I’ve always been bullish about American scientific and technological supremacy, not in some starry-eyed, jingoistic way, but due to the simple reality that the United States remains the world’s research and development engine.
This is true for at least four reasons, which I detailed previously: (1) Superior higher education; (2) A cultural attitude that encourages innovation; (3) Substantial funding and financial incentives; and (4) A legal framework that protects intellectual property and tolerates failure through efficient bankruptcy laws. There’s a fifth, fuzzier reason, namely that smart and talented people have long gravitated toward the U.S.
It’s the question on everyone’s mind. When will we have a vaccine for Covid-19? Back in March, pundits and experts were divided: some seemed confident that it would take over 18 months, others thought at least two years. Some predicted several years. Five months on, with over 165 vaccines in development, Dr Anthony Fauci, the…
We all rely on the news to give us information about the world. That information lets us make decisions: whether it’s safe to fly to Spain, whether red wine causes cancer, whether we’re likely to lose our job for tweeting something. We use the media to help us understand the risks that surround us. The…
This reminds me of something my Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer professor told his undergraduate classes. He was a native of Lenoir City, TN, and had a dry sense of humour that frequently went right past his mostly Texan students. He told the story of the guy in the hills who first drank whiskey with creek water and got drunk, then drank bourbon with creek water and got drunk, then drank moonshine with creek water and got drunk. The guy’s conclusion: the creek water got him drunk.
That creek water will get you every time…
Just about every television I grew up with was a Zenith. So I was intrigued when I saw this video of a Zenith colour “roundie.” We had one in our family room in Palm Beach (I’m not sure whether it was this exact model but it was close.)
The sample broadcast he chose is riveting, especially these days: Walter Cronkite’s report of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King on 4 April 1968. I doubt we watched CBS (we were NBC, Huntley-Brinkley types) but we certainly watched the reports of this. It’s interesting to hear Dr. King evoke the Bill of Rights in his speech the night before he was killed; now so many consider those rights to be part of the problem.
I’ve cued up the video to that broadcast; if you’re interested in the technical aspects of the Zenith he’s looking at, just run it back to the start.
Our own roundie went on to transmit other tumultuous events of the time, including the Watergate Hearings, as you can see below in photos from its tube. (I’ve got recordings from that here and here. I cropped these close, but you can see the rounding in the corners.)
Just one month ago, the idea that most people aren’t susceptible to Covid-19 — perhaps the overwhelming majority — was considered dangerous denialism. It was startling when Nobel-prize-winning scientist Michael Levitt argued in UnHerd at the start of May that the growth curves of the disease were never truly exponential, suggesting that some sort of…
Recently I wrote a post for another of my blogs entitled Do We Need a New Math to Understand Physics? where I discussed yet another article I linked to, Does Time Really Flow? New Clues Come From a Century-Old Approach to Math. It’s probably too technical for most readers of this blog, although seeing Tolkien cited in a scientific/engineering publication is not to be missed.
In the common parlance we’re used to speaking of mathematically-stated laws that govern what happens physically in the universe. I think a model-prototype concept is better. Whether the physical phenomena “know” about these laws is debatable; whether they obey them is not unless the “law” is disproven or a special case added. What this signifies is that we have modelled the physical phenomena successfully and in the meanwhile enhanced our understanding of what is going on, which in turn is the promise of future progress.
In theology a model-prototype concept has been around a long time. The difference between theology and mathematics is in the priority. With mathematics we have physical phenomena which we model using mathematics. In theology we have a living model (God) who creates the prototype (the material world.) This sort of “type-antitype” is well rooted both in the Fathers and in the Scriptures themselves. Evangelical hyperliteralism is the order of the day now–so much so the atheists use it–but the church will regret adopting it before it’s over with.
In the past I have used the model-prototype construct to make an analogy between theology and mathematics, which I do at length in My Lord and My God. The purpose of this work is to show that the idea of that analogy can be used to show that the reason why the post-Nicene I church set subordinationism in the Trinity aside is due to weaknesses in Greek theology, weaknesses that mathematics can address. It can also be used to refute really poor, God-dishonouring theology such as the Sydney Anglicans set forth.
The divergence between the divine model and the material prototype has been understood in theology for a long time. It’s embodied in the difference between created and uncreated beings. The main implication of that is that, although the model and prototype are certainly related, the material world is definitely a “step down” from the spiritual/divine one. In the discussion of mathematics and quantum physics, the difference between continuum mathematics and discrete quantum mechanics is at the heart of the discussion. The question now is whether we change our mathematics to suit the physical world or build on what we have to describe it, understanding the differences.
That too has a theological analogy. TBH if there’s one thing that’s gone AWOL in the last half century or more, it’s the ability of the theological world to think abstractly. Much of what passes for theology today–from the modern and post-modern musings of the left to the “waist-down” religion of the right–shows a deeply carnal mentality. It’s one reason why, like my Anglican deacon and friend Bruce Hilbert (whose home was destroyed in the recent tornado here,) I’m glad I took the technical route rather than the seminary one. Unfortunately the technical fortress is likewise facing being breached, a conflict upon which the future of scientific advance hangs.
On the other hand, the discrete nature of quantum mechanics once again brings up the whole issue of how deterministic the universe really is, which certainly does have important theological implications.
But I digress…theology these days deserves better than what passes for it, but improvement is easier said than done.
This Week in AG History — May 13, 1950 By Glenn W. Gohr Originally published on AG News, 14 May 2020 Did you know that the Assemblies of God owned two passenger planes just after World War II that carried Assemblies of God missionaries overseas? Following World War II, commercial flights were not readily available, […]
The Episcopal Church approaches these decisions with great care and bases changes in our practices on solid, scientific data.
I never thought the Episcopal Church was particularly “scientific.” In fact, looking in the rear-view mirror one thing that may have alienated me and others in my family from the church is their distinctly aesthetic emphasis, an emphasis which minimised the importance of the “hard facts.” That’s true of our elites in general, even those which never darken the door of the Episcopal or any other church: they’re basically unscientific by training and temperament, and parading that they “believe in science” is only proof that their idea of escaping this ignorance is turning science into a religion.
It gets worse: the science of COVID-19 is a poorly-understood moving target, one that has befuddled expert and amateur (and everyone else in between) alike. When we’re on the frontiers of scientific knowledge, that’s the way it is. It’s hard to make public policy or private decisions based on that moving target; the day when we can say we have overall “solid science” on this topic is in the future.
Given what we do know and Bethesda’s superannuated demographics (something they share with the Episcopal Church in general and their Diocese in particular) caution is certainly warranted. (The fact that their Rector attended the COVID-19 “ground zero” for the denomination isn’t comforting either.) And their online program is definitely above average. But to claim solid science for this may sound good but doesn’t conform to the “hard facts” of the situation, not yet at least.
P.S. I also noted the quote from the contract on the Episcopalians in their masthead.
COVID-19 has forced many of us in academia to go online (or at least hybrid/blended) in our teaching. This includes the lab course I teach, and this is the first in a series of videos for that course.
In the process of introducing students to the course, I make some comments on my philosophy of teaching in general and engineering education in particular, which I thought might be of interest to a broader audience.