A scary vision of augmented reality and gamification

A somewhat scary vision of what augmented reality and gamification of our lives might look like in the future.

Can Scientists be Atheists?

Prominent scientists, for example Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, promote the idea that atheism and science are inherently linked and in support of one another (Wikipedia list of atheist scientists). However, this essay questions the validity of using science to support atheist viewpoints.

There are three different questions that need to be answered. First, do you believe that a higher being (deity, God) exists? Second, if yes, what is the nature of that higher being? Third, do you believe that you can gain knowledge (revelation) about the nature of a higher being? See figure 1.

Figure 1: Nature of God decision diagram

The first question (nature of a higher being) can be answered in three different ways:

• Theism: Belief in the existence of a higher being who is responsible for the initial formation of the universe and continues to causally interact (personal God). As a theist deity continues to interfere with the world, the actions of a theist deity can be experienced (Religion with revelation).
• Deism: Belief in the existence of a higher being who is responsible for the initial formation of the universe only, but does no longer interfere (impersonal God). As a deist deity no longer interacts with the world, the deity itself cannot be experienced (Religion without revelation).
• Atheist: An atheist is a person who is certain that no deities exist. An atheist rejects the existence of deities and holds the position that there are no deities.

The second question can be answered in two different ways:

• Gnostic: Belief that one can gain knowledge of the nature and existence of a higher being.
• Agnostic: Thomas Henry Huxley, who coined the word “agnostic” in 1869, defined it as: “Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.“ An agnostic believes that nothing can be known of the existence or nature of deities (or of anything beyond material phenomena). An agnostic is a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Answering the two basic questions allows for several combinations (See diagram). For example, Christians are (typically) gnostic-theists (belief that there exists a personal higher being that interacts with the world and that one can learn about the nature of this deity).

Many prominent scientists label themselves as atheists, but does science provide a basis to for atheism? Can a person, in his or her role as a scientist, know about the nature of deities (that are transcended = above natural principles) based on scientific evidence?

The answer must clearly be no. From a (simplified) epistemological point of view, science constructs falsifiable models that aim to explain repeated observations of phenomena in the natural world. By definition, science does not and cannot make statements about “super”-natural phenomena (phenomena that are outside of the laws of nature). The method of science only deals with the natural world. Statements about the existence and nature of deities lay outside the realm of science and scientists. Science does not provide the tools for gnosis (revelation). A theistic view would be in conflict with scientists' understanding of natural processes, as a theist deity could causally interfere and therefore alter natural processes at will, which could be empirically observed and tested. As science cannot make statement about supernatural deities, it does not support atheist viewpoints. I think the only possible position for a scientist is agnostic. Only agnostics hold the view that we cannot know about deities - because it is a question outside of the realm of science.

The Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza asked an important fourth question: What do we mean by “God”? Spinoza disagreed with Descartes about the duality between mind and body and concluded that everything that exists in Nature (=everything in the universe) is one and the same reality. Therefore, as everything is subject to the same set of rules,  “God” is no longer an entity outside of the system. “God” and “Nature” become synonymous terms. Spinoza viewed “God” not as an entity outside of nature (super-natural) but as an emergent property of the complex system of nature itself. Spinoza’s God is the embodiment of all intricately connected laws of nature. From this viewpoint, scientists could be considered religious knowledge seekers as they study the patterns of nature (aka “God”) (See figure 2). Not surprisingly, many scientists since the enlightenment shared Spinoza’s views of God, including Albert Einstein. Einstein said “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” (New York Times, April 25, 1929).

Figure 2: Spinoza's God

Spinoza’s view of God even aligns with hard-core atheists like Richard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins argued that he is an “atheist” because in his work as a scientist he (so far) never needed to add “God” as a variable to explain a natural phenomenon. In Spinoza’s view, “God” is not an external variable but all variables combined. It can be assumed that most self-proclaimed atheists would not have an issue with Spinoza’s view of God but only with the idea of a personal God (theism) (who can meddle with humans and natural laws at will). Most “atheists” would therefore be more accurately described as “anti-theists”.

This essay concludes with two statements. First, whenever you make a statement about “God” you should disclose in which role you are making this statement: As an individual you are (and always should be) free to believe whatever you like. However, if you make a statement in your role as a scientist, then you are bound to falsifiable statements and evidence. Science, by its very definition, does not provide the tools to prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of supernatural deities. Astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson describes himself as an “agnostic”. When talking about supernatural deities, the only position a scientist can take is agnostic. An agnostic answers the question “Is there a God?” with “I don’t know because I cannot know”. Second, when talking about God you should always clarify what you mean by “God”: Do you consider God a personal or impersonal entity? Do you consider God to be outside of nature or an emergent property of nature itself? Applying some philosophical rigor (and tolerance) to religious discussions could avoid many misunderstandings and unproductive arguments.

Additional discussion about agnosticism and atheistism here.

Also, see this video on the discussion an atheism.

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson describes himself as "agnostic":

How to get the most out of attending research conferences

Research conference presentation

How to get the most out of attending research conferences

Pre

-Look at the program: Search for key players names or keywords.

-Contact people to meet for lunch or dinner

-Look at attractions of the conference location

During

-Have your business cards ready (e.g. in the back of your name badge holder).

-Observe examples of good and bad presentation strategies.

-Take notes of cutting edge research findings and methods (that you might use for your own work)

-Network and socialise: meet new people, meet old friends, connect other people, talk to mentors.

-Identify hot topics (for possible future research/ grant proposals).

-Extend your horizon by attending talks from areas other than your own research.
-Take breaks. Going to events non-stop is exhausting. Go see some sights of the location.

Post

-Send follow-up emails to people you talked to.

-Go through your notes and extract valuable information.

-Share interesting notes with the community, e.g. blog.

-Read interesting papers presented at the conference.

Additional tips on successfully navigating conferences can be found here: http://www.gradhacker.org/2012/06/25/successfully-navigating-conferences/

A review of 20 years of research in the Learning Sciences

Janet Kolodner

Below are my notes from the keynote talk given at the 10th bi-annual international conference of the Learning Sciences by Janet Kolodner, one of the founders of the field of Learning Sciences.

The Learning Sciences started in the late 1980s with the foundation of the "Journal of the Learning Sciences" (JLS). The Learning Sciences (LS) are a multi-disciplinary field that aims to develop models of learning in real-world situations. LS combines constructs and methods from a variety of fields, such as cognitive science, computer science, educational psychology, anthropology, science education research, and linguistics. Findings from the Learning Sciences appeal to multiple audiences and aim to have an impact on education.

Basic observations:

-In the 21st century, everyone needs to continue learning to fully participate in the workforce and citizenry (because available tools are changing fast).

-Education may be the way to close the equity gap.

-Schools (in the dominant industrial-model as we know them) can't do it all.

After 20 years of Learning Sciences research, what do we know about learning?

1) Learning deeply (as a process of mental model building) requires sustained and long-term effort and requires a lot of help (facilitation, scaffolding): Helping learners build mental models.

a) From a cognitive perspective, learning is a process of iteratively constructing, revising, and connecting concepts (mental models, ideas, etc.): Factual knowledge and procedural knowledge.

-Becoming fluid at reasoning skills is an iterative process of composing and debugging sequences of procedural knowledge ("How-to") [Schank & Abelson; Anderson; Newell, Rosenbloom & Laird]

b) We can only learn on the edges of what we already know (Zone of proximal development) [Vygotsky]

-We realise a need for learning if we can't do something we want to do, something turns out differently than expected, or something happens that we can't explain [Schank & Abelson; Anderson]

c) Revising one's mental models requires a great deal of reflection and interpretation [Bransford; Collins; Schank]

-Framing first, details later [Collins]

-Repeated deliberate practice: Help learners to repeatedly experience the result of their decisions and interpret and reflect on those results to debug their reasoning.

-Promote asking questions and wonder to identify holes in one's mental models.

-Tell only when learners are ready (A time for telling); Give learners a role in telling their peers.

-Give learners learning goals that are relevant to them to put in the mental energy to revise mental models.

-Help learners to connect ideas (mental models) by helping them recognise and revisit prior ideas [Linn]

2) Promoting and sustaining active engagement is key to learning: Intrinsic motivation

a) Personal and epistemological connections promote engagement [Papert; Resnick]

-Learners connect when they can connect to prior knowledge.

-Learners connect when they are interested, e.g. by using authentic real-world settings such as real audiences.

b) "Communities of Practice" [Lave, Wenger]

-Encouraging community (affinity groups, interest groups, communities of practice) encourages engagement.

-Community can be created in formal and informal learning environments by creating activities that promote shared values and ways of doing [Kolodner]

-Community engagement gives learners opportunities to imagine what they might be.

c) "Thick authenticity" for maintaining integrity [Schaffer and Resnick]

-Solving authentic problems relevant to the world learners live in by having available the same kinds of tools and resources professionals would have

-Big questions or challenges promote personal connection [Krajcik; Edelson; Reiser; Kolodner]

-Assessment should be authentic, embedded and meaningful to learners.

d) Turning over agency to learners allows learners to decide for themselves to participate [Holland]\

-Knowledge building with a community results in collective cognitive responsibility, mental model building and knowledge integration [Scardamalia; Bereiter; Linn].

e) Provide scaffolds that promote success (including productive failure) and self-assessment

3) The one-size-fits-all approach does not work, as everyone's interests and Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) are different (This also applies to teachers as learners).

_____________________________________

A vision for learning environments of the future:

-Less emphasis on "lessons" and more emphasis on "challenges": Lessons are about doing something, challenges are about achieving something.

-Lectures will be for purposes identified by learners. Lectures will be often short, interactive, and impromptu. Lectures should be recorded to allow revisiting.

-Reading will be for purposes identified by learners to answer questions they have raised.

-Classrooms will be places where students and teachers address challenges together. Solving design challenges provide rich learning opportunities. Challenges can be of local relevance. Challenges can be done in groups (both within class and external).

-Learning will be purposeful: Skills and practices for living a life; for stewarding a planet; for health and well-being; for someday joining a workforce; for actively participating in civic life.

-Assessment will be purposeful: Assessment not only for accountability (e.g. current standardized assessments) but for the purpose of scaffolding and promoting self-monitoring.

-Learning technologies will be integrated in purposeful ways, e.g. models (show hidden mechanisms); simulations (allow to understand what happens when); communications to connect with communities, resources, and experts; videos; visual interfaces to access and analyse data; sharing data with real audiences; embedded assessments. Needed: Technologies should not be stand-alone but integrated across disciplines, grades and time (learning trajectories); used for learning and assessment; used by teachers and students; used in and out of school. Learning often happens during the interaction between community members while using technology - make that part of the design.

Some good examples:

-Students learn about chemistry through the challenge of improving the air quality in their community.

-Students learn about the process of science by improving cooking recipes.

How can Learning Sciences research gain more influence?

1) Practice what we preach! e.g. in teacher education courses, curriculum design

2) Building on each others' work to focus on integration: Work on coordinated projects. Integrate findings.

3) Shift towards implementing research in the community: Work with interpreters and integrators (who take the best of our ideas and products and hold them into integrated platforms and packages). Not every researcher has to take research to practice, but all should be willing to make their findings and products available.

4) In order to successfully implement technology in the classroom, teachers need to know how to use it.

5) We need to evaluate under what circumstances technology and instructional strategies are effective: First, identify why and under what circumstances technology works effectively in small trials (understand affordances and challenges); second, large controlled random trials; third, implement your innovative product (scale up, but not before rigorous testing). To make implementations successful, they need appropriate teacher professional development.

6) Work on what's important: Start by identifying challenges of national or international importance.

7) Learning science research should draw from at least three different literatures (cross- and inter-disciplinary), otherwise your work is not important enough.

Visualizing Western Philosophy

Simon Raper used Wikipedia and gephi to generate a graph the shows which philosopher influenced one another. Building on social network analysis, the graph can be used to identify most influencial philosophers (not surprisingly, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Marx and Nietzsche).

The original blog post also describes the procedure how the graph was generated: http://drunks-and-lampposts.com/2012/06/13/graphing-the-history-of-philosophy/

Network of Western Philosophers (Click here to enlarge)
[Created by Simon Raper]

People interested in a dynamic visualization of Western Philosophy (with a focus on education) might be interested in this Webbrain (Click on a term to read the notes below or type a search term in the box):