was a problem with the concept of “water” that I encountered in my research with a transdisciplinary group of researchers, primarily at MSU. Everyone has a concept of what “water” is, however, working across natural science and social science disciplines brought up the professional/discipline-based differences of understanding that the concept of water holds; the concept of water to a surface water hydrologist is different than that of a groundwater hydrologist, both of whom may be attached to a college of civil engineering. Similarly, each different discipline had different means of water measurement (ft3/sec for surface water hydrologists, gallons/min for groundwater hydrologists, acre-feet for agriculture engineers, etc.), and different assumptions about what was “good” or “ideal” for the behavior of water in a system that was being analyzed. Surface water engineers are trained to route water through a system as quickly as possible, with as few leaks and meanders in the system as possible. Groundwater hydrologists are trained to account for the relatively much slower movement of water in a timeframe of months. Aquatic ecologists are trained to prefer water that moves “naturally” through a system, providing ample habitat for aquatic plants and animals; a critical concept to be measured being that of “base flow”.

This brings me to asking whether a discussion of the seemingly simple and unifying concept of water can actually be done across disciplines, as well as asking the more intellectually interesting (at least to me) question, “Are concepts of water discipline-based?”

Firefox: Campus Edition

So... I'm thinking that this is merely Firefox 2.x with additional things bundled together with it. However, it is an interesting marketing stratagem.

Howtoons and typhoons.

I was directed to this site from one of the other blogs I read. However, after looking at some of the comics, I was interested in the one on the Beaufort Scale. Mostly interested because of the hurricanes that are currently working their ways across the subtropical areas of the N. Hemisphere. Now, I know that the Beaufort Scale is not the same as the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, but just so you know (without having to read through the Wiki article), a category 1 hurricane is equivalent to a 12 on the Beaufort Scale (so the bottom panel is a graphical depiction of a category 1 storm). HOWEVER, the relationship between the two are not linear (i.e., a Beaufort 13 is not equal to a Saffir-Simpson 2).

The major hurricane people are looking at right now is Hurricane Felix. This hurricane is the fastest to go from a category 1 to a category 5 - roughly 72 hours - before making landfall in Nicaragua. This sparsely-populated region of the country may suffer greatly from a lack of adequate warning (since just a few days prior, it was "merely" a tropical storm). Hurricane Felix also makes the second category 5 hurricane in the Atlantic Ocean basin - the first time since reliable record-keeping began in 1944.

Meanwhile, on the western shores of Mexico, Hurricane Henriette is slowly making its way into the Gulf of California. I predict that this will be a mixed blessing for the region. On the one hand, there will be massive problems in border towns due to flooding and lack of adequate sanitation, and a general problem with flooding and mud/landslides. On the other hand, the region needs water right now - after suffering the 12th summer of drought (this one hotter than any of the previous 11). Of course, much of my perspective is from the US side of the border - having little knowledge of what life is actually like in regions on Henriette's storm path.

Up at the Biostation.

The Biostation orientation (2007) went off without too many problems. The largest one posed was the rain; it threatened to cancel the rafting and shorted out the electrofisher. However, I think most people had a good time, even though it was pissing down at times. (One of the buses got stuck in the wet sand, but that didn't really affect anyone, and it was easily taken care of with a wrecker.)

We don't really get much of a chance to get out of the urban/agriculture mix of Southeast Michigan too often, and any opportunity to just be out in a recovering (from 19th Century clear-cut logging) forest is just fun (even though there is the possibility for rain). As one of the faculty says, "When it's sunny, we go out, when it's raining, we go out." And we did.

Of course, wind and rain does provide an opportunity for really nice mornings, and although the first morning was gray (foreshadowing the downpours to come), the second morning was beautiful. And although the rain made the first night's campfire end up all for naught, and the winds of the second night made the smoke unbearable in one direction, the mood was generally festive (although many newbies did turn in early - possibly early risers).

Of the new "crop" of SNREds (pron. "snerdz" - hey, if Culzean is pronounced "cull-ANE", then we can have "snerdz"), we had the largest incoming class since I started. Since the M.S. programs officially split from "RPB" and "REM" into eight different tracks (Aquatics, BEC, ConBio, EI, EJ, EPP, SusSys, and TerrEco) last year, it is not surprising that many people have entered into these different tracks. (Okay, so that's circular logic, but I think it makes sense, and, no, it's not important to know what all the acronyms stand for. If you are really that interested, you can check out the website yourself.) However, no matter that SNERds are becoming legion, they are still a great bunch of people.

I'm sure that I will be writing more about them in postings to come.

A difficult little haiku.

Sometimes the Sun-Times
Runs a story on some tines,
At times, on the Tyne.

Apparently, the word "sometimes" is difficult for Mandarin speakers to say clearly. This little haiku turns into a diabolical tongue twister for them.

Today in history: Steamships

Two hundred years ago today (it was on a Monday back then), the first commercially successful steamship was launched from New York City, traveling the Hudson River from NYC to Albany. The boat belonged to Robert Fulton. According to eyewitnesstohistory.com, Fulton's trip suffered mechanical problems shortly after leaving dock. The first trip from NYC to Albany took two days: 24 hours to Robert Livingstone's house, and another 8 hours to Albany.

This was possibly also the first viable means of changing the rivers of the country from one-way roads into viable shipping lanes, thus leading (eventually) to the introduction of Asian carp into the Mississippi River.

Amazed

I found a link to treehugger.com. From there, I was bombarded by several stories ranging from news, science, design, fashion, travel, etc. all of which bring a pro-environment view of an issue. I've decided to add it to the list of pages that I "leaf" (ha-ha) through each morning.

The story that took me to treehugger.com was about (what seemed to me when I read the title) a hair-brained idea of protecting the globe against further warming. Since recent climate studies have shown a very strong correlation between global cooling and large volcanic eruptions, the solution using a new "geo-engineering" idea to cool the planet by simulating a large volcanic eruption was (apparently) suggested in some engineering circles. At this point you might be thinking the same thing as I was: "WTF?" Luckily, engineers decided to model the possible impacts of doing something like this before finding a large volcano and blowing it up (or recreating a similar situation). What they found was not terribly surprising (to me, at least): the benefits of a couple years of cooling (caused by all that soot being thrown into the atmosphere, thus blocking sunlight) are far outweighed by issues of drought and decreased river flows (both of which were seen in the aftermath of recent large volcanic eruptions). Treehugger and Grist both fail to mention the major negative social impacts that such changes in global weather patterns will have on the "third world" (nor the massive harm such a globe-wide action will have on US foreign relations once this was attempted).

This "volcanic solution" is an interesting example of a disjointed world view taken by some people in engineering circles. The engineers that I know are very proud of their ability to see a problem and find a solution. However, a problem of understanding what constitutes a "solution" is predicated on the knowledge of the system that is currently under failure. If your solution is based on a subset of the total system, then it runs the risk of being an analgesic (for the particular subsystem in question) rather than a cure for the entire system. On the face of it, this seems to be what happened with the thinking behind this (and many other geo-engineering) solutions:

1. The Earth is undergoing global temperature increases.
2. What can decrease global temperatures?
3. (after going through the list of previous geo-engineering hypotheses) Volcanic activity is correlated strongly with global cooling.
4. How large of a volcanic explosion is needed to cause similar global cooling?

... and so the avenue of thought for that possible solution is then paved [with good intentions].

Did the people thinking about this consider socioeconomic outfalls of their global solution? Did they consider the foreign policy aspects of implementing such an idea? Admittedly, these two considerations fall outside the physical environmental system the person/people were originally considering. (Or do they...? I'll have to make this the subject of another post.) So if this is the case, what about considering the potential global/regional/local impacts on those parameters of the physical environment other than temperature? Oh, whoops. Still, I suppose there was some good science that was done before the whole thought experiment came to a screeching halt when the National Center for Atmospheric Research put the kibosh on it by pointing out some of the side effects of a volcanic eruption. In closing, I wonder if the geo-engineers in question ever heard about Krakatoa or the uninspiringly-named "Proto-Krakatoa"?

Online Identities

Umlud has been a long-time online identity of mine, going way back to 1996. What is an online identity?

Well... not to let the cat out of the bag or anything, my name ain't really "Umlud", donchaknow. Rather, "Umlud" is the moniker/pseudonym/pen name I use as a social identity in networks to which I belong. It also happens to be my most used online identity, but I have five or six more of them.

With "Umlud" as my online identity, it is impossible (or difficult) for another person to actually "know" who I am in real life, and I'm free to re-define my personal identity in a manner that I see fit. Of course, if I wish for my "Umlud" ID to become established, I will slowly have to adjust to certain "Umludian" characteristics which may closely mimic my own real-life characteristics (and for me, this is an easier thing to do, rather than building up a different personality for my most-used online identity).

Why don't I use my own name as my online ID? Well, for many reasons. However, the main reason is that, like some people who prefer to write under a pseudonym, I (the "real me") feel that the use of a different online ID makes it easier to write some posts, since it isn't the "real me" that is writing it. A little part of me thinks that if I had a "John Smith"-like name, then I would possibly be less likely to use a pseudonym, since a commonly held name is similar to having innate anonymity.

So who cares about this whole thing about online identities, anyway? Well, about a year ago, I was thinking about researching some issues surrounding the use (misuse, and security issues) of using online identities as a graduate student instructor or faculty member at a university. At the University of Michigan, everyone is assigned (with some personal input) a choice of an online identity - called a uniqname - that will be used minimally for logging on to university systems.

Of course, with some people, these uniqnames do become a second identity. This merely adds layers to the use of your online ID, security of your online ID, and possible repercussions (in academia) of the [perceived] mis-use of your university-bestowed online ID (or at least repercussions due to things you might do/say whilst using your university-bestowed online ID). The thing that I did, though, was to divorce what is written here from what I do with my UM-bestowed uniqname.

Next I will cogitate upon some issues of online ID security that university people (specifically graduate student instructors and faculty) will need to be cognizant. Any suggestions by you, the readers, will be helpful. (Cheers!)

Poison Ivy is GONE.

So... for the two people out there who read this, my apologies for not writing more often this month. I've been down with a somewhat worrisome case of poison ivy. At the worst point, my right arm was swollen to such an extent that it was very difficult to bend my elbow, twist my wrist, or even clench my hand. My left arm was swollen less than my right, but it, too, looked more like a pulverized piece of meat (animated through some fell magicks) than my arm. In addition, the upper right-hand side of my face was swollen so much that I could barely open my eye.

Luckily, it didn't really itch. Luckily, too, my girlfriend is very patient and caring, and helped me slather Cortizone on the swelling. In the end, 2+ weeks after my initial contact with that vile plant (which, with poison sumac and poison oak, should be eradicated from the face of the earth), I'm now at a point where my arms merely appear that I have a minor sun burn, and my face is back to its normal mug-like self.

In other news, the temperature has finally cooled off, and sleeping with the windows open, listening to cicadas, crickets, and other insect sounds at night is a welcome relief to the secluded quiet (broken up by intermittent blasts of cold air) that is forced upon you when you choose to use central A/C.

Do you have Asberger's Syndrome?

Apparently I don't have to worry about having A.S. (I scored a whoppingly low value of 14). But you can take the online A.S. test to see what you score. (Make sure you allow scripts to run on the page before taking the test.)

USGS River Discharge Maps

Now, the USGS river discharge maps are available state-by-state via a Google Maps interface. For those of you who don't know what the graphs mean, investigate what "discharge" and "gage height" are. If you don't want to do the investigation, then - in brief - "discharge" is how much water is flowing past a certain point measured as volume/time (e.g., cubic feet per second), and "gage height" is how high the water is in the river measured as length (e.g., feet). Due to hydraulic geometries of rivers, the shape of these two graphs is usually similar.

The cool thing about this post is not that there is a lot of river data out there (of course, that is cool), but that the data are now connected with a Google Maps interface, making it much easier to figure out where the sites are on the ground. (Which - if you are working with these sorts of things - is a really nice thing, let me tell you.)

There is also the ability to get a GIS shapefile of all the sampling locations, as well as looking at the data on Google Earth KML.

How linked is your website?

Ever been curious to figure out how connected your website is? No? Well, here is a fine website that shows you anyway. Now, I'm not a programmer, and I don't know the algorithm used to make the pretty picture, but that isn't really necessary. Just type in your website (or any website that starts with "http://") and then look at the fun picture that emerges.

If you are so inclined, you can also check out the artist's art projects (something that I feel is more of a cheap-and-easy way to make money).

Walkable neighborhood?

Do you live in a "walkable" neighborhood (in the US)? Just type in your street address and find out. Now, there are some "bugs" in the system (such as counting some gas stations as grocery stores), but my current address did score one point higher than 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, and previous addresses scored anywhere from 54 to 96.

Painting the flagpole and HP:tDH

This is the first time that I've actually seen this happening. Yes, every once in a while, the university must repaint the flagpole to a pristine white. (Why the U didn't do this before the Fart Fair is a mystery to me.)

Today is looking to be a "nice" day, although 85 F is not my personal idea of "nice." (Let the kvetching start up again!) Of course, some people might say that I should be happy that it isn't in the 90s F. To that I retort that the temperature in town even by tomorrow will be in the 90s F. (What do you think of that?) Of course, I could wait and see if I am vindicated or not. Or (as I choose to do at this time) I can kvetch.

On a completely different note: I finished the last Harry Potter book in the original English. Now, for all of you who still haven't read it, I'm not going to give away any spoilers as to plot. However, I will say that - like the other volumes before this one - the UK version differed from the US version in several ways:

1. The pages aren't synchronous.
2. The UK version physically smaller than the US version (much easier to carry around without looking like you are lugging around a copy of the King James).
3. In the US version, each chapter has a little picture showing a highlight of the upcoming pages.
4. The UK version has (IMHO) much better cover art than the US versions (and one can choose to purchase either the "Children's" cover version or an "Adult's" cover - there are no content differences between versions).

In looking around online during the last week, I have come across a very funny (yet somewhat long) summary of The Deathly Hallows. If you don't want to know what happens in the book, don't read the summary, dummy.

Who is Umlud?

Does Umlud mean anything?
Yes.

Does it have something to do with the University of Michigan (a.k.a. "UM")?
No.

Is it a name?
Yes.

"Umlud" is apparently "reloaded" in German (from the word "Umladen"). Does it mean "reloaded"?
Yes, "umlud" means "reloaded" in German. While it is the only definition of my name that I have found on the Internet, it is not the meaning of my name.

Will you tell your readers what your name means?
Nope.