The Science and Pseudoscience wing is an immense, spiraling tower. Huge displays of scientific phenomena occupy the center of the tower, with walkways spiraling up and down around the edge. A couple hallways seem to branch off of this structure; signs indicate that one of these leads to the Pseudoscience section, while the other leads to the Philosophy of Science section.
At a quick glance, the tower seems to be arranged according to the scope of different sciences. The level you entered features most of the social sciences, with psychology and psychiatry a bit below and political sciences a bit above. Farther above that, the displays turn into Earth and atmospheric sciences, then planetary sciences. Beyond that it goes into astronomy and astrophysics, capped by a stellar observatory.
Downwards, the displays first go into biology (including many displays on evolution just to rub in that this is accepted science), then chemistry, and finally small-scale physics. The physics section here is divided into an upper layer on quantum physics and a lower layer on particle physics.
On every level you see a computer panel which displays a directory of the available exhibits. Moving up to the panel on this level, you see that the following exhibits are currently available:
Spherical Cows
An explanation of how simplifying assumptions are used by scientists and how they can be abused by pseudoscientists.
* * * * *
Return to the Lobby
Monday, April 30, 2007
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Spherical Cows
As you wander along a dark (aren't they all?) hallway, you come upon something that's a surprise even for this museum: normal light! A large portion of one wall of the hallway has been replaced by a large sheet of glass, which allows some of the light to leak out. Beyond the glass are three spheres which appear to be painted to look like cows in a field of grass that looks to be larger than the entire museum.
At least, that was what you thought until one of them somehow started rolling on its own, causing itself to spin around until a face came into view. It appeared to be smiling, and let out a friendly "Mooo!" You remember seeing something similar back at the information booth in the lobby and had assumed it to be simple decoration. Could that have been alive as well?
You give the cow a quick wave, and then move over to a panel on the wall, looking for an explanation of what's up with these cows. The panel explains it:
The Spherical Cow is what's known as a simplifying assumption. These are tools used by scientists to make fairly accurate predictions about world, without having to perform the extremely complex math inherent in, for instance, calculating the moment of inertia or drag coefficient of an oddly-shaped body such as the normal cow.
Such assumptions may seem like they lead to worse results, but this isn't entirely fair. The truth is that in many cases if they weren't used, we wouldn't be able to get any results. We also have to be sure to remember that our results aren't expected to mesh perfectly with reality, and the only way to know exactly what will happen in any given case is to test it out experimentally.
The problem is that a technique such as this is often used as an excuse for quacks to exercise shoddy science. Simplifying assumptions are used which completely undermine the entire endeavor. For instance, take the case of one particular Creationist argument from big numbers, as previously debunked by MarkCC. Look at the following passage:
The first "Assumption" isn't so much an assumption as an outline of what they're doing here, but the second one is what I want you to look at. There are many types of mutations that can occur, but they're making the unfair simplifying assumption of only looking at random copying errors. I'll let MarkCC explain what's wrong with this:
This assumption doesn't make it simpler to find results, it makes it impossible to find results, and they use this as the base of their argument that evolution therefore must be impossible. Of course, it wouldn't be impossible at all if they didn't make this assumption.
So, how does one go about determining if a simplifying assumption is reasonable? For this, I've created the following checklist:
In an interesting quirk of fate, it was recently found that spherical cows do indeed exist, though they're quite rare. Many of the Light variety have taken a liking to this museum's curator's alter ego, Infophile, while many of the Dark variety have of course similarly taken a liking to our curator himself. In their experiences with the cows, they've found out the following about how they get around their spherical shape, which would seem to be an impediment:
They're capable of rapidly shifting around their mass density within their bodies, which causes an imbalance, in turn causing them to roll. By rolling in small circles, they can also accomplish turning in any direction they wish. They're also capable of retracting a portion of their body and quickly jerking it back out, causing them to apparently jump. Some Spherical Cows have even been known to repeat this process upon landing, causing them to bounce even higher.
When eating and drinking, Spherical Cows must orient themselves so that their face is pointing directly downwards. Without their faces visible, this causes many people to mistake them for simply spheres painted cow-like.
The spherical shape of these cows does have one known survival advantage: They're immune to cow-tipping. Cow-rolling has been attempted by a few ambitious pranksters, but they've tended to underestimate the ability of Spherical Cows to turn on a dime and have thus become the victims of their own rolling.
* * * * *
Return to the Science and Pseudoscience wing
Return to the Lobby
At least, that was what you thought until one of them somehow started rolling on its own, causing itself to spin around until a face came into view. It appeared to be smiling, and let out a friendly "Mooo!" You remember seeing something similar back at the information booth in the lobby and had assumed it to be simple decoration. Could that have been alive as well?
You give the cow a quick wave, and then move over to a panel on the wall, looking for an explanation of what's up with these cows. The panel explains it:
The Spherical Cow is what's known as a simplifying assumption. These are tools used by scientists to make fairly accurate predictions about world, without having to perform the extremely complex math inherent in, for instance, calculating the moment of inertia or drag coefficient of an oddly-shaped body such as the normal cow.
Such assumptions may seem like they lead to worse results, but this isn't entirely fair. The truth is that in many cases if they weren't used, we wouldn't be able to get any results. We also have to be sure to remember that our results aren't expected to mesh perfectly with reality, and the only way to know exactly what will happen in any given case is to test it out experimentally.
The problem is that a technique such as this is often used as an excuse for quacks to exercise shoddy science. Simplifying assumptions are used which completely undermine the entire endeavor. For instance, take the case of one particular Creationist argument from big numbers, as previously debunked by MarkCC. Look at the following passage:
Assumptions:
(1) we will reckon the odds of evolving a new horse species from an earlier horse species.
(2) we assume only random copying errors as the source of Darwinian variation. Any other source of variation -- transposition, e.g., -- is non-random and therefore NON-DARWINIAN.
The first "Assumption" isn't so much an assumption as an outline of what they're doing here, but the second one is what I want you to look at. There are many types of mutations that can occur, but they're making the unfair simplifying assumption of only looking at random copying errors. I'll let MarkCC explain what's wrong with this:
Really, there are a lot of different sources of variation/mutation. At a minimum, there are point mutations, deletions (a section getting lost while copying), insertions (something getting inserted into a sequence during copying), transpositions (something getting moved), reversals (something get flipped so it appears in the reverse order), fusions (things that were separate getting merged - e.g., chromasomes in humans vs. in chimps), and fissions (things that were a single unit getting split).
In fact, this restriction a priori makes horse evolution impossible; because the modern species of horses have different numbers of chromasomes. Since the only change he allows is point-mutation, there is no way that his strawman Darwinism can do the job. Which, of course, is the point: he wants to make it impossible.
This assumption doesn't make it simpler to find results, it makes it impossible to find results, and they use this as the base of their argument that evolution therefore must be impossible. Of course, it wouldn't be impossible at all if they didn't make this assumption.
So, how does one go about determining if a simplifying assumption is reasonable? For this, I've created the following checklist:
- Is there a legitimate reason to make the assumption? That is, without it, would the involved math still be reasonable?
- Is the assumption used in some field other than strict mathematics (in which no assumptions are allowed at all in proofs)?
- Is the assumption a reasonable representation of reality?
- Does the assumption preserve all critical, relevant portions of the situation?
- If we didn't make the spherical assumption, we would be faced with an impossible integral of determining Earth's gravitational attraction to every atom of the cow's body. Answer: Yes
- This is a case of physics, so Yes.
- Well, cow's aren't normally particularly spherical, but the important consideration here is the distance involved. Compared to the distance to the center of Earth, the size of a cow is virtually a point, so we can treat it as a point mass. Also to note: spherical mass distributions will always behave just like point masses, so on the scale we're working with, the assumption gives us a good approximation of reality. Answer: Yes.
- Nothing important left out, so Yes.
- Without this assumption, we'd have to consider what would happen with many different types of mutations. It does drastically complicate the problem, but it might not be impossible for a good mathematician. Of course, these people aren't good mathematicians, so I'll give them some leeway and answer Yes here.
- Evolutionary biology, so Yes.
- Definitely No. This is only one of a myriad of mutations, so excepting all of those divorces this from reality.
- All of the other mutation types are indeed important, but particularly fission. This is the one that makes the species transition possible at all, so it definitely qualifies as critical. A resounding No here.
In an interesting quirk of fate, it was recently found that spherical cows do indeed exist, though they're quite rare. Many of the Light variety have taken a liking to this museum's curator's alter ego, Infophile, while many of the Dark variety have of course similarly taken a liking to our curator himself. In their experiences with the cows, they've found out the following about how they get around their spherical shape, which would seem to be an impediment:
They're capable of rapidly shifting around their mass density within their bodies, which causes an imbalance, in turn causing them to roll. By rolling in small circles, they can also accomplish turning in any direction they wish. They're also capable of retracting a portion of their body and quickly jerking it back out, causing them to apparently jump. Some Spherical Cows have even been known to repeat this process upon landing, causing them to bounce even higher.
When eating and drinking, Spherical Cows must orient themselves so that their face is pointing directly downwards. Without their faces visible, this causes many people to mistake them for simply spheres painted cow-like.
The spherical shape of these cows does have one known survival advantage: They're immune to cow-tipping. Cow-rolling has been attempted by a few ambitious pranksters, but they've tended to underestimate the ability of Spherical Cows to turn on a dime and have thus become the victims of their own rolling.
* * * * *
Return to the Science and Pseudoscience wing
Return to the Lobby
The Auditorium
You find yourself in a dark auditorium, lit only by the scarce light of the night sky. Pale sights in the sky, such as the Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxy, are actually visible, so you must be in a remote location, far from the influence of light pollution. In the pale light, you can't tell how full the auditorium is or recognize anyone around you.
The auditorium is currently empty, but a computer panel is available which allows you to access holographic recordings of past presentations. The following presentations are currently available:
Enter Night
An introduction to the museum, plus a bonus presentation explaining spherical cows and other simplifying assumptions.
* * * * *
Return to the Lobby
The auditorium is currently empty, but a computer panel is available which allows you to access holographic recordings of past presentations. The following presentations are currently available:
Enter Night
An introduction to the museum, plus a bonus presentation explaining spherical cows and other simplifying assumptions.
* * * * *
Return to the Lobby
The Lobby
You find yourself in a huge chamber, open to the night sky. There seems to be no artificial source of light, but there are plenty of sources of radiant darkness which do just as good a job at making the room and the other patrons in it visible. They also seem to aid in making the faint stars in the night sky more easily visible.
There are various hallways off to the sides, presumably leading to different wings of the museum. In the center of the room is an information desk, manned by what looks like a color-inverted spherical cow. Near it is the museum directory, which reads:
Welcome to the Night Museum! If this is your first time, you might want to head over to the Auditorium and watch a recording of our introductory presentation. Otherwise, feel free to browse at your leisure. A quick guide to the wings of the museum and some of their featured exhibits is below. You'll be able to find a more detailed description of the exhibits at each wing's directory, but of course, nothing beats experiencing it for yourself!
* * * * *
The Auditorium
Miscellaneous special presentations will take place here, plus you can access recordings of past presentations.
Featured exhibits
Exit Night
Science and Pseudoscience
Marvels of science are highlighted; blunders of pseudoscience are mocked.
Featured exhibits
Spherical Cows
The Hall of Humanity
Humans themselves are put on display and mercilessly labeled.
Featured exhibits
Meatpuppets (Coming Soon!)
Sheep (Coming Soon!)
Dogs (Coming Soon!)
Shepherds (Coming Soon!)
Hawks (Coming Soon!)
The Arsenal
(Yes, our museum has an arsenal.) Weapons of critical thought are exhibited and are available for rent.
Featured exhibits
Occam's Claymore (Coming Soon!)
Occam's Pike (Coming Soon!)
The Black Hole of Faith (Coming Soon!)
* * * * *
Other wings are still under construction or in planning stages. We apologize for the inconvenience, and hope to have the museum fleshed out as soon as possible.
There are various hallways off to the sides, presumably leading to different wings of the museum. In the center of the room is an information desk, manned by what looks like a color-inverted spherical cow. Near it is the museum directory, which reads:
Welcome to the Night Museum! If this is your first time, you might want to head over to the Auditorium and watch a recording of our introductory presentation. Otherwise, feel free to browse at your leisure. A quick guide to the wings of the museum and some of their featured exhibits is below. You'll be able to find a more detailed description of the exhibits at each wing's directory, but of course, nothing beats experiencing it for yourself!
* * * * *
The Auditorium
Miscellaneous special presentations will take place here, plus you can access recordings of past presentations.
Featured exhibits
Exit Night
Science and Pseudoscience
Marvels of science are highlighted; blunders of pseudoscience are mocked.
Featured exhibits
Spherical Cows
The Hall of Humanity
Humans themselves are put on display and mercilessly labeled.
Featured exhibits
Meatpuppets (Coming Soon!)
Sheep (Coming Soon!)
Dogs (Coming Soon!)
Shepherds (Coming Soon!)
Hawks (Coming Soon!)
The Arsenal
(Yes, our museum has an arsenal.) Weapons of critical thought are exhibited and are available for rent.
Featured exhibits
Occam's Claymore (Coming Soon!)
Occam's Pike (Coming Soon!)
The Black Hole of Faith (Coming Soon!)
* * * * *
Other wings are still under construction or in planning stages. We apologize for the inconvenience, and hope to have the museum fleshed out as soon as possible.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Enter Night
You find yourself in a dark auditorium, lit only by the scarce light of the night sky. Pale sights in the sky, such as the Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxy, are actually visible, so you must be in a remote location, far from the influence of light pollution. In the pale light, you can't tell how full the auditorium is or recognize anyone around you.
The auditorium is completely silent, but when a figure starts to walk out on stage, it somehow becomes even more so. If silence were a zero point, this would be negative noise. The sight of the man is much the same; his visage is so dark that it passes the zero marker of luminosity and radiates darkness. The darkness does do the job of detailing him, however. Flipping the colors... is that Infophile? And is that a darkness-radiating spherical cow rolling along behind him?
Once he reaches the center of the stage, he turns to face the audience and starts to speak:
Welcome one, welcome all, to the grand opening of the Night Museum! I'm very pleased that you all *ahem* decided to attend. Don't worry if you're feeling disoriented; it's perfectly normal. You see, this museum occupies a space which obeys slightly different laws of physics than the universe you know. Fortunately, the differences won't interfere with your biological functions, so you'll be perfectly safe.
Some might describe such a different type of space as being in "Another dimension." This isn't completely accurate. All another dimension means is that there's another degree of freedom for movement. This is part of the case here, but it's best to say that this museum occupies a different location in another dimensional axis. To be exact, this axis is circular, and this museum is at a polar position to the universe you know. For the technically-minded, you might say that it--along with myself--was created entangled with Infophile and his blog.
You might wonder where the name of this museum and the name of this space come from. As for the museum's name, it's a tribute to the cult classic science-fiction/fantasy show, Night Gallery, hosted by the famed Rod Serling. Although not as popular as The Twilight Zone, Night Gallery was still an important contribution to the science-fiction/fantasy genre (plus it was more easily tributable).
The name of this space, The Night Relentless, uses its peculiar form as a tribute to Terry Pratchett's Discworld novel, The Light Fantastic. Pratchett used a method he called "Stealth Philosophy," in which he snuck philosophy into his primarily-comedic novels. In this method, he held up a distorted mirror to society, making its flaws not only stand out, but stand out comedically. I intend to use this method to an extent myself, holding up a mirror to society in order to make apparent its flaws, hopefully with a few laughs along the way.
But anyways, let's get onto the museum itself. The Night Museum is unique among museums in that it puts modern society on exhibit. The exhibits will range from showing the best humanity has to offer down to its worst. And when it comes to the worst, this museum offers something else to make it unique: We're not just about presenting it, we're about fixing it. Entire sections of the museum will be devoted to how we can fix problems that plague the world.
Today, however, I figured I'd give you a sample of something our museum will present which is on a bit more of a positive note. I have with me here my good friend, Ballzac, one of the rare species of the Spherical Cow. Say "Hello," Ballzac.
The Spherical Cow rolls around a bit so that his head--well, more of just a face, since there's no protruding head to speak of--faces the audience, and lets out a friendly "Mooo!"
The Spherical Cow is what's known as a simplifying assumption. These are tools used by scientists to make fairly accurate predictions about world, without having to perform the extremely complex math inherent in, for instance, calculating the moment of inertia or drag coefficient of an oddly-shaped body such as the normal cow.
Such assumptions may seem like they lead to worse results, but this isn't entirely fair. The truth is that in many cases if they weren't used, we wouldn't be able to get any results. We also have to be sure to remember that our results aren't expected to mesh perfectly with reality, and the only way to know exactly what will happen in any given case is to test it out experimentally.
The problem is that a technique such as this is often used as an excuse for quacks to exercise shoddy science. Simplifying assumptions are used which completely undermine the entire endeavor. For instance, take the case of one particular Creationist argument from big numbers, as previously debunked by MarkCC. Look at the following passage:
The first "Assumption" isn't so much an assumption as an outline of what they're doing here, but the second one is what I want you to look at. There are many types of mutations that can occur, but they're making the unfair simplifying assumption of only looking at random copying errors. I'll let MarkCC explain what's wrong with this:
This assumption doesn't make it simpler to find results, it makes it impossible to find results, and they use this as the base of their argument that evolution therefore must be impossible. Of course, it wouldn't be impossible at all if they didn't make this assumption.
So, how does one go about determining if a simplifying assumption is reasonable? For this, I've created the following checklist:
Now that you see how simplifying assumptions are useful, and how they can be abused, you should be properly armed to both use them and stop their abuse. With this, I'll conclude the introduction to the Night Museum. Please come back tomorrow, when the museum proper will open up to the public. If you wish to see this exhibit again, you'll be able to find it in the Science and Pseudoscience section, or you could simply access a recording of this presentation in the Auditorium.
Thank you, and good night.
* * * * *
Return to the Auditorium
Return to the Lobby
The auditorium is completely silent, but when a figure starts to walk out on stage, it somehow becomes even more so. If silence were a zero point, this would be negative noise. The sight of the man is much the same; his visage is so dark that it passes the zero marker of luminosity and radiates darkness. The darkness does do the job of detailing him, however. Flipping the colors... is that Infophile? And is that a darkness-radiating spherical cow rolling along behind him?
Once he reaches the center of the stage, he turns to face the audience and starts to speak:
Welcome one, welcome all, to the grand opening of the Night Museum! I'm very pleased that you all *ahem* decided to attend. Don't worry if you're feeling disoriented; it's perfectly normal. You see, this museum occupies a space which obeys slightly different laws of physics than the universe you know. Fortunately, the differences won't interfere with your biological functions, so you'll be perfectly safe.
Some might describe such a different type of space as being in "Another dimension." This isn't completely accurate. All another dimension means is that there's another degree of freedom for movement. This is part of the case here, but it's best to say that this museum occupies a different location in another dimensional axis. To be exact, this axis is circular, and this museum is at a polar position to the universe you know. For the technically-minded, you might say that it--along with myself--was created entangled with Infophile and his blog.
You might wonder where the name of this museum and the name of this space come from. As for the museum's name, it's a tribute to the cult classic science-fiction/fantasy show, Night Gallery, hosted by the famed Rod Serling. Although not as popular as The Twilight Zone, Night Gallery was still an important contribution to the science-fiction/fantasy genre (plus it was more easily tributable).
The name of this space, The Night Relentless, uses its peculiar form as a tribute to Terry Pratchett's Discworld novel, The Light Fantastic. Pratchett used a method he called "Stealth Philosophy," in which he snuck philosophy into his primarily-comedic novels. In this method, he held up a distorted mirror to society, making its flaws not only stand out, but stand out comedically. I intend to use this method to an extent myself, holding up a mirror to society in order to make apparent its flaws, hopefully with a few laughs along the way.
But anyways, let's get onto the museum itself. The Night Museum is unique among museums in that it puts modern society on exhibit. The exhibits will range from showing the best humanity has to offer down to its worst. And when it comes to the worst, this museum offers something else to make it unique: We're not just about presenting it, we're about fixing it. Entire sections of the museum will be devoted to how we can fix problems that plague the world.
Today, however, I figured I'd give you a sample of something our museum will present which is on a bit more of a positive note. I have with me here my good friend, Ballzac, one of the rare species of the Spherical Cow. Say "Hello," Ballzac.
The Spherical Cow rolls around a bit so that his head--well, more of just a face, since there's no protruding head to speak of--faces the audience, and lets out a friendly "Mooo!"
The Spherical Cow is what's known as a simplifying assumption. These are tools used by scientists to make fairly accurate predictions about world, without having to perform the extremely complex math inherent in, for instance, calculating the moment of inertia or drag coefficient of an oddly-shaped body such as the normal cow.
Such assumptions may seem like they lead to worse results, but this isn't entirely fair. The truth is that in many cases if they weren't used, we wouldn't be able to get any results. We also have to be sure to remember that our results aren't expected to mesh perfectly with reality, and the only way to know exactly what will happen in any given case is to test it out experimentally.
The problem is that a technique such as this is often used as an excuse for quacks to exercise shoddy science. Simplifying assumptions are used which completely undermine the entire endeavor. For instance, take the case of one particular Creationist argument from big numbers, as previously debunked by MarkCC. Look at the following passage:
Assumptions:
(1) we will reckon the odds of evolving a new horse species from an earlier horse species.
(2) we assume only random copying errors as the source of Darwinian variation. Any other source of variation -- transposition, e.g., -- is non-random and therefore NON-DARWINIAN.
The first "Assumption" isn't so much an assumption as an outline of what they're doing here, but the second one is what I want you to look at. There are many types of mutations that can occur, but they're making the unfair simplifying assumption of only looking at random copying errors. I'll let MarkCC explain what's wrong with this:
Really, there are a lot of different sources of variation/mutation. At a minimum, there are point mutations, deletions (a section getting lost while copying), insertions (something getting inserted into a sequence during copying), transpositions (something getting moved), reversals (something get flipped so it appears in the reverse order), fusions (things that were separate getting merged - e.g., chromasomes in humans vs. in chimps), and fissions (things that were a single unit getting split).
In fact, this restriction a priori makes horse evolution impossible; because the modern species of horses have different numbers of chromasomes. Since the only change he allows is point-mutation, there is no way that his strawman Darwinism can do the job. Which, of course, is the point: he wants to make it impossible.
This assumption doesn't make it simpler to find results, it makes it impossible to find results, and they use this as the base of their argument that evolution therefore must be impossible. Of course, it wouldn't be impossible at all if they didn't make this assumption.
So, how does one go about determining if a simplifying assumption is reasonable? For this, I've created the following checklist:
- Is there a legitimate reason to make the assumption? That is, without it, would the involved math still be reasonable?
- Is the assumption used in some field other than strict mathematics (in which no assumptions are allowed at all in proofs)?
- Is the assumption a reasonable representation of reality?
- Does the assumption preserve all critical, relevant portions of the situation?
- If we didn't make the spherical assumption, we would be faced with an impossible integral of determining Earth's gravitational attraction to every atom of the cow's body. Answer: Yes
- This is a case of physics, so Yes.
- Well, cow's aren't normally particularly spherical, but the important consideration here is the distance involved. Compared to the distance to the center of Earth, the size of a cow is virtually a point, so we can treat it as a point mass. Also to note: spherical mass distributions will always behave just like point masses, so on the scale we're working with, the assumption gives us a good approximation of reality. Answer: Yes.
- Nothing important left out, so Yes.
- Without this assumption, we'd have to consider what would happen with many different types of mutations. It does drastically complicate the problem, but it might not be impossible for a good mathematician. Of course, these people aren't good mathematicians, so I'll give them some leeway and answer Yes here.
- Evolutionary biology, so Yes.
- Definitely No. This is only one of a myriad of mutations, so excepting all of those divorces this from reality.
- All of the other mutation types are indeed important, but particularly fission. This is the one that makes the species transition possible at all, so it definitely qualifies as critical. A resounding No here.
Now that you see how simplifying assumptions are useful, and how they can be abused, you should be properly armed to both use them and stop their abuse. With this, I'll conclude the introduction to the Night Museum. Please come back tomorrow, when the museum proper will open up to the public. If you wish to see this exhibit again, you'll be able to find it in the Science and Pseudoscience section, or you could simply access a recording of this presentation in the Auditorium.
Thank you, and good night.
* * * * *
Return to the Auditorium
Return to the Lobby
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
