Pluto Should Never Have Been a Planet

I just finished reading Mike Brown's How I Killed Pluto and Why it had it Coming, and it was a fantastic read.  It got me thinking of so many things; scientific progress and history, how the public perceives scientific ideas, becoming entrenched in a way of thinking, distress over change, and how so much of education seems to be storing data in memory rather than learning algorithms (and man for some reason I've really been connecting with my inner computer scientist lately) are just some of the highlights.  It's amazing how much depth there is to the trivial or technical classification details of a rock out there past Neptune.  There's one more aspect of the book that I loved, Mike Brown's humanity in his love for his wife, his daughter, and the sky, but I think I'll write about that in detail later.

I remember when Pluto was reclassified.  Many jokingly consoled forlorn Pluto, kicked out of the planet club by the big boys.  After reading the book I find it odd, why did no one talk about Eris (the Kuiper belt object actually larger than Pluto which theoretically could have been the tenth planet)?  Why did no one bring up Charon, Pluto's moon which is almost as large as Pluto?  Why did no one discuss what exactly it meant to be a planet, and how exciting it was that we were learning more about our solar system in finding so much out there in a whole new asteroid belt out beyond the gas giants, the aforementioned Kuiper belt?

I've groused before on this blog about the dreadful way mathematics is taught, perhaps it's time to get some of that ire up for science as well.  One thing the book made clear is that we all learned that the planets are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and (as we learned at least) Pluto.  Did any of us ever learn what a planet is?  I think the 'Pluto controversy' pretty clearly indicates no, we didn't.  If we had we would have always found Pluto's planethood a little odd.

Pluto's moon doesn't orbit around it, they orbit around each other.  Pluto's orbit is eccentric from the other planets.  Pluto is smaller than many planet's moons, including Earth's.  To kids and creatives that might make Pluto mysterious and fascinating (it did to Mike Brown as a child), but to scientists and logical thinkers it seems misplaced in the solar system.  And indeed it was.

But no one really seemed to feel that way.  We all sort of felt bad for Pluto, and some people might have even been upset.  I think there's two major components why.  The first is, as I alluded to, the way we learn science.  The next is our unwillingness to accept change.

Thinking about the Pluto controversy I am brought to worry that we are often taught 'the way things are'.  Mike Brown talks about trying to get students out of the mindset of, "Give me the answers I need to know for the test".  The unfortunate implication is that something gets them into this mindset in the first place.  Standardized testing is a convenient and popular target for modern problems in education, but I'd feel remiss if I didn't mention that of necessity it requires students to memorize and later regurgitate facts, and testing any deeper thought processes is at the very least much more difficult.

I read a NYT article that talked about why teaching the difference between fact and opinion like we currently do in schools is morally perilous, as well as simply fundamentally misguided.  It points out interesting ideas, like how teaching children that facts are provable and true causes them to equate truth with provability, even though they're very different things.  I think a focus on 'facts' in science class also carries a dogmatic implication for young students.  Science is always true because we collected evidence for our ideas.  Here's where the distress comes up; Pluto no longer being a planet means facts can change as our understanding does.

And that opens up a whole new can of worms in our minds.  It forces introspection and meta-cognition, in which sadly most of us are loath to participate.  It creates a crisis of certainty, because after all if Pluto being a planet isn't true what other tidbits we learned might not be true?  Doubt is, unfortunately, scary to many.  We're unwilling to change our thinking, to update our knowledge, to print retractions or errata for our memories.  This is why teachings of humility are so important.  They allow us to maintain our sense of self and identity even when we're forced to change our thinking, context, or experience.

A great idea that came together for me when I read The Island of Knowledge is that science must necessarily be the least sure of itself of all human endeavors or reservoirs of understanding.  It must be forever willing to except new evidence or observation which proves previous ideas wrong, and moreover perhaps must forever be seeking these out.  No less than the well known and liked Neil DeGrasse Tyson recently said in a podcast I listened to that the greatest problem is always dogmatism, because it ends a conversation and makes learning from others difficult or impossible.  Let's take this to heart, accept that Pluto should never have been a planet, and rejoice in the fascinating newly unfolding mysteries of that Kuiper belt.

Crying About Mathematics

I recently saw this image posted on Facebook and then looked at the last 3 posts from Grammarly, the original poster.  We have a think piece on whether universities should require writing proficiency for graduation, a joke about precision and exactitude in grammar standards leading to vandalism (with indications that that's at least understandable) and a prettied up quote from John Dewey that, "Education is not the preparation for life; it is life itself."  That last one is particularly interesting in contrast with this image and it leads to the obvious implication that what they really mean is, "Education (in the arts, humanities, and soft sciences) is deeply fulfilling and enriches life to the point of making it worth living, but of course we know technical sciences and mathematics are just painful things to be suffered through."

This is probably a good example of why US culture is so innumerate (the numerical equivalent to illiterate, a term coined by John Allen Paulos) and inept at scientific thought.  This is where we get the reflex of credibility toward the phrases "experts say" or "studies show" or the news stories that butcher or manipulate statistics to serve whatever purpose hits the emotional agenda of the story.  I'll be the first to admit (and then probably go on a tirade about the problem for however long you listen plus ten minutes) that our mathematics education is just heinous and obsolete to a point that would be absurd if it weren't so damaging and dangerous.  With that said the solution is certainly not to perpetuate the idea that these things are hard, stressful, and just generally unpleasant.

I've written here before about the nobility and importance of mathematics, and this one won't be the last time I do, so perhaps I'm just belaboring an idea, but I'm going to list out some of mathematics' virtues anyway.

• Math is Mind Expanding: Mathematics deals with concepts that can go beyond normal human experience.  How often do you work with the infinite?  Did you know there were several different sizes of infinity, and that some infinities are larger than others?  I had a very serious discussion with some family and friends recently about dimensional figures and the nature of God.  I wear a metal Möbius band (a strip that has only one side, yes really) on a necklace that was given to me by my wife.
• Math is Humbling: The humanities are important largely because they teach us to think emotionally, form opinions, and understand the human experience.  Math, and the sciences (though perhaps to a lesser degree), teach us to think rationally, examine our ideas, and understand the world around us and, yes, the human experience as well.  In mathematics one thing must strictly follow from the last and we must learn to abide by the rules of the operations we're performing.  We can form and idea or an opinion just as easily as we can in any humanities class, but then we're told to really look at that, to see if it makes sense in context, and it can become starkly clear when it's not.  Humanities often remind us that how we perceive and judge the world around us matters.  Mathematics, and the sciences, remind us that the laws of systems (like the universe) don't just bend to our will because we think we have a better idea of how things should be.
• Math Teaches Self Awareness: Like my last point, the requirements within mathematics that we "stay within the lines" as we progress form one thought to the next in our process of proving, computing, or deriving new information means we need to learn to watch our thoughts, and see where they fail to stay consistent with our principles.  Learning how we think, how one thought in the mind springs from the last and whether that process is working properly or in need of reform is pretty clearly an invaluable skill that will better society if widespread.

So if math is so wonderful, why is it so often denigrated, like in the image above depicting it as something that is sure to spawn sadness and strife sufficient to stimulate sobbing?  Why is this far from the first post to the effect of, "Ooh math really sucks, don't you all agree?" that has gotten shared around?  Why do people flaunt their ignorance or lack of active engagement in mathematics with phrases like, "I totally forgot how any of that stuff works, but hey I'm never going to use it again, right?"  Why does that receive knowing chuckles and appreciative nods instead of the derision or contemplative sadness such ignorance or loss of talent should garner ("I can't remember a thing about the Civil War, but who cares?  I'm not becoming a historian," "I used to be able to play the oboe, but now I can hardly even remember the basic fingerings," "Why did I even do all of that reading in high school?  I never ended up being in a Shakespeare play or even going to one.")?

Well, there are systematic problems.  Like I said we teach math horribly (in the US at least), especially at the elementary level which means that when children are forming their emotional understandings they learn early that math is something hard and to be feared.  It doesn't help that so many who shape the culture are also the worst at mathematics and mathematical thinking.  Still, none of these jabs at "that painful and useless old field, math" seem to present solutions or even raise awareness about the problems of media misrepresentation or the need for educational STEM reform.

I've been told that it's about thinking differently, that the jokes are just trying to say, "Oh man, my brain sure doesn't work that way," but mathematicians and scientists aren't sharing Facebook memes about how useless writing and art are.  The most I've seen are more along the lines of, "Boy it's really frustrating how misrepresented we are and how poorly understood and distorted our work is when presented for public consumption."  Also, I don't really buy that our thinking is all that different.  When I tutored mathematics the problem really seemed to be more about attitude.  People didn't put effort into learning or doing mathematics because they thought it was hard, boring, or just not important to them.  With effort they picked up the concepts just fine, but the attitudes that surround math made them reticent in putting forth that effort.

Math students have often been taught in what one teacher of mine referred to as the GMTED or the "Give Me The Equation, D***it!" mindset.  Try to discuss the concepts behind the figures, the real meaning of the numbers and symbols and they shut down and demand you give them a simple formula so they can mechanically plug numbers in.  Math education is too often a "human programming" job, using drills, memorization, and routines to create humans that will carry out operations to compute a value.  This must change, but can't if people believe that actually thinking about math is something they're incapable of because, "their brain just doesn't work that way."

So I beg of you, respect mathematics.  Let's leave behind the antiquated views of math as prima facie unappealing as we leave behind the systems that have made thousands fail to understand the beauty and wisdom it contains.  Let's elevate our understanding of ourselves by doing meditative mathematics.  Let's elevate our understanding of the universe by understanding the language in which God wrote it.  Let's create a society that values this great field of human thought and endeavor that's gifted us the computer, engineering, and so much more.  Let's create an intellectualism that, to paraphrase the apocryphal inscription above Plato's Academy, lets none but mathematicians enter; not out of elitism or to exclude readers, writers, artists, and other so-called non-math people but in recognition that a complete philosopher will be mathematician in addition to artist, reader, theologian, writer, and more as he or she embraces all the many worthy areas of endeavor in the vast yet limited expanse of human knowledge.

Are We Ready for Post Scarcity? Part 3

So technology has brought us a new world.  The new technologies developed in the 20th and 21st centuries have created a world with changes as drastic as the invention of agriculture over 10 millenia ago.  This new world is awe inspiring in its productive capabilities.  Like the soviets upon seeing American grocery stores or backyard pools, those of us from the old worlds look in disbelief on the abundance the highly automated modern world offers.  Will that disbelief be an awestruck hopeful wonderment, or a horrified cringing at the dystopian nightmare on display?

What becomes of the human being, the individual in the post-scarcity world?  While objectively unanswerable, for now, science fiction and current trends can give us an idea.  Star Trek provides the most hopeful vision, a humanity that devotes itself to self improvement and growth, bravely venturing out to explore the universe or just starting a small restaurant to share the joy of old family recipes (like Joseph Sisko from DS9).  People engage in their passions and become the greatest captains, scientists, or chefs that they can thanks to the freedom from desire and from the struggle for the basic necessities of life.  While this optimism is one of the reasons we love Star Trek it doesn't strike us as realistic.

On the other side of the spectrum we see the 'dystopian,' or broken utopia, genre of fiction.  The lack of scarcity in information and communication enabled by the internet has made government surveillance and monitoring so easy that the protections for citizens seem to come only from law these days.  And that can easily fail, as the victory of the ACLU against ongoing programs of the NSA showed.  The NSA's activities have many shouting that, "1984 was not an instruction manual."  A conversation from the video game Deus Ex indicates another interesting, and all to realistic, future:

JC Denton: Some people just don't understand the dangers of indiscriminate surveillance

Morpheus (an AI system who is 'a prototype for a larger system'): The need to observed and understood was once satisfied by God.  Now we can implement the same functionality with data-mining algorithms.

JC Denton: Electronic surveillance hardly inspires reverence.  Perhaps fear and obedience, but not reverence.

Huxley's Brave New World gives us one vision of a post scarcity world that's also terrifying.  People are raised from conception to death to fill a certain role, with much of the population raised to lack mental faculty and drive so that they can be contented with menial jobs.  Innovation is suppressed if the rulers decide it doesn't support the economy.  The population is essentially drugged into compliance and acceptance of the system that promotes nothing but the status quo ad infinitum.  At least everyone has a job, though.

These uncomfortable futures are just fiction, for now, but sadly they seem to strike us as truer to reality.  One of the consequences of post-scarcity living is that power can evaporate.  It can also become much more concentrated.  Abuses by law enforcement that were once prevented by their sheer infeasibility now need laws in place to protect citizens (the supreme court decision on GPS tracking is a good example of this to add to the NSA's recent abuses of power).  However when laws are needed the question inevitably arises of who will write them.

The genius of American government is the idea of the powerful individual, that every citizen has strength enough to make their voice resonate in the halls of power.  The idea has caught on so strongly that it's easy to forgot how revolutionary and unthinkable this idea would be only 500 or so years ago when monarchs were the norm, and for basically all of human history before that when the strong took what they wanted without regard for whether or not the man they were taking it from cared to give it up.

The same power of technology that can eliminate scarcity could also conceivably eliminate freedom.  Corporate influence over lawmakers could barely be necessary if companies like John Deere, Apple, and Comcast continue along their trajectories.  Imagine the power the tractor company would hold if they were able to dictate whether or not their machinery were allowed to be repaired or you would just have to buy a new one to continue sowing grain.  Consider the power of a company with similar power over electronics and personal computers.  All the innovation and creativity in the world doesn't mean a thing if a company controlling the means of distribution for new products and stories can decide to refuse their service.

How can we dilute these powers, without only strengthening centralized government power, and while still providing opportunity and daily bread for the individual?  I don't know.  I have some ideas, but truly I can't say what I'd really do if I were ruler of the world, or even just the US.  What I can say is that no one else really can either.  There's a dearth of ideas and solutions floating around out there because we're not addressing the issue.

The idea of a post-scarcity economy and society is so revolutionary that it doesn't sound real.  Talking about robotics and computing replacing human beings as the driving force in the economy sounds like science fiction, despite the fact that we continually experience it as reality.  The whole issue is so massive and so out there that it's not addressed seriously in politics, and rarely in thoughtful conversation.  If this continues we'll find ourselves in a world clinging to obsolete social mores and struggling to make them fit in the modern world.  We can't let that happen, so let's think about getting ready for post-scarcity.

Are We Ready for Post Scarcity? Part 1

The abundance of the modern day is staggering.  Food alone is now requiring few man hours and producing vast amounts of product.  In about 25 years the personal computer has gone from a relatively cutting edge office device to a ubiquitous handheld one.  The amazing advances in technology will only cascade into more, and these will bring amazing blessings, conveniences, and boons to humankind.  These are gifts we should be prepared to freely receive, but like a gift of chocolate that will make us sick if eaten to quickly or heavy book that will require much reading and concentration we need to be receive these with caution and adroitness.

Let's go back to food.  One of the interesting points of contention between my brothers, me, and our grandmother is our approach and mentalities surrounding food.  Our grandma, growing up in a family that suffered through and being born shortly after the great depression, views food as a precious and scarce resource.  She often views food in terms of availability, enjoying buffets and inexpensive diners and being anxious over throwing away uneaten scraps or spoiling produce.  My brothers, and even my parents, live in the modern age and see food as abundant.  We don't like to waste food, but recognize that when the bread gets moldy it should be thrown out because it only costs a dollar or two (ten minutes of work at minimum wage) to get another loaf.  We live devoid of the "clean your plate" ethic so common in past generations.

Thank heavens for that too, as obesity and overeating are a greater health risk to us than malnutrition (though I am skeptical of the magnitude of this risk).  It's actually odd to think about health risks arising because nourishment is so easy to obtain.  Taking anatomy and physiology I've learned hundreds of ways in which a deficiency of calcium, iodine, glucose, iron, or any other number of dietary intakes cause problems.  It's bizarre to think of problems coming about simply because we have so much of those things we need and love that we run out places to put it and spend so much time and energy to keeping it all together.

Food is only the beginning of this, though.  Technology is more and more in in the reach of anyone who'd like it.  Entertainment and education is more available than ever with the internet.  And these are just the commodities being made abundant with modern technology.  Go even slightly futuristic and we have productive capabilities exploding via robotics, precious metals or gems having their scarcity destroyed by advanced chemical and materials engineering techniques, and even thought or creativity flooding the market in ways never before seen thanks to better distribution systems, or even AI and other futuristic computing creating new art.

The challenges presented by this can be staggering though.  The central one is likely motivation.  Survival and status have been the principle motivators of a person in the past.  That might have meant being the mightiest hunter in the tribe that's always well fed or the most influential business magnate on wall street who always had some opportunity waiting, but the principles been the same.  Many of us have said something like, "I really don't want to go to work today but they won't pay me if I don't so I guess I had better," and we've probably even said that with some frequency.  If we reach post scarcity we theoretically won't ever need to get paid, so what will keep us getting out of bed in the morning and off the streets?  I'll be investigating this and other ideas of a post-scarcity society and economy in part 2.

Technology, cheating, and the Augmented Mind

As a student I've been taking plenty of tests lately.  My university has a pretty good testing system and convenient testing centers and I'm a pretty good test taker so none of this really bothers me, but I have found the testing center policies interesting.  The fact that I have to remove my hat before going in is one.  Recently they've also disallowed the wearing of a wristwatch, almost certainly in response to the new smart-watch technology coming out.  While this is the right thing to do, it does indicate a need for much grander changes in both the way we do things as well as our thinking, probably especially in education.  Changes we are woefully unprepared for.

Let's consider the testing center again, perhaps as if you were the director of these.  We made the change for smart-watches so that they won't be used for cheating.  What will we do if Google Glass, or a similar project where data is displayed on a pair of glasses worn by the user, takes off and starts showing up?  If that technology becomes integrated into people's prescription lenses?  What about if those smart watches become smart tattoos?  What about when students start having direct neural interfaces integrating computers into the brain?  These problems are coming, and I think we can quickly see there's no easy solution, and maybe no solution at all to make a our current testing systems compatible with the existence of these technologies.

As my neuroscience teacher put it, most testing today is a simple demonstration of declarative memory.  This is to say tests usually require a simple recalling of facts, figures, or other basic knowledge.  However, the need for this to be done in the human brain is dwindling.  Facts can be more easily stored, more quickly recalled, and more reliably maintained in computer systems than in nervous tissue.  Why would we keep using cerebral circuits (that weren't really designed to do this in the first place) when we can use electronic ones?  The go to example is memorizing phone numbers, something many of us remember doing before technology made it an exercise in pointless exertion of energy.

Lest you think this is the pie in the sky omphaloskepsis of a futurist and science fiction fan, let me relay a story I heard from one parent.  He wanted to have his daughter writing letters, and specifically to do so using some specific vocabulary.  Shortly after he heard his daughter speaking out loud while alone in her room writing the letter.  Listening closer he realized she was using the voice recognition feature of the tablet/smartphone to simply ask for the spelling of the appropriate words.  This was much to his disappointment, as he was expecting her to look the words up when writing them and learn the definition along with the spelling.  That's how big a change something as simple as voice recognition is making.

A future where traditional testing is pointless seems on the horizon.  How education will or even can deal with this is unclear.  The problem with leaving our traditional testing is that other methods require more work to evaluate, and usually are less objective which can be a big problem for admissions tests like the MCAT.  The only solution I've thought of is an increase in internships and apprentice work, but whether or not this is feasible is unclear.  I know the major reason the radiology or medical laboratory programs at my school can't admit more than about 40% of applicant students is because they only have so many slots for clinical rotations available.  It could be damaging to the economy to have the influx of cheap or free labor that having five interns or apprentices to every one trained employee might mean.  The problem is a big one, and sadly I haven't seen it given all that much attention.  Let's hope for and work toward that changing sometime soon.

Thirty Years

Yesterday was my thirtieth birthday. As I leave my thirtieth year of life and enter my thirty-first I reflect on the passed year.  Year thirty feels as if I've been a plane that's waited at the gate, taxied up the runway, and taken off for a new destination.  Here's the highlights:

• Working at inthinc : I continued my job at inthinc technology solutions for the first part of the year.  This time taught me once again the importance of good management.  Our last manager was very skilled at keeping the support team of which I was a part happy and feeling valued within the company.  During the first part of the year we had no manager and a number of internal conflicts arose within the team as well as numerous difficulties arising from a lack of effective interfacing with the rest of the company.  Our new manager, when hired, eventually turned out to make promises like a politician, fail to inform us about and connect us effectively with the rest of the company, and make the talent feel undervalued. I was the third person to leave the team as the burden on our team increased and feelings of valuation decreased.  After leaving the company I continued to hear of hardships and found the company was losing money and talent at an alarming rate, though it seems to have stabilized at this point. I have a number of good friends from my time there, but am happy to have gone.
• Returning to University : Leaving inthinc prompted an overall career change.  I had noticed that the career trajectory in technical support would take significant time to advance and might not lead to a place I really wanted to be.  Looking at what field might be related to my previous scholastic experience in physics I found that radiology is something that would probably take about as much time to train in as it would to advance in my current work, had similar job demands at higher pay, and ultimately would be more fulfilling and interesting.  I enrolled at Weber State University and started attending classes. I was reminded how much I appreciated the university atmosphere and learning new material.
• Entering Medicine : Preparing to enter the field of radiography I've been learning about the medical field generally as well.  I trained as a phlebotomist and am making arrangements to test for my limited x-ray machine operator's license.  I have been fascinated by the challenges and nature of the medical field. There's an intriguing intimacy to healthcare that makes me feel a great deal of responsibility toward patients. I never thought that biochemistry would hold any interest for me but after studying it (in part at least) for a semester I've completely turned the corner and am engaged by protein structures and metabolic pathways.  There's clearly a lot to learn and do in this field and I'm eager to continue exploring it in year thirty one of life and beyond.

On Campus

Four years after graduating with a degree in physics I'm returning to school.  I've always loved learning.  New facts, viewpoints, and skills are a thrill to acquire and I'm ecstatic about the opportunity I'm carving out together with my wife to collect a new bushel of these in the field of radiology.  I'm counting down the days until classes start, and have already read the first chapter or two in the books I've bought.  I'm excited to be back on the university campus.

The campus, in particular, has turned out to be something I didn't even know I had missed.  When I walked around the campus recently to fill out financial aid forms and speak with an academic counselor I took in with glee just being on a college campus.  I adored looking over artwork and artifacts displayed in hallways and lobbies of the health professions building.  I enjoyed the bustle of the student union and looked over message boards to see if any clubs, bands, or activities would catch my interest.

The college campus is a great reflection of the community made up by a college or university.  So much of community is ethereal these days that the physical presence felt on a college campus is refreshing.  Being 'at the office' has this too, but so few workspaces also include socialization, recreation, or relaxation spaces in them as well.  All is devoted to getting the job done, whereas on campus the goals of creating a positive culture and promoting student interaction also seem very present in the consideration of the buildings and landscapes.

I also love the diversity of a college campus.  Diversity often refers to a high degree of heterogeneity in skin colors, sexualities, and other traits with which the human race sadly divides ourselves into factions, but that's not to what I'm referring to here.  I love that the art building is on the other side of the student union from the business school.  I like knowing the computer science building is across the quad from the mineral museum.  I love the diversity of opinion, of interest, of passion, of expertise, or of study represented by having buildings devoted to so many varied pursuits together in one place.

The university experience and the role of post-secondary education is changing rapidly in our society.  Online classes are quickly gaining traction and more and more people are realizing that the bachelor's degree often doesn't carry the same value it once did and may not be worth the price tag it often carries.  I support this and believe that post-secondary education and career training  needs to be more readily available in an assortment of forms (and that high schools need to teach more career training and less academic fluff seemingly only to fill the time until you finally go to college and learn something useful...hopefully, but all of that is a different discussion entirely).  That said, I hope there will always be a place for the grand college campus that seems to include a park or two, community message boards and meeting houses, and building after building devoted to disparate intellectual pursuits.

Have I learned how to be happy at a job?

This question occurred to me earlier and I've been wondering ever since. There's a whole bunch of people moving to a different jobs where I'm working and I've been browsing other jobs as well.  It's possible this is perfectly reasonable and the place I work now is just a horrid place to work, but I've come upon another possibility: I haven't learned how to settle in and enjoy a workplace.

It's not that hard to believe. I haven't had a really long term job since high school. I've popped in and out of on campus work and temporary summer positions. And for most of the last year I've worked hard continually looking for a full time job, so I'm already in the habit of searching out opportunities.  Even in all those years of schooling much of the experience was putting in the time at one class and then excitedly looking at the course catalog to see on to which class I would move.  All in all, it does seem that I lack any recent life experience in finding a way to say, "I like where I am now, no hurry in finding something else."

Of course there's nothing wrong with a little ambition and trying to improve one's position in life. It's actually a great virtue, trying to better oneself.  I worry that I may be being all to quick to give up a good thing, though. I live very close to where I work and would almost certainly have to give up the short 20 minute walk to work in favor of either buying a car or finding public transportation options. Both of these possibilities are more costly and neither provides the modicum of exercise that I enjoy with walking.

Putting aside these practical considerations, though, I have a greater unease that I'm finding gratitude and satisfaction difficult.  Which I shouldn't because I have much for which to be grateful, even in the narrow field of my career.  My job went through quickly, allowing me to set myself up in Salt Lake near my beloved.  I think I should make more, but then again when is that ever not true and I make enough to live quite confortably and make good progress paying off my debts.  I'm providing a service that does help people and hopefully makes others' days just a little better.  I get to talk to people from all around the world.  While there's plenty to complain about, there's also plenty to appreciate.

It's interesting to consider how we learn to be happy with a job, and moreso how we do so without becoming complacent or stagnant with our position.  I look back and I see a life spent working hard to get to the next level and move on to the next thing, and while in many ways I plan to continue doing this, I also want to make sure I can simply enjoy the situation I'm in as long as it's not one in desperate need of change.

Mathematics is a Godly pursuit

I had this thought after tutoring one day and I've been meaning to write on it for a while.  Many friends and family of mine will be familiar with my love for mathematics and my feelings of anathema toward the apparently acceptable innumeracy of current American culture at large.  While there are numerous arguments on the basis of how useful mathematics is, what a powerful tool it is and how important it is to understand statistics (such as opinion polls or study results) there is another argument to be made.  Like we appreciate art, literature, and other humanities for their inherent beauty and the way they open our eyes to new ways of seeing the world, so should we appreciate mathematics similarly.

Mathematics teaches us (or can if taught and learned with aplomb) humility.  The superior attitude of some of those capable with numbers may seem to contradict this, but this may emulate from the sad way in which mathematics is taught.  An excellent author about mathematics in culture, John Allen Paulos, has often pointed out that math is taught and subsequently perceived as being about computation.  He says that this is similar to saying writing is about typing, and reminds me of a professor of mine saying, "To say computer science is about computers is like saying astronomy is about telescopes."  I will endeavor to avoid further digression about mathematics education, but will point out that when we tell people that they can find a certain answer following a couple basic steps we should not be surprised when they come to believe that they understand everything.

Mathematics is a harsh mistress.  When not teaching algorithms and their application (not a study of algorithms, which is rather enlightening, but instead essentially programming students in a manner shockingly similar to the way a programmer programs a computer to do specific computations), mathematics is about logic.  For the few reading that have actually done proofs, I feel this is a core of mathematics.  Working through with rigor new knowledge and insights from a handful of basic, known, accepted axioms.

What I learned taking a basic concepts of mathematics class (which with a name like that you may be surprised to learn was a junior level college course) is that this process is unforgiving.  One must be utterly cautious and unrelentingly precise.  One must avoid at all costs projecting one's desires, feelings, and possibly even intuition onto their work.  Instead one must choose to strictly follow what is known and established, to do what the axioms and previously derived theorems allow, and nothing more, and to consider every case and possibility

It is this, that makes me say mathematics is a Godly pursuit.  When I say mathematics is godly I mean that it is greater than ourselves.  We must be willing to practice humility and recognize laws that are beyond our instincts, hearts, and preconceptions.  The laws of mathematics do not bend to our desires because we feel they should.  Mathematics isn't a vehicle for our own ideas or agendas, but rather a manner in which we examine how we came to these and whether or not they require additional scrutiny.  Mathematics brings us to truth that we discover for ourselves but are independent form who we are.  Mathematics is bringing something beyond us and greater than us into ourselves.  This is what religion (like mathematics, when it isn't perverted into a degenerate form that is only good for frustrating students or wrongly justifying our preconceptions) does for us as well.

I will end repeating the refrain that mathematics teaches us humility, and this is what makes it at least nigh on divine.  To learn and to do mathematics is to seek knowledge and learn how little we know, what the limits are to our knowledge, and how easily we can err.  Is not such a pursuit godly?

The family and the schools

I was thinking about prayer in schools lately. For the record I'm not for it, though being a spiritual individual I wondered why. I am at the conclusion that what I'm for is prayer in the family and that's many times more important and beneficial than prayer in school.

One reason for this is that it means I'm afforded greater control over my child's development and involvement in his or her life. I want to be part of my kid's spirituality, rather than have it dictated by whatever principle, teacher, or school board member would do such things. When the schools teach my kids to pray, or any number of other things for that matter, my kids are taught what the school wants them to learn, rather than what I want them to learn.

Exposure to other ideas is important, but it's not unreasonable for a parent to wish to raise a child with certain values. It's imperative, actually, to raising a child with any moral compass who grows up to be anything other than, well actually just a child who grows up. Without learning to follow a set of principles rather than be tossed to and fro by every whim and impulse a child never grows up, but I digress. I want to teach my child values, and don't confide in the schools to teach my child the right values or even to do it well if they did.

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world, and so the issue extends to who do I want as my ruler. As a strong willed individual I only want myself, with my family in positions of power. Leaving the individual to be free means that families raise the children. A friend of mine teaches at the local high school, which isn't a great school. He was once asked, "How can you trust the school to teach your kids," and his answer was a simple "It's not the school that's going to teach my kids." He then mentioned that he and his wife has already taught their children some basic reading and writing skills, and he never plans to surrender all the responsibility of teaching to the school system.

I've always agreed with that sentiment, and as such only expect the schools to provide a good supplement for the teaching I and my wife will provide for our children. On my part, I know that some grammer, history, and literature will be something I want my kids to hear from someone more expert than myself. Still, though, I hope to be a part of my kids learning all of this, sharing and discussing the ideas. I might learn something myself, I might provide an new perspective for my kid to think about, or I might just help my son or daughter to better understand something new to him or her but well known to me. One way or the other, my child will learn something and I will be a part of it. That's the kind of parent I want to be.

"Why is there always money for war, but not education?"

I see a bumper sticker with the above almost everyday on my walk to school. I can feel myself sympathetic with the sentiment sometimes. I often feel that the sentiment is naive, that of a simpleton, and masquerading as something with important meaning while truly hollow, on the other hand. Thinking about it I've (obviously) decided to write a post on the subject, and actually I came up with an answer:
Because war is expensive, education isn't. Even as a college student who is continually hit with the cost of education-a physics major who often thinks, "Man, I wish the phys. dept. could just replace all this lab equipment with newer, nicer stuff," a student who knows how expensive books are, a student who works extensively with computers and wonders if he'd do well at all without his personal computer-I think the need for money in education is overrated. Good education requires more personal involvement on the part of the teacher and the student. That's the most important factor. Everything else is gravy. Shouldn't we have a financial investment and incentive for teachers do be involved then? Yes. Yes, yes, yes. I'd love it if teachers got paid more, because apart from parents they may have the most important job for society.
Then again, soldiers may have the most important job for society. Soldiers bought us freedom from England with blood, nuclear warheads scared us, but may have also saved us from communists during the cold war, and soldiers, TSA, CIA, NSA, and others from the American war machine that seems to have too much money keep those who would kill us all simply because we don't bow to their beliefs. Moreover, soldiers liberates Auschwitz, and have stopped evil time and time again throughout history.
Guns, planes, bombs, and armour cost money though. Keeping these relevant costs more. Finding a good teacher takes, well frankly luck. Actually, it costs character. If our society doesn't cultivate character, no one is going to take a job trying to impart knowledge to others. This number will fall even farther if the students of our society don't have enough humility (which people of good character should have) to learn, instead persecuting those that would dare try to tell them they need to work harder to understand an unknown piece of the world. No one can do more to bring the character to the students of our society than parents. But most parents worry more about their children being smart, successful, or simply docile than they do about having character.
In a perfect world, we would pay teachers would be millionaires, and armies wouldn't exist because there'd be no need. Aside from religious beliefs, we'll never live in that perfect world and we have to live intelligently, according to what really exists and addressing those needs, in the real world. The real world has evil, danger, and societal problems that make education hard, so sometimes it's easier to pretend we live in a perfect world.