This morning was the midterm for Research Principles and Analysis. As it was "Open-Everything" (like "Open-Book" but all course material was allowed) it wasn't too daunting, though that does tend to herald more convoluted and difficult questions.
I had bought myself some Tim Hortons on the way to write the test, and as a result I had a nice "medium" half coffee/half hot chocolate to drink through the midterm. As it's Lent, Tim Hortons has their "Roll Up The Rim To Win" contest on, so the cup I was drinking from could offer me many things from free food and drink, to a new car.
Always paranoid about having neglected some simple thing and as a result failing the entire endeavor, I told myself that if I had failed utterly on the midterm, I should at least win the camping equipment from my Roll Up the Rim. You know, to make up for it.
I won a donut.
I take this as a good sign for my level of success. I already know that I answered one multiple choice question wrong, but so far, that seems to be my only big mistake.
And any midterm in which you can write an entire response about Pastafarianism, Pirates and Global Warming is a good one in my books.
As for today's lesson...
Lesson 83: In 2004, the Duchess Anna Amalia Library in Germany was destroyed by a devastating fire (caused by faulty wiring) shortly before the entire collection had been scheduled to be moved. This fire destroyed around 12,500 volumes which are completely irreplaceable.
It's nice to think that in an age of mass-digitization this kind of massive information loss can't happen. But cases like this make it all to real. The photos of the library before and after the fire were particularly heart-breaking; the entire place was completely gutted and lost the entire top floor.
The destruction of the original Library of Alexandria made me cry when I first learned about it, and upsets me just to think about.
I don't deal well with the destruction of knowledge and information...
Showing posts with label correlation v causation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label correlation v causation. Show all posts
Monday, March 5, 2012
Monday, January 16, 2012
Day 70: What a Feeling!
Why yes, I do use a lot of song lyrics as titles! But this one was just because I had an amazing weekend. As much as I loved being home, it's good to be back!
My first class today could largely be boiled down to "correlation is not causation". We saw how you can prove that bread is one of the greatest problems in the world, though frankly I'm rather disappointed that she didn't make any mention of how the decline of pirates has fuelled climate change.
We also looked at different scientific research methods etc, and while I'd covered all of this in various other spots throughout my education. Something popped out at me and gave me a new way of looking at research. As this wasn't really a lesson, it will be hard to phrase as one, but I'll give her a whirl.
Lesson 66: How something is studied is largely influenced by the nature of the thing itself.
Ok, now some clarity. The majority of scientific progress is done through Positivist research. To immensely simplify some complex ideas, Positivism is the basis of the theory, hypothesis, test, observe, conclude science most people know. Basically, the basic laws and theories that govern the natural world mean that you can predict an outcome and test it, and it will be repeatable no matter who does it.
An alternative to Positivism is the Interpretative Approach. It is mostly used when talking about psychology, sociology and the like. That is to say things that aren't directly and obviously beholden to, or more accurately governed by chemistry, physics and their rules and interactions.
Here's where it gets muddy. Human consciousness is referred to as an emergent property. On their own, no one part of the body contains human consciousness, but taken all together suddenly it's there! It's like with chocolate. No single molecule amongst the hundreds in each bite of chocolate can be said to "taste like chocolate", but with all of them together, there you have it.
So, when you're trying to determine the physical laws and interactions that govern a reaction, you use the Positivist Approach. But when you're trying to study an emergent property like human consciousness and it's resulting cultures and societies, the emergent approach, the Interpretative Approach, only makes sense.
If I ever make any at all...
My first class today could largely be boiled down to "correlation is not causation". We saw how you can prove that bread is one of the greatest problems in the world, though frankly I'm rather disappointed that she didn't make any mention of how the decline of pirates has fuelled climate change.
We also looked at different scientific research methods etc, and while I'd covered all of this in various other spots throughout my education. Something popped out at me and gave me a new way of looking at research. As this wasn't really a lesson, it will be hard to phrase as one, but I'll give her a whirl.
Lesson 66: How something is studied is largely influenced by the nature of the thing itself.
Ok, now some clarity. The majority of scientific progress is done through Positivist research. To immensely simplify some complex ideas, Positivism is the basis of the theory, hypothesis, test, observe, conclude science most people know. Basically, the basic laws and theories that govern the natural world mean that you can predict an outcome and test it, and it will be repeatable no matter who does it.
An alternative to Positivism is the Interpretative Approach. It is mostly used when talking about psychology, sociology and the like. That is to say things that aren't directly and obviously beholden to, or more accurately governed by chemistry, physics and their rules and interactions.
Here's where it gets muddy. Human consciousness is referred to as an emergent property. On their own, no one part of the body contains human consciousness, but taken all together suddenly it's there! It's like with chocolate. No single molecule amongst the hundreds in each bite of chocolate can be said to "taste like chocolate", but with all of them together, there you have it.
So, when you're trying to determine the physical laws and interactions that govern a reaction, you use the Positivist Approach. But when you're trying to study an emergent property like human consciousness and it's resulting cultures and societies, the emergent approach, the Interpretative Approach, only makes sense.
If I ever make any at all...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)