Links of Interest

Hiroshi Ishiguro unveils a robot with a similar haircut and facial structure as himself that the media dubs a 'body double' and 'lookalike.' At LiveScience, the discussion also mentions Ishiguro's conception of "trans humanity" and the ever blurring boundaries among machines and humans.

At io9, A New Equation Reveals Our Exact Odds of Finding Alien Life.

The New York Times has a recent editorial on the so-called 'Math Wars' here.  The author raises interesting questions about how certain changes get coded as 'progressive,' thereby relegating other opinions to be thought of as 'regressive.' I think that's a really interesting point, but it doesn't change the fact that the article is mostly a typical 'algorithms are the basis of math education' argument without an abundance of proof.  But the article does have some interesting tidbits nonetheless and is worth a read.

An interesting article about a new study by linguists that suggests that geography has much more influence on language development than we previously thought. Also interesting (in a sad way) are the comments, which show how easily conversations about language become conversations about cultural difference and cultural supremacy.

    This week, a group of humanities scholars and teachers issued a report emphasizing the importance of the humanities in K-12 education, largely as a response to increasing attention to STEM and job preparedness in education. Responses have varied, but there's an interesting one from John Horgan at Scientific American, titled "Why Study Humanities? What I Tell Engineering Freshmen."  This article from The New York Times also notes that 74% of business leaders "unequivocally" want their children to have a well-rounded liberal education that includes the arts and sciences. One might speculate that this percentage is higher than those who want all children to have such an education, at least given the rhetoric in some circles of education reform. 
     Nevertheless, the response from Commission from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, whose website also has videos explaining their position, seems to miss some opportunities. While it is true that far too many groups have been speaking of humanities and social science education as if they are luxuries we can no longer afford, the science vs. humanities tone of the conversation reproduces too much old disciplinary baggage. In fact, humanities education helps scientists understand their own work, and scientific ideas inspire humanistic inquiry and vice versa, and the Academy misses a big opportunity to explain this.  Moreover, the conversation seems to conflate the debate about humanities importance vis-à-vis science with the debate about whether education should be primarily about job training (and whether such a focus makes education nothing more than government-funded corporate assistance).  These should probably be separate debates; after all, a scientist doesn't view her or his science education as job training as opposed to intellectual exploration, any more than an artist or writer does.
    For a concise argument for the value of humanities in education, albeit one a couple of years old, check out biochemistry professor Gregory Petsko's open letter to SUNY Albany's president (written after SUNY Albany announced the elimination of several foreign language departments). The letter makes some good jabs and insights, along similar lines as Horgan but with more literary analysis and in the style of an unusually enjoyable invective.  Of course, science studies has also been showing for years that the divisions we make between the study of science and the study of culture and society are indeed very unruly boundaries, constantly shifting and often arbitrary.  Bruno Latour, Donna Haraway, Don Ihde, and others have excellent comments on these broader issues.

Links of Interest

The New York Times on the complications of preserving digital art.  I wonder when articles like these will be able to stop assuming that "digital art" is a new concept for much of the audience. This isn't snark; I honestly wonder when this will happen, since it's a key line to cross.

Author N.K. Jemison calls for a "Reconciliation" and encourages the speculative fiction community to acknowledge and address its inequalities in her Continuum Guest of Honor speech. 

Amazing images of Bryde's whales in full "balloon mode" here. I always find it interesting when people refer to animals as "alien-like," since most visual representations of alien creatures tend to be exaggerated or hybridized pictures of animals; after all, where else would we get our images of "alien" bodies? The "alien" description reminds me of Donna Haraway's claim that we use animals to form our broader notions of what is familiar or strange, what is "us" and "not-us."

Speaking of sea life and the imagination, this is a typical response of skeptical bloggers to last month's cable special about whether mermaids are real, which somehow became a trending topic.  Again, it was a trending debate about whether mermaids are real. It bears repeating. When the "special" originally aired last year, it received similar responses, including Wired's delightfully titled "Mermaids Embodies the Rotting Carcass of Science TV."

And speaking of critics of pseudoscience, Sally Satel is interviewed on BookTV about her and Scott Lilienfeld's book, Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience. She argues that we tend to overestimate how much information brainscans can really tell us, and how easy it is to misinterpret or misstate the results in a variety of situations, including the courts and in medical treatment centers.  The book also argues that overstating and misunderstanding the state of neuroscience can make us think really problematic things about free will and individualism.