Debill – A Protest Poem (by sarah)

Debasing
Electronic economy
Being blinded by
Illogical idosyncrasies
Leading literate
Lynchings

Caroline Herschel (by sarah)

Caroline is the sister of the more famous astronomer Sir Friedrich Wilhelm Herschel but though he is known and well respected she is often seen as just his assistant.

Born 16 March 1750 to what really amounts to a rather abusive family in Germany she owed a lot to her brother for rescuing her at risk of his own freedom. He bought her to England where he had already started to establish himself as an astronomer. The siblings were basically self made financially and work hard.

Though she started off just assisting him she ended up carrying out the brunt of the work rising before her brother to write things up and generally going to bed after him.

She also made a great many discoveries on her own and even after her brothers death worked hard to varify his discoveries something that is often seen as dull but is if anything more valuable to the world at large. She produced a catalogue of nebulae which she recieved a Gold Medal from the Royal Astronomical Society in 1828. This helped her nephew John Herschel in his work - she took on the role of raising John and was the honoured guest at his graduation dispite an initial falling out with her sister-in-law.

Caroline and Mary Somerville were also elected as the first honorary women members of the Royal Astronomical Society In 1835. She obtain many other rewards and has craters and asterial bodies named after her - she was still going at 96 with the astronomy!

During work with her brother they both sustained physical hardship and injuries such as frost bite and in Carolines case being impaled on a peg holding down the telescope 🙁

She was a brave woman who had to over come alot on a personal front, her brothers hogging of the lime light is more an artifact of the age they lived in than a reflection on them. But even in such an age she won awards that would not be awarded to a women again in well over a hundred years.

And though she did not have any children she none the less raised a child and continued in her scientific endervours without neglect of his needs.

This is why I have chosen Caroline for this years Ada Lovelace Day - whilst I was in the meteoritics department I came across articles about her and it inspired me to keep going 🙂

Ada Lovelace Day 2010 – Join in! (by sarah)

Last year me and Alaric took part in Ada Lovelace Day, a day to celebrate women in technology and the sciences. We did various blog posts on inspiring women.

This year the event is back! March 24th will once again see me blogging away, come and join us - why is this important - why should women have a specific day? Because unfortunately their contributions are not always acknowledged to the degrees they should be and young girls need to see that there are other females in these areas and that it isn't just the realm of men.

It's about showing them people like themselves - I suppose positive role models 🙂

100 Stories For Haiti (by sarah)

I found about four hours before the deadline that there was a 100 stories for Haiti book project asking for submissions to help raise money for the earthquake victims.

So I hurriedly altered one of my stories and sent it too them last night - I was first stuck with a feeling that I wouldn't have anything to give them as they didn't want anything with Death, violence etc... it was the death one that stumped me - all the stories I have with the nice happy endings are ghost stories which were obviously out.

Anyway I found something and sent it off!

I had actually already mentioned something like this project as a possible money raiser after an argument about writing stories about the crisis itself.

Now I would encourage writing about suck heavy subjects as I feel they all to often get swept aside but I also feel you have to be careful and think before you fictionalise such a thing. Why? Becuase it would be easy to trivualise it.

How can you fictionalise a crisis why it is still going on? Unless you have actually been being there helping and are fictionalising your own experience - you need to research it or you will just get it all wrong. And I feel uneasy about writing about it whilst it is still a crisis - Apparently people felt helpless and wanted to show they cared - my reaction to this was simply - make an ebook of other stories and sell it to raise money then.

I'm not sure why I had such a strong reaction to this but Alaric thinks the same way too - he thinks you can't really fictionalise something like this until a yr or so afterwards.

Anyway they have now extended the deadline so if you have a story under 1000 words you might want to donate it 🙂

Intelligence, Knowledge, Wisdom (by alaric)

I see a lot of confusion between intelligence and knowledge. There's this cultural perception that a well-educated person is intelligent - and wise to boot. However, I've met plenty of people who are incredibly intelligent, yet know very little; or people who have memorised lots of information, but don't really understand it because they're not very intelligent.

So there's definitely a distinction between intelligence and knowledge, and I think there's also a third intellectual strength: wisdom. Note that I'm only analysing core intellectual strengths, too - skills like empathy are also important, but beyond the scope of this article; and thinks like mathematics are a matter of training the mind to do certain things quickly that can only be done if you're intelligent enough to master it in the first place, and have the knowledge - many skills, such as mathematics, being able to paint or to accurately outguess defenders and get a football into a goal, are also mental skills, but ones that are learnt by building upon the basic attributes of knowledge, intelligence, and wisdom.

(Players of role playing games will now recognise what got me thinking about all this in the first place)

Knowledge is stuff you can memorise directly from some external source. It might just be facts - the name of the first president of the United States, the melting point of lithium, who won the last World Cup.

Intelligence is a bit harder to define. It's about being able to perceive patterns, I think. An IQ test only really tests certain aspects of intelligence, but I think it's mainly pattern recognition and being able to hold complex structures in your short-term memory that you can then recognise the patterns in.

This can be likened to being able to gain a high-altitude view of things in your mind. The gifted artist looks at people's perceptions of the world, and sees them as all parts of a bigger picture; by spotting the bits of the picture that few people are seeing, and then managing to portray that to people (which is a skill), they manage to surprise and excite us, and to broaden our horizons by drawing our attention to things we had overlooked. The gifted mathematician looks at the properties of the Lambda calculus and of Hilbert systems and notices a shared pattern, and thus comes up with the Curry–Howard correspondence, and thereby realises profound facts about the processes of computation and reasoning that are driving the development of programming languages into the future.

And, yet, I have met people with great knowledge, and great intelligence who, nonetheless, are definitely fools.

There is a certain stereotype of the short-sighted baffled boffin; the kind who invents the nuclear weapon, then after it is used in anger, splutters "But... but... I thought it would be an end to warfare! I didn't think anybody would be so stupid as to use it!". The kind who sits there cranking out great work in their narrow field, yet without even being able to comprehend a reason why, yet alone wanting to.

And, also, I've met plenty of people who aren't intelligent, know very little, yet somehow manage to find their way peacefully and happily through life, bringing something undeniably good to everything they are involved with. They clearly have some positive core attribute, but what is it?

This is why I introduce the concept of wisdom. My hypothesis is that wise people have a grasp of certain fundamental patterns that underlie everything. Not the specific patterns that intelligence focuses on; more things like 'when two powerful forces are in opposition, things can slip and suddenly come out sideways'. This basic principle applies to physical forces, as well as to things like ideologies in opposition. They're patterns, and it's easy to mistake them for the rules that intelligence seeks to understand within complex systems; but there's some important differences. The patterns wisdom finds are broad. To find them, you need to look at a lot of things, rather than to look deeply at one. You can look at these things shallowly, and indeed, doing so can help you to spot the patterns without access to intelligence, by letting you "see the wood for the trees" rather than being tangled in details.

Also, they are weak correlations. They point to vague tendencies of systems, rather than to definite rules. They do not apply in all cases, even. They are more gut feelings, or intuitive hunches.

A truly great scientist combines all three attributes. They have knowledge of their field, the intelligence to understand it well enough to spot the rules, and wisdom that provides them with hunches; certain properties of a physical system may, based on past experience of such properties, lead the scientist to wonder if those properties will be conserved under rotation? Then they can use their knowledge and intelligence to do the maths and work it out, which may lead them to an interesting conclusion.

Similarly, the great artist has knowledge of the world, intelligence to spot interesting concepts - and wisdom that lets them guess how the viewers will react to their work. Nobody can know how the world will respond to something new, as we cannot know what's going on in other people's heads. No matter how intelligent you are, you'll never be able to reason the behaviour of millions of people. The best we can do is to draw on wisdom, to form hunches.

There is a stereotype of wisdom, but it's often confused with intelligence or knowledge. Sherlock Holmes is, perhaps, the stereotypical intellectual genius; his knowledge and intelligence are focussed on, but there's clearly wisdom as well. The purest expression of wisdom we find in popular media is the "wise old sage" stereotype. They're typically portrayed as old-fashioned and technophobic; they rarely exhibit vast stores of knowledge, or even great intelligence. They're usually an old-looking wispy-haired white male in a robe, spouting seemingly meaningless phrases that nonetheless turn out to be strangely insightful and useful.

This is a bit of a caricature, but with some vague connection to the reality, I think. A purely wise person would need to have been somewhat isolated from modern life in order to avoid ending up gaining knowledge, and the absence of knowledge would give them precious little complex mental structures to practise intelligence upon. But a long life would give an active mind time to figure out the deeper patterns, and build up wisdom. However, unless that wisdom didn't involve people much, I think a truly wise person would tend to have better communication skills than the traditional portrayal!