Cap’n Refsmmat’s Blog of Doom

Write like this.

Evangelical minister Ray Comfort recently put out a “150th Anniversary Edition” of On the Origin of Species, with a Special Introduction attacking Darwin, the theory of evolution, and atheism.

Yeah, big deal. It’s been all over the Internet lately. Well, as an assignment for one of my university courses, I wrote a nice report on Comfort’s edition, comparing it to the original 1859 first edition, which we conveniently have a copy of in a library here on campus.

It was very revealing.

You can see the entire 11-page report here, though don’t be frightened by its length: it’s double-spaced and in a nice, large, easy-to-read font.

Enjoy, everyone! Feel free to spread this around the Interwebs as much as you’d like.

For the impatient, here are the highlights:

• Ray Comfort’s table of contents omits page numbers entirely, so you can’t skip to specific chapters. In fact, new chapters start in the middle of pages, and chapter headings are in tiny font, so you can’t even find chapters if you want to find a specific detail. It’s worthless as the edition for “universities and higher education” it claims to be on the back cover.
• The text of his Special Introduction is in a nice, large font, whereas Origin is in a tiny, unreadable font. It is painfully clear that Comfort does not even want you to read Origin, just his introduction.
• The nice, 12-page index is completely omitted.
• Darwin’s credentials, once present on the title page, are left out.
• The one figure included in the first edition, a nice tree of life diagram, is omitted, leaving four pages or so of Darwin blabbing about a figure illustrating his point with no actual figure to illustrate his point.
• Comfort’s claim that atheists wanted book-burnings and generally had a huge violent outcry is mostly unsubstantiated. Though one atheist on RichardDawkins.net calls Comfort out on his “ideological masturbation fantasy.” (Yeah, the paper’s worth reading just for that quote.)
• I did not, in fact, see much response at all from the religious online community, besides some criticisms of Comfort.

What does this lead me to believe? Well, here’s my conclusion:

Comfort’s edition of On the Origin of Species is not the product of a society that has rejected Darwinism. It is the product of a society that accepts Darwinism more than ever, whose acceptance has driven Ray Comfort to the conclusion that society is rejecting God. To a deeply religious minister, that is cause for action. Thus, a new Origin was produced, one designed to bring people back to God by emphasizing a religious message and discouraging anyone from even reading Darwin’s words. In his view, after all, Darwin is the man who drove them away from God in the first place.

This is no ordinary edition of Origins, with a nice introduction stating the “other side” of the story, as Comfort makes it out to be. It is an outright, but very subtle, attack. And it deserves to be treated that way.

You can tell there’s something wrong with our system of keeping GPAs based on class average — i.e. out of 100 instead of out of the 4-point scale — when I get annoyed that I have a 96 in a class.

Stupid system.

Today I was looking through my introductory calculus textbook* for no particular reason. Well, I say introductory, but I think that’s a particularly bad choice of word.

You see, it was clearly intended to be an introductory text, but it failed at that rather miserably. I’ll give an example. Here’s how the textbook introduces the basic technique used to find derivatives (derivatives can give you the slope of a graphed function at any point on the curve):

To find the tangent to a curve at a point we use the same dynamic procedure. We calculate the slope of the secant line through and a point . We then investigate the limit of the slope as . If the limit exists, it is the slope of the curve at and we define the tangent at to be the line through having this slope.

Whew. To figure out what that means, even to someone good at math, takes several moments of thinking to understand what the hell all the symbols and points and stuff are referring to, and how that gives the slope of a line. Compare the method used by the textbook to how Dave explained derivatives in his calculus tutorial (later edited and reposted by me). Sure, it’s longer Dave’s way, but you’re left actually knowing what is going on.

The textbook gets worse from there. It’d be more useful to someone who already understands the concepts and just wants to check some obscure property of logarithms or something. Understanding is buried beneath mounds of mathematical rigor.

If we want people to understand math, or at least not hate learning it, we’re going to have to make our textbooks less painful for a start. Take a look at the way Randall Munroe explains some basic physics in his blog: cartoon diagrams and jokes about death rays. Isn’t it so much more fun that way?

If I had more time on my hands, and if I could draw, I’d be writing a complete introduction to calculus. With stick figures, lasers, and actually understandable text.

Maybe I should try.

* Calculus: Graphical, Numerical, Algebraic, by Finney, Demana, Waits, and Kennedy.

I’ve often blogged (click the words to see my previous posts) about education in the past. As I am a high school student, it’s a topic that’s rather close to my heart.

I recently came across a like-minded blog post that spurred me into action. I’m a student: I can easily talk to dozens of teachers and students to get their opinions on the state of our education system. At the same time, I’m a website administrator: I can easily set up a website to spread my message.

These two facts collided shortly after I read the aforementioned blog entry. The Web is an amazing place to spread ideas and coordinate a grass-roots movement, so, why not? Assuming nobody’s done it before (tough assumption on the Internet), I think I have a new website to start.

What’ll it do? A variety of things, really. I think the key point will be to collect all of these ideas espoused in blog posts and personal websites into one neat and concise resource for students and teachers to read, then start spreading this around to teachers. If you’d like to help, or you know a blog post that has some helpful ideas, post a comment.

I’ve talked to quite a few people who agree that high school students focus too much on grades and too little on the actual learning — that students aim to improve their numbers, not their understanding. A good example would be the high school students who take vast numbers of college-level classes not because they care about the material, but because the classes may help their GPA or just look impressive. As an even better example, in the state of Texas, the top 10% of each graduating class (usually ranked by GPA) gets automatic admission into state universities, no questions asked. Students vying for top places add and drop classes to gain extra points and move up in rankings. Surely education shouldn’t be a competition where the person with the most points wins. School is about education and learning, not strategy — right?

Ideally. I generally agree with the anti-grade crowd. I’m more pro-learning. But what can be done?

I was talking with a friend about this on Saturday, and she suggested a rather creative solution.

Ditch grades altogether.
Read more »

Science is limited by what scientists are capable of measuring. Our understanding of reality can only reach as far as our best experiments. If you were to ask any physicist, they’d tell you that physics stops at what we can measure: beyond that, we reach metaphysics, the land of unfounded speculation about why physics works. It is literally impossible to ever test a hypothesis in metaphysics because, by definition, no experiment can enter the world of metaphysics.

Someone go tell that to an English professor.
Read more »

I think education needs to take a hint from the Internet. Peer-to-peer communication, using protocols like BitTorrent, forms a significant share of all of the traffic on the Internet. No longer is the Internet a simple client-server model — content can be shared from user to user.

How does that relate to education? Well, teaching has been client-server for a long time, with the “client” being your average student and the “server” being your average teacher. It’s a server-push system: the server pushes content to the client and hopes that it accepts and understands it correctly.

That’s kind of dumb.
Read more »

Michael Shermer wrote a book called Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time, which I own and have read several times. I always find it fascinating, but recently I’ve been thinking about Shermer’s main point: why, in fact, people do believe weird things.

Shermer’s point can be summed up with a few quotes:

More than any other reason, the reason people believe weird things is because they want to. It feels good. It is comforting.

Immediate gratification. Many weird things offer immediate gratification.

And finally, Shermer lists the last reasons as: simplicity, morality and meaning, and “hope springs eternal.”

I disagree.
Read more »

I hear people say they aren’t good at taking tests all the time. “I understand the material, but when I take the test, I fail!”

I can understand this problem for people who get excessively nervous and can’t think when they take the test. But for people who take the test with a sound mind?

I think this is a problem of understanding. I don’t think “not being good at taking tests” is a fair excuse; the problem is far deeper.

Refer to my earlier post for details.