Science Rhymes (and resonates)

So, on April 29th this is happening:

My colleague Gerardo Adesso, who leads the Quantum Correlations group here at Nottingham — who have a very clever logo indeed, it must be said — is a man of many talents and has been writing poems and limericks to accompany each Physical Review Letter he publishes. He’s decided to extend that poetry challenge to other scientists via the Science Rhymes event described in the tweet above.

Gerardo was kind enough to relax the rules ever so slightly for yours truly — I was given special dispensation to write a song rather than a poem for “Science Rhymes”. I’ve been banging the drum for the importance of bridging the STEM-arts & humanities gap at every available opportunity so leapt at the chance when Gerardo asked if I could contribute. The song I’ve written, (un)certain, is embedded below (via SoundCloud), followed by the lyrics. The theme is resonance, which is at the core of the dynamic force microscopy technique we use in our research (as described in this video; at about the 3:04 minute mark into (un)certain, I’ve sampled the sound of the force microscope signal.) There’s also a heavy dose of quantum mechanical allusion mixed (none so subtly) into the lyric — we work with single atoms and molecules (and, indeed, single chemical bonds) so are very definitely in the quantum regime.

“Resonance” is, of course, used in a much wider sense than just its technical physics (and engineering) context: “in tune with…“, “on the same wavelength…“, “in harmony…” all describe how we connect — how we resonate — on a very human level. (un)certain is about the certainty of that type of resonance. Think of it as a quantum love song…

 

(un)certain

a time and a place

in our reciprocal space

closer than close

yes, we resonate…

entangled webs we weave

our universe is calling

a matter of phase or faith?

 

…and as the waves come crashing down

we collapse into this state

uncertainty fades

we’ve finally found our way

 

worlds apart

and we lucked out

 

for Lori

Blast from the past

While searching my e-mail archive for a message from years ago, I stumbled across this unpublished submission to the letters page of the Times Higher Education. More than a decade later, I’m still smarting a little that they didn’t accept it for publication…

From: Moriarty Philip
Sent: 30 November 2008 20:48
To: letters@tsleducation.com
Subject: Comment on “‘Clever crazies quitting science” (THE 27 Nov)

Bruce Charlton of the University of Buckingham argues that modern scientists are boring because they are mild-mannered, agreeable, and socially inoffensive (News, 27 November).

What a dickhead.

Philip Moriarty, Condensed Matter Scientist

School of Physics & Astronomy
University of Nottingham
Nottingham NG7 2RD

 

An avid fan writes…

This arrived in my mailroom pigeonhole today — a proper, honest to goodness, old-school letter (but, disappointingly, written in boring monochrome rather than the traditional green.) It’s a response, of sorts, to my recent letter to The Sunday Times. I can’t quite decide as to whether it’s a pitch-perfect parody — the line about girls not instinctively “learning to throw” is perhaps a little too good — or if my aggrieved correspondent somehow joined Jacob Rees-Mogg in teleporting here from the 18th century…

GreenInkLetter#123.jpeg

15 minutes of…

Quite why it’s taken me so long to discover this Tim Minchin gem, I don’t know. It was released back in January. Aeons ago. But it’s not just Minchin’s signature clever lyrics — case in point,

Pick up your pitchfork and your torch. We’ll go hunt the monster down. But keep an eye out for uneven ground.  We’ll turn on you if you stumble.

— his quirky vocals, and his wonderful “earworm” melodies that have had me playing “15 Minutes” on an infinite loop. It’s also about the closest to new Jellyfish music we’re ever going to get ever since that transcendent band went to the great gig in the sky. (Well, OK, let’s not be over-dramatic. They just split up; the band members are still with us. It still felt like a bereavement to me, however, because “Belly Button” and “Spilt Milk” have been constant companions.)

And on a similar theme to that of “15 Minutes”, there’s also this criminally over-looked recent classic by Shattered Skies…

“To be seen, to be scene, to be seen…”

Bad Statistics and the Gender Gap

The exchange with Alessandro Strumia rumbles and lumbers on in the comments sections of previous posts, while over at his “In The Dark” blog, Peter Coles highlights that credulous over-interpretation of gender gap data is not the sole preserve of aggrieved and ideologically-biased particle physicists…

In the Dark

So there’s an article in Scientific American called How to Close the Gender Gap in the Labo(u)r Force (I’ve added a `u’ to `Labour’ so that it can be understood in the UK).

I was just thinking the other day that it’s been a while since I added any posts to the `Bad Statistics’ folder, but this Scientific American article offers a corker:

That parabola is a  `Regression line’? Seriously? Someone needs to a lesson in how not to over-fit data! It’s plausible that the orange curve might be the best-fitting parabola to the blue points, but that doesn’t mean that it provides a sensible description of the data…

I can see a man walking a dog in the pattern of points to the top right: can I get this observation published in Scientific American?

View original post

Politicks and Opticks

There’s been a great deal of opprobrium directed at The Sunday Times and the journalist Peter Conradi for the publication of that interview with Alessandro Strumia at the weekend. Although the criticism has (just) fallen short of calling for Conradi’s head on a plate, he’s certainly been very widely castigated. The responses to Conradi’s tweet below are a good representation of the tone of the critique:

I’m strongly of the opinion that this opprobrium is misplaced, misdirected, and ultimately entirely counter-productive. It plays completely into the hands of the “leftists/liberals/PC orthodoxy/feminazis are crushing free speech” brigade. Conradi didn’t, as some have claimed, completely ignore the “other side”; for one thing, he points out that the variability hypothesis — which Strumia unblinkingly takes as a matter of received wisdom — is “divisive” and “by no means universally accepted”. It’s a profile of Strumia, not a debate or a well-balanced discussion piece. One might as well take the Times Higher to task for not including a well-balanced rebuttal from a VC or PVC of my comments about “corporate uni bollox” in this.

Moreover, wind back a couple of years and we find, also in the pages of The Sunday Times, a double-page feature on Angela Saini. Simon Baron Cohen et al., whose work Saini roundly and rightly criticises in the piece, could well have taken umbrage at the lack of focus on their counter-arguments (such as they are.) But the piece is, in essence, a profile of Saini.

The target of our opprobrium should be Strumia (with whom I am currently engaging in the comments section of my previous post) and his pseudoscience, not The Sunday Times or Conradi, especially when the latter noted on more than one occasion that there was intense criticism of Strumia’s stance.

Those of us who strive for equality, diversity, and social justice are sometimes not the most cognisant of, to use the buzzword du jour, political “optics“. (And I very much include myself in the criticism here.) We should always consider just who might be in our audience. If it comprises solely those who share our principles then, in effect, why are we preaching to the converted? If, instead, we want to try to convince readers of The Sunday Times (who may well be slightly more towards the right of the political spectrum) that Strumia’s ‘analysis’ is bunk then is arguing that the article should never have published really the most productive approach to adopt? Doesn’t this live up to all of the stereotypes of the left that a more right-leaning Sunday Times reader may accept?

Let’s just focus on highlighting the glaring deficiencies in Strumia’s ridiculous “physics was invented by men” and “citation counts are directly related to IQ” assertions. Arguing that his views shouldn’t be published only serves to strengthen his (and his supporters’) martyrdom complex and, worse, creates the impression that we have something to hide. His pseudoscience speaks for itself.

“It is not enough to wear the mantle of Galileo…”

Alessandro Strumia is back in the press again. Earlier this month CERN decided to sever all ties with him due to the fallout from that presentation. I’ve written about the Strumia case previously, both here at the blog (at some length — see this and this) and in the pages of Physics World, so won’t rehash the many arguments against his thoroughly biased and pseudoscientific claims about women in physics. Prof. Strumia also got in touch with me in January, following my criticism in Physics World, and an e-mail exchange ensued. I’d have liked to have made that exchange public here at Symptoms… but Alessandro preferred not to have our debate in the open.

What’s clear from today’s article in The Sunday Times is that Strumia isn’t going to let counter-evidence or counter-arguments affect his ideology. Once again, and to quote from the piece I wrote for Physics World (if you’ll excuse the self-plagiarism), he’s presenting himself as the “ever-so-courageous rational scientist speaking “The Truth”, when, of course, he’s entirely wedded to a glaringly obvious ideology and unscientifically cherry-picks his data accordingly.” Cue a Letter To The Editor…

“Dear Editor,

Alessandro Strumia (Alessandro Strumia: the data doesn’t lie
— women don’t like physics, Sunday Times, March 24) claims that his views on women in physics have been censured due to “excessive political correctness”. Many years ago, the physicist Robert L Park highlighted a key proviso for those who opine that their “radical” theories are being stifled, viz.

Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right

Your article on CERN’s severance of ties with Strumia, while refreshingly even-handed, didn’t quite capture the deeply pseudoscientific tenor of his “analysis” (and I use that term advisedly). Prof. Strumia asserts, on the basis of a fundamentally flawed and credulous set of suppositions, that the IQ of the authors of a scientific paper scales directly with the number of citations accrued. En route, he confused correlation with causation, cherry-picked his cited sources to a remarkable extent, and indulged in overwrought rhetoric more akin to an amateur YouTube pundit than a professional, established scientist speaking to his peers at a conference.

Strumia’s presentation was a masterclass in what Richard Feynman, the physicist’s physicist, described as cargo cult science: to the untrained eye it looks scientific, but the essential ingredients of objectivity, rigorous self-criticism, and lack of ideological bias are sorely missing. Although I don’t agree with Strumia being dismissed for his reactionary views, his time would be better spent on informing himself about the complexity of the underlying science than crying victimhood at the hands of “The Establishment”. Might I recommend Angela Saini’s “Inferior: How Science Got Women Wrong“?

Yours sincerely,

Philip Moriarty”