Studente espulso in malo modo e con scarica elettrica dall’incontro con il Senatore Kerry? Libertà di parola, o libertà di seguire un incontro con Kerry in pace? Libertà di essere prepotenti e impossessarsi di un microfono, o libertà/dovere di imporre il rispetto delle regole? Lo studente è libero di fare causa.
nessun tagHo trovato in rete il seguente bel test di logica. Mi piace assai perchè è una metafora della Scienza (sto pensando a Popper).
Ci sono delle carte con numeri su un lato e lettere sul lato opposto. Qualcuno formula la seguente ipotesi:
“Se la lettera di una carte è una VOCALE allora sul lato opposto c’è un numero PARI!”
Sono disposti su un tavolo quattro di queste carte:
A, B, 4, 7
Domanda: quali carte dovete girare per verificare l’ipotesi?
nessun tagI am here in my office after listening to students for a few hours. To recover I am listening to music, the best medicine for the soul.
1) Toccata of Monteverdi’s Orfeo for instant recovery. This stuff can shake any depression off!
2) opening piece from Bach’s Magnificat in D major for flying high and away!
3) opening sinfonia of Stradella’s Oratory of St. John Baptist for getting physical and staying happy.
4) opening sinfonia from Bach’s Easter Oratory for moving my body and shaking my bum.
5) opening sinfonia of Purcell’s Dido and Aeneas tickles my body while touching a tragic chord.
6) opening Bach’s Matthews’ Passion gets both my body and SOUL to sing!
nessun tag
Christine Boutin, neo ministro di Sarkozy delle Politiche Urbane e degli Alloggi, aveva detto, in campagna elettorale, che «Il fatto che i siti che rimettono in causa l’11 settembre siano visitati ogni giorno da milioni di navigatori, mi spingono a pensare che l’espressione della massa e del popolo non possa non basarsi su un fondo di verità». Era la sua profonda argomentazione alla domanda "Secondo lei, Bush può essere all’origine degli attentati dell’11 settembre?"
Mio Dio che stupidaggine! Sarko! Mandala a casa!!!!!!!!!
nessun tag
Vi segnalo un commento di Victor Hanson. Hanson è di destra ed è ottimista quindi non sarà digeribile ai più, ma merita comunque una attenta lettura.
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson070407.html
nessun tagL’altra sera (martedi 8 maggio) la puntata di OTTO e 1/2 di Giuliano Ferrara aveva come titolo “L’Università, l’Innovazione ed il nostro Futuro: il modello americano”. Gli ospiti erono Ronald Spogli, ambasciatore Usa, Luigi Nicolais, ministro delle Riforme e Innovazione, l’ottimo John L. Hennessy, Presidente Università di Stanford e, in collegamento da San Francisco, il bravissimo Alberto Sangiovanni Vincentelli dell’Università di California, Berkeley.
Il nostro ministro ha figurato bene. Mi è piaciuto, ed è piacuito agli ospiti in studio, la sua frase (più o meno) "Non esiste ricerca di base o ricerca applicata: esiste la ricerca buona e quella cattiva." Bravo! Ma chi decide se una ricerca è buona o cattiva? L’attuale meccanismo dei finanziamento dei PRIN (PRogetti di Interesse Nazionale) non è buono perchè non prevede una interazione iterata tra il proponente di un progetto e i referee. Se un referee da parere negativo ad un progetto non è previsto che il proponente controbatta quel parere o contesti il referee chiedendone uno alternativo. I referee sono persone e possono sbagliare in buona e cattiva fede. In ogni caso sarebbe opportuno che un proponente abbia la possibilità di rispondere alle crtiche dei referee.
nessun tagDiscussions about religion flare up frequently. Believers versus non-believers; Catholics, Islamics, Hebrews,.. versus each other and versus athesists; secularists versus traditionalists; … But these never get anywhere. People don’t get convinced to believe more or less as a result of "discussions". Any attempt to frame a religion or religious figures in historic terms, speaking of influences, interpretations, falsifications, or verified events and dates, leaves out the true essence of religion, namely FAITH.
Faith is a mental attitude where you believe, not because of some net positive evaluation of the sources and evidence, but because you abandon yourself to it. Faith is abandonment, letting yourself go, like drowning safely in a calm ocean of amniotic fluids.
Horror Vacui. Fear of emptiness is subtle. It shapes and eats at the sense of self of individuals and groups of people more than what simpltons and foolish materialist thinkers think. I am not religious, but I am always deeply impressed by the need and ability of humans to believe, without question, in things regarding "deep" issues, not only superficial things (hear say) and ordinary matters (headline news). When I was younger I despised those that believed without question. I now recognize it is an extremely powerful, very human trait and quite ubiquitous. It can bring good and evil consequences, nobody is immune. We all run risks of messing up our lives and those of others, but we can also reach for the stars. Powerful, terrible and wonderful.
However when a faithful person and a non-believer meet, and even make a very big effort to speak to each other in an educated way, hold nice debates and show all kinds of formal openness, there is no real conversation going on, no real exchange of ideas. Faith does not thrive on new information. It is unsurprised by positive evidence (of course!) and it is perfectly capable of remaining unshaken by contrary evidence (A photographic film that does not capture a supernatural event is not expected to!). On the other hand, the non-believer does not even conceive the firmness of the believer.
Why can’t they find common ground? Because "evidence", "certainty" and "truth" do not have the same meaning. For a believer evidence is superfluous, with truth and certainty beyond the reach of imperfect evidence. For the non-believer, evidence is crucial and it plays a strategic and tactical role in a debate. Of course any good scientist knows that evidence is always imperfect, but this is ammunition for the believer. The argument of science is never a proof or disproof but one of likely-hood. But this is meaningless to the believer, also because to him a likely belief is not very impressive. To him an impressive belief is an un-likely one.
nessun tagDa bravo italiano d’adozione sono un grandissimo consumatore ed estimatore di pasta. Vi racconto un’idea per una serie di spot TV.
Premessa: l’idea è una variazione di una trovata umoristica dello show David Letterman della TV americana. Letterman si diverte ad immaginare di inserire una pubblicità di uno sponsor in un documentario della DISCOVERY CHANNEL: un documentario sugli eschimesi con una voce fuori campo commenta lo stile di vita e dice “lo sapevate che gli eschimesi hanno 25 modi di dire ghiaccio?”. Poi la voce fuori campo aggiunge “lo sapevate che gli eschimesi hanno 50 modi diversi di dire pasticcio di pollo?” e a quel punto si vede la foto di un piatto di pasticcio di pollo con il logo dello sponsor, un’industria alimentare.
Dopo aver riso non poco ho pensato che l’idea potrebbe essere riciclata.
Immaginate un spot dove si inizia in stile documentaristico facendo vedere un gruppo di persone di una cultura diversa, esotica, in un paese lontano, supponiamo eschimesi. Si racconterebbe brevemente di un loro costume esotico (“lo sapevate che gli eschimesi …”). Poi l’inquadratura si sposta verso qualcuno che sta cucinando. Si vede del vapore acqueo uscire da una pentola di acqua in ebollizione. A quel punto la voce fuori campo direbbe “lo sapevate che gli eschimesi hanno 50 (?) modi di dire PASTA?” e si vede la persona chinarsi ad aprire un mobile con dentro un assortimento di confezioni di pasta. Con una zoomata si leggerebbe le scritte, lette a voce alta dal cuoco, SPAGHETTI, LINGUINE, MACCHERONI, PERCIATELLI, PENNE, RIGATONI, BUCATINI, FARFALLE,… Lo spot chiuderebbe con un gruppetto di eschimesi che mangiano contenti una pasta con uno di loro che dice agli altri “viva l’Italia, viva Barilla/De Cecco/ Voiello” whatever.
nessun tagI heard Lozano’s interview on TV and re-read it this morning in the news paper. 
I heard Sgrena on Italian TV many times ever since the Calipari tragedy took place. I don’t believe Sgrena! I am not refering to details (headlights on or off, car fast or slow, hundreds of bullets fired or a few tens). Sgrena aims high! Her declared political agenda has, in my eyes, made her lose any respectable sense of proportions. She repeatedly said and wrote that she was a TARGET; i.e. that the americans wanted her dead and that it was like an ambush. Lozano might be naive (his belief that there are still chances of finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq), but as a person he is more credible, sincere (his tears) and has more dignity than Sgrena. Poor Calipari. 
Lozano’s words regards Calipari and his family were moving. Sgrena is cold and blind, if not stupid, and the only parts of me that move when I hear or see her are my family jewels!
I participate to a history forum. The issue of scientific methods in history comes up occasionally and takes many forms, ranging from discussing methods for dating artefacts, modern techniques in archaeological excavations, to systematically “checking the sources” looking for consistencies or inconsistencies. At one point I wrote these following:
I hope the professional historians out there don’t get offended if I say that history is not a science. Even though scientific methods must be used to reconstruct a certain sequence of events or physical ambient, is it enough to make history a science? What is the real job of an historian?
History does not deal with facts in the same way that physical sciences do. One can say that Ceasar “really” did die of n+1 stabs on such and such a day, and not on another one, but think this is not the type of factoid knowledge that makes history interesting or attractive to professional historians or amateurs. It is the story telling that makes it fun! Its is fun to tell a nice story that makes sense. Making sense is making things connect! Actually this is very true also of the physical sciences. Science is a not just a collection of facts. What makes science interesting and useful is the network of links that makes sense, that connect many facts into a large picture that tells a nice story about how the physical world works. The real difference between history and science is that in science a very same story can be played over and over again in controlled settings called reproducible experiments, either until one stops because he is content or is discontent with the story. The fun in science is not to measure some odd quantity with some precision, but to add new evidence that gives credit to or debunks a certain "story".
Story telling! We humans just love to tell stories. Our brain (mind) is a wonderful hypothesis generator. First our senses analyse and deconstruct the external world, then our brain constructs a representation of the external world that should make sense. We look for connections and build stories. A string of isolated facts may be hard to memorize; it is far easier if the very same facts seem to find their place and meaning according to some story.
Metaphorically speaking, historians, to me, are like art restorers that try to restore a painting or fresco that time has filled with fungi, holes due to violent damage, as well as well-to-do damage such as that added on in "wrong" restorations by artists and restorers over the centuries. But even an intact picture can tell a different story if the details "mean" (significance) different things to different viewers. And meanings do change over history. One of the jobs of a historian, in particular art historians is to try to reconstruct the meanings of symbols and artistic conventions of once upon a time. This problem issue becomes interesting when one tries to define what is a "wrong" restoration procedure. In modern restoration techniques, the basic idea is that you first consolidate and then whatever else you do should be REVERSIBLE. Our descendants, posterity, might have a different interpretation of the very same artefact. It happened before and it will happen again. This is very wise and philosophically stimulating. History as a discipline will never die.
In the physical sciences things are very different. In modern experimental sciences the phenomenon under study is not unique, but can be made to manifest itself many times. The idea is that if one can reproduce something then he can begin to hope to understand it. Warning: an idiot savant reproduces and out performs but doesn’t comprehend (understand). The reproducibility of experimental science contrasts fundamentally with what happens in history where one deals with unique historical events or single artefacts.
Historians also attempt to understand: they are certainly not content with just listing individual (isolated) unique facts, but they try to reconstruct a story and some look for structures (plots) in the many stories and try to identify "constants" or laws. Isn’t that what comprehension means? Understand something new in terms of one already knows. But in the physical sciences it is by far easier to understand because one can perform controlled experimentation with simple systems.
nessun tag
Commenti recenti