Moon Race?

Can I just say how ridiculous I find headlines like this, from CNN:

Is NASA losing the moon race?

Because, you know, NASA already won the Moon race, in 1969. Fifty-six years ago! Who cares whether China sends people to the Moon before we go back? We've already been there.

And why are we going back at all? NASA says it's an essential part of their plan to get to Mars, but I don't buy it. 

What an utterly stupid thing to worry about.

Hype vs. Science in Medical Research

Behold one of the greatest graphics ever produced. Each red dot represents one "scientific" study study arguing that the food in question either causes or prevents cancer, with the distance from the center line representing the size of the alleged effect. The data comes from a 2013 article by Jonathan Schoenfeld and the irrepressible John Ioannidis (author of the famous article, "Why Most Published Research Findings are False.") Gotta love the spread for milk.

We need to get scientists and reporters to stop hyping the results of single studies. At a deeper level, it seems to me that we need a better way to approach these problems than all of these statistical mishmashes, although I have no idea what that would be. Maybe better understanding of cellular physiology will help discriminate between potentially real and nonsensical results. But maybe not.

What's Really Going on at Stonehenge

By now you have probably all heard about the new discoveries at Stonehenge. They are cool. But I am not inclined to rave about them because the discoverers have grotesquely exaggerated their novelty and importance. Which I suppose is nothing new; people have a habit of doing that. What bugs me about the new claims is that the louder these guys shout about their revolutionary advances the more they slight everybody who ever wrote about Stonehenge before. Most of what they are claiming to have discovered has long been known, and when they say that they have reached some new understanding they imply that everyone who came before them was a narrow-minded idiot.

Like this:

"Stonehenge is undoubtedly a major ritual monument, which people may have traveled considerable distances to come to, but it isn't just standing there by itself," project leader Vincent Gaffney, an archaeologist at the University of Birmingham in the U.K., told Live Science. "It's part of a much more complex landscape with processional and ritual activities that go around it. That's very different from how this has been viewed before. The important point is Stonehenge is not alone. There was lots of other associated ritual activity going on around it."

Well. Consider the map above, which is an Ordnance Survey map made in the nineteenth century. Does it look to you like Stonehenge is alone? Or did people already know in 1850 that there was "other associated ritual activity around it"? The density of ritual features in this landscape has been the main theme of Stonehenge studies for about, oh, 150 years.

Here's a map that shows some (not all) of the monuments around Stonehenge that were known before this latest mapping exercise.

But anyway, what did they find? Using remote sensing techniques, mainly ground-penetrating radar, they have mapped a bunch of older earthworks, woodhenge circles, and buildings (images above and second from top). Some of these are not really new, but have only been mapped in greater resolution; I would have to go carefully through their publications to see what is actually new, and I haven't had time. But they are claiming that some are new --15 is a number being batted around -- and that is certainly plausible. They also got really solid evidence that Stonehenge was once a complete circle, as everybody already thought -- nice to know that the full circle shows up clearly on the radar.

This structure is interpreted as a mortuary temple,

looking like this. Quite wonderful. Video (with creepy Bronze Age priests) at Smithsonian.com.

This map shows the features they say are new. So a substantial addition to the landscape, but hardly revolutionary or transformative or whatever dramatic word you like.

My favorite discovery is this large pit near the western end of the Cursus (a long narrow enclosure of obscure purpose and uncertain age); can't wait for someone to dig into it. Plus I love this graphic.

So, lots of good stuff which I would like to be happy about, if these people hadn't been such jerks.

The Hype Cycle

I just discovered that Jackie Fenn of internet research firm Gartner has attempted to quantify the "hype cycle" by which new tech ideas are invented, hyped to the skies, fall back to earth, and then gradually climb toward real usefulness or profitability. Above is the 2013 version of the chart, showing where various new technologies fall on the curve.

I would add that many much hyped new technologies never make it onto the useful part of the curve, but fall off along the way, and also that some, like AI, have gone up and down the hype mountain several times, perhaps spinning off modestly useful technologies along the way but never approaching their claimed potential.

Guess the Subject of this Article

The title: GO BIG AND TELL THE TRUTH

Could it be advice for novelists? Or perhaps for whistleblowers?

No.

A flattering profile of a presidential candidate? Or the title of a campaign autobiography?

No.

A new political news blog?

No.

I have it: it must be about one of those conferences where motivational gurus pump up salesmen and marketers, a line from from Zig Ziglar or somebody like him.

No.

Give up?

It's a review of men's fashion week in Milan.

No, I don't have an idea what it means.

Today's Nonsensical Artspeak

The mind boggles:

These four artists -- Ringo Bunoan (The Philippines), Young Rim Lee (South Korea), Ng Joon Kiat (Singapore), and Yu Ji (China) -- come from four different countries that together span East and South East Asia. Placed besides one another, the art work of these four artists show a certain unity as much as a distinction. This unity is a commitment to the materiality of artistic practice not simply the basis of much of artistic practice but, as its subject. Utilizing cloth or cardboard, paint, wood or stone, almost all materials have not been previously used. They are raw or manufactured materials to be used or re-used. The process or, in other words, the very making or construction of their work is integral to the subject itself. The work gains its inspiration not from some external factor, as if imposed from without. The work builds through and out of itself. That is, it comes from within, out of a then unclear logic inscribed in the first lineaments, if not principles, of its construction. The understanding of this logic comes through the process of working and reflection and working again. There is a slow succession of decisive actions, additions or interventions. There is nothing swift about this process nor necessarily certain. It may fail or not succeed to build. Or, hopefully, it will gain momentum and the process continues and then perhaps stops. Finished. The work is done. The work is, in this moment, an artwork, gaining an autonomy which is neither contingent on an external factor nor, at this point, on the artist. The artwork becomes itself, autonomous. It speaks out of itself and to the viewer whose curiosity lead to an engagement. . . . Let me start again. This is wood, paint, cloth, stone, cardboard that each have a certain banal or commonplace character. However, the use of this manifested materiality involves a change of form, of shape and function. We do not see this process, as described above, so much as experience its outcome. Through this process, we become witness to the poetics of materiality. The work of each of the artists and the artwork they create is about this process of transformation of materials from the mundane to the poetic.

Brick Brownstones

Is it pedantic of me to protest that these brick and frame houses are being sold as the Brownstones at Bethesda? Not to mention that they are said to be in "North Bethesda," which is a made up place -- they might as well just say, "We wish these were in Bethesda but they aren't."

A New Map Does not Explain Lee's Decisions at Gettysburg

They're baiting me.

It's these people who always think that their new technology or their new insight or whatever will overturn all the received wisdom. We hates them all. And now comes a new bunch, GIS analysts this time, claiming that their new map "may explain Lee's decisions at Gettysburg." What is particularly galling about this claim is that Lee's decisions at Gettysburg have already been explained to the satisfaction of every Civil War buff I know.

But in the guise of fairness, I will allow them to present their case:

On the second day of fighting at Gettysburg, Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee listened to scouting reports, scanned the battlefield and ordered his second-in-command, James Longstreet, to attack the Union Army's left flank. It was a fateful decision, one that led to one of the most desperate clashes of the entire Civil War — the fight for a piece of ground called Little Round Top. The Union's defense of the boulder-strewn promontory helped send Lee to defeat at Gettysburg, and he never again ventured into Northern territory. Why did the shrewd and canny Lee choose to attack, especially in the face of the Union's superior numbers?

Does this have to be explained again? Because if this is mysterious to certain contemporary historians, it was certainly not mysterious to anyone in 1863. Every soldier in both armies knew that Lee would attack if given a chance. On the night of July 2, Meade convened a staff meeting and polled his Corps commanders about what to do the next day. Every single one agreed that Lee would attack again, and that the best approach for the Union army was to stay on the defensive. How did they know?

1. Lee wanted a battle, because he thought that only by winning a major battle could he advance the cause of Confederate independence;
2. He preferred to attack, because military doctrine going back through Napoleon to the Duke of Marlborough held that truly decisive victories could more easily be won on the offensive;
3. He knew perfectly well that he was outnumbered, but thought he could win anyway because he believed the Union troops were inferior to his own and badly led;
4. And once the battle had begun, Lee's aggressive instincts took over and he pressed the thing as far as he could. It was Longstreet who explained that once Lee's "blood was up," there was no stopping him, and Longstreet presumably understood Lee's decision-making process better than any GIS map can.

But no, these factors apparently pale in comparison to the BIG NEW INSIGHT, which is that

From his vantage point, Lee simply couldn't see throngs of Union soldiers amid the hills and valleys. "Our analysis shows that he had a very poor understanding of how many forces he was up against, which made him bolder," said Middlebury College professor Anne Knowles, whose team produced the most faithful re-creation of the Gettysburg battlefield to date, using software called GIS, or geographic information systems.

I can only throw up my hands.

Maps are great. GIS is cool. But in this case GIS only substitutes for the way people have understood the battlefield since 1863, which is by visiting it and walking around. No serious historian would ever write about a battle without visiting the site and exploring it on foot or horseback or however it was the commanders saw it. Since 1865 the US Army has been staging "staff rides" during which officers explore battlefields in just this way, often with first-hand accounts of the battle in their pockets, trying to see what it was that soldiers and commanders saw. Every good battlefield tour guide -- Gettysburg has several outstanding rangers who give awesome tours -- will point out the key lines of sight and explain when it was crucial that commanders could or could not see things. Park planners, as I know from experience, use these lines of sight as key factors in laying out their trails and waysides.

Yes, what commanders could and could not see was often crucial in battle, and everybody already knows this.

To get back to Gettysburg, Lee certainly could not from his vantage point understand the complex terrain around Little Round Top and the Devil's Den or tell how many men defended it. As things turned out, though, that obscurity was an advantage for Longstreet's men, neutralizing the superior Federal artillery and preventing them from massing their greater numbers against the Confederate assault. This attack was very successful, considering that the attackers were outnumbered, and some people think it came very close to breaking the Union line and driving them off Cemetery Ridge. Since Lee was by nature a bold risk-taker and in this circumstance was determined to force a battle if there was any chance of victory, knowing the actual odds would only have encouraged him.

The Stupid Hype about 3-D Printing

The sort of people who always think the latest technology is going to transform the world all agog over 3-D printing. Somehow it is going to transform our economies, empower individuals, undermine political authority (just like the internet did), and even change how we experience art. Apparently sane people say rave about print at home sculptures and say things like,

It may have as profound an impact on the world as the coming of the factory did.

Like, wow. Now we can make plastic junk in our own homes via an expensive, painfully slow, energy inefficient process!

Not that 3-D printing isn't cool, but in our world we are already really, really good at manufacturing things quickly and cheaply. Improvements in manufacturing plastic or metal parts are just not what our world needs. More junk, I think, imagining houses full of gargoyle figurines.

But we can 3-D print guns! So? The world is awash in guns and buying one on the black market is about as hard as buying pot.

We can 3-D print food from powdered carbohydrates! Yum.

It will bring manufacturing back to the US! Why? All the factors that make manufacturing cheaper in China still apply to 3-D printing.

We can 3-D print metal parts from powdered alloys! I suppose this might be useful for, say, making parts for antique cars, but the cost is several dozen times that for smelting and molding.

We can scan any object and make a plastic copy of it! How many objects are there in the world that really need to be duplicated? Like that gargoyle figurine in the picture, which was copied in this way. Is the existence of a second identical gargoyle figurine going to transform anything?

We can 3-D print organs! No, we can 3-D print fake organs, and when it comes to real ones my money is still on using DNA manipulation to get nature to grow them for us.

We can 3-D print cells! Well, not yet, but people say we will soon. To which I answer, why would we want to make one from scratch when we could reprogram some organism's DNA and let it make the cell for us?

I probably shouldn't be too flip, because 3-D printing has its niche and it is being used in many manufacturing enterprises. It will get better. So it is important. But it is important in the way that, say, the continuous casting process for steel or the roller mill for flour is, a different way of doing something we are already very good at. It will not transform your life or mine.

Mars One is a Made-for-TV Hoax

Mars One is a bunch of dreamers who want to set up a colony on Mars. They have just announced their competition for future astronauts, which you can join by sending a one-minute video explaining why you want to go on a one-way trip to Mars. They will then begin training and weeding out the contestants, I mean astronauts, via the ultimate reality TV show:

Mars One estimates that it needs $6 billion to send the first four astronauts to Mars. This money will cover developing the landing systems, habitats, Mars Transit Vehicle (MTV), rovers, solar arrays and other technologies associated with the colony, as well as pay for the crew's journey from Earth.

Every subsequent crew trip would cost $4 billion, Lansdorp told SPACE.com. Just sending a supply lander would cost $250 million. Mars One plans to raise this money largely through a global reality television series that will follow the colonization effort from astronaut selection to the first landing and the settlement’s expansion.

The audience will vote for who gets to go to Mars from a pool of candidates selected by Mars One’s experts. Lansdorp points to the 2012 London Olympics and the $4 billion it generated from television revenues over its three weeks as evidence that such a funding plan can work.

Their goal is to put people on Mars by 2023. Would anybody like to take a bet that this won't happen? I'll give ten to one odds.

I especially like the way they have estimated the cost of the mission without having a design for the spacecraft. Please.

But, hey, why not a televised competition for astronauts? Makes more sense than choosing a spouse that way.

The Higgs Boson is Not a God Particle

Just let me say, in advance of what will be an interesting scientific announcement, that the Higgs boson is not a uniquely important entity that somehow controls the universe. Advance gossip says that CERN has confirmed the existence of the particle, which confirms the "standard model" of sub-atomic physics. That is fairly important. But it will in no way change the world. Whoever dubbed the thing the "God particle" was engaging in lunatic hyperbole. Journalists who keep repeating the phrase don't understand physics and don't care how ridiculous they sound as long as they get readers.

The simplest version of the standard model gives everything a mass of zero, and the Higgs field and the Higgs boson were hypothesized as the mechanism that gives some things mass. If the Higgs does exist and does what the theory predicts, that would be a powerful sign that the standard model depicts the universe pretty well. More, it suggests that the logic behind the standard model is the right sort of logic for understanding the sub-atomic world.

Unfortunately, physicists have hit a dead end in trying to expand the standard model to gravity, which is why they have gotten into string theory and other arcane approaches. Many of us were hoping that the Higgs would not be found, since that would point to a flaw in the standard model and possibly suggest a way forward for physics. But if the Higgs is real, then the standard model holds, and we are still left with two beautiful and powerful but unreconcilable theories: the standard model for the sub-atomic world and general relativity for the world of big things whose interactions are controlled by gravity.

So kudos to the people at CERN if they have really pinpointed the Higgs, and shame on all the hucksters who have made this discovery out to be something bigger than the discovery of the proton or the electron.