The musings of junior science students on life, the universe, and everything (i.e. science & ethics).
Friday, March 30, 2012
Behind the Crystal Ball
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Kony Is Overrated
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Like Wild Fire
We've all heard them. 9/11 was allowed by the government and is proven by the way the towers fell, the Apollo moon landing never happened and was staged in order to encourage patriotism, etc. but conspiracy theories are more than they appear to be. Though they seem like a tale concocted by some clever, pretentious wiseacre that had nothing better to do, they actually have an alarming amount of evidence to support them. For example, the theory that the earth is flat at first thought seems like an absurd impossibility, but perhaps we are just convinced because we have been told by people who were sure of what they think they know, and who are we to question those who came before us? Well perhaps we should. The flat earth theory is surprisingly convincing and has some valid arguments. Assuming the earth is flat, for example, the south pole makes up the outside of the earth and the north pole is at its centre. This statement resembles a fairly poor attempt at establishing any kind of credibility for this particular theory at first, but actually is supported by the fact that no plane has ever flown in a straight line across the south pole. Maybe a while ago we would have been able to blame the conditions or climate on the lack of achievement, but with technology that we have today, compared to travelling through space, flying across the South Pole should be an easy feat, unless, of course, that is where the earth ends, in which case it is impossible and would offer an easy explanation.
Here is his face. Now lets make him famous.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Swearing: A Technique of Persuasion?
What better way could you think of ending off your argument by saying your opposition is, “Complete and utter bull#@*!”. Obviously Showtime’s Penn and Teller do not hesitate to use this word to demonstrate to their audience the nonsense of their challenger. But is it an effective method of persuasion?
According to Scherer and Sagarin’s, 2006 experiment on this technique, a light swearing increases a speaker’s persuasiveness and has no effect on the speaker’s credibility. But why, why would humans believe someone who is prone to using obscenities to express oneself? The Persuasive Power of Swearing agrees that it all depends on a person’s passion and intensity; the audience sees this expression of words as a way to show their beliefs and passion on a certain subject. It will almost seem as if you are so engulfed in your arguments and opinions that you cannot help but swear as you would when talking about it everyday. This causes the audience to feel a connection with your thoughts and is capable of putting real emotion behind your words, as swearing is a part of humans tendencies.
According to some statistics the amount of swearing increased by 94.8% during the family hour on television, which means swearing is a normal occurrence in our lives. So it is apparent that swearing is human, and humans tend to believe humans, and perhaps the reality of Penn and Teller’s show is the reason they are so effective in persuading their viewers.
One must keep in mind the levels of severity of the swear words chosen to put across a point. Of course going off on a rampage of curse words would not be effective. But some say you shouldn’t use swears at all because it will throw off your audience. But that audience isn’t being thrown off, their attention is being grabbed. And how can grabbing someone’s attention not be employed in any persuasive technique?
The Labyrinth
Simon Bolivar, a Venezuelan military and political leader, in his dying moments, "was shaken by the overwhelming revelation that the headlong race between his misfortunes and his dreams was at that moment reaching the finish line. The rest was darkness. Damn it,' he sighed. 'How will I ever get out of this labyrinth!'' (John Green, Looking for Alaska). What then, does this mean? I believe that the labyrinth refers to the suffering of humanity and our aversion to the unknown. We fear death. The idea that when we die, there is perhaps darkness, or simply nothing, seems to be an impossible concept, and one most people wholeheartedly shy away from. How can someone just cease to exist? So is religion real, or is it something we make up in our minds to escape the permanence of death and the eternity of suffering? Do we create "fact" in science? Buddhists believe in reincarnation, Christians in Heaven and Hell. But what if there really is nothing? Would it be easier to live, fully understanding how fleeting the flame of life is, and how black the end may be?
We all need something to pull through our own labyrinths; we all need something to believe in and hold on to. Religion and science are brilliant for this. Fact or not, they provide an out, and an escape from whatever the end may be. Choose to believe, choose not to. What matters is finding the thing that will get you through this labyrinth.
Robots vs. Humans: How thin is the line?
For many centuries, the human race has fathomed over the possibility of a mechanical helper. Through the rapid growth of technology, this has now been made possible. Scientists and engineers have invented robots that are able to perform to the highest level and precision,yet do not hold the higher intellectual ability to reason and retaliate against their owners. Robots not only serve to aid humans, but are now able to travel to places that humans cannot reach. As more and more people of all walks of life take interest in robotics, the more rapid new innovations for robots start to appear. From teachers to surgeons, robots are now starting to take over human jobs, and are even believed to perform at a higher level than us.
It is a widely known fact that robots can do much good for us, whether it is working in a factory screwing bottle caps, or helping a paralyzed patient become mobile again. With the introduction of robots, employers no longer have to go through the trouble of finding a suitable candidate for a simple job. Furthermore, since robots aren't actually people, they do not require food, water, air, or other survival needs, and therefore do not require a pay check - Another plus for employers. Simple enough, right?
Wrong. In 2000, Honda pushed forward a humanoid robot - ASIMO. A dream come true, some might say at that time. At 130cm tall and 54kg, ASIMO was designed to operate in real-world environment, with the ability to walk or run on two feet at speeds up to 3.7 mph. It was the company's initial goal to create a walking robot which could not only adapt and interact in human situations, but also to improve the quality of life. Today, ASIMO has made public appearances around the world, become an innovations attraction at Disneyland in the USA, and has helped to encourage young people to study Science and Mathematics. No doubt, ASIMO has pushed the robot world into a new age, taking them one step closer to contending with us humans.
With robotics rapidly becoming one of the leading fields of science and technology, humans are starting to explore the possibility of human and robots coexisting on this very earth. When this event does happen, it will be one with many ethical, social and economical problems. Their brings me to my next point: Ethics of artificial intelligence.
This branch of ethics is typically broken up into roboetics (concern with the moral behaviour of humans as they design, construct, use and treat robots) and machine ethics (concern with the moral behaviour of robots)
Roboethics was first coined by a roboticist GIanmarco Veruggio in 2002. It considers both how artificially intelligent beings may be used to harm humans and how they may be used to benefit humans. It is predicted that concepts like autonomy,learning, free will, decision making, freedom and many other issues might come into play while dealing with this new situation, and the design of roboetics will require the commitment of experts of many different disciplines.
Machine ethics, however, contrasts with roboethics quite a bit. In this case, this branch of ethics is concerned with the moral behaviour of Artificial Moral Agents. In 2009, academics and technical experts came together to discuss the potential impact of robots, and the possibility that they might become self-sufficient and have the ability to make their own decisions. Issues like robot's autonomy and their threats towards humans were brought up, noting that some machines had already had semi-autonomic functions, especially in the military.
Although this branch of ethics and this idea of living in tandem with robots are a new idea to the human race, we must recognize that this new addition to our world is rapidly growing.
On a similar note, here is the link to pictures from the latest International Robot Exhibition held in, (of course) Tokyo Japan, where humanoid robots wowed the crowds. Take a look, and make your judgement on this issue :)
If you'e survived this long blog post, throw in a comment or two down below in the little comment area. I'd love to hear about it :)
Rex