Dark Energy on Parade

Courtesy of Melanie Gibson...

Check out the cover story on today's Parade Magazine, titled "The Secrets of Dark Energy." Some time on Tuesday, the full text becomes available on Parade's website; clicking here will take you to it. (Yes, I will leave the blog open for comments thru the school's 3 p.m. Wednesday deadline for seniors to turn in work.)

Questions & issues to consider:

•Melanie specifically points out the following quote from the author of the article, Meg Urry:

What excites me personally is how the discovery of Dark Energy illustrates that science is not a set of beliefs that one constructs. Instead, scientists observe nature, then develop theories that describe their observations. Science is driven by nature itself, and nature gives us no choice. It is what it is.

This quote raises connections to several readings and discussion topics from this year:
A) How might the author of the reading, "Ten Things We Think We Know About Science," regard or respond to this quote? Would he say it is consistent with an accurate understanding of science, or another example of where science education falls short?
B) During the mathematics unit, we briefly touched on the question of whether mathematics are discovered or created. And for those who attended the lecture on Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem, the speaker raised this issue again, indicating Gödel's position on the issue. Use this quote as a springboard to compare and contrast the natures of science and mathematics to one another, particularly with respect to the philosophical question of discovered or created.
C) Dr. Urry's quote and the issue raised in B above become still more interesting when considered in light of the nature of the very close relationship between science and mathematics. Take a look back at the 3 articles we read as a jigsaw activity in class about that relationship (one article had the clever title, "Math has π on its face"), then comment on Dr. Urry's quote.

•The article is filled with knowledge claims about "dark energy" -- its impact on the universe, its place in science history, and its potential economic uses and impact. And yet, ironically, the caption to an accompanying picture of the author includes this quote, "Dark Energy makes up two-thirds of the universe -- and we don't know what it is." The article itself includes this paragraph:

But first, we have to figure out what exactly Dark Energy is. So far, we know only that it causes the expansion of the universe to speed up. We call it 'dark' because we don't directly see it. 'Dark' is code for 'we have absolutely no clue what it is!'

(Emphases in each quote added.) It seems rather ironic to have so many knowledge claims about something the author says we know so little about. What is your response to this irony? How do you reconcile these seemingly conflicting comments?

•Immediately after the quote that Melanie pointed out, Dr. Urry writes: "As new facts emerge, scientific theories can be proved wrong or in need of modification, but scientists cannot ignore them. Eventually the facts will lead to the right theory."
A) To reprise some questions I raised in an earlier post: What is a "fact?" We've spent a lot of time this year wrestling with the concepts of "knowledge," "truth," and "belief," but we've never discussed the term "fact." What do we mean by that term? What makes something a "fact?" How is a fact different from knowledge, truth, and belief? Or is it different from any one of those?
B) And as I asked about another quote above: How might the author of the reading, "Ten Things We Think We Know About Science," regard or respond to this quote? Would he say it is consistent with an accurate understanding of science, or another example of where science education falls short?

•Consider the knowledge claims contained in this quote from the article's concluding paragraph: "The answers are there, and I have no doubt that we will figure them out with the contributions of the smart young people now taking high school physics...." Consider and comment on the nature (psychological, epistemic) and intensity of the certainty expressed in that statement. What bases, what justifications do you think Dr. Urry might point to in support of her expressed certainty and knowledge claims?

Rediscovering the Dinosaurs

The link below is to an article that originally aired as a news story on ABC World News Tonight: "Rediscovering the Dinosaurs". And it reminded me of a "Bizarro" comic strip that can be seen at
http://gh.gresham.k12.or.us/~currier/Bizarro%20re%20dinosaurs.jpg.

Questions & issues to consider:

In light of this report, what will be your reaction to the next dinosaur exhibit you view? Explain.

Consider the short reading you read and summarized earlier this semeser titled, "Evaluating Scientific Claims." What are some questions that you would want to pose to the scientists and museum exhibit creators about the new exhibits? Why would those questions be important to you?

What is your reaction to the argument presented for a shorter tail for tyrannosaurus rex? Do you find it convincing or credible? Why or why not?

What is your reaction to the following quote from the article? "These bones begin to dictate to you the way that they want to be put back together again," says Fraley, "the way they want to be lifted up or held."

Robin, Britney, & Christina, or Pop (Music) Goes Lakoff

The basis for this post came from Katie Carlson.

The discussions of the Lakoff ("You Are What You Say") and Nilsen ("Sexism in English") readings apparently reminded Katie of the works of those famed modern philosophers, Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera. For personal reasons, Katie did not have time to make extensive comments but she did suggest the following song lyrics (click on the links) and potential lines of thought and consideration.

"Boys" by Britney Spears -- uses the type of language discussed in the readings; I would add, take note of the arena where the female has "mastery" in the song

"Can't Hold Us Down" by Christina Aguilera (caution: contains some explicit lines) -- talks about women not being allowed to speak like men (and I would add, or act like men)

Mathematics, Probability, and God

This post comes courtesy of Joseph Delaney. It is a meaty article and topic, so to provide incentive to take it on, I am making the following offer: If your comment makes it readily apparent that you have read and are responding to a legitimate aspect of the article, your comment will count as two journal entries.

Review of The Resurrection of God Incarnate by Richard Swinburne

This article is a review of a book called The Resurrection of God Incarnate by Richard Swinburne. He essentially is presenting a philosopher's response to the arguments in the book and covers almost all the topics we have dealt with in class. It is interesting to see an actual philosopher using phrases like "justification of one's beliefs" or "epistemic probabilities". Clearly he picks apart Swinburne's logic until the core is exposed and only the most stable of arguments are upheld. To be noted is how the reviewer hardly seems to question his use of mathematics in his argument but instead focuses on the reasons and presuppositions behind the numerical values. Probability and certainty are weaved into every argument leading to the fact that this is not a proof and was not meant to be. This of course brings up ideas of "degrees of beliefs" and "relative certainty" about even our most passionate of beliefs. A few decades ago, people would have dismissed this as being too vague and not poignant enough to bring about change. Today, people are just relieved if the probability numbers fall their way.

Lakoff, Language, and Women's Place

While searching for bibliographic information (or at least a publication date) for the Robin Lakoff reading, "You Are What You Say," I came across this blog post by an individual who claims to know Lakoff. And I get the impression that he is responding to essentially the same ideas as those presented in our reading.

"Language and Women's Place" [his title, not mine, so please don't throw rocks ;-) ]

This post may present a nice place to continue, extend, and ultimately bring some (though not complete) closure to our class discussions.

For now, I'm going to let the linked item stand on its own, as I think it provides ample and obvious material to respond to. But, I may come back and point out some elements to consider and comment on.

Update on 5/28:
"...bring some closure to our class discussion." Ha, ha! That was a good one, and I should have known better. With 13 comments on this post and 12 comments on the "Robin, Britney, and Christina..." post, it appears the debate rages on.

How do you say, "Stay out," forever?

The following is an article rich in TOK connections and an accompanying post, courtesy of David Masulis:

I was just poking around the Internet the other day, and I ran across
this article:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-forever3may03,0,6513414.story

It's about figuring out how to warn people 10,000 years in the future
about a buried nuclear waste disposal site.

The interesting and ToK-ish thing is that they are trying to figure out
whether there are ways to build something on top of it to communicate
the danger, even if people can't read any of the languages the warnings
are written in. This brings up the question of whether there is any way
to share knowledge between humans even if they don't speak the same
language or share any cultural elements. Is there some common way of
communicating without language? Are body language or facial expressions
possible ways to communicate without using language? I am reminded of a
story I heard once about an anthropologist. He found an island full of
people who had never been contacted before. He tried to learn their
language by pointing at things and saying their name in English, hoping
that they would name it in their language. He had some success the first
time he tried, so he tried pointing at something else and got the same
response. He tried pointing at several more objects, but got the same
response. After being puzzled for quite a while, he realized that he had
learned their word for "index finger". Turns out, that culture used
their chins to point at objects, rather than their fingers.

-David Masulis

In addition to David's questions and observations above, there are several quotes from the article that have significant TOK implications that you could choose to comment on. They include:

A) "No culture has ever tried, self-consciously and scientifically, to design a symbol that would last 10,000 years and still be intelligible," said David B. Givens, an anthropologist who helped plan the nuclear-site warnings. "And even if we succeed, would the message be believed?" [Why wouldn't it be believed? What would creating a believable message require of us? What does the first part of the quote imply about the development of language? Do you agree with that implication?]

B) "I understand those cave drawings and I don't speak Neanderthal…. He's killing a bison, 'bison — food!' I can do pictographs just as well," he said. [Consider the knowledge claim Roger Nelson, the chief scientist of WIPP, makes in this statement. If he doesn't "speak Neanderthal," how can he be so sure he understands the cave drawings? What is his basis for claiming to know this? How plausible do you find his knowledge claim?]

C) "Such views reflect WIPP's one certainty: No one knows what will happen far in the future." [Think about the paradox in that statement -- "one certainty" vs. "no one knows." Is the fact that the Energy Dept. and WIPP press ahead with the project consistent with this "one certainty?" If "no one knows what will happen...," how do the people on the WIPP project know how to proceed with their work?]

What's in a name?

The link below is to a column recently published in The Oregonian about the practical effects of a change in the name of a geographic landmark. It takes on particular interest in the wake of our recent class readings, "You Are What You Say" and "Sexism in English," and our subsequent class discussions.

"Word rarely used -- good advice for all"


Questions to ponder:

Midway thru the column, Parker writes, "I guess it's understandable how people get attached to names," but he doesn't explain any further. Why do you think people get attached to names, and what does it say about the relationship between language and the world?

Parker's comments about both Mt. Hood and Squaw Mountain Road raise the question -- What gives a name significance? For a personal perspective on the question, consider: what is your response to his suggestion for re-naming Mt. Hood? Why do you feel that way? Before reading this column, did you know what the significance of Mt. Hood's name was? Did, or does, that matter?

What decision should the Clackamas County commissioners make about Squaw Mountain Road? Why? What does your answer say about your view of the relationship between language and the world? Why do you hold that view?