The Third Scientific Revolution

The first scientific revolution, forged and championed by such luminaries as Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei and others. The first scientific revolution emphasised the gathering of and reliance upon empirical evidence. Observations would be quantified, measured, isolated, and repeated. The first scientific revolution bequeathed to the world the first scientific method: observe a phenomenon, identify independent and dependent variables, create an experiment, alter the independent variable(s) and observe any changes to the dependent variables, draw causal conclusions. Repeat and expand as necessary to form and confirm a theory.

The second scientific revolution, begun in the social and life sciences: statistical analysis. When a phenomenon becomes impossible to recreate in a controlled, laboratory environment, the investigator may instead choose to observe the phenomenon repeatedly in an outside environment. Data are collected, tabulated, and analysed as a statistical universe. Correlations are noted and causal conclusions are drawn. Studies are repeated and expanded to form and confirm theories.

The third scientific revolution, made possible by microcomputing: scientific modelling. A set of conditions regarding a phenomena are observed. Those data are used to formulate a set of initial conditions in an abstract, computational model. The model is allowed to operate, and consequent conditions of the model are derived. Those consequent conditions are checked against observed consequent conditions of the phenomenon being modeled. If the modeled consequential conditions closely match the observed consequential conditions, then the operations of the model serve as the basis for drawing causal conclusions and the formulation of theories.

Non-verbal Communication

One continuing difficulty with communication is in the fact that our mechanisms of conveying meaning lag behind the change in social behaviors and conditions. Coupled with the fact that almost every means of communicating becomes subverted by those who wish to deceive, it is sometimes a wonder that any meaningful exchange occurs at all.

Witness my experience of last night. I was returning home from my place of employment, and needed to stop at a bank branch to use the ATM. The time was around 12:30 AM when I pulled into the bank's parking lot. The night was dark, and cold, though not unpleasantly so. As I entered the parking lot, a young woman crossed my path and entered the bank, presumably with the intent of using the ATM herself.

Conventional mores suggest that it was my role to wait patiently, and use the ATM in turn after she had finished. There was little difficulty in me for that. However, what ought I do to signal my intent to do so?

As is habitual, I was dressed in black. Much of my outerwear is black leather, and the overall tone is somewhat quasi-military. My general manner of dress conveys a set of tribal signals, and makes use of certain ingrained archetypes to send preconscious signals of danger to many members of the mainstream culture. In short, I sometimes frighten people. There are certain reasons why I do this, and allow it to happen, but those reasons did not apply to this situation.

How then was I to convey that I had no intent in this situation to be dangerous? I lacked any intent or inclination to assault, rob, rape, or kill this young woman. I merely wished to use the ATM when she had finished her transactions. However, I was conscious of the suggestion that my intent was not clear.

Was I to follow her into the building, waiting some socially acceptable distance away? Or should I wait outside, knowing that doing so might be construed as "lurking in the shadows?" I decided to wait outside, underneath a street light, with my hands visible and a stance that suggested restful waiting; a stance hat was not poised for sudden movements. I offered her a "good evening" as she left the building, and moved slowly and with copious personal seperation into the building.

I hope I didn't frighten her. Doing so was not my intent.

My Hopes for the First 100 Days

If the U.S. wants to see the change President Obama has been making so much noise about, they must take some control of their government again.

However, many of the policy changes I wish to see happen were implemented by the previous administration under the aegis of President Bush's role as Commander-in-Chief. As such, I hope that Obama, again acting as Commander-in-Chief will alter them. I would like to see the Iraq and Afghanistan wars brought to a close as quickly as possible - the "First thing steaming home" strategy. It took about three weeks to get all of those troops to Iraq, and I would like to see if we can beat that record coming home. I understand Pres. Obama so far isn't headed in that direction, but if he wanted to, he could.

I would also like to see the U.S. imprisonment and rendition camps in Guantanamo and elsewhere closed immediately. Any perceived to be a danger in the future should be given over to their home countries for arraignment and trial. Any inmates who cannot be sent home should be offered asylum in the U.S. unless they wish to go to another country that agrees to take them. Again, not likely to happen that way, but Pres. Obama could order it if he wanted to.

Further, I would like to see President Obama ask incoming Attorney General Holder to investigate and, if necessary, ask for indictments regarding possible war crimes, crimes against humanity, violations of federal laws against torture, and whatever charges might apply. I sincerely hope that Pres. Obama will not issue blanket pardons to anyone for the misdeeds of the earlier administration. Again, he may choose not to do so, but he need not go beyond the executive branch to do so.

So, I'd like to think I'm willing to support change, but change really can start at the top in many ways.

Emergency Exit

I was walking past the Macy's store in downtown Minneapolis (formerly Marshall Fields, formerly Dayton's). Lining the inside of the windows is a glossy, opaque, black sheeting. The black is opened up here and there to display store items: mannequins with the latest fashions, shoes, handbags, assorted consumer products.

Then I noticed the door. It read "EMERGENCY EXIT - ALARM WILL SOUND." The letters read from left to right when viewed from the street, and were positioned in front of the opaque blackness. The words would be reversed and unreadable from inside the building.

This then couldn't be an exit from the building. Is this, perhaps, the emergency exit from the bustle and stress of a modern urban center? Is it an emergency exit from a nation that is declining politically, crumbling economically, and terminally fractured socially? Or is this perhaps an emergency exit from a cold, cynical, and ultimately meaningless world?

Where does it go to?

I tried the door. It was locked. No alarm sounded.

At least it wasn't an emergency.

Roberts and Obama both flub the oath of office.

People who are nervous and excited, at one of the most important events of their lives often have trouble speaking or reading clearly. Especially in front of thousands of people in person and millions more watching via media.

So I'm willing to give them both a pass, and assume the oath is taken as required by the Constitution.

However, I'm going to predict that someone, somewhere, is going to throw a fit. Over the next few months, the "Obama can't be President" crowd is going to claim that because Barak Obama didn't take the oath of office as precisely required by the Constitution, that means he was never sworn in as President. Others are going to claim that he never took the oath, and so isn't going to be bound to it, and is going to become some sort of tyrant. Likely, a few will claim that Chief Justice Roberts deliberately screwed it up, so that Obama wouldn't be sworn in, or so that Obama wouldn't have to adhere to the oath.

I believe that to be nonsense. Eight years of the Bush administration have shown that in this country, the President will freely disregard the principles of the Constitution, its dictates and limitations. And the other branches of government will not call him on it. Obama doesn't need some contrived avoidance of the oath of office to do what he wishes.

I also strongly suspect that if Chief Justice Roberts intended to not swear in Obama, he would have explicitly refused to do so. There would be no reason to intentionally screw it up to set up some sort of legal wrangling - if he'd really wanted to, he would have said something like, "Senator Obama, I cannot in good conscience administer the oath of office today."

We don't need the conspiratorial interpretations today. Never attribute to malice that which is more obviously attributable to human failings.

Addendum to Hyperreality

For a brief time this summer, there existed a program on the Genesis Communications Network titled "the Ron Paul Roadshow". This program was hosted by Chris Moore and Linda Hunnicut from the "Ron Paul RV".

On the first day that this radio show went into production, the Genesis producer inquired if there was a bird of some sort in the studio. He was informed that the source of the apparent bird sounds was in fact Buddy, a small monkey of indeterminant species. Buddy continued to play a small part in the production of each episode of the Ron Paul Roadshow.

Much later, in a discussion at the Genesis studio, the subject of Buddy the monkey was broached. It was observed that there may exist a radio show of the "wacky morning" variety that would employ regular monkey noises. However, Buddy the monkey would not serve well on those radio shows, as he cannot be expected to perform on cue. Therefore, such a radio show usually would employ either a sound board (either physical or digital) with pre-recorded monkey noises, or a human voice simulating monkey noises.

This is an example of hyperreality. A non-physical monkey is experienced by an audience as more real than an actual flesh and blood monkey.

An Allegory of Rivers

Picture a rapidly moving but pacific appearing stream. It winds over the terrain, never ceasing its flow. As the stream flows over its bed, a careful observer notices that its surface is not completely even. Whorls, eddies, ripples and ebbs appear, disturbing the streams otherwise placid flow.

Underneath the surface, all is not so simple. The stream flows over a rocky bad, tumbling and jostling over rocks and logs. Currents bend around obstacles, and the entire stream is shaped by the form of its bed; it bends and twists within its banks. The stream is sometimes wide and shallow, sometimes narrow and deep, and always more complex than it appears on the surface.

Silt runs underneath the sunlight skin, the consequence of water's rubbing further upstream, a process visible only by its consequences. Fish dart here and there, their presence only guessed at by the flash of sun off scales as one surfaces momentarily. Their maneuvers take place in an environment alien and isolated from the outside world.

This stream is a human mind, its surface the visage exposed to the outside world. The whorls and eddies we may see are the consequences of submerged obstacles we cannot. The aim of counseling, then, is not to remove the rocks and logs and physical obstructions of the stream bed – that is too complex a task, and one will destroy the nature of the stream in the process. Only the dead are so uniform. Instead, it is the job of the counselor to help smooth and round the obstacles of the stream bed, so they cause less conflict and confusion as the stream progresses ever onward to a new horizon.