Facts Versus Notions, Hypotheses, and Theories

The word theory is generally meant to express what is more technically referred to as a notion; an idea that people have that is either vague or grossly unproven. This gives rise to comments like; "it's just a theory".

In academic circles, a theory is an explanation for the relationship of all known example of something. For example, evolutionary theory accounts well for all known fossils- it gets refined when new examples appear. Darwin, for example didn't have a science of genetics to help explain how traits where passed on. He also couldn't as efficiently account for animals that looked similar. For example, Auks(living in the arctic) and Penguins(living in the antarctic) look similar but genetically are very different species. This fits nicely with the idea that a bird that adapts to living in cold regions might eventually take on the overall form shared by the two species.

A hypothesis arises when, after looking at a limited number of examples, a possible and testable explanation arises. Experiments and methods are used, adapted or devised to test the hypothesis. Early research is a bridge between a hypothesis and a notion. For example, in the current research I am involved with, we are looking at how people interact and behave when playing video games, especially Wii. If you ask, we haven't collected enough data to formulate a hypothesis. Some of us have some notions as to what kind of social behavior will arise, but we haven't nearly enough data collected to see real patterns emerging. In time patterns will start to appear and we will have hypotheses that we can test to explain the social behaviors that emerge.

At later stages, we may do things like creating digital games to see how people interact with the game and each other in specific situations. This will allow us to test those hypotheses and give explanations for the behavior that emerges. However, those theories will be subject to revision as new ways of playing games and social pressures cause new behavior to emerge in the future. In the hard science's Isaac Newton developed his theories of physics, and these work well for describing objects bigger than atoms and slower than about 6% of the speed of light. His theory is accounted for by the Einsteins' theory of relativity, that accounts for really fast motion, up to the speed of light. and Quantum theory, that describes actions from within the atom. As yet, no theory has been able to account for all three. The facts seem to contradict each other, but the behavior of very fast and very small objects have been seen and described.

Self-reflexive Stephen Harper; looking for poll joy

This explains much about the current government's problems. The fact that the Prime Minister seems to lavish himself with his own image( a christmas card that reveals he has at least twenty four pictures of himself in his office), raises the question of where does anybody else fit in the picture? The Christmas card is photoshopped, but the government lobby isn't.

This obliviousness explains why, despite the opposition Liberal's lacklustre performance with Michael Ignatieff at the helm, the Conservatives are in a statistical tie with their nemesis. More over, despite the polls indicating the widely held view that Stephen Harper is the most competent leader in the house, the Conservatives still are a long way from getting a majority. Moreover, they have declined in popularity since the last election. The criticism of the Liberals for their inability to surpass the the Conservatives must be cold comfort to the Tories, when the Conservatives' inability to improve their popularity is so conspicuous.

The currentEkos poll, published here by the CBC:
Conservatives: 31.2 (+0.2)
Liberals: 29.0 (-)
NDP: 16.5 (+1.0)
Bloc Quebecois: 8.8 (-1.5) (In Quebec: 35.9 (-5.8))
Green: 11.8 (+0.5)
Other: 2.7 (-0.1)
Undecided: 11.4 (-1.7)

Haptic Heaven: Why touch screens rule

I was looking for a phone number on my rather old fashioned mobile phone. It is an LG Chocolate- reliable elegant looking, and functions well as a phone. Its additional features- camera, mp3 player and so on- don't get in the way too much. I realised, as I searched for a friend's phone number, that I was repeatedly trying to scroll the screen with my finger tip, rather than with the button. This was because of six months with an Ipod touch. My default for small screens is now "haptic".

This goes back to a vision from at least the Seventies, where computers as portrayed in the future would be controlled with gestures, and voice commands would replace textual input. Today, the Ipod touch, and now the IPad(a pad is a wad of paper, and I understand the critique from women that the name has mentrual connotations; a pad is also where I live; a pad is also a cushion that softens my fall; a pad is also a small keyboard) use an almost button- free system of control based on finger movement across the surface of a screen.

It is remarkable how fast that experience transfers. The ease of haptic inteerfaces, combined with their relative durability, due to the lack of moving parts and entry points for dust and moisture suggest they will become ubiquitous for control panels. The sole limitation is the panel requires a glass or potentially ceramic face to allow the capacitance system to track finger movement. However, bullet-proof glass could presumably do the job in public areas where abuse might be more of an issue.

What will it mean when gesture increasingly returns to human Computer interface. In a sense, we will be waving at a computer, rather than prodding it. more over, I think there is a difference between texting in instructions and data, as I am doing now, and using a series of gestures to achieve the same results. Think of how we might relate using a gesture such as a raised clenched fist to mean stop (watch any military drama with a movement-to-contact sequence for this gesture) as opposed to a verbal command to "wait here" or "stop". We are moving away from logos- the word- and into a more embodied relationship.

The situation is not one of either/or but a plenum between a completely subjective experience, say sensing the rise and fall of one's own chest in breathing, and the experience of reading a letter. The sensation of breathing must be one experienced by not only humans, but certainly all vertebrate animals. The context of meaning might well change for other species, but that requires a kind of communication that humans have yet to achieve with other animals. Our most abstract communication, with written words(or math- I will bracket that, for the moment) on the other hand requires an almost disembodied consideration of the intersubjectivity between myself and the other who wrote the letter.

What does it mean when we return so much to the body when we interact with machines, especially computers? But the ease with which one becomes accustomed to such interfaces sayssomething about thought, and embodiment- but I am not sure what that is...

The myth of Conservative fiscal prudence

The received wisdom is that Tories cut government spending. But if you look at Canada's spending as percentage of GDP, it has been falling through the 90's and only stabilises, and rises with the arrival of the Conservative into power forming a minority government. The last previous rise, doubling both debt and deficit was under Brian Mulroney's Conservative government.

The problem is the Tories like to spend money on expensive(and arguably futile or unnecessary) moral crusades, such as more prisons and a larger, conventional army and big corporate subsidies, and less on less splashy but cheaper and more effective programs i.e. drug rehab, an expanded Coast Guard and various kinds of post-secondary training and R&D funding. After all, successful businesses need new, better methods to stay in business, not a financial crutch to hide poor management practices. Preventing crime is more cost effective than punishment. On the otherhand, heavy weapons like main battle tanks are made by large corporate entities. The utility of having such systems seems redundant in the asymmetric battlefield of today. But the relationship between elected representatives and such business interests are well known. These do not always serve the interests of the polity at large.

Of course, Canadian's are not immune to being bribed with their own money, or better yet, that of their fellow citizens who don't vote for the Conservatives.

Anti-prorogation Montréal

Protest the Harper minority government's arrogance and incompetence. Join the anti- prorogation rally in your community.

Too serious

I was thinking, as I rehearsed a lecture, that we think many things are serious, and other things are funny. As a result, humour in the classroom is thought often innapproriate. But perhaps the highest compliment a stand- up comedian can receive is that they are funny and they make you think. In a sense, observational comics like George Carlin and Jerry Seinfeld use humour to begin deconstruct the notional world we live in. They take the first step to rethinking our fundamental assumptions, because they find the absurdities and incongruities that make us laugh, but that thus expose the constructed nature of the world we live in.

I am not saying we have a solipsistic or purely made up or textual(post-modern?) world. I am saying that we experience the measured pace of time as temporality. That is to say, five minutes is excruciatingly short in the arms of a loved one, and excruciatingly long in the line up to use the bathroom. Fourteen seconds is a flash of time during "the little death" but an eternity of dying during a waterboarding. Similarly, the measure of space is interpreted as spaciality. My apartment would seem small to many North Americans, who are used to living in 185 Square meter houses, yet for many Asians, my apartment would seem spacious. Similarly, I am about 168 cm tall- apparently the average height for a human being. I can reach the top shelf, but don't bang my head on low doorways. My son's experience of space is that of a 105cm boy. Much of the architecture and furnishings are too big for him to easily negotiate. Additionally, he is growing quickly, in spurts, so his embodied experience is often one of clumsiness, as his arms, legs and head may suddenly reach farther than his reflexes had accounted for.

This clumsiness, this absurdity, this unheimlich experience makes us laugh. So I argue that we should embrace humour to help unpack social and philosophical constructions that we are surrounded with. The difference between the lecturer and the comedian is two fold, however. The comedian needs only unpack this absurdity that we might laugh. Indeed, many succesful comedians then go on to recontextualise the absurdity so what is funny becomes understandable, so as to stabilise. Jay Leno, arguably the most popular comedic figure in North America, has said that comedy is the cowards way of fighting back. Once you get the laugh, resistance is spent, is the essence of his arguement.

The second difference is that the lecturer must theorise and so explain and recontextualise the phenomena he or she is talking about. This exposes the possibility that the meaning, and hence the significance of a given phenomena, be it social, physical or even abstract(what are the ideas in my head?) can shift or become polysemous.

An example of a polysemous recontextualisation is the biblical commandment"Thou shalt not kill". This dictum is very clear, yet many who claim to be christian also support the death penalty and war. They recontextualise killing from an absolute prohibition into one that is contextualised by who, where and when the killing takes place. But when others argue that abortion constitutes a sovereign right of a woman over her body- to take the most fractious debate over killing in our society, as the debate extends even to whether or not abortion even constitutes killing- we can see how a naive recontextualisation takes place. Part of the lecturer's job is to consciously offer recontextualisations of a phenomena, having "unpacked".

We can unpack humour to say it makes the uncomfortable process of examining the unexamined more acceptable. But as I mentioned, it can help to repack an idea, leaving it's social position intact. at the same time, it can relieve the emotional discomfort, making it possible to grapple with the phenomena as it takes on new and more complex significances.

My freedom versus other's "humiliation"; The Muhammed Cartoons, again.

"the West" should also refrain from the wearing of mini skirts, eating pork and the legalization of same-sex partnerships in order to avoid causing any feelings of debasement and humiliation in the Islamic world. More here...

The freedom of expression has the corollary of the freedom to be offended. The ethical obligation here is that if you wish to have an opinion, you must take the responsibility to observe the expression of others who may offend you. So when I argue, for example, that sexual orientation should not figure in the regulation of marriage, I accept that I will have to listen to opposing opinions, often robust or aggressively in opposition to mine. that I find those opinions offensive, or at least, often offensively expressed, does not reduce my obligation to accept that they will be expressed.

Of course, intolerant people and belief systems see things differently, but I am not prepared to acquiesce to them. I am prepared to listen, however.