The Old Dinosaur Speaks
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
In my 76 years I've been fortunate to find meaningful employment in a variety of occupations. Over those years some employment was available through different employment agencies. None of those jobs was in the political field. As it turns out, though, some of those positions required a detailed resume and more than one asked me to submit the screening results from an MMPI [Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality Inventory.] This would have allowed the prospective new employer to know more thoroughly the kind of employee was likely to become. Sounds like an idea to include in the history of a potential candidate for public office.
Saturday, July 9, 2016
How Do You Measure?
In ancient times, measurements were made using local standards which varied from one country to another depending on the person whose biometrics defined what the standard would be. In Egypt, a cubit was about the distance from the elbow to the fingertips. In some areas the width of a thumb was considered to be an inch. In the 14th century, King Edward II of England decided the official inch should equal the length of 3 grains of barley placed end to end. A foot closely approximated the 12 inches we now call a foot. A yard was determined by the distance from the tip of a different king’s nose to his thumb on his out-stretched hand. The height of horses was measured by the number of hand-widths from the hoof to the withers.
As commerce increased and
expanded beyond a country’s borders, it became advisable to develop a system of
weights and measures which would be the same regardless of the origin and
destination. A pound or a foot or a gallon should be the same in country B as
they are in country A. In the 1790’s, France recognized the value of uniformity
and began developing what became the International System of Weights and
Measures abbreviated “SI” units. (SI for the French Systeme Internationale.) They began with the meter for length and
the kilogram for mass (weight). Ultimately the SI system established five
additional standards: the second for time, the ampere for electric current, the
kelvin for temperature, the mole for amount of a substance, and the candela for
intensity of light.
Before the 1790's the framers of our Constitution recognized the value of regulating weight sand measures:
Before the 1790's the framers of our Constitution recognized the value of regulating weight sand measures:
“The regulation of weights and measures
is necessary for science, industry, and commerce. The importance of
establishing uniform national standards was demonstrated by the drafters of the
U.S. Constitution, who
gave Congress in Article 1, Section 8, the power to "fix the Standard of Weights and Measures."
-- legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
-- legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
Until 2013, the United
States of America shared the distinction with two other world powers, Liberia
and Myanmar (formerly Burma), of resisting the adoption of the Metric System.
We are one of the last holdouts. (In 2013, Myanmar began the transition.) Why
have we resisted the change? Because we don’t like change. In 1866, Congress
authorized the use of the metric system but our resistance for the past 150
years has resulted in only small steps in the metric direction.
With an early interest in
the Sciences, the Metric System seemed almost natural after a very short time.
For those unfamiliar, the internet offers many conversion tools but for easy
daily use some units become so familiar that an official converter is not
necessary. Weights: A Kilogram is equal to 2.2 pounds. A Pound is equal to 454
grams. An Ounce is 28 Grams. A Gallon is 3.8 liters. A Liter is 0.26 Gallons
(that’s very close to a quart). These equivalents are quite satisfactory for
everyday use. On the other hand, in a laboratory, measurements to several
decimal places are absolutely crucial – micrograms, milliliters and so on. If
you work in a lab, you already know that.
Two units of daily
concern to most are miles per hour/kilometers per hour. Most vehicles now come
with double numbering on the speedometer. Mph on top of the display, Kph
underneath the display. Digital speedometers have a push button switch allowing
the driver to switch to the applicable units. If a vehicle doesn’t have this
luxury, two equivalencies are easy to remember: 100 kilometers per hour is the
same as 62 miles per hour. The ratio is very close to the decimal equivalent
for five-eighths which is 0.625. Kilometers per hour times 5/8 yields miles per
hour. (Converting in the other direction is the inverse operation –
eight-fifths or 1.6).
The only other regularly occurring concern
might be temperature readings. The United States and most of its territories
remain the only ones to continue using the Fahrenheit scale (Named for Daniel
Gabriel Fahrenheit, a German physicist) which marks the melting point of ice at
32 degrees and the boiling point of water at 212 degrees. The rest of the world
since the end of the 20th century is using the Celsius scale
(previously known as the centigrade scale until named for the Swedish
astronomer Anders Celsius) which marks 0 degrees as the freezing point of water
and 100 degrees as the boiling point of water.
In daily life, how
crucial is it to know the temperature to a precise number? Can you feel the
difference between 72 F and 74 F? Or 33 F and 35 F? It’s funny that a 2 degree
difference between Fahrenheit temperatures is about equal to a one degree
difference in the Celsius temperature. The major difference is the starting
point. Remembering a few equivalencies might make the transition easier.
Celsius degrees Fahrenheit degrees How they feel
Minus 10 Minus 14 Frigid
0 32 Freezing
10 50 Chilly
20 68 Comfy
30 86 Hot
40 104 Too
hot
50 122 Danger
If you really have to exactly
translate Celsius to Fahrenheit, an easy method is to multiply
the Celsius
temperature by two. Reduce that result by ten percent. Add 32 and you will have
the Fahrenheit temperature. For example, 25 Celsius times two is 50, minus 5 is 45,
plus 32, equals 77 Fahrenheit degrees.
77 degrees.
Now all you need is a bit of shade, a comfortable chair and a well made Margarita.
Enjoy.
# # #
Tuesday, July 5, 2016
Rube Goldberg Meets William of Ockham
New math; old math? I have no children and I am not in frequent contact with any parents of school-age children but with what I’ve seen about so-called Common Core math I see a parallel to Rube Goldberg (1883-1970) who created devices deliberately over-engineered to take 20 or more steps to accomplish a two-step task. Goldberg was an American cartoonist and inventor. His “cartoons” humorously described a complicated series of steps to achieve a very simple result. Just like the “New Math” in which I see no humor.
Enter
William of Ockham, an English friar, philosopher and theologian. Ockham (c.
1287-1347) is credited with developing a problem-solving principle which held,
generally, that when there are multiple hypotheses, the one needing the fewest
assumptions is likely the correct one. The fewer assumptions, the greater the
likelihood of repeating the same result which is related to the empirical
nature of The Scientific Method – testability and repeatability. This is the “Old
Math”.
Educators
tout the value of Common Core as bringing to students a broader exposure,
immediately, to the underlying principles of Mathematics. My bias will show
when I say there’s absolutely nothing wrong with the old way. Even the best Forensic
experts in any field learned their craft by starting with the basics
progressing layer by layer to broader knowledge and understanding.
Writers
are advised to begin their stories in
medias res (in the middle of things). In
medias res is definitely not the best way to teach math. Even Euclid of
Alexandria, the Greek mathematician regarded as the father of geometry, determined
that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points. Start at the
beginning point and progress to the next without swerving. To dapple in
arithmetic, algebra and perhaps calculus, simultaneously, before mastering the
basics seems ludicrous.
I
learned math the old way – arithmetic, geometry, algebra, trigonometry,
logarithms, and calculus. I can solve most math problems easier than I can open
pilfer-proof plastic packaging. I can see the product but I can’t get to it
before employing tools and cutting myself on the sharp plastic edge.
Sometimes
an old dog’s old tricks are more valuable than the new tricks you’re trying to
teach it.
# # #
Sunday, June 19, 2016
Gay Pride
Today is Pride day. This
is the day when people discriminated against by many come together and declare
that they respect themselves and know they deserve to be respected by others.
Who are these people and why are they discriminated against? They are any and
all of those comfortable under the LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender,
Questioning) umbrella. Why the discrimination?
Thousands of years ago
(ca 4,000 BC), men inspired by the prospect of a Supreme Being, committed a
code of conduct acceptable within the zeitgeist
of the time to writings which became the Bible’s Old Testament. Any behaviors
not conforming to that zeitgeist were
scorned and subject to punishment at the direction of the community’s
interpretation of God’s wishes.
Thousands of years later (ca 450 BC), the Greek philosopher, Democritus of Abdera, Thrace, hypothesized that:
1. All matter consists of invisible particles called atoms.
2. Atoms are indestructible.
3. Atoms are solid but invisible.
After another 2,500 years (1803
AD), John Dalton theorized that atoms contained smaller particles, Protons,
Neutrons, and Electrons.
Since the early years of the 19th
century scientists have been learning more and more about the tiniest
components of human structure. General ignorance of these minutiae by the
overwhelming majority of people is at the root of the discrimination suffered
by those under the LGBTQ umbrella. Sexual orientation: orientation (not
preference) and Gender identity: unshakable conviction (not choice), are the
two most widely misunderstood states of being within the LGBTQ community.
Recent scientific discoveries in
the fields of Genetics have revealed that orientation and identity though not
automatically connected are both as a result of genetic differences within DNA
strands contained within individual chromosomes. Other discoveries have
determined that XX (Female) and XY (Male) are not the only two possibilities.
Thousands of variations can, and do, exist.
Therefore, any discrimination is
based on an archaic zeitgeist from
more than 6,000 years ago encouraged by the voluntary ignorance of people moved
by misguided devotion to an unsubstantiated belief rather than on provable
science.
The damning claim that homosexuals
are pedophiles is almost too absurd to address. Any gay people I have ever
known want to share with a coequal adult. Although sexual intimacy may be a
part of that sharing, it’s not about the sex. It’s about the sharing.
The ridiculous fear that a “man in
a dress” will claim to be transgender to attack women in the Ladies room is
equally absurd. It takes a great deal more than a dress and a wig to appear
even slightly like a woman much less behave as one.
All that any of us want are the same
freedoms you enjoy. No special treatment. Acceptance is desirable but tolerance
would be acceptable. Agenda? There is NO agenda. Gay is born, not made. Cross-gender
identification is born, not made.
Could YOU be converted to
homosexuality? Could YOU be made to feel like a sex you were not born as? Did YOU
complete a pre-birth choice questionnaire? I didn’t think so. Neither did I.
# # #
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)