I am … unhindered by talent

Just did a pile o’ dishes and listened to a SciAm podcast featuring the remarks of Robert Rosner (head of Argonne National Laboratory). The short version is that science (and, I would argue, education in general) is a matter of necessity plus vision. First, science is not a luxury, but instead a necessity:

Without the science base, you cannot build an industrial base.

Second, science requires long term vision and public and private support in in basic research. It typically takes decades for culture changing technologies to move from the basic idea to ubiquity; Rosen gives as examples railroads, airplanes, transistors, computers, the internet, and lasers. The question then is

How do you convince the politics and the public that that lag in fact is real and that if you don’t make the investments … today … we’ll be lagging things that other folks that are making the investments

Rosen is (quite reasonably) focussed specifically on the question of support for science, but points out that this is part of a larger trend of irrationality in the U.S.:

But we all know that in the United States there are long traditions of anti-intellectualism, of what the Times today also refer to as anti-rationalism, the idea that there really are no facts, it’s all opinion, the idea that scientists [are] just playing their sand box and don’t connect with anybody.

What it really comes down to is a distressingly common failure for Americans to see any form of education (science or humanities, K12 or university) as a necessary investment in the strength and future of our society and country. For me this has become a useful litmus test to separate sensible conservatives (who understand the economic necessity of investment in key areas) from the wingnuts that have come to dominate the Republican party (who spout anti-intellectual nonsense while shredding schools and lining the pockets of themselves and their friends).

Eisenhower understood the practical necessity of an interstate road system, and encouraged and supported that investment. All Shrub can seem to invest in is Halliburton and their ilk.

Things to think (and ask) about in this happy election season.

Related posts

• We have to help them understand: Science matters! (1)
• You’d almost think women were important (1)

I have taught sections of UMM’s First Year Seminar (FYS) course pretty much solid since it was created back in 1999. My topic has been American Roots Music, a subject I love dearly and have greatly enjoyed exploring with my students. I’ve met a host of really wonderful folks through that course, including some of my best student connections outside of Computer Science. That topic has drawn in a broad range of students, many of whom have gone on to play major roles at the radio station and in the open mic night series, and it’s been a great excuse to buy, listen to, and talk about some really wonderful music.

Thus it is with very mixed feelings that I am considering changing my FYS topic for next year when I return from sabbatical. I’ve taught this for a long time and feel like I’m running out of steam on it. I also continue to struggle with lifting the subject from being about “entertainment” to being about human life and culture; I’ve found it difficult to convey my belief in the vitality of the subject. Another issue I’ve struggled with has been critical thinking. FYS replaced a course called Inquiry that had critical thinking as one of its core elements; I always thought that was very valuable, but never really felt like I included that in a consistent way in my roots music course.

So I’m considering changing topics.

In particular I’m thinking of something like “Climate change: Global crisis, or a tempest in a teapot?”. I think this is one of the (if not the) major questions of our age, and that it can be damnedly difficult to make sense of all the contradictory things said on the subject. My vision is for the class to be an exercise in critical thinking, using climate change as the underlying source of questions and material.

In a one semester, two credit course it’s clear that there’s only so much that we’re going to be able to address, so they’re not going to become experts on the subject (just as I would never claim to be one). Hopefully, however, they’d have a better understanding both of this subject, and of how to approach complex subjects like this in the future.

Thoughts?

Thanks in advance.

Related posts

• Transforming our thoughts about teaching (2)
• In praise of a little quirkiness (5)

Much chops to Bad Science for pointing out Phun, a simulation environment/game/construction engine thingie that (judging from the videos) is just super fun (ho, ho, ho) to fiddle with. It seems a wonderfully open-ended platform for making stuff, which is of course the great strength of a pad and paper, or a bucket of Legos. This demo video gives a sense of the range of possibilities:

There’s a YouTube group devoted to this thing, and the number and variety of little clips there also speaks well to the Phun’s flexibility. We even have one person building a binary adder, and another a working pinball machine. Very, very cool.

The sad, sniffle, miserable bit is that Phun doesn’t run on Macs at the moment. It supports for Linux and Windows, though, and there are people working on a Mac port, so my fingers are crossed. It just seems like it would be too damn much fun to play with.

Related posts

• You have to either laugh or cry (and I’ll help you do both) (0)
• Wrapping one’s head around the data (0)

• They have a fancy new redesigned web site.
• You can check out cool photos like the one above in their new gallery.
• They have the schedule on-line so you know who you’re listening to!
• They’re way cooler than the lame radio station that those other people are listening to.
• You know you want to listen to a station where the DJs have that many CDs to play with.
• We’re in Britain, so you’ll almost guaranteed not to hear our voices for several months. (It’s not 100%, though, because the promo spots that we’ve done over the years have a habit of turning up now and then.)
• Cory Funk (a mighty and wondrous KUMM alum) is back on the air and has a killer 1 hour show at 5pm (Central time) on KUST. (Yeah, I realize that I’m plugging another station here, but Cory wouldn’t be that amazing without all his KUMM experience, now would he?)

I enjoy listening at what are very odd hours back in Minnesota and then IM’ing requests. It really messes with their heads to have profs listening at 3am…

Related posts

• UMM students are just so cool! (4)
• The world at your fingertips (2)

It actually took me a second to get it - how annoying that a web comic would actually be subtle enough to challenge a little :-).

Related posts

• We have to help them understand: Science matters! (1)
• Transforming our thoughts about teaching (2)

In a well written and thoughtful endorsement that (not surprisingly) focuses on tech related issues, they’ve gone for Obama and McCain (with a strong preference for Obama between the two).

Obviously technical issues aren’t the only important issues facing the country, and silicon valley tech issues aren’t necessarily always the same as general science issues. Nothing was said about the war in Iraq, for example, and while they wisely include things things like math and science education in their focus issues, there’s no mention of the continuing struggle over the stain of creationism in that education.

Not perfect, but a thoughtful summary of positions on an important set of issues.

Related posts

• We have to help them understand: Science matters! (1)
• You have to either laugh or cry (and I’ll help you do both) (0)

I highly recommend “Science, delayed” over on Science- Progress.org. It’s a short, clear case by Chris Mooney for how seriously messed up the U.S. Congress is when it comes to science, and how important it is for us all to speak up.

The short version is the the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), created in 1972 to provide non-partisan “user-friendly scientific advice to members of Congress”. After several successful decades (and providing a model for numerous other countries), it died a partisan death in 1995 at the hands of Gingrich The Newt and crowd. Mooney and others had hoped that the OTA would be reconstituted when the Dems regained control of Congress in 2006, but an attempt to include it in the legislative appropriations bill over the summer failed.

The problem? Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ), a physicist and supporter of the return of the OTA found that many of his colleagues just didn’t see the point.

Many members of Congress don’t even see the scientific component to many policy issues. “I use voting as an example,” Holt explains. “Not a single one of my colleagues really understood the problem that was presented by unverifiable voting machines. Scientists or engineers would get that immediately. But Congress didn’t.”

I’ll understand if you need leave the computer for a bit to go rock back and forth in a dark corner and moan. Go ahead - I’ll be here waiting for you when you’re done.

I certainly wouldn’t expect any politician to understand all the complexities of the technical and scientific component of every issue that comes before them. That would be an insanely superhuman task, which is why politicians (should) have (good) advisors. From a statement Holt made before the House Science Committee:

None of us in Congress have time to analyze scientific and technological advances and make reasoned, logical determinations of their direction and impact on industry, nations, and education, but we vote on decisions about topics on a regular basis that include technical or scientific components. The connections to science and technology are not always obvious, especially to Members who avoid science and technology, which are most Members. We cannot do this alone.

Unfortunately, it appears that most Congress Critters don’t have “official” science advisors (if they have them on their staffs, it’s bloody difficult to find that info on-line), which is exactly the gap the OTA was intended to fill.

Given that almost every issue of substance these days has a non-trivial science/technology component, this is particularly disconcerting. From Mooney’s piece (his emphasis):

But in truth, science pops up again and again across a wide diversity of political issues, including many unexpected ones, which is why the entire Congress needs the service of an agency specially suited to analyze issues with that in mind, as well as to look forward to future science-related quandaries on the horizon.

Where do your legislators stand on the restoration of OTA funds? We’ve got to ask these questions if we want them to take the issues seriously.

Related posts

• TechCrunch endorses Obama and McCain (0)
• Education’s an investment, not an expense! (4)

This wonderful little video (produced by some U of M Twin Cities mathematicians) has apparently been viewed over 1 million times now, which is a lot more views than it would ever get in class. I frequently run into faculty that are very intent on holding on to their teaching ideas and techniques, and certainly not sharing them openly with the world. They see those ideas as “their property”, to be guarded and controlled as much as possible. It’s a weird attitude, because almost none of them will ever see any money from those ideas, and the potential for wider viewing and usage is just so much greater if they open up (as in this case).

A good video like this takes a lot of time to produce, but faculty often put in huge hours on their lectures, labs, and demonstrations. Get it out there!

Related posts

• They’re only…what…20 years late? (1)
• So, so cool looking — but I can’t play yet! (3)

UMM’s brought in some outside consultants to assist us in our “branding”. I find the term quite shudder inducing, but what little I’ve seen from these far off lands suggests that the people they’ve brought in are saying some useful things. One bit I liked from their recent report:

UMM’s “quirkiness” [is] appreciated (e.g. Zombie Dance, drag show, etc.) [by the students], but
students felt this was not presented prominently enough

One of the things I’ve always loved about UMM is that it is quirky. Maybe not quite as a “out there” as Reed was, but there are people being individuals and pushing some boundaries in important and valuable ways. We seem shy about sharing that, though, usually in the guise of not wanting to scare off potential students. So instead of emphasizing the cool and strange things that our students are doing, we have tended to focus on a kind of ethnically diverse whitebread image (if that makes any sense).

Our web site, for example, has usually featured these predictably bland photos that wouldn’t typically remind an alum of anything they remember from their time in Morris. A few years ago Jess Larson and others in Studio Art got those replaced by a lot of cool photos that UMM art students took. The student photos were much more visually interesting, and I think actually said something about what UMM was at that time. It didn’t last long, though, and at the next major revision of the web site all those images got replaced by bland professionalism once again. Sigh.

I think there’s a ton of still imagery, video, and audio that we could use on our web site to promote what a neat place UMM is, but we don’t. Below, for example, are four really nice shots from UMM’s Flickr group. Only a handful of people know about or use that group, and it’s probably 75% my stuff, but there are quite a few excellent (and interesting) images there that I think would be really cool on our web site.

Daniel J. Moore	Michael Anderson
Cory Q from Monkey River Town	bam.bam.

Thanks to all those folks for sharing their photos on Flickr!

Related posts

• UMM students are just so cool! (4)
• Contemplating a major change in direction (11)

Those crazy kids at KOffice have created a simplified version of their office suite especially geared for kids. A cool feature, though, is that it’s fully interoperable with the “adult” version of the suite, so teachers/parents can open documents created by students/kids and vice versa. Nice.

open… has some nice thoughts on the role of open source in a process like this:

These are precisely the kind of innovations that free software makes so easy: hacking together a quick prototype and then polishing it. Let’s hope that other simplified versions follow, since an “Easy” Office would be useful far beyond its original target market, education.

It would also be a nice riposte to never-ending complexification of Microsoft’s own products, which are forced to add more and more obscure features - whether or not users what them - in a desperate attempt to justify yet another paid-for upgrade. Free software is under no such pressure, and can therefore downgrade applications when that might appropriate, as here. Microsoft, by contrast, is trapped by its ratchet-based business model.

Related posts

• Transforming our thoughts about teaching (2)
• A wonderfully different way to thing about computing (0)