The Scientific Method

Do you believe in gravity? I don’t. Belief is blind acceptance without evidence, but gravity is demonstrable and there is evidence for it. Science holds no place for blind acceptance because it goes against the scientific method. All science is evidence-based and any theory presented by science has gone through the rigors of peer review and is still being tested to this very day. Science is only consensus while the data fits with research. Scientific theories are not held sacred by researchers and can be thrown out with new evidence that contradicts current theories.

As a data analyst in a research lab, I see how the process works. Tests are done and data is collected and analyzed. Then the tests are done again, and again, and again. It’s a repetitive process, but it’s necessary. It means that nothing is being left to chance and that the results are consistent. If the data were to be compromised by an unscrupulous analyst or lab technician, that data would be found out sooner or later because those results wouldn’t be repeatable and it would eventually be thrown out.

Most people don’t understand science or the scientific method. One of the most common fallacies is that science is a consensus by vote, a democracy. It’s not. Science is consensus by experiment and evidence. All work must be validated in order to pass the peer review process. It doesn’t matter how many scientists believe something, if the evidence doesn’t support it, it must be backed up by evidence. Also, common sense has no place in science and if it did then science wouldn’t exist since everything would be elementary. Scientists are the people who can put their common sense and preconceived notions aside and find answers to questions. They test hypotheses that, if enough evidence is discovered and the idea passes peer review, will become theory.

Here’s an example:

I have an idea that if I put a piece of coal into a pressure cooker overnight, I will get a diamond the next morning. I read in science books and journals that pressure changes coal into diamonds and I form a hypothesis and make predictions of my results should be. Then I get to work performing experiments taking various sized pieces of coal and placing them in a pressure cooker for different times and pressures and temperatures. After running through numerous experiments and logging my results, I find out that my hypothesis is wrong and I need to either revise it or trash it altogether. I choose to trash it because after further reading I find out that the factors it takes to form diamonds are beyond what I can do in the lab. I will have to think of a new idea and the process will start all over again.

Of course, if my goal is to get my name into the scientific journals, I could go about the same process of forming my hypothesis, but when I perform my experiments I decide to be dishonest in my results. I fudge numbers, make up data, write down results that fit my predictions and so on. Then I submit my paper for peer review. As soon as my tests are repeated and the results don’t match up, my work will be rejected and returned to me. If, by some chance, my work gets by the peer review process and is published, other researchers may try to use my hypothesis in their own work. After repeated experiments, try as they might, they cannot replicate my results. After this happens in other labs, all fingers would eventually point back at me. 

Science is a self-correcting process. Theories are only as good as their results and better-supported, more accurate theories can replace existing ones. The accolades do not go to the scientists who uphold existing theories, but to those who can disprove and replace them. There have been many “wrong” theories presented and published in science. The aether, phlogiston (one of my favorites) and alchemy, just to name a few. All of these have fallen because of new information and replaced with more accurate theories. One of the most recent examples of the changing of science came last year and early this year.

A few subatomic particles showed the fickleness of science. Many who accuse science of being intolerant of change and dogmatic in their theories watched as one of the foundations of modern physics was given a closer look. It took a few neutrinos and 60 nanoseconds to put Einstein’s theory of Relativity into the spotlight. It appeared as if some neutrinos, subatomic particles, made it into a detector a little bit sooner than the light that accompanied it. Researchers found themselves questioning relativity and many said that if the results of this experiment held up, they would have to throw out the theory and, using the new evidence, come up with a new theory of relativity. It turned out that there were bad cables on the detector and after fixing them, the neutrinos went back to being slower than light.

This is just a boiled down post to help people understand what goes into science. I think I have been pretty accurate in my description, but I would recommend consulting a science book or a real science web site. Some of my favorite people to follow on Twitter include Neil deGrasse Tyson, Philip Plait, Kiki Sanford and Dave Brodbeck (he does tend to swear). C0nc0rdance.com is an excellent science blog and ScienceDaily is a great source as well. While it might be geared toward a younger audience, SciShow with Hank Green on YouTube is an excellent resource for easy-to-understand explanation of the goings on of science. Crash Course--Biology (also with Hank Green) is another great way to learn about the topic that is easy to understand. If you have any questions or comments, please send me an e-mail or leave a comment.

We Stopped Dreaming

A little Neil deGrasse Tyson for your Friday.

How much would you pay for the universe?

Friday the 13th

Friday the 13th is a relatively new concept of superstition. According to Wikipedia, it rarely appears in writings before the 20th century. Most likely it is made up of two prevailing superstitions, that the number thirteen is unlucky and that Friday is unlucky. The story of the Knights Templar, the protectors of the holy grail, being arrested on Friday, October 13, 1307 really entered the legend way back in…2003 (again, stated in Wikipedia). The Wikipedia entry on the superstition of Friday the 13th has more information. The likelihood of the 13th happening on a Friday is statistically the same as it showing up on any other day (Wikipedia’s article says that it appears on Friday more than any other day, but only by one day in a 400 years cycle). It would stand to reason that the entire month in which Friday the 13th falls would also be unlucky since that month must begin with Sunday the 1st. One question I have heard asked is, "Why do bad things happen on Friday the 13th more than any other day?"

Truthfully, Friday the 13th is no more unlucky than any other day. The above-stated lore behind this particular day/date combination simply makes it stick out more than any other. The idea that more bad things happen on this particular combination could be because people are attuned to bad things on this particular day. When something bad happens on any other day, people would just chalk it up to bad luck, but when something bad happen on Friday the 13th, it’s suddenly the mystical nature of this particular day that caused the bad things to happen. Friday the 13th is a superstition like any other. The person who believes that bad things will happen because of the date on the calendar will experience more bad things.

Another Big Change

Anyone who knows me will know that for the past year and a half I have been working a (sort of) full time job and a part-time job. The part-time job was as a data analyst for a research lab which, as many know, was the job I was really hoping would go full-time. Well, it did. I am now the full-time data analyst for Aeromics, LLC. I am not allowed to discuss much of my work because it is mostly proprietary.

I am learning new things and am part of something huge. I am part of research that could save hundreds of thousands, if not a million, lives every year. The work that I am doing will potentially impact everybody on earth and that's what drives me. Science, in all reality, is not exciting on the surface. I look at a lot of data that shows no results, but every so often a data set crosses me that prompts an e-mail when I'm done..."We got a hit!" This means that we test it again and again.

My favorite part, besides the data analysis and the people, is the fact that I have health insurance now. I haven't had insurance since I got laid off at the end of 2008 and it is really timely since I will be getting married in May. So, my life has turned around really well and I am very happy.

World Domination, Dashed

While I have quipped in the past about taking over the world, I don't think I could really do it. After watching plenty of science fiction in my life, I don't think I could possibly hold the population of a country under my boot and expect them to all conform to my tyranny. I actually tend to like individualism a bit too much and there, my friends, would be my downfall. You see, the only way to take over the world is to make everybody the exact same mindless sheep...or lemming if you prefer.

I came to this realization while watching Doctor Who and noticing that every person or alien race looking to take over the world was looking to assimilate the population and turn them into one mindset. John Lumic, the president of Cybus industries wanted, to turn the whole population into cybermen, human brains stripped of emotion and encased in metal bodies. There are, of course, the Daleks, who want to either destroy everybody or use the humans to create a new hybrid human/Dalek that would all have the same mindset to exterminate everything and everyone else. Then there was the possibly the most egocentric plan to take over the world by The Master, another Time Lord. He not only turned the planet into people of the same mindset, he turned the people all into him. All one mind connected together as one. Doctor Who isn't the only place that has discouraged my plans.

Nineteen-eighty-four by George Orwell shows a world sucked dry of imagination and now filled with hatred for the enemy, Emmanuel Goldstien. Everybody looks the same, dresses the same and, with invention of newspeak, will also, eventually talk the same. This isn't the type of world I want to rule over. Aldous Huxley didn't do much better, even if his world seems a lot more pleasant. Brave New World is a bright and shining world on the surface with genetically engineered people, where recreation is encouraged for the Alphas and Betas. While it looks fun and seems ideal, there is still little room for free thought. Finally, we have the country of Panem in Suzanne Collins's The Hunger Games. What makes this world so much worse that the previous two is that the people of this country, once a year, dress up in their Sunday's best and line up their children to participate in a fight to the death all the while acting as if it is a great honor. This is another world I want nothing to do with because I don't want to kill people, especially not children. I guess I have no choice but to stand down as supreme leader of the planet earth.

So I am abandoning my plans to take over the world before I even finalize them. I crave imagination and freewill and want other people to be equally free. Some may say, "You can still dominate the world and allow it to keep its imagination." but that would end badly, too. There is always going to be that minority voice that wants things another way. Maybe I want to rule with kindness and tolerance, but somebody else thinks we would be better off living under tyranny and oppression. No, I think I'll stay out here with the rest and see where the world goes from here. I'll disagree with what I don't like and agree with what I do like. Good luck to you future tyrant of the world, may you find the value in imagination and individuality.

Social and Sharing: Big Brother?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2017469501_harrop10.html

The link above is to an op-ed piece that has appeared in newspapers including the Cleveland Plain Dealer. The author of the piece, Froma Harrop, seeks to compare Facebook and Mark Zuckerburg to George Orwell's Big Brother concept from 1984. Facebook is voluntary. Nobody is holding a gun to my head and forcing me to stay, nor are they forcing the author who discloses at the end that she is, in fact, a member. We choose to join Facebook to become more connected to the people around us. Facebook gave us the space and forum to be ourselves and we chose to use it.

The author states that Facebook has been valued as high as $100 billion (don’t forget the Dr. Evil pinky) and is worth more that Caterpillar, Ford or Kraft Foods. Yes, they are. Data is worth a lot of money and yes, they will sell that data in aggregate (a giant lump of anonymous data) to advertisers who will target us with focused ads. Focused ads? You mean I will get advertising that is relevant to what interests me? This cannot happen. I demand that I get advertising for feminine hygiene products and denture cream.

The author asks how Facebook will “ramp up the surveillance level,” and say that they already know so much about us by our wall posts, comments and likes. I can tell you that they don’t know what brand of toilet paper I use or how often I need to buy it, but I know someone who does. Any store that uses a discount card automatically knows everything I buy and how often I buy it. There is one other organization that knows way more about us than any social network, search engine or grocery store. That is our ISPs. They hold the keys to our kingdom and are required by law to hold on to two years worth of our web surfing data. I personally don’t care, I choose to share what I want, but I still keep privacy.

My personal information is still locked in the metal cabinet that the author refers to. The information I share is what I choose to share for my own reasons. I will only post something that, if it were to be spread around the globe, I wouldn’t care. I am being social and that means sharing with others. Facebook allows us to share with friends when they are not in the room with us and it allows us to share with many at one time. This is a new world we live in where we have the ability to share and make new connections all over the world. Our ability to share with one another our experiences can actually help others. I can, if I so choose, tell my story of how I quit smoking and maybe something I say will help somebody else.

Anybody who is afraid of sharing and being public is more than free to stay off the social networks, use incognito browsing and avoid Google. The rest of us will continue to share as a community and tolerate the ads that cater to our interests (for the most part). We will continue to make the world a smaller place. Is there a creepy-factor to the targeted advertising? In a way, but rest assured, nobody is looking at my name and saying, “Pink Floyd, degree in electronics, Pearls Before Swine, check.” An advertising algorithm sees keywords and throws out ads based on those words. That’s all, and it explains why the ads are wrong many times.

Mark Zuckerburg is not Big Brother and Facebook is not the mysterious, “them or they” that people discuss in conspiracy theories. We are Facebook along with our friends and family. We are transforming the world a little bit at a time, by overturning support for bad laws, changing the direction of an organization, or overthrowing oppressive regimes around the world. This connectedness we are experiencing is not going away and if the price of that is some computer algorithm knowing my shoe size, then I think it’s a pretty good deal. By the way, I wear a size 16.

Social and Sharing: Intro

For many years, I have tried to hide my true identity, opting to hold onto an online persona and a real-life persona. I refused to have anything to do with Facebook because they insisted on a real name and I was not about to give up that information. To me, it was too valuable for anyone but my closest acquaintances to know. I held on to my anonymity for years, thinking that I was beating the system, sticking it to the man, if you will. That is until an online real estate site stepped in.

I would periodically make sure that my name did not appear online anywhere and for a long time it only appeared in one place, the NASA/JPL Stardust Mission web site. That is because as member of the Planetary Society, my name was included on a silicon chip along with 999,999 other people. So, okay, it was just my name and that wasn’t a big deal. I found that my name did appear in search results along with my address and how much I paid for my house thanks to an online real estate site that data-mined government records. I tried to stay “off-the-grid” so much that all it took was some site with public records access to bring my plan to a halt. That’s when my online world changed.

I started small at the time and joined the professional network, LinkedIn. I used my real name, Jasen M. Buch, and uploaded my resume, some personal details about my education and skills and I was suddenly, with the click of a mouse, no longer anonymous. After being on LinkedIn for about a week or so and getting a few former co-workers and other valuable people connected to me, I took the even bigger step by joining Facebook. By then, I already had an account, but I used an assumed name so that I could have a fan page for my blog. So, I changed the name on the account to my real name and set up my profile in such a way that it would not be found in searches. Within literally ten minutes I was staring at friend requests from people I went to school with. Suddenly I was part of a bigger world. I was, however, still unsure about all of this publicity I was receiving by my being “out there” on the Internet. Part of my justification to those that thought I was jumping on the bandwagon was that I claimed to be technologically savvy and literate of many computer technologies, yet I was nowhere to be found in cyberspace.

As another bold step in proving that I could handle this idea of being public, I linked my blog, which still didn’t use my real name, to my Facebook account (okay, to me it was a bold step). I figured that I really wasn’t a controversial person, so I figured it would be fine. It’s been fine so far. After reading Public Parts: How sharing in the digital age changes the way we work and live by Jeff Jarvis, I took the rest of the leap. I now have posted my resume on my own site, my real name is there too. I am no longer AlienCG online and Jasen Buch in real life because the Internet, regardless of its flaws, is real life.

Over the next few weeks, interspersed with other posts, I will be discussing the social aspect of the Internet and sharing. A lot of this is in reference to Mr. Jarvis’ book, but most of it is my own perspective and the things I’ve learned by being a more public person online. I will be discussing and refuting articles regarding social media. I’m not saying that social media is for everyone, or that everyone should automatically drop their reservations and bare their souls to the rest of the world. I am also not saying that we should just reveal everything, regardless of how personal it is, to the Internet.