The Intersection of Math and the Law

I guess I shouldn't do a brain dump of all that math knowledge just yet: Court uses Pythagoras Theorem to calculate the distance from a drug dealer to a school.

Thanksgiving Day Parade 2005

Happy Thanksgiving!

Best wishes for a wonderful Thanksgiving celebration to my entire family, whereever they may be on this special day of gratitude. I remain ever grateful for the blessings of a wonderful wife, four terrific children, my parents, two sisters and two brothers-in-law, a brother, many nieces and nephews, friends and acquaintences. I hope the year ahead is a great one for us all! See you at Mom's!

Hey everybody, do your holiday shopping at my store in Lakewood! Del Amo and Clark! (it actually looks nothing like the picture on the left...the Lakewood store is the really old plug type design)

There are some pretty amazing day-after-thanksgiving sales, like a free computer after tons of rebates, and a $200 laptop after tons of rebates. no, you can't get my discount, especially on that day, which we retail folks call black friday... come on, somebody here has to have heard that term before. well i'll probably working 18 hours that day, so come in and visit me :) and buy stuff.

This year Circuit City Makes it Simple! Actually we have some great stuff planned and i imagine it will be a really easy place to shop at. the 6 hour sale is between 6 am and 12 pm, so get there early and get ridiculously good, and indeed unbeatable prices.

Also feel free to shop online, www.circuitcity.com, and pickup your stuff in the store within 24 minutes. have stuff direct-shipped from the store to anywhere in the world. i really don't care, but it would be fun to see family at my store. and watch you wait in lines. the lines we already have taped to the ground.

You can only get discounts if you live with me. really.

message-recording-gift cards rock.

"Just What I Needed!"

Cousins Only Thanksgiving

Since we're all doing different things this Thanksgiving, would all the cousins want to get together Thursday or Friday night? Maybe we could hit up a coffee place? Are coffee places even open on Thanksgiving? I would be happy to pick up any cousin not able to drive.

Sorry, no one born before September 29th, 1972 is allowed. :-P

Reservoir Dogs Tipping Scene...

NICE GUY EDDIE C'mon, throw in a buck.

MR. WHITE Uh-uh. I don't tip.

NICE GUY EDDIE Whaddaya mean you don't tip?

MR. WHITE I don't believe in it.

NICE GUY EDDIE You don't believe in tipping?

MR. PINK (laughing) I love this kid, he's a madman, this guy.

MR. BLONDE Do you have any idea what these ladies make? They make sh**.

MR. WHITE Don't give me that. She don't make enough money, she can quit.

(Everybody laughs)

Tipping is Unamerican...?

I was talking about this over dinner with David. The movie I was thinking of is called "The Petrified Forrest" in which the diner owner posts a sign in his window that says, "Tipping is Unamerican, Keep Your Change." Apparently there was an anti-tipping movement in the early part of the 20th Century. Read more about it here: Balkinization.

Anyway, do you think tipping is unamerican?

Finding correct answers or persuasive arguments

Ari, I didn't figure this out until a couple of months ago, so forgive me if it is obvious to everyone else except me. Your post about MUN reminded me of a short essay I wrote while really bored in class one day. The essay about about the revelation that--just as there are methodologies to finding the right answer in math and science--there are methodologies to coming up with persuasive arguments and correct answers in the social sciences and humanities. Up until recently I always stared at a piece of paper or a blank computer screen and hoped that a good argument would magically pop into my brain. As one might expect, that method is rather random and unreliable.

Here are the types of arguments I came up with (I am sure this list is not exhaustive). When I write legal papers, I try and find most or all of these types of arguments in support of my side because it sounds more persuasive when there are multiple reasons as to why you are right. Maybe formulating these sorts of arguments would be helpful in your MUN project?

1. Common sense notions of justice and equity
2. Authorities /Case law / majority of courts (or countries, states, organizations, etc)
   
3. History and tradition
   
4. Analogy or comparison
5. Consequences if court rules against (or in favor) of my side
6. Public policy reasons
7. Counterarguments: reasons why the other side's arguments are not in line with one of the above types of arguments
   

1st Committee: Disarmament and Security (DISC)

That's right, folks. Another Model United Nations conference. I got my little business suit all ready and my little briefcase/leather folder thing ready. This time I represent Vietnam in the 1st Committee:DISC with the following topics: Reduction of Small Arms, Indiscriminate Weapons, and Chemical/Biological Weapons. Exciting, no? Well, the conference is from 7:00 (yes, in the morning >:O ) to 5:00 on Saturday and Sunday. I have yet to research the topics let alone Vietnam's position on them. Thoughts, input, good vibes--greatly appreciated.

P.S. Today, I found out that I set the curve on our AP history test! Yay Ariel! It's the first time a girl has set the curve on a test! I got 47 out of 50 which would have been a 94% anyway. I am the master on Tang/Song China and Mesoamerica!!!

P.P.S. I just finished a whole essay comparing and contrasting the establishment and spread of Buddhism and Islam in...3 and 1/2 hours. That's like an hour per page-- Score one for Ariel!

The Onion (1)

SHT:

Funny Onion articles related to recent postings.

1) Evangelical Scientists Discover Calculation Error: Earth Only 60 Years Old

2) Activist Wet-T-Shirt Judge Votes For Girlfriend

COLUMBIA, SC: Andrew Scully, 26, a bartender and wet-T-shirt-contest judge at local nightclub Deep Waters, has been accused of personal bias and "legislating from the barstool" after ruling in favor of his girlfriend, Heather Swain, in Friday's "Waters' Melons!!!" wet-T-shirt contest. "Inevitably, my own perceptions will guide my interpretation of event guidelines--if that weren't a part of our system, we could just replace the judges with a tape measure" said Scully responding to bar patrons who said that they believed that several contestants had breasts both larger and better-displayed than Swain's. "I like to think of a wet-T-shirt contestant not as a rigid set of body-type rules, but as a living, breathing object." [My favorite part...for you Fern] Conservative leaders of the Federalist Wet-T-Shirt Contest Society are calling for Scully's resignation.

Teachers need more to do?

It is very disturbing that we keep requiring teachers to wear more hats. We (as a teacher I feel the we is appropriate) are charged to teach students basic information, Reading, Writing Aritmetic, Science, etc. How to think anayltically and do research. Unfortunately we are now supposed to be the students sex education teacher, emotional counselor, nutritionist, physical trainer, moral advisor, surrogate parent, protector from the sickos of society and career advisor. I don't mind being some of these things some of the time but our society wants us to be all of these things all of the time. Now they are placing teachers in the center of the evolution vs creation controversy. Society now has expectations for us to answer the age old question of which came first the chicken or the egg?
The teaching of religious doctrine is not the charge of the public school teacher. The acknowledgement that religion exists and has played an very important historical role in the development of mankind is not only acceptable but a teacher would be derelict to exclude them.
We need to stop letting parents abdicate their responsibility of raising their children. We are hired to teach not parent! As long as the members of society continue to allow government to make parental decisions about religion and morals we are doomed for disaster.
PS I teach math so pardon any grammatical or spelling errors :)

MY THOUGHTS ON THOSE FUNNY KANSASIANS

This goes in no specific order…except for the quotes which are in the order they can be found in the text of the proposal.

By THEY, I mean the 8 authors and 25 thinkers of the Kansas Science Writing Committee appointed by the Kansas State Board of Education

Many of the thoughts I express are just impressions that I have received from the words they have used. If you think I am exaggerating you will need to read the entire proposal for yourself.

Quotes from their text are cut and pasted, unaltered, and are not paraphrased or shortened by myself to enhance my position.

1: They dismiss the opposition of scientists to their adopting these changes as “disrespectful rhetoric” which therefore “should be given no weight by other members of the Kansas State Board of Education, members of the public, the media and the patrons of Kansas PublicEducation.” These objections are not noted.

2: Their ideas of informed decision making by young students basically involves the students being taught that science is not correct and they should look towards other explanations before accepting what they might otherwise be told is true in their core science curriculum. In general, this statement might be true, but it is irrelevant in an educational setting. The goal of a science education is to teach the students what is and is not accepted throughout the scientific community. This includes explanations for the origin of life. In places where scientific evidence is scientifically brought into question, then objections to the material are relevant and should be discussed.
Having extensively studied scientific theories on evolution I know that evolution is taught in this manner. I was never told that something was explicitly true when it hadn’t been shown to be. I was taught, and I understand that evolution is a theory, but I have also been taught and understand how it is applicable to science and how it explains much of what we otherwise do not understand. I was told early in my career at UCLA that most of what I would learn would make little to no sense unless interpreted with respect to evolution. Never one to take something for granted without verifying it for myself, I have studied, and studied, and come to believe that this is true.

3: “Reasoned decisions alone can lead to very bad decisions. Reasonably complete information is necessary for a good reasoned decision.” I found this quote interesting because I think it could be used in support of science education, rather than the manner in which they use it, ie to support finding alternate explanations for scientific theory other than those accepted within the scientific community. However, much of what they consider to be complete evidence could also be considered to be bad, incorrect and misleading evidence. Much of what they consider complete information is also opinion, and has been subjected to no verifiable tests. I feel that it would be irresponsible to base a “reasoned decision” on bad information … therefore before a decision should be made, all information should be sorted through and either kept or discarded. All that I feel that they need to note is that all the information rearding the subject at hand should not be given the same weight. Only a handful of scientists throughout the world support intelligent design, while millions of scientists, religious and not, agree that is an absurd theory, based not on evidence, but rather on lack of evidence.

4: I find it interesting and contradictory that they include in their definitions of science that science is testable, and replicable, while simultaneously telling students to seek explanations for scientifically described phenomena that are neither testable nor even observable. While I do agree, by reading their three paragraph long definition of science that their definition is indeed “neutral with respect to religion”, the suggestions of the committee other than the acceptance of this definition are at odds with the definition they have accepted. Am I wrong, or is what we are talking about here Science Curriculum? A science curriculum should only discuss science. Other issues are meant for other classes. They state later that other classes may not be available. WAIT A SECOND!?!?!?! Aren’t you the BOARD OF EDUCATION?????? Make other classes available and don’t teach subjects that aren’t science under its auspices.

5: They then go to state that this definition will allow “state sponsored discussions of origins and other areas of science that touch religion toward discussions that are secular, neutral and non-ideological” to be included in scientific curricula. To include intelligent design as part of a scientific curriculum would be the exact opposite of non-ideological. The teaching of evolution as unbiased, unguided and random is exactly what makes it a non-ideological teaching.

What I don’t understand is why they are trying to do this … they have explicitly stated that science deals with what is observable and testable. The State also has a responsibility to not include religious teachings within its institutions. The classification of science as a religious teaching is both untrue and unfair. Religion deals with what is implicitly untestable, which is why it deals with faith. Therefore, the two should not be discussed under the same topic. …. I do not have the time to write everything I want to say in regards to this

6: “The objective definition of science offered by the Authors will increase the scope
of relevant scientific information to be provided to students about scientific
concepts we seek to have them “understand.”” – basically this states unequivocally that they wish to include alternate, unproven and untested theories next to and equal with proven, and tested biological theories.

7: “any technical distinction between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism, in practice collapses into Philosophical Naturalism, particularly where the purpose and effect of this “method” in developing explanations about the origin of life and its diversity” –

For those who do not know, Philosophical Naturalism refers to the idea that all life is accounted for due to purely random, physical phenomena without the interference of a creator of any kind. Methodological Naturalism is exactly what it sounds like.

By advocating the teaching of intelligent design they advocate something less provable and less testable with less evidence supporting it that philosophical naturalism … what differs is that philosophical naturalism is supported thru exclusion of things that cannot be proven while intelligent design is supported by inclusion of things that cannot be proven

8: “As evidenced by the opposition to any scientific criticisms of evolution, the effect of methodological naturalism in practice is to suppress not only the evidence of design and purpose in nature, but also scientific criticisms of evolution.” - Let me make something explicitly clear here: THERE IS NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE OF DESIGN AND PURPOSE IN NATURE. Those who wish to portray their evidence as such are misconstruing their facts. What they are doing is perceiving design and purpose in nature. Just as evolution is a theory, just a relativity is a theory, intelligent design is a theory. Difference, evolution and relativity can generate testable hypotheses, and while the entire theory may not be provable on a historical time scale, the propositions developed from their assumptions can be. Intelligent design basically takes what we do not understand and attributes it to something that can not necessarily be understood. Thus while they can argue all they want that it acts as scientific evidence against evolutionary theory, really, it has no supporting evidence of its own.

9: “Secular Humanism is a religion” – they state that this has been found to be a religion by some legal authority that I do not know of. What I will say is that yes, it is a belief system, but it is not a religion, and definitely not a theistic religion. Just because someone has a set of beliefs does not mean they subscribe to a religion. The religious people who wrote this statement have the unfortunate habit of seeing everything in a US OR THEM type of way … Basically what they are trying to do is show that evolution is a religion, and therefore shouldn’t be taught in schools. You do not have to have a religion.

Definitions of religion from dictionary.com

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
1. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
2. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
3. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

While thinking that evolution is responsible for life on earth may fall into the 4^th definition listed above, it fits much better into many other categories. I will let everyone who reads this make their own decisions on whether or not they agree with the statement above.

What secular humanism really is, is an attempt to create a system of morality based on the belief that there is no religion accurate enough to describe a morality for us. The idea that evolution tells us how life on earth originated does not describe a moral system. Again, there is not time for a full discussion of secular humanism here, but I feel that the conclusion that it is a religion is ill founded and unfair to secular humanists.

10: “The best formula for resolving conflicting religious implications of scientific
explanations about origins is to ensure that students are informed of all relevant
scientific controversies regarding those explanations.”
This is true, however, that doesn’t mean that students should not be given the facts about evolution … or should be told that evolution is not true, which they are basically advocating that we do.

11: “We also conclude based on the testimony of Dr. Harris and other scientists and the discussion in the Suggested Conclusions of Law that intelligent design is a hypothesis based on observation and logical analysis and inference from observed scientific data that seeks to scientifically contradict the claim of illusion and the claim of biological evolution that life results from unguided evolutionary change.”

Here – I do not have the testimony, and thus cannot imagine what was so convincing in it. However, I can only imagine that their idea of logical analysis of scientific data is incorrect, as there is no evidence that definitively or even realistically shows intelligent design. This I am sure of because I have checked the websites for the national associations that advocate intelligent design and have read through their evidence. All their evidence is open to multiple other interpretations at best, and usually inconclusive.

12: “We believe teachers and students should not be prohibited from discussing that
controversy so long as the design hypothesis is treated simply as a hypothesis and
not as a fact, that discussions are limited to the reasonable scientific inferences
that may be drawn from scientific analyses of the data and so long as such
discussions do not stray into speculations about the identity, nature or realty of
any “designer” that may be implicated by any inference of design.” I feel that if this was actually implemented the result would be to state that intelligent design is a theory but is mostly incorrect and not scientifically feasible.

13: “We do not find that the advice is in anyway legally binding, but merely conclude
that it is good advice regarding science education, particularly as it addresses
religiously charged issues such as origins.” – Ironically, all I can say is “Thank god for that”

14: FOR OUR LAWYER: this is how I see this all breaking down:
Basically there is evidence … and that evidence has implications. Our choice is to either accept the evidence and the implication it makes, or to decide that the evidence and the implication it makes have both been fabricated, albeit without any evidence of fabrication other than the fact that the evidence at its implications are complicated.

15: Problem; you study science for your whole life, and then have to explain it to a bunch of non-scientifically educated people in a short period of time, then when they do not understand everything you are trying to explain, they attribute this to controversy over whether or not what u are saying is true. I however attribute this to not being able to teach a few members on a board who are inclined to disbelieve you the sum total of evolutionary theory in the course of a year. The result, because they feel that the evidence supporting biological evolution is not sufficiently adequate, we should therefore consider a theory with no real evidence at all. BRILLIANT

16: “Based on the unrebutted testimony of numerous expert witnesses we find that the

addition to this paragraph which explains that the “actual causes of many changes

are currently unknown” is scientifically valid.” - However, many mechanisms of change are explicitly known and proven. These they cannot doubt. Why however, should we doubt that those that are not yet known cannot ever be known? I don’t think we should, and to jump to the conclusion that because we do not know things now we won’t ever know them and thus should make up an arbitrary reason for their occurrence is incorrect. Not knowing something is ok from a scientific point of view. Making up an arbitrary explanation for it is not.

17: We have to understand and keep in mind that not knowing the cause of something does not exclude us from knowing that it did in fact occur.

18: ““1.c. The sequence of the nucleotide bases within genes is not dictated by any known chemical or physical law.”” – this is grossly untrue – the mechanisms by which the nucleotide sequences of the genome are dictated are very well described – unless of course they are talking about the original determination of these sequences, which, there are theories for, but of course this can never be explicitly demonstrated as we cannot travel through time. The field of molecular biology is devoted to these and other studies, and has made incredible advances in recent years. There is actually so much information on molecular genetics available that it takes up multiple volumes.

If their statement was true we would have no way of studying and treating cancer, or other genetic diseases, which in fact we are capable of doing. They have distorted the scientific evidence provided to them by the well educated and respected members of the scientific community whom they have interviewed in order to fit their predetermined views.

19: I find it important to mention, that while all lay people have heard of natural selection, this is not the only mechanism thru which evolution acts. There are numerous forms of selection, natural selection being only one of them, but being the original idea, it is assumed that by attacking natural selection they will completely debunk the entire theory of evolution. Evolution is much, much more than natural selection.

20: They forget to distinguish that a geologically “sudden” event can occur over a 100 million years. The Cambrian explosion did not occur overnight, it occurred over a few million decades. The fossil record is also incomplete. This is not because there were long periods where nothing was happening, but rather because the precise conditions needed for fossil formation are incredibly rare. Thus, of course, not all evolution is documented in the fossil record, but this in no way should lead to the assumption that evolution was not occurring and that life forms were just suddenly created.

21: When the reviewers do not understand the scientists’ objections to a statement they list the objection as “non-substantive” and disregard it. This is unfair and that’s all there is to it. They do this numerous times, I forgot to copy out examples. Look for yourself.

FINAL COMMENTS

I feel that many of the changes proposed to the science curriculum in Kansas are not problematic and make sense when read individually and by themselves. However, when reading through the reasons that are given for the changes, it seems that they are ill founded. The people who have adopted these changes are hoping to promote discussion of alternate theories to evolution, within a science classroom, even if these theories have no scientific basis whatsoever.

Nothing about intelligent design has been proven. Many things about evolution have been proven. Nothing about religion has been proven. Now, I do not think that religion should be discarded. In fact, anyone who knows me knows that I feel that religion indeed has its place in society. I do not think that religion and evolution are mutually exclusive. Evolution and intelligent design are. We shouldn’t teach our children to accept nonsense as scientific fact. That is what I call a bad precedent.

24 Fans

The new season starts on January 15th with TWO, TWO hour premiers. :-)

Those Funny People in Kansas

I was shocked (shocked!) to read in today's New York Times about the proposed changes to the definitions of Science in Kansas textbooks, not because I am a "materialist, secular humanist, atheist [who believes that] life is accidental" and that intelligent design is outmoded nonsense (as the authors of the changes define, in my case rightly, the beliefs of their opponents) but because I had absolutely no disagreements with the changes themselves.

The old science textbooks read, in part, as follows: "science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us." The new one reads: science is "a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena." This new definition seems to reflect the best work in recent philosophy of science with which I am familiar that emphasizes that "science" as currently conceived is a specific practical activity that continually revises itself, not to reach final truths, but to provide better accounts of natural phenomena.

This definition does seem to be more "rigorous," as claimed by the proponents of the change, if not necessarily objectively so, as the old definition does not sufficiently define what "natural" explanations are (does phrenology count? or reading tea leaves? etc.) or demonstrate that scientific practice is relevant to all all phenomena "we observe around us" (I don't think that the hard sciences have anything compelling to say about morality, for instance). So, it seems to me, that in their attempts to find a place for "intelligent design" in scientific discourse, those funny people in Kansas have actually, if accidentally, provided school children in Kansas with a better definition of science.

Thoughts?

(Other changes include such banal observations that a) the goal of science education is to inform, b) evolution is a theory and not a fact, c) science can be used for good as well as for evil. For the complete list of changes see kansasscience2005.com. The New York Times article can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/science/sciencespecial2/15evol.html. ).