I came across this graphic (accompanied by this pdf) that compares industry standards to the standard BP (apparently)* followed during their disasterous Deepwell Horizon oil exploration project (HT: Jillian Bandes @ Townhall). If proven correct, it demonstrates that by not following industry rule-of-thumbs/standard practices, BP put workers lives, the environment, and the fate of the whole company at risk, as well as potentially destroying the livelihoods of Gulf coast residents.

Rule-of-thumbs/standard practice may seem “unscientific”, but until proven otherwise, they work and should be strictly followed; even more so when the risk is higher.

*While there are some good sources regarding the cause(s) of this disaster, it is prudent to allow a thorough investigation to be completed before definitively assigning blame.

But all that changed recently with potential conference expansion talks heating up. Now, this may all be nothing but hype, but it’s fascinating nonetheless; way more fascinating than talk of expanding NCAA men’s basketball tournament from 65 team to 96 (they expanded to 68 instead *yawn*). The two big players in this game are the Big 10 and Pac 10 conferences. The dominoes start falling (or not) depending on the actions of either or both conferences.

With that in mind, let’s play a game. How will all this shake down?** When the dust settles, how will the American college football landscape look? This is just for fun, but I reserve the right to brag mercilessly if my predictions are right.

The most interesting character in all this is Texas, coveted by both the Big Ten and Pac 10. So as part of my game, I’m going to give two scenarios: where the Big 10 acts first and where the Pac 10 acts first. The main assumption of this game is that Texas will be landed by whoever acts first. Another assumption will be each conference is limited to a maximum of 16 schools. I will provide a list of the new conference layout with teams new to that conference in bold.

Scenario 1: Big 10 Acts First

Big 10 Super-conference: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Texas, Wisconsin

Texas is the star followed closely by Notre Dame. Adding ND isn’t far-fetched since they just sat down in negotiations again with the Big 10. Pitt was added as a geographical rival for Penn State (gotta keep up appearances of tradition and rivalry after all). In this scenario, Syracuse and Rutgers are bypassed in favour of Missouri and Nebraska. Nebraska is more attractive for Texas and Missouri is a throw in since to get the NY market, the Big 10 would have to land both the Orange and the Scarlett Knights.

Pac 10 Super-conference: Arizona, Arizona State, California, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, UCLA, USC, Washington, Washington State

Pac 10 didn’t act fast enough and lost Texas, but gained OU and OSU as a nice consolation prize. Do they take leftovers Texas A&M and TT? Sure. Gotta get the Texas market somehow. So who to take next? IMHO, the choices amount to Kansas/KSU or Boise State/Utah. The Pac 10 has a new aggressive commissioner, and the temptation to kill a competing conference is to tempting to pass on Kansas/KSU. Baylor and/or Colorado don’t offer much in football. The added bonus of adding the Kansas schools is to fortify the Pac 10 basketball conference.

We have come here to pay our respects to the late great Big 12 conference. Gimme a yeehaw!

Mountain West Super-conference: Air Force, Baylor, Boise State, BYU, Colorado, Colorado State, Fresno State, Houston, New Mexico, San Diego State, SMU, TCU, UNLV, Utah, Wyoming

Before moving on to the east coast, MWSC doesn’t stand still. The Boise invite is issued, and Colorado and Baylor get rescued leaving poor Iowa State adrift. The WAC and Conference USA get raided. However, MWSC doesn’t get to the magical 16 teams as it’s hard to make a case for anyone else.

Southeastern super-conference: Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, LSU, Ole Miss, Miami, Miss State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia, Virginia Tech

The ACC gets raided and the Big East gets spared. the SESC, a super-conference that brags about speed and flash, adds both; GT and VT add speed, Miami and FSU add flash. Clemson is thrown in as a geographic rival for USC (no the other one), and Virgina (unfortunately) comes with VT.

Big East/ACC Merger: Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Duke, Louisville, Maryland, North Carolina, NC State, Rutgers, South Florida, Syracuse, Wake Forest, West Virginia

Former rivals make the best out of a bad situation and merge. Hey it could be worse! Could be the Big 12!

That was fun! Now what would happen if the Pac 10 struck first?

Scenario 2: Pac 10 Acts First

Pac 10 Super-conference: Arizona, Arizona State, California, Colorado, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, UCLA, USC, Washington, Washington State

The big winner of this scenario (other than the Pac 10 for landing Texas) is Colorado. Kansas and K-State are out (don’t cry too much, Dave).

Big 10 Super-conference: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Rutgers, Wisconsin

The Big 10 loses the big prize, but still lands Notre Dame. Nebraska and Missouri abandon the sinking ship that is the Big 12. Pitt is joined by fellow Big East alumni Rutgers, thus getting the Big 10 their NY footprint.

Mountain West Super-conference: Air Force, Baylor, Boise State, BYU, Colorado State, Fresno State, Houston, Kansas, Kansas State, New Mexico, San Diego State, SMU, TCU, UNLV, Utah, Wyoming

In this scenario, MWSC gets its 16 teams. Pretty solid basketball conference. Too bad we’re talking football.

Not much changes from Scenario 1 for the SEC and ACC/Big East super-conferences.

Doing Scenario 1 was more fun than Scenario 2, but I think 2 is more likely than 1.

*For those who don’t know and actually care, my football teams are Saskatchewan Roughriders (Canadian professional, a.k.a. CFL), Seattle Seahawks (American professional, a.k.a. NFL), University of Saskatchewan Huskies (Canadian college, a.k.a. CIS), and University of Michigan Wolverines (American college, a.k.a. NCAA)

**There are some excellent articles by Stewart Mandel over at SI.com. Check them out here and here.

A lack of consensus between experts shows that the answer is not as clear cut as Klein tries to make it. Whether you like the opinion of those experts does not matter.

Once again, consensus is invoked as support for a position, or in this case, lack of consensus is invoked to show there is no correct answer. Whether this is true or not is another thing. I want to take a closer look at what is involved in reaching a consensus.

Before I continue, I mean no disrespect to those who work hard at their chosen profession/field of work. Each requires a specialised knowledge and years of experience to master properly.

That said, opinions of different professions regarding their own profession do not carry the same weight. For instance, an opinion of an engineer in engineering matter carries more weight than an opinion of a meteorologist in weather forecasting. The cause of this discrepancy can be directly tied to the consequences of being wrong. If a meteorologist is wrong about the weather, it is rare that he/she will lose his/her job, let alone someone losing their life over a wrong forecast. However, if an engineer is wrong about an engineering design, he/she will be lucky if the only thing that is lost is his/her job. Lives can be lost if an engineer is wrong about his/her design. While there can be multiple “correct” designs, that does not mean there are no wrong designs.

Therefore, an engineer has a rather large incentive to be right while a meteorologist does not. Of course, this does not mean that a meteorologist wants to give wrong forecasts all the time; just that the incentives to be right are not at the same level as an engineer.

What about a carpenter? A mechanic? A janitor? An economist? A doctor? A physicist? A climatologist? The incentive to be correct can be directly tied to the consequences of being wrong. When other lives are involved, the incentives increase dramatically.

So getting back to the debate at TT, whose consensus carries more weight: engineers on engineering matters or economists on economic matters? Seeing as how economists have a generally poor record of prognostication, I’d say the answer is obvious. It is yet another reason why invoking consensus makes for a poor argument.

Does that mean there is no right and wrong in economics (or any other profession where human lives aren’t tied to the professional’s job)? Heaven forbid. The best wayto debate the validity of a position is to provide a logical cause-and-effect reasoning to support it, and (if possible) tie it to real-world practice. This is the debate I am looking for, but rarely find.

From Wikipedia:

Quantum Darwinism is a theory explaining the emergence of the classical world from the quantum world as due to a process of Darwinian natural selection; where the many possible quantum states are selected against in favor of a stable pointer state. [Emphasis mine]

The emphasised portion has been a peripheral intellectual interest of mine for a while, but I never knew someone actually gave it a name. Quantum Darwinism just does not sound as cool as quantum physics or string theory. I mean even a proto-scientific endeavour like Intelligent Design has a way cooler name. Some scientists need a lesson in marketing!

In all seriousness, the PhysOrg.com article, New evidence for quantum Darwinism found in quantum dots, was the first exposure I had to QD. I don’t know if this research will lead to anything substantive, but I think I will wait for the Cliff’s Notes Dr. Heddle’s Depressed Bruin fan Art’s* layman’s version before commenting further.

Now let’s have some fun. I suggest a naming contest to give a sexier, cooler name to QD. I mean, even Quantum Natural Selection is better than QD!!

*Sorry Art. I couldn’t resist. At least you’ll get the Oilers’ leftovers at the draft this year!

That is, until an old argument of mine got resurrected (thanks Brent):

BTW, I still consider “design” a mechanism.

I’ve already debated this at TT over a year ago, and I’m not looking to rehash old arguments. What I do want to point out is that I am not alone in taking this position.

One of my favourite authors is Dr. Henry Petroskiof Duke University. It is hard to find a structural engineer who can communicate about his/her profession in a clear and concise manner that a layman can easily grasp and follow. I currently have two of Dr. Petroski’s books in my library: To Engineer Is Human and Design Paradigms. It is this latter book that provides an insight into Dr. Petroski’s view on design as a mechanism.

Before I continue, I should clarify two things:

1. To the best of my knowledge, Dr. Petroski has taken no interest nor stand in the ID/evolution debates, and is probably not interested in being dragged into the debate by an anonymous (to him) third party. However, that is not my intention. The purpose of quoting Dr. Petroski is to demonstrate that he does not view the engineering design process as mechanistic.
2. For the purposes of this post, mechanism is defined as the physical and/or rational agency or means by which an effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished (slightly altered from the Dictionary.com definition)

It is obvious that engineering design is a rational process, and this is where I believe some confusion on this topic arises. A concept/design can be rigorously tested and modeled by rational means and methods at all times during the design process with one exception: during the time when the concept first arises.

Petroski states this view in the first paragraph of Chapter 1 (all my emphasis are in bold):

Errors can occur at all stages of the design process, but fundamental errors made at the conceptual design stage can be among the most elusive. Indeed, such errors tend to manifest themselves only when a prototype is tested, often with wholly unexpected or disastrous results. These, more than any other design errors, are invariably human errors, because a conceptual design comes only out of the uniquely human creative act of transforming some private concept from the designer’s mind to some public concept that can be described to and modified by other humans.

In the next paragraph, Petroski continues:

…because in its most fundamental stage conceptual design involves no overt modern theoretical or analytical component, there is no reason to believe that there is any essential difference in the way our most ancient ancestors conceived and we still do conceive designs. Nor is there any reason to believe that there is any essential difference in the ways in which our ancestors erred and we can err in our conception …

Dr. Petroski summarises his view in Chapter 2:

… concepts arise as alogical acts of creativity rather than as totally logical acts of deduction.

Mechanisms in the natural world tend to follow a logical and rational cause-and-effect path. Since concepts are not rational and logical, but rather alogical, it follows that concepts do not follow this same path and thus cannot be considered mechanistic. Further, since most designs require concepts as a necessary launching point for the design process*, engineering design cannot be considered as a mechanism as defined above.

Engineering is considered both an art and a science. This is demonstrated by the non-mechanistic process of engineering design. To counter this argument, one must demonstrate that concepts are mechanistic. In my humble opinion, there is no argument that conclusively shows this**. 

*A possible exception to this is design by computers. However, I find this line of argument unconvincing since a computer only acts on a pre-programmed or base design of which had to be conceived by humans first before the computer would be able to apply its design programming to it.

**Quantum mechanics has been posited as a mechanical means for producing thought, but I and others remain unconvinced.

When he was at Uncommon Descent, DaveScot would regularly sing the praises of a common, but previously little known chemical, dichloroacetate (DCA). It caught my attention for a couple of reasons:

1. A 2007 study showed DCA had the potential to slow tumour growth or even cause tumour shrinkage in rats.

2. DCA is so common that it is almost literally dirt cheap. The problem with being inexpensive is it provided no financial incentive for drug companies to fund human studies.

However, thanks to a grassroots funding effort raising about $800,000 (with supplementary funding by philathropist and the Canadian government), a small and very limited study was done on five patients by Dr. Evangelos Michelakis, the results being published in the recent edition of Science Translational Medicine, a journal of the American Association of the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

The results, while limited, are promising:

In two patients, their tumour regressed. One patient’s tumour stopped growing. A fourth patient underwent a second surgery to remove a residual part of the tumour, which then never regrew. The fifth patient died within the first three months.

Despite these promising results, caution must be urged.

[Dr. Michelakis's]  studies prove the drug can have an effect on human tumours, not just animal tumours, which isn’t always the case. But beyond that, the sample size is too small to “permit any definitive conclusion.”

Obviously, further studies are required before regulatory approval. However, it warms my heart to see a study funded in large part due to ordinary, hard-working people, and I hope that not only does the grassroots funding continue, but that it thrives such that it provides a new research funding model. For the case of DCA, the end goal is very tantalising:

Many patented cancer drugs cost between $60,000 and $80,000 a year and some don’t prolong life more than one month, Michelakis said. “That’s how bad it is in oncology.”

If approved, he said, DCA, a chemical with a very simple structure, could be produced by a facility like the University of Alberta for less than $100 a year. [Emphasis mine]

In its proper place the Anthropic Principle can be quite useful. But it must be remembered: it can be a guide—but it is never an explanation.

Dr. Heddle goes on to demonstrate how the Anthropic Principle (AP) can be used as a guide, but it got me thinking about a thing engineers like to use: rule-of-thumbs. Like the AP, rule-of-thumbs are not explanations (they have no basis in theory or empirical design), but are based on engineering tradition and/or aesthetics. To give an example, when sizing a beam for a specific span, L, structural engineers limit the beam depth (d) to a minimum of L/20 or L/30*. Now it is possible that a more shallow and robust beam would be just as adequate (if not more so) to resist applied loads (strength, stability and deflection). However, the more shallow beam would not “look” right. Doing a rough cost-benefit analysis, a deeper beam** is a “cheaper” alternative to client uneasiness. Using this rule-of-thumb as a starting point for design can also a time saver for the engineer.

However, there is generally no theoretical nor experimental (empirical) basis for the L/20 beam depth rule-of-thumb. It also is not an explanation for the specific beam chosen (i.e. how the beam responds to applied loads). The L/20 rule-of-thumb is just a design guide to assist the engineer in the design process.

So that gets me thinking, based on linked post, is the AP a physicist’s rule-of-thumb? If Dr. Heddle’s example is accurate, IMO, it would appear to be so. Ain’t it cool how concepts can transcend disciplines?

*For example, if L = 9 metres (29.5 ft), then using L/20, minimum beam depth = 450 mm (approximately 18 inches).

**In most circumstances, the deeper beam would weigh less than the more shallow and robust beam, thus saving money on material. That said, the price of steel these days is relatively cheap.

Some are calling it a game for the ages. Some are saying that Sidney Crosby has now made the jump from superstar to legend. For me, the 2010 Olympic Gold Medal game between Canada and the U.S. once again showed the world that hockey is Canada’s game, period. Eric Staal said it best:

Hockey is Canada’s game and people will remember that goal for a very long time.

I give tons of credit to the U.S. team. They’re a gritty bunch who leaned on a hot goalie and never gave up. When trailing for the first time in the Olympic tournament, the U.S. (unlike the “Eurotrash” Russians*) never folded and kept plugging away until they tied the game in the last 30 seconds of the game.

 That said, a hot goalie can only take you so far, especially when facing the depth that Team Canada kept throwing out there. It showed in regulation when Toews and Perry scored. The disparity in depth really showed in the overtime (4-on-4 in international rules) where Canada carried the play.

The big difference between the round-robin game (5-3 U.S win) and the gold medal game was goaltending. Roberto Luongo was not spectacular, but solid, not giving up a weak goal. The U.S. stepped up their game by getting more shots on goal (remember, Canada outshot the Americans by almost a 2-to-1 ratio in the round robin). Canada curiously stopped attacking in the last half of the 3rd. Where they got away with it against Slovakia, they weren’t so lucky against the States. Parise took advantage of a fortuitous bounce and buried the puck behind Luongo.

An ordinary team would have folded after a deflating goal like that. But this is Team Canada. We don’t fold. We never give up. Our hockey history is full of story of grit and fortitude (1972 Summit Series, 1987 Canada Cup, 2002 Olympics, many World Juniors).

Team Canada can throw four lines on the ice at any time that could lead any NHL team. When it was 4-on-4 in OT, the depth became more pronounced. Crosby, kept from the scoresheet for 3 games, showed his scoring skill on one play, a play that will live forever in Canada’s hockey lore.

So congrats to the U.S. on an amazing tournament, and congrats to our Canadian players and fans who showed the world that hockey is Canada and Canada is hockey, period.

*I loved that comment by Mike Milbury because it was true. Ovechkin’s weakness was exposed yet again by Canada: he can dish it out but can’t take it. In the 2005 World Juniors, Canada laid the body on Ovie, and he folded like cheap tent. Again, in the 2010 Olympic Quarterfinals, Canada hit Ovechkin every chance they had, and he disappeared faster than a donut in a police station. That’s what Milbury meant by “Eurotrash” hockey: not being able to take a hit.

The Canadian women’s hockey team can now be called an Olympic dynasty! 3 gold medals in 3 Olympics! Woohoo! Now, it’s the men’s turn.

However, a “stain” on the Olympicsw occurred after. Don’t read further unless you have a strong stomach!

 

OMG! The-the-the-they’re drinking beer! (and not very good beer at that!). They’re celebrating on the ice! My gawd, one of them is drinking and driving! Will someone PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

The IOC is “investigating” the after-game celebration. This and this article pretty much sums up the absolute stupidity of the IOC bigwigs. IOC, I’d say “Kiss my @ss!”, but that may not be very “Olympian”, so I’ll just say “Get a life!”.

For the first time, scientists have synthesized RNA enzymes – ribonucleic acid enzymes also known as ribozymes – that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components.

If true, this could help shed light on the RNA-World and create many different and intriguing lines of research. 

That said, there’s an obvious caveat: these RNA molecules were designed. For a purely natural RNA-World scenario to be true, scientists would have to show that a self-replicating RNA could have arisen through natural means, and last time I checked, they ain’t even close to demonstrating this.

Keep in mind I am NOT questioning whether evolutionary mechanisms exist. It is obvious that they do exist and function in nature. However, take a good look at what Dr. Joyce and his colleagues did: they took their knowledge of how living things work and change/evolve, and used it to create an RNA molecule that “evolves” (or runs under the properties of known evolutionary mechanisms). This is very similar to what engineers do, using their knowledge of the known world/universe to create an object or system to suit some predetermined function(s) or design objective(s). In essence, what Joyce et al. did was attempt to engineer life.

As if to reinforce the engineering aspect of the research, the article goes on to say:

The ultimate goal is to create genetic systems that behave like life, and are for all intents ‘life’ as we know it, but arose without using biological systems.

“The aim is to create systems that have inventive capabilities, that can develop novel solutions to challenges posed by the environment. But that we don’t have yet,” [molecular biologist Gerald Joyce] said. …

[Joyce continues] “They are synthetic genetic systems, and they are evolving. But they’re not living because they don’t yet show the capacity to invent functions out of whole cloth [independently from basic building blocks].

“The idea is to given them enough information wherewithal [build up enough genetic informaton] so they can start inventing their own solutions, rather than just optimising existing solutions,” he added.

To recap, Joyce et al. “create[d] … [synthetic] genetic systems that behave like life” (i.e. replicate and pass on genetic information – a simple design objective). Further research will have the goal of ”… creat[ing] systems that have inventive capabilities, that can develop novel solutions to challenges posed by the environment.” (i.e. predetermined function). To accomplish this, the researchers aim to “give them enough information wherewithal [build up enough genetic informaton] so they can start inventing their own solutions, rather than just optimising existing solutions…”

Golly gee! That sure sounds a lot like engineering and front-loading to me.

“Front-loading is the investment of a significant amount of information at the initial stage of evolution (the first life forms) whereby this information shapes and constrains subsequent evolution through its dissipation.”
p.147, The Design Matrix by Mike Gene

I thought FLE/design couldn’t lead to fruitful research. Silly me!

All kidding aside, this could set the stage for interesting new OOL research. Stay tuned!