Everything Bad About the Space Shuttle Was Utterly Predictable

I should say, “Everything bad about the Shuttle was entirely predictable, even by people who later turned out to be not very smart.” Which I know, because it was, by Gregg Easterbrook of all people. Easterbrook is well-known to science bloggers as the ESPN football columnist with a special knack for inserting his opinions about science into his columns, and getting it wildly wrong every single time. It’s an intimidating resume of wrongness, on a wide swath of topics: global warming, anti-hydrogen, extra dimensions, evolution, cosmology, atheism, and consciousness. But at least he tends to recycle the same claptrap in multiple venues, thus saving us from different varieties of his craziness.

Which leaves me honestly astonished at stumbling across this 1980 Washington Monthly story on the space shuttle program. The shuttle program had been running at NASA since the early Seventies, when the agency was looking to take the next step after the Apollo missions. They explored an ambitious list of possibilities, before budgets and technology forced them to narrow it down to a partly-renewable shuttle vehicle and (to give it something to do) a modular space station. The burden imposed by these bad decisions is crippling NASA’s science program to this day. The first shuttle launch wasn’t until 1981, and in 1980 almost everyone was in cheerleader mode — this was going to be a momentous step in humanity’s move into space, a cheap and reliable way to bring low-Earth orbit to the masses.

It didn’t quite work out that way, but very few people bothered to poke around in what was going on to read the tea leaves effectively. But this 1980 article did — and it was written by none other than Gregg Easterbrook! Or somebody with his name, anyway. It’s an extraordinary piece, extremely well-researched and detailed, and it lays out with unblinking specificity everything that will proceed to go wrong with the shuttle program in the years to come. The shuttle can’t reach past low-Earth orbit, so conventional rockets will still need to be used. It’s vastly more expensive and complicated than would be necessary to make frequent flights feasible. It was bloated in size in response to Defense Department demands. It will be subject to continual delays. It didn’t have anything specifically to do that couldn’t be done better by other means. It was rickety and fragile and would undoubtedly blow up or crash. Easterbrook examines individual problematic issues in detail, from the infamous refractory tiles to the engineering challenges of building engines that have to operate in unprecedented extremes of heat and cold, pressure and vacuum — and then be used again.

In retrospect, parts of the article are tragically prescient:

Some suspect the tile mounting is the least of Columbia’s difficulties. “I don’t think anybody appreciates the depths of the problems,” Kapryan says. The tiles are the most important system NASA has ever designed as “safe life.” That means there is no back-up for them. If they fail, the shuttle burns on reentry. If enough fall off, the shuttle may become unstable during landing, and thus un-pilotable. The worry runs deep enough that NASA investigated installing a crane assembly in Columbia so the crew could inspect and repair damaged tiles in space. (Verdict: Can’t be done. You can hardly do it on the ground.)

And this was in 1980! By Gregg Easterbrook! Did something happen to him in the interim?

I get all my best technology news from football blogs.

Everything Bad About the Space Shuttle Was Utterly Predictable Read More »

19 Comments

Troths Have Been Plighted

We’re back! Jennifer and I, that is, having successfully gotten married and then immediately swanning off for the honeymoon. Nobody got hurt, as far as I know, and all in all I highly recommend the experience. No pics of the actual event yet, sorry about that.

The ceremony was beautiful. It was held at Marvimon, a reconstructed 1920’s auto showroom north of Downtown LA, now owned by artist couple Sherry Walsh and Miguel Nelson, who rent it out for private parties. Let me just say that Sherry and Miguel were enormously useful in pointing us to good people to help with all of the stuff that goes into throwing a smashing wedding. Most of all they introduced us to our caterers, Jon Shook and Vinny Dotolo, a/k/a the Food Dudes, who whipped up some of the best bacon-wrapped dates and corn chowder and mac-and-cheese you’re ever likely to find. We hired them just in time, too — next week they have a show debuting on the Food Network, Two Dudes Catering, and pretty soon we won’t be able to afford them.

Marvimon

Our ceremony was performed by Rev. Mark Trodden, newly ordained by the Progressive Universal Life Church just for the occasion. (Although apparently you get a parking sticker, so there are benefits.) We wrote our own vows, based on the following algorithm: start with the Form for the Solemnization of Matrimony from the Book of Common Prayer, then remove from it all the references to God and anything too clunkily archaic (we crossed out the bit about “carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding”). You’re left with not much text, but a nice outline. Then insert into that some nice secular meditations on the meaning of love and marriage; we used W.H. Auden,

Rejoice, dear love, in Love’s peremptory word;
All chance, all love, all logic, you and I,
Exist by grace of the Absurd,
And without conscious artifice we die:

So, lest we manufacture in our flesh
The lie of our divinity afresh,
Describe round our chaotic malice now,
The arbitrary circle of a vow.

and Rainer Maria Rilke,

We must trust in what is difficult. It is good to be solitary, for solitude is difficult. It is also good to love, because love is difficult. For one human being to love another human being: that is perhaps the most difficult task that has been entrusted to us, the ultimate task, the final test and proof, the work for which all other work is mere preparation…. Love consists in this: that two solitudes protect and touch and greet each other.

Season with some interpolating phrases featuring a bit of levity, and you’re done.

Not that I would know, but I suspect that getting married when you’re 40-ish is a substantially different experience than when your 25-ish. Not that either is intrinsically better or worse, but it’s helpful to have some experience with other parties and weddings, and a sufficiently matured sense of taste that you both know exactly what you want. And it’s extremely nice to bring together people who have meant so much to you over various different phases of your life, and collect them in one place to celebrate the beginning of the next phase with the person you love.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled bloodless-academic-sciencey blogging.

Troths Have Been Plighted Read More »

21 Comments

Friday Random Ten: Honorable Estate Edition

Okay, not really random, nor for that matter ten. Nor even Friday, as the big event is tomorrow.

Here’s the first twenty songs of the playlist:

  1. Louis Armstrong & Duke Ellington, I’m Just a Lucky So and So
  2. Lyle Lovett, Good Intentions
  3. Al Green, I’m Glad You’re Mine
  4. Patricia Barber, Lost In This Love
  5. Emerson, Lake & Palmer, So Far to Fall
  6. Rahsaan Roland Kirk, Never Can Say Goodbye
  7. Loving Paris, Loco
  8. Parliament, Mothership Connection
  9. Yannick Noah, December 1963 (Oh, What a Night)
  10. Gary Moore, Eyesight to the Blind
  11. Maria Papadopoulou, Maskaremeni
  12. Gipsyland, Salaam
  13. Esther Phillips, Cry Me a River Blues
  14. Either/Orchestra, No Me Molesta
  15. Joe Strummer & the Mescaleros, Mondo Bongo
  16. Alihan Samedov, Sen Gelmez Oldun
  17. Cesaria Evora, Nho Antone Escaraderode
  18. Billie Holiday, Comes Love
  19. Madeliene Peyroux, Don’t Wait Too Long
  20. Living Colour, Love Rears It’s Ugly Head

We hit ’em heavy right at the beginning; once Satchmo and Duke are finished, there won’t be a dry eye in the house. A few more lovey-dovey songs to set the mood, and then the tempo ratchets up and stays there. Never Can Say Goodbye is the first of many lesser-known covers of well-known songs; it’s a nice way to mix in some familiarity without stooping to cliche. And Yannick (not Noah — see comments) has a version of December 1963 that is really too catchy to be believed. Joe Strummer tops the list with three entries in the total of eighty songs; Mondo Bongo because it’s romantic and we’re rocking the Mr. and Mrs. Smith vibe; All In a Day because there’s a line in there about “East of Chavez Ravine,” where the actual wedding is being held; and the Clash’s Death or Glory because Death or Glory is awesome.

A keen eye will detect that we haven’t limited ourselves to conventionally romantic tunes, but have allowed the occasional foray into ironic detachment; that’s okay, the relationship is like that too.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go get married.

Friday Random Ten: Honorable Estate Edition Read More »

24 Comments

Unsolicited Advice, IV: How to Be a Good Graduate Student

Past installments of Unsolicited Advice dealt with such mechanical topics as how to choose an undergraduate school or graduate school, or how to get into graduate school. (Hell if I know how to get into undergraduate schools.) Now we step fearlessly into somewhat more treacherous territory: how to be a good graduate student. As always, this is one idiosyncratic viewpoint, and others should be offered in the comments.

It’s treacherous, of course, because there is certainly no right way to go about being a good graduate student. Once upon a time, as part of my ongoing campaign to discredit the notion of make-or-break general exams, I had the physics department at Chicago do a survey of their faculty, asking them to give a subjective rating of all the Ph.D. students who had graduated in the last five years (and with whose work they were familiar). We then plotted the resulting scores against how well they did on the candidacy exam. Result: there was a small handful of students who completely dominated on the exam, and were pretty much recognized as excellent physicists, clustered in the corner. Other than that, a complete scatterplot — there was no correlation between test scores and success in physics (among this highly-selected sample). But if you plotted candidacy-exam scores against incoming physics GRE scores, it was almost a perfect correlation. There are some students who are the kind who are really good at physics in an exam-type environment, and who have the ability to carry through that talent to actually doing research. But there are others who struggle with the tests, yet nevertheless are great physicists. And vice-versa: you can be a crappy physicist, whether or not you do well at the GRE’s and general exams.

The point being, there are many ways to be a successful physicist, and a corresponding number of ways to be a successful grad student. So the first piece of advice, possibly too vague to be useful, is: Look to maximize your talents. Typically, your first year or two in grad school you have some flexibility. You’re taking classes (this is written from an American perspective, sorry), and possibly also doing research, but you haven’t necessarily been tied down to a final choice of thesis advisor, or even research field, or even theory vs. experiment. This would be a good time to be honest with yourself — what are you really good at? You might have had your heart set on building the next great particle accelerator ever since you deconstructed your parents’ stereo when you were twelve, but when someone puts a soldering iron in your hand you just can’t seem to stop breaking things. But you did get a perfect score on the GRE. Well, maybe it’s time to face the music and switch to string theory.

But I’m burying the lede here. If I had to concentrate on a single useful piece of advice for grad students, it would be: Take the initiative. The deep truth of grad school is that the transition from undergrad to grad is when you go from primarily being “a student” to primarily being “a scientist.” As a student, your primary responsibility was to do what your professors told you to. As a scientist, your primary responsibility is to do good science. Many students struggle in grad school, especially in the early years, because they are implicitly waiting to be told what to do. Don’t wait — try to figure out what you should be doing, and do it. Check the arxiv in the morning to look for interesting papers. Go to colloquia and seminars, even if you don’t understand them — nobody really understands them, and it’s the best way to get a feeling for what those things are that you should be working toward understanding. Talk to people! Knock on professors’ doors (or, more politely, email them to make an appointment), and chat with them about what they are doing and what you might like to be doing. Even better, talk to senior grad students and — best of all — postdocs! They have more time than professors, and have a better understanding of the situation you are in right now. (When it comes time to apply for postdocs yourself, you’re going to need three letters of recommendation from scientists who know you and your work very well. If you can only think of one or two people who might qualify, you’ve badly mismanaged your time in grad school.) Come up with ideas! A good advisor will set you on a productive path for your first research projects, but that’s no reason why you shouldn’t also be trying to come up with good ideas yourself; at some point that’s going to be your job, after all. And when it comes to the nitty-gritty of actually doing research, whether it’s theory or experiment, don’t expect anyone to hold your hand at every step — use your brain to try to figure out what should be done next. At some point you will sit back and realize that it’s kind of fun. And then it will dawn on you that you’ve passed the threshold toward which you’ve been progressing for quite a number of years — you’re an honest-to-goodness scientist.

We can’t pretend, of course, that being a scientist is just a matter of willpower; you do have to learn some stuff. One of the eternal grad-school dilemmas is how many courses you should take, vs. how quickly you should just devote yourself to doing research. I’m going to have to be wishy-washy here, as there is no right answer, although it’s certainly possible to go too far in either direction. If you dive into doing research without having a proper grounding in coursework, you can end up being an expert in the one particular hyper-specialized thing that you are researching, but be left with a rather fuzzy grasp of all the rest of physics. Not only does a situation like that doom you to a lifetime of sitting in on talks that you don’t understand, but it might prevent you from making crucial connections that would actually be useful in your own work. But contrariwise, it’s certainly possible to spend too much of your time taking classes. Classwork is what you have trained to be good at, and in some ways it’s a comforting environment. But it’s ultimately not the point of why you are in grad school. Likewise, sometimes you will really want to learn some particular subject, but your department doesn’t offer a course in it. Here’s where you should figure out that it’s your responsibility to teach it to yourself. Especially these days, when there are not only five good textbooks but countless reviews on every subject available online, there’s no excuse for waiting for a teacher to come along — see the previous paragraph.

Even once you get past courses and are unambiguously doing research, a similar dilemma presents itself — calculating vs. contemplating. (That would be the theorist’s version of the dilemma, anyway; experimenters are invited to suggest alliterative formulations of “tinkering vs. collecting data.”) Being a scientist is a back-and-forth process, between on the one hand looking at the big picture, learning the basics, thinking deeply, coming up with new ideas, and on the other hand digging into the details, getting your hands dirty, and actually coming up with some tangible results. Science depends on both, although many people are happier on one side than the other. Despite what was said earlier about finding your strengths, here’s a situation where you should make an extra effort to compensate for your weaknesses. You might be someone who loves doing calculations, producing page after page of equations, or file after file of simulation output. But if they don’t add up to an interesting result, people aren’t going to care that much. Or you might have deep and creative ideas about the nature of space and time or high-temperature superconductivity. But if you can’t wrestle those ideas down to some specific calculations, your colleagues aren’t going to be all that impressed. Sometimes, remember, the best ideas actually come about because you are simply fooling around with some calculations for their own sake.

All of this has been necessarily vague, in accordance with the fact that there are many good ways to be a successful grad student. But at the end, the goal (for most people) is pretty concrete: to land a good postdoc. Do keep that in mind. So, no matter what your individual approach to success is, here is the eyes-on-the-prize advice: Be the kind of grad student that people would like to hire as a postdoc. What kind of student is that? Well, just ask yourself what you would be looking for, if you had a pile of promising postdoc applications in front of you. Some people are lucky enough to get general-purpose fellowships that are based simply on their genius; so if the genius thing is working for you, great. More postdocs are hired by some particular person or group, to perform some fairly well-defined kind of research. What those people are looking for is a postdoc who will contribute to their group, whether by being an awesome individual researcher, or by being a useful collaborator. So, be that person. While you’re in grad school, establish a track record of productivity by writing papers. Even better, write good papers — write about things that other people are interested in. What is it about your research or skill set that makes you useful to people hiring postdocs? Become the world’s expert in some hot topic, or the master of some novel technique, along with establishing your broad-based competence. A good postdoc is expected to enliven a research group by being plugged into all the latest good stuff going on in the field, bubbling with new ideas and the energy and know-how to turn those ideas into tangible results. That should be you.

(Certainly, not everyone will become a postdoc, nor should they. One of my best students didn’t even apply for postdocs, after he determined it just wasn’t for him. There are many other directions in which to steer your career after a successful time in grad school, and it pays to keep those possibilities in the back of your mind all along. But I’m not really the one to ask about them.)

To be more concrete yet: Be a finisher. After several years of grad school, what do you have to show for it? Write papers, do analyses, build equipment, finish experiments. Demonstrate beyond any doubt that you can take the project from beginning to end, not just sit around the coffee room and lob probing questions. Give talks! Have something to say, and be confident that other people want to hear it. I’ve actually heard some students say that they love science, but don’t like writing papers or giving talks. That’s like saying you love being a butcher, just aren’t very fond of cutting up animals. (Suggestions for more illuminating similes are welcome.) Writing papers and giving talks is the entire point of what you are doing. Be enthusiastic about it, and while you’re at it, be good at it. There are so many smart people out there who write impenetrable papers or give incomprehensible talks, one good way to distinguish yourself from the herd is to learn to communicate effectively. But it won’t help unless you have something tangible to communicate.

September has long been my favorite month of the year, as campuses come to life with the incoming students, many of them starting off on a new adventure of one sort or another. Go get ’em, tiger.

Update: Many other people, of course, have offered advice on how to be a good grad student. If you know of any, mention them in the comments and I’ll link from here.

Unsolicited Advice, IV: How to Be a Good Graduate Student Read More »

54 Comments

Academics: Still Totally Lame

And Deirdre McCloskey wins the award for most ostentatious lameness. Not that I have anything really against Deirdre McCloskey; she’s an influential economist, a gifted writer, and has a compelling personal story to boot. But still.

Here’s the thing: the Chronicle of Higher Education asked a handful of academics to divulge their guilty pleasures. Seems like a potentially amusing parlor game, no? Well, as a moment’s reflection would reveal, no. Because you see, what could they possibly say? Most academics, for better or for worse, basically conform to the stereotype. They like reading books and teaching classes, not shooting up heroin or walking around in public dressed up in gender-inappropriate undergarments. (See, I don’t even know what would count as a respectable guilty pleasure.) And if they did, they certainly wouldn’t admit it. And if they did admit it, it certainly wouldn’t be in the pages of the Chronicle.

I was one of the people they asked, and I immediately felt bad that I couldn’t come up with a more salacious, or at least quirky and eccentric, guilty pleasure. I chose going to Vegas, a very unique and daring pastime that is shared by millions of people every week. I was sure that, once the roundup appeared in print, I would be shown up as the milquetoast I truly am, my pretensions to edgy hipness once again roundly flogged for the enjoyment of others.

But no. As it turns out, compared to my colleagues I’m some sort of cross between Hunter S. Thompson and Caligula. Get a load of some of these guilty pleasures: Sudoku. Riding a bike. And then, without hint of sarcasm: Landscape restoration. Gee, I hope your Mom never finds out about that.

But the award goes to Prof. McCloskey, who in a candid examination of the dark hedonistic corners of her soul, managed to include this sentence:

Nothing pleases me more than opening a new textbook.

Arrrgh! Stuff like that sets back the cause of academic non-geekiness for centuries!

The irony is, I totally know what she means.

Academics: Still Totally Lame Read More »

65 Comments

US/LHC Blogs

This has already been batted around a bit, but for those of you who depend on CV for absolutely all of your news, there is a new US/LHC website, brought to you by the collective US institutions involved in the Large Hadron Collider. Like any hip contemporary internet presence, it comes complete with a blog. A group blog, in fact, featuring four physicists working on different aspects of the LHC: Monica Dunford, Pamela Klabbers, Steve Nahn, and Peter Steinberg. (I thought Peter already had a blog, but apparently some people can’t be confined to just one.) It’s great that we’ll get more inside scoop about what is happening at the LHC, in addition to the awesome scoop you can already get here and elsewhere.

There has been some fretting that the LHC, scheduled to turn on next year, is already getting too much hype. On the list of my own personal worries, this does not crack the top million. If you’re someone who reads several physics blogs and scans the Science Times and the wire services for stories about particle physics, you may have been subjected to a lot of stories about an experiment that hasn’t yet collected any data. But the more casual reader is very far from reaching a point of LHC over-exposure. This is by far the most important experiment in the last thirty years in an undeniably significant subfield of physics. The excitement is perfectly justified, and there will be much more to come.

ATLAS cavern

The ATLAS cavern. Those poor particles won’t know what hit them!

US/LHC Blogs Read More »

13 Comments

Disinviting Larry

Larry Summers is an extremely smart guy who said some extremely stupid things about women and science at a conference. For this and many other reasons (mostly “other,” but it’s a messy story), he lost the confidence of Harvard’s faculty and eventually resigned. And good riddance; for all of his talents and all the good he did for Harvard, he caused more harm by antagonizing people and generally playing the autocrat when the office of university president calls for something more subtle.

Which doesn’t mean that he should be banned in perpetuity from giving talks to university audiences. A recent invitation from the University of California Regents has been rescinded after a group of UC faculty circulated a petition demanding that Summers be disinvited. Whether or not you had any sympathy for what Summers said at the NBER conference (I certainly don’t), he is a serious academic, and should be accorded the usual protections for saying what he thinks. Bitch PhD is wondering about the situation, and here’s the comment I left at her blog:

I think the disinvitation was a bad idea, on substantive grounds as well as for the bad image it projects.

For one thing, the proposition that innate differences play a large role in determining the distribution of genders (and races) throughout academia is certainly controversial — it’s not just a matter of scholarly vs. otherwise. There are smart and well-informed people who believe that innate differences are the most important thing suppressing the number of women in science; Stephen Pinker is an obvious example. I personally think those people are crazy and wrong, but won’t deny that they are smart and well-informed.

Second and more importantly, it’s just wrong to think of Summers as symbolizing prejudice. Although there are smart and well-informed prejudiced people per above, Summers was certainly not well-informed when he made his comments at the NBER conference. He has since apologized profusely and allocated millions of dollars toward making things better. It all may be perfectly insincere, but when there are plenty of actual sexists out there who are willing to defend such positions even when they are well-informed, it seems like a mistake to hold that the only possible role Larry Summers can play is buffoonish sexist. He does have other things on his CV.

Finally, I haven’t seen any evidence that Summers was actually invited to talk about gender or science or anything like that. If he were, that would be evidence of rank stupidity (of which the Regents are of course well-known masters).

Among the “image” problems alluded to above, stuff likes this makes it possible for conservatives to beat the drum of leftist intolerance of other people’s views. Ironically, the incident comes on the same week of a much more serious violation of academic freedom: UC Irvine’s withdrawal of a the offer of the job of Dean at its brand new law school, to Duke constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky. That act, which has apparently been reversed so that Chemerinsky can in fact be the Dean, resulted from right-wing pressure against a professor who they thought was too liberal. Becoming the Dean is a noticeably bigger deal than giving a dinner-time talk to the UC Regents. Nevertheless, the Summers flap has given conservatives the chance to argue that “the primary challenge facing academic freedom in American universities” is “the rise of an academic far-left establishment that seeks to use universities as a base for political activism, and is perfectly willing to violate accepted standards of academic freedom to achieve that goal.” And they’ve taken it!

Well, if we go around disinviting speakers because we disagree with their views, we deserve what we get. In the wake of Summers’s original speech, there was much heat, but also a good deal of light — data and arguments were produced that showed to any reasonable person that women interested in science face extraordinary amounts of discrimination at all steps of the process. Let’s stick with the “data and arguments” approach.

Disinviting Larry Read More »

97 Comments

Play Guess-the-Histogram

Charts and graphs are always exciting. They add an undeniable aura of quantification to any set of claims. What I like to do, when I see a graph illustrating some news item, is to guess what is being plotted before reading the text or axes labels very carefully. Here, via Ezra Klein, are the results of a BBC/ABC News poll:

Iraqis polled on surge

The large-type words at the top give away the basic issue being addressed: has the U.S. “surge” of additional forces into the Baghdad area made things better or worse? But you can still get the picture from glancing at the colorful vertical bars, before reading any of the tiny text. Tiny red and yellow outliers flank a rampant baby-blue cohort. So my guess was, red meant “better,” blue meant “stayed the same,” while yellow meant “worse.” That would reflect what I had been hearing in the wake of Gen. David Petraeus’s testimony before Congress, that overall Americans were not in the slightest convinced that the escalation was bringing an end to sectarian and helping to nuture the first flowerings of Iraqi participatory democracy, with checks and balances for all.

But no! A glance at the fine print reveals that it was blue that corresponded to “worse,” while yellow meant “had no effect.” (In my defense, why wasn’t “had no effect” put in the middle?) I knew the war and the surge were unpopular, but had no idea they were that unpopular.

It takes a dip into the text in the article accompanying the graph to figure out what is going on: this was a poll of Iraqis, not Americans. So now it all makes sense; as unpopular as our military efforts are here at home, it’s nothing like the scorn that we receive from the country we are purportedly saving. Admittedly, closer scrutiny did provide clues that the poll might not have been sampling Americans: the question referred specifically to the escalation “in Baghdad and surrounding provinces,” rather than just “in Iraq,” a distinction that is rather too fine for most Americans to fret about. And there were six different forms of the question, addressing levels of detail that again would not be foremost of the minds of anyone who saw things in terms of supporting vs. attacking our brave men and women in uniform. Like the President.

The best argument for leaving Iraq is that the Iraqis don’t want us there. (It’s not an argument that is discussed very much, for reasons about which you are free to speculate.) This poll from earlier this year is illuminating. On the basic issue of “Do you support the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq?” we find that 46% strongly oppose and 32% somewhat oppose, with only 22% support, strongly or otherwise. It’s not completely unambiguous; when asked if those selfsame forces should get up and leave, only 35% just say “leave now” — which you will notice is smaller than the number who strongly oppose their presence. A full 63% want the forces to stay until they achieve some goal of improving the political or security situation, even though they are not judged to be doing a very good job at that. (The numbers might look worse, post-surge.) Which goes to show that Iraqis don’t necessarily think any more clearly about these things than Americans do.

Of course, only 1% of Iraqis want American forces to stay forever, which is what our government has been preparing to do. So someone is going to end up being disappointed.

Play Guess-the-Histogram Read More »

12 Comments

Bacon-Flavored Chocolate

I thought Atrios was kidding, but no. Vosges Haut Chocolat has indeed come out with a bacon-flavored chocolate bar. I’m not sure if it qualifies as long-awaited, but it should have been.

Vosges Bacon Chocolate

From the description:

Bacon Exotic Candy Bar – New

Applewood smoked bacon + Alder smoked salt + deep milk chocolate

Deep milk chocolate coats your mouth and leads to the crunch of smoked bacon pieces. Surprise your mouth with the smoked salt and sweet milk chocolate combination.

Crisp, buttery, compulsively irresistible bacon and milk chocolate combination has long been a favorite of mine. I started playing with this combination at the tender age of six while eating chocolate chip pancakes drenched in maple syrup. Beside my chocolate-laden cakes laid three strips of fried bacon, just barely touching a sweet pool of maple syrup. Just a bite of the bacon was too salty and yearned for the sweet kiss of chocolate syrup. In retrospect, perhaps this was a turning point, for on that plate something magical happened: the beginnings of a combination so ethereal and delicious that it would haunt my thoughts until I found the medium to express it–chocolate.
–Katrina

Vosges is my favorite chocolatier (if you know what I mean). Not only do they blend excellent chocolate with a wide variety of exotic spices to create uniformly interesting and delicious combinations, but I stumbled upon them when they were just a tiny one-shop operation in Chicago, before their blossoming into international success. And a friend of mine once claimed that every type of food is enhanced by the addition of bacon, including ice cream. (Although I did manage to give her pause with my suggestion of bacon-flavored water.) So I’m thinking I’m going to have to give the new experiment a try. You only live once.

Bacon-Flavored Chocolate Read More »

30 Comments

Rationality Revisited

Speaking about how someone with a physics background might approach economics, you might prefer intimidatingly-informed commentary over my unfettered-by-knowledge noodling. In that case, you should zip over to Cosma Shalizi’s blog, where he offers a thoroughly-hyperlinked meditation on the state of econophysics. Full of good stuff along the lines of:

So then: why oh why don’t we have better econophysics?

The first reason which occurs to me, now that I’m a dues-paying, card-carrying statistician, is that almost all econophysicists are theoretical physicists, and moreover statistical physicists. (I’m one myself, or at least was through my Ph.D.) Modern physics began, in the 17th century, by fusing mathematical
theorizing
and artisanal craft, but one result of our progress has been to impose a specialized division of labor, sharply separating theory and experiment; Fermi was probably the last physicist to be both a great theorist and a great experimenter. (Perhaps this is connected to his invention of Monte Carlo?) This means that it is very rare for a theoretical physicist to analyze actual empirical data (say, measurements of magnetic susceptibility), which is what the experimentalists do. Theorists instead deal with experimental results (say, that the susceptibility depends on temperature in such-and-such a way). In high energy physics, theorists are actually so remote from contact with experimentalists that a separate guild of interface specialists (“phenomenologists”) has arisen to mediate between them. As a natural consequence of this division of labor, theorists receive no instruction at all in data analysis, let alone statistical inference.

There is much more. Jim Cronin once loaned me some videotapes of old news shows from the 1940’s that featured interviews with Enrico Fermi. He was an amazing guy, the kind who would kill time on a free afternoon by coming up with an explanation for the origin of cosmic rays. It’s too bad that, in the popular or semi-popular imagination, his name doesn’t immediately pop up on the list of the demigods of 20th-century physics. You could make a solid case that he should be number two after Einstein.

Crooked Timber links to Cosma’s post, and also features a post by John Quiggin that follows up on mine. He notes that most of my suggestions are well-incorporated into economics, which is no surprise. The part that is judged interesting is the idea that social scientists would be well-served to distinguish between descriptive notions of what people do and prescriptive notions of what is considered “rational.” A blog at The Economist (the magazine they like to call a newspaper) makes a similar point, so maybe there is something there. Indeed, we are informed that this kind of reasoning keeps popping up despite the fact that Joseph Butler demolished it 300 years ago, so there must be something attractive about it. (Hey, David Hume demolished the argument from design before William Paley even popularized it, but you don’t see it fading away, do you?)

Rationality Revisited Read More »

25 Comments
Scroll to Top