eric the fruitbatBlog
Sounding out the Noosphere.

Posts from October, 2008

Function calling notation.

Posted by Eric Hennigan
On October 25th, 2008 at 15:10

Permalink | Trackback | Links In |

Leave a Comment |
Posted in Comp*, Language

I was reading Yegge’s rant Rhinos and Tigers, and he mentioned that:

So it’s kind of unfortunate when you have to use functions, because if you have to say, you know, HTMLElement.getChildren.whatever, it gets inverted with functions: whatever(getChildren(HTMLElement)). You have to call from the innermost one to the outermost… it’s “backwards”, right?

This doesn’t necessarily have to be true, we could institute a new functional calling convention where the arguments precede the function name:
((HTMLElement)getChildren)whatever

Let’s try this out a bit.
(5)factorial
("Hello World\n")print
(5, 3)add
(math.pi)math.cos

It’s apparently works nicely for certain functions: Yegge’s example and factorial; but not at all for most others. This could be because in ordinary discourse, Subject precedes Action precedes Object. I suppose you could get used to this notation, but I find it too backwards for too many things.

An interesting series of questions.

Posted by Eric Hennigan
On October 25th, 2008 at 14:10

Permalink | Trackback | Links In |

Leave a Comment |
Posted in Philosophy, Religion, Self

I caught this scribbled on a piece of paper, as I was cleaning my desk today.

Is there anything more valuable than human life?
If No: Then when reason have we to live?
If Yes: Then do such things justify killing in certain situations?

It’s really quite messy here: Most people want there to be something bigger than themselves (which would give us each a reason to live) yet we also want to uphold the sanctity of life. Our desires seem to be in logical conflict.
Christianity takes an interesting approach, clearly stating that certain things are more important than human life, yet giving a commandment that ‘thou shalt not kill.’ In certain other passages, though, it’s OK to kill ones enemies, if God is on your side; In the Old Testament it’s almost actively encouraged.

Though this clearly meshes with ordinary human desires (demonstrating that the book was authored by man), it remains a logical conflict. I personally don’t really have a way out. The answers that I gave on the paper were that There is something more valuable than human life (I didn’t say what) and that it does justify killing in certain situations. An answer that I obviously have problems with today (hence the post).

Even more interestingly, the paper contains a meta-question:

Is the idea that human life is the most valuable worth dying or killing for?

Clearly if you answer yes, then human life isn’t itself the most valuable (the idea is more valuable), which invalidates the claim.
If you answer no, then you undermine the importance of the idea because you would have to give it up if mortally threatened; You’d hold life itself above the idea.

Children’s Books of Science

Posted by Eric Hennigan
On October 19th, 2008 at 15:10

Permalink | Trackback | Links In |

Leave a Comment |
Posted in Education, Ideas, People, Religion

Today I decided to send the following email. Usually, when I do such things it doesn’t make any difference. But it still never hurts to try. We’ll see what becomes of my efforts this time.

Dear PZ Myers and richarddawkins.net,

I wanted the following to go personally to Richard Dawkins, but could not find his personal email through websearching (likely with very good reason). I’m uncertain wether he has the opportunity to read every mail sent to richarddawkins.net; So I humbly ask you to forward this (at your own discretion) to the Eminent Professor of Public Understanding of Science. Oh and feel welcome to post this communication publicly, in part or in full. (Comment feedback from either or both of Pharyngula and richarddawkins.net readers would likely be rather informative)

——-
Dear Darwin’s Rottweiler,

On several occasions I’ve heard you mention that you’d like to, or were considering writing a children’s book. I think that this is an astounding idea. I share your views that the uncritical acceptance of religion, and the assumed authority it has over moral issues poisons our culture, and threatens our social progress. I currently think that the primary reason for the perniciousness of religious belief is that it is crammed into the skulls of children before they’ve developed the capacity for critical thinking or other tools of intellectual defense. Children’s books that promulgate the values of the Enlightenment could very well be the best weaponry against religion that we have at our disposal. And it doesn’t even have to appear as an attack!

I would like very much to see a series of children’s books that propagate some of the allegorical tales in science. The stories could cover Newton’s Apple, Galileo and the Tower of Pisa, Friedrich Kekule and the Benzene Ouroboros, Eratosthenes and the Round Earth, Copernicus and Geo-Centrism, Archimedes and the Bathtub, Watson and Crick and their puzzle pieces, Einstein and the light-train, Alexander Fleming and his dirty dishes. Science is replete with heroes that should be celebrated for their hard and tireless brain-work; heroes that used their mind and reason to solve real-world problems; heroes that stood up against dogmatic authority. These stories should celebrate such individual efforts, acknowledge their personal sacrifices, and encourage children to become active participants in growing our collective knowledge. (We should also celebrate supporting roles, not exclusively heroes; since, realistically, that’s where most of us are positioned.)

In my mind many of these stories would be ideal for bedtime. I think it is more important to instill in children the values of science rather than its teachings. If society were to completely lose its scientific knowledge, a social structure that encourages well-thought-out dissent, evidence-based critique, and the importance of experimental repeatability, logic, reason, precision in communication, would be vitally important to regaining that knowledge. The methods of science are more important than the results of science; and children’s stories should draw upon this phenomenon, instilling values rather than dry facts. The very notion that by reason alone we can come to know more about the world and our position in it, is, to me, much more inspiring than anything religion has to offer. And I feel it is a moral obligation to communicate this innately human desire to our children, such that they might learn our methods early and be ably equipped to build upon our work as early as possible. To demonstrate through stories that the best, prooven and reliable method for getting ahead in life, is to use your mind for understanding what you observe around you.

There are so many children’s story books that focus on tales from the bible, that it’s time we created some competition. Most of these books tend to have an overtly moral tone to them; please make every effort to avoid that. Even children can tell when they are being preached to, and they grow to resent such condescension.

I’ve also noticed a wild cry among the populace that science education is faltering in America. I have personal experience that tells me technically minded parents are quite concerned about the current state of affairs, and already make efforts outside of the curriculum to inspire their children in the ways of science and math. Help give these families some tools to teach their children what the education system ignores. I eagerly look forward to any effort you make in this direction, and I’m sure that geek parents everywhere will rejoice in the marketplace once such materials appear.

Inspire them while they’re young!

PS. Thank you (both) for speaking your opinions about issues of religion, and raising our collective consciousness about its uncritical acceptance in our society.

The Misinformation of Crowds

Posted by Eric Hennigan
On October 17th, 2008 at 16:10

Permalink | Trackback | Links In |

Leave a Comment |
Posted in Idiocracy, Punditry, Tech*

I’ve seen much recently piggy-backing on the Wisdom of Crowds. Much of the Web 2.0 seems highly focused on exploiting this phenomenon:

  • Datamining the crowd: Yahoo and Google both have an Answers service that purports to harness the wisdom explicitly.
  • Ranking results: Digg, Newsvine, Technorati all use forms of distributed social voting to determine quality.
  • Finding the Diamond: StackOverflow uses ranking to filter the ‘most useful’ answers to the top.
  • CrowdSorcing (use the crowd to do your work): Image Search has been turned into a labeling game
  • Web Search is dominated by Sergey and Brin’s PageRank algorithm which uses hypertext links as the voting system.
  • Google’s new Book Search (quotation finder), which is geared to work across languages, correlates text samples across different media, counting the number of occurrences of a phrase.
  • Prediction Markets, fundamental Democracy, etc…

I’m sure that there are many more examples that I’ve neglected to mention.

Unfortunately, the effectiveness of Crowd Wisdom relies heavily on some assumptions which may prove shaky in the real world:

  • Independence of participants. The crowd is wisest when it’s composed of independently thinking individuals. Lemmings and mobs make very foolish crowds, aka herds. If each of the participants uses the popular reasoning “what’s good enough for everyone else is good enough for me,” we have a crowd with very many inter-dependent voices.
  • Diversity of Opinion. The crowd is wisest when it can draw upon widely varied knowledge and experience.

Wikipedia readily identifies what I see as the fatal flaw:

Surowiecki studies situations (such as rational bubbles) in which the crowd produces very bad judgment, and argues that in these types of situations their cognition or cooperation failed because (in one way or another) the members of the crowd were too conscious of the opinions of others and began to emulate each other and conform rather than think differently.

So, what happens then when the world’s knowledge is aggregated by these algorithms? Our collective knowledge becomes stricken by a dangerous positive feedback loop. Due to time constraints we prefer superficial syncophantic opinions to in-depth analysis. Everyone will use the results of these tools to form their own opinions, which undermines the assumptions the tools are built upon. Because of this self-inconsistency the Wisdom of Crowds algorithms should be looked upon with reservation and skepticism.

The Wisdom of Crowds is too unstable and should find itself becoming the tool for the Misinformation of Crowds.

Aside: Already we have evidence of real-world damage caused by such algorithms and social psychology. United Airlines stock crashes because Google News posted a six-year old story about bankruptcy as if it were current.