parochial: A narrow view on things
squander: Waste
beset: Trouble or threaten persistently
stiflying: Restraining
rabid: Fanatical
wanton: Deliberate and unprovoked
craven: Completely lacking in courage
ebullience: Exuberance
insinuate: Suggest or hint in an indirect or unpleasant way
felicity: Intense happiness
cutthroat: Fierce and intense, often ruthless
misanthrope: A human who dislikes mankind and avoid society
audacious: 1) Imprudent 2) Showing a willingness to take risks
indubitably: Undoubtedly
pontificate: Expressing one's opinions in a very pompous manner
purport: To claim to be or do something, often falsely
Ok I got lazy. Good luck for GP tomorrow!
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Comments on statement "Instead of the pursuit of the truth, science has become the pursuit of profit."
Science was once a branch of philosophy, but has evolved into a field of its own, defined by the pursuit of truth through the scientific method, which fundamentally derives from the method of scientific induction, which predicts phenomenons through past observations. What science pursues is not the absolute truth, but rather a workable truth, in fact the simplest truth, that is consistent with our observations, a philosophy known as Occam’s razor. The other defining characteristic of science is the setting up of experiments to observe specific phenomenons while complying to the principles such as reproducibility, which ensure that science is the same throughout the universe and any truths found are universal. Ever since leaving the branch of philosophy, science has been “contaminated” with various less philosophical aspects to it, such as applied science, which revolves around making science more applicable. This has also attracted firms to take up research in order to utilise science in their pursuit of profits, be it through the increase of competitiveness through product innovation, or to increase the efficiency of their workers and hence maximise their profits. Examples of firms utilising science for a profit motive include GlaxoSmithKline, Monsanto, and more ubiquitously, Airbus.
Instead of exclusively pursuing truth, science has now been utilised by companies in their pursuit of profits. This largely stems from science’s effectiveness in producing visible results in the real world. This effectiveness can be said to stem from a unique characteristic of science, as new generations of scientists build upon the observations and theories of the past, leading to the constant and rapid improvement of science. Furthermore, science is now in a golden age; ever since the advent of computers and especially the Internet, the storage and transmission of information from scientific research and experiments has never been so easily archived and shared, and building upon another’s work has never been so convenient. As such, firms today tend to find it irresistible to engage in scientific research. This is evident in how companies such as GlaxoSmithKline pour billions of dollars into developing cures to specific diseases in order to reap the profits that come with a monopoly on the production of a medicine.
Furthermore, for scientists, research is now a globally accepted field which has been known to come with huge financial remuneration, as firms gradually recognise how scientific research can put their balance sheets in better light. In today’s materialistic world, there has undoubtedly been more than just a handful of scientists who forsake the pursuit of pure science for applied sciences for the sake of financial remuneration. In an extreme case, in order to secure his job as a researcher Huang Woo-suk had faked numerous papers about his stem cell research in order to impress his employers. This can, to a certain extent, explain why scientific research is trending towards the goal of profit seeking.
However, there remains strong support for the “pure” sciences, especially in fields such as physics, where physicists all over the world are currently devoting great efforts to find out about the fundamental nature of the universe, and the search for elementary particles, while not having much obvious practical use, has called for extreme measures such as the development of a cross-border project: the famous Large Hadron Collider. Such research is clearly for the sake of the pursuit of truth, and it would be a sweeping statement to conclude that science has degenerated into the search for profits.
Besides, the pursuit of profits in science may not be totally without its merits. The science of today contrasts from science of the past in one superficial but nevertheless striking way: that it is much more elaborate and hence expensive. For example, while a basic physics lab fifty years ago might have been equipped with rulers, stopwatches and mirrors, the basic physics lab of today involves more sophisticated instruments such as the travelling microscope, the data-logger and polaroids. At the advanced level, this distinction is particularly glaring as modern physicists today have spent billions of dollars creating extreme conditions such as freezing temperatures close to the Absolute Zero, where no heat exists, the acceleration of electrons to near-light speeds through large potential gradients, as well as the creation of extremely powerful lasers which require large quantities of tailor-made lenses and surfaces. Without the commercialisation of science, the traditional sources of funding such as donations will definitely be insufficient to fund the extravagance needed for the optimal progress of science today. Hence, the commercialisation of science does indeed bring about its own benefits.
Instead of exclusively pursuing truth, science has now been utilised by companies in their pursuit of profits. This largely stems from science’s effectiveness in producing visible results in the real world. This effectiveness can be said to stem from a unique characteristic of science, as new generations of scientists build upon the observations and theories of the past, leading to the constant and rapid improvement of science. Furthermore, science is now in a golden age; ever since the advent of computers and especially the Internet, the storage and transmission of information from scientific research and experiments has never been so easily archived and shared, and building upon another’s work has never been so convenient. As such, firms today tend to find it irresistible to engage in scientific research. This is evident in how companies such as GlaxoSmithKline pour billions of dollars into developing cures to specific diseases in order to reap the profits that come with a monopoly on the production of a medicine.
Furthermore, for scientists, research is now a globally accepted field which has been known to come with huge financial remuneration, as firms gradually recognise how scientific research can put their balance sheets in better light. In today’s materialistic world, there has undoubtedly been more than just a handful of scientists who forsake the pursuit of pure science for applied sciences for the sake of financial remuneration. In an extreme case, in order to secure his job as a researcher Huang Woo-suk had faked numerous papers about his stem cell research in order to impress his employers. This can, to a certain extent, explain why scientific research is trending towards the goal of profit seeking.
However, there remains strong support for the “pure” sciences, especially in fields such as physics, where physicists all over the world are currently devoting great efforts to find out about the fundamental nature of the universe, and the search for elementary particles, while not having much obvious practical use, has called for extreme measures such as the development of a cross-border project: the famous Large Hadron Collider. Such research is clearly for the sake of the pursuit of truth, and it would be a sweeping statement to conclude that science has degenerated into the search for profits.
Besides, the pursuit of profits in science may not be totally without its merits. The science of today contrasts from science of the past in one superficial but nevertheless striking way: that it is much more elaborate and hence expensive. For example, while a basic physics lab fifty years ago might have been equipped with rulers, stopwatches and mirrors, the basic physics lab of today involves more sophisticated instruments such as the travelling microscope, the data-logger and polaroids. At the advanced level, this distinction is particularly glaring as modern physicists today have spent billions of dollars creating extreme conditions such as freezing temperatures close to the Absolute Zero, where no heat exists, the acceleration of electrons to near-light speeds through large potential gradients, as well as the creation of extremely powerful lasers which require large quantities of tailor-made lenses and surfaces. Without the commercialisation of science, the traditional sources of funding such as donations will definitely be insufficient to fund the extravagance needed for the optimal progress of science today. Hence, the commercialisation of science does indeed bring about its own benefits.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Poem Writing Exercise 2
Driving By Woods on a Hungry Morning
There was once a bear called Barr
Who likes to drive a big red car
He drives the red car through the woods
Foraging around for food.
One day, he met a honey bee,
who got frightened, and stung his knee.
But Barr the Bear was undefeated,
"ME WANT MORE FOOD", he repeated.
So though the forest the bear roamed,
In search for the honey hive
At last he spotted what he seeked
And into the hive he dived.
But alas, it was not to be,
For angry wasps were waiting for him.
Basically, he got pwned
By the nasty little wasp stings.
Hungry, beaten, stung and stunk,
Barr the Bear was still unfazed.
"I'll BE BACK", he chanted,
There're still ten acres for him to raze.
There was once a bear called Barr
Who likes to drive a big red car
He drives the red car through the woods
Foraging around for food.
One day, he met a honey bee,
who got frightened, and stung his knee.
But Barr the Bear was undefeated,
"ME WANT MORE FOOD", he repeated.
So though the forest the bear roamed,
In search for the honey hive
At last he spotted what he seeked
And into the hive he dived.
But alas, it was not to be,
For angry wasps were waiting for him.
Basically, he got pwned
By the nasty little wasp stings.
Hungry, beaten, stung and stunk,
Barr the Bear was still unfazed.
"I'll BE BACK", he chanted,
There're still ten acres for him to raze.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Poem Writing Exercise 1
How does Marken write such nice poems? I want to learn!
Ok let's try.
Scrambled eggs are cool
Cos when they splatter
They make a good meal
On your platter.
Unsheath your sword!
Charge across the landscape!
Kill those minions!
Oops, its runescape!
Beware of dragons
for they breathe fire
that will surely melt
those plastic tyres.
Bleh, looks like it's not working :(.
Ah well, let's tell a knock-knock joke instead.
A: Knock Knock!
B: Who's there?
A: You know.
B: You know who?
A: Yes.
Ok let's try.
Scrambled eggs are cool
Cos when they splatter
They make a good meal
On your platter.
Unsheath your sword!
Charge across the landscape!
Kill those minions!
Oops, its runescape!
Beware of dragons
for they breathe fire
that will surely melt
those plastic tyres.
Bleh, looks like it's not working :(.
Ah well, let's tell a knock-knock joke instead.
A: Knock Knock!
B: Who's there?
A: You know.
B: You know who?
A: Yes.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
New random rant (about symmetry)
I was thinking about a universe which was symmetric about a plane (across space 3D) and without quantum randomness (ie. the future is uniquely determined by the state of each particle now).
Imagine a person near the plane, staring at himself from the other side of the universe, although with exactly the same laws. He cannot go over, because any part of him cannot possibly cross over without hitting its counterpart.
A simplistic "solution" might be to agree with himself on the other side to both stick out their right hand across the plane of symmetry. This would have worked, if in his part of the universe, right had not been left (dang!).
It would appear that this symmetry can never be broken, just like a mirror, so I wondered a few things:
1) Is it really true that this symmetry cannot be broken?
2) How do we know that the mirrors we see on the wall are not planes of symmetry in the universe (assuming the daily notions of laws of physics)?
For question 2, I realised a rather trivial solution. A key difference between a mirror and a possible plane of symmetry is basically the property about a normal mirror that it is breakable. Planes of symmetry cannot break apart just like that.
For question 1, it would appear that the relation between electricity and magnets provides a solution, because reversing both magnetic field and electric field does not reverse direction, and hence both forces can be in the same direction, but is that really true? o.O I have no idea.
Imagine a person near the plane, staring at himself from the other side of the universe, although with exactly the same laws. He cannot go over, because any part of him cannot possibly cross over without hitting its counterpart.
A simplistic "solution" might be to agree with himself on the other side to both stick out their right hand across the plane of symmetry. This would have worked, if in his part of the universe, right had not been left (dang!).
It would appear that this symmetry can never be broken, just like a mirror, so I wondered a few things:
1) Is it really true that this symmetry cannot be broken?
2) How do we know that the mirrors we see on the wall are not planes of symmetry in the universe (assuming the daily notions of laws of physics)?
For question 2, I realised a rather trivial solution. A key difference between a mirror and a possible plane of symmetry is basically the property about a normal mirror that it is breakable. Planes of symmetry cannot break apart just like that.
For question 1, it would appear that the relation between electricity and magnets provides a solution, because reversing both magnetic field and electric field does not reverse direction, and hence both forces can be in the same direction, but is that really true? o.O I have no idea.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
More whats.
Well, after the chaos of the previous visit's events, I decided to chance another trip to the H > P club. And sure enough, the management had the players running rings round them so fast they were like Saturn. In an ingenious twist of plot writing, the players had formed cliques with other players who preferred certain openings, and even the bouncers of the management took part in the squabble. I found out the following:
0. An individual may be in any number of cliques, and be a bouncer or a player, it matters not which for the below conditions.
1. All the bouncers alone formed the clique of the Sicilian O'Kelly. "And we are all good chessplayers who know better!" they rallied.
2. All the players alone vehemently insisted the Benko Gambit was better. "And we are all poor chessplayers!" they yelled somewhat ironically.
3. Each individual had a favourite opponent, and an opponent he most despised (not the same person; they're not that insane.)
4. Given any clique, all individuals whose favourite sparring partner/opponent/punchbag was on the clique, formed their own clique.
5. Ditto of 4, just replace "favourite" with "most despised".
6. Given any 2 cliques, there was at least one individual (let's call him Sad) whose favourite opponent thought Sad was on one clique, and whose most depised opponent thought Sad was on the other clique.
Well, this wouldn't do. Amidst the rat-tat-tat of Alekhine's Gun and the table-turning (sacrifices) that formed part of a huge brawl, I talked to the manager (wisely taking no part in this, hiding under a hedgehog.)
Me: "Are all your bouncers sane?!"
Manager: "Yes, at least they're supposed to be! What the heck is going on!"
Me: "Interesting! Do you know, there's at least one person who deserves to be thrown out of this establishment?"
Manager: "You think!?!!"
The Frighteningly Mad Professor Edalpo: Well, this is a rather queer parable. But indeed, the narrator was absolutely right; can you prove that there was some individual who shouldn't be there in that stead? Remember, all bouncers are supposed to be sane, while any poor chessplayers should not be allowed in.
0. An individual may be in any number of cliques, and be a bouncer or a player, it matters not which for the below conditions.
1. All the bouncers alone formed the clique of the Sicilian O'Kelly. "And we are all good chessplayers who know better!" they rallied.
2. All the players alone vehemently insisted the Benko Gambit was better. "And we are all poor chessplayers!" they yelled somewhat ironically.
3. Each individual had a favourite opponent, and an opponent he most despised (not the same person; they're not that insane.)
4. Given any clique, all individuals whose favourite sparring partner/opponent/punchbag was on the clique, formed their own clique.
5. Ditto of 4, just replace "favourite" with "most despised".
6. Given any 2 cliques, there was at least one individual (let's call him Sad) whose favourite opponent thought Sad was on one clique, and whose most depised opponent thought Sad was on the other clique.
Well, this wouldn't do. Amidst the rat-tat-tat of Alekhine's Gun and the table-turning (sacrifices) that formed part of a huge brawl, I talked to the manager (wisely taking no part in this, hiding under a hedgehog.)
Me: "Are all your bouncers sane?!"
Manager: "Yes, at least they're supposed to be! What the heck is going on!"
Me: "Interesting! Do you know, there's at least one person who deserves to be thrown out of this establishment?"
Manager: "You think!?!!"
The Frighteningly Mad Professor Edalpo: Well, this is a rather queer parable. But indeed, the narrator was absolutely right; can you prove that there was some individual who shouldn't be there in that stead? Remember, all bouncers are supposed to be sane, while any poor chessplayers should not be allowed in.
Monday, June 20, 2011
What
I believe separately in all the following statements:
- Sane people have true beliefs.
- Insane people have false beliefs.
- Questions are asked only by questioners, who may be sane or insane.
- Type A questioners ask questions that they believe the answer to which must be true. Type B, false.
- Questioners may be sane or insane.
- Everyone utters what they believe is true.
Well then. Hello. So, I believe you know that I am insane? I'd have to be to be posting here, after all. So, to alleviate the boredom spent in the land of the mushroom clouds, here is a nice little set of questions, adapted from a little book of such.
So I took a little stroll to the H > P chess club down the street, where they had a couple of sane and insane players. Some were good players, some poor players. The good players believed the value of H > P, the poor ones believed H =< P. Due to the name of the chess club, it was obvious that the management would kick out the dissenters, but they were doing a lousy job of it! Can you spot all the infidels/heretics/cannon-lovers from the following interactions? [The management, represented by M, are all sane type As.]
M: You seem to be a good player.
Turtler: Thanks, but I believe I'm quite poor at this, really. Do bings move like queens?
M: *facepalms* [To M's opponent, Sacr] Is that why you're losing?
Sacr: I'll be kippered, 'tis so! Aren't you a smart one, laddie! I must be 'orrible at chess to not pick that up!
Turtler [To M]: You're saying bings don't move like queens?
M: *sigh* Am I the type who could lie about that? Now, if you're not convinced, ask him.
C. King: Do you believe I am the type who could ask you if you're insane?
Turtler: He's talking like a nutcase.
M: Tell it to him, CK. Just leave me out of this madhouse. *walks away*
C. King: You're a rather poor player to get into this position.
Turtler: For a good player, you're thoroughly insane. I'm winning!
Sacr [To Turtler]: Who're you to judge, madman?
*fight* *All 3 were thrown out for rowdiness*
The Frighteningly Sane Doctor Tarrfether: So, is everyone a good player? Or were there poor players? Am I the type who could ask you these questions? Am I sane? Are you? Is the writer of this post? [All can be answered.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)