Category: Writing

Anything on the process or results of writing as an activity and a passion

Prose ‘translation’ of Paradise Lost

One of the best courses I took at UBC was an Honours Milton course I begged my way into, despite being an international relations major. The instructor was Dennis Danielson: a man extremely knowledgeable and passionate about Milton. The best part of the course was definitely portraying Satan in a spoken rendition of Book II of Paradise Lost.

Recently, Dennis Danielson (D^2 henceforth) released a prose ‘translation’ of the poem, hoping to make it more accessible. It includes the original text side-by-side with his interpretation.

It has been added to my lengthy ‘to read’ list, and I recommend that others with an interest in Milton, literature, or theology consider having a look as well.

Video on copyright in Canada

Why Copyright? Canadian Voices on Copyright Law is a 50 minute film about copyright in Canada, produced by Michael Geist and Daniel Albahary. It is largely a response to the Conservative government’s deeply problematic proposed copyright legislation.

Equitable copyright laws are an important issue. In the first instance, that is due to the overwhelming importance of information, who controls it, and who can do what with it. Secondly, it has to do with societal decisions about what kind of conduct is acceptable, who enforces the rules, and what the consequences for violating them can legitimately be. Rules on when technical means of copyright enforcement can be legitimately circumvented are especially important, since that is a new sort of right potentially being extended to content owners. As such, the balance between the societal interest of fair use and the content owner’s claim to protection needs to be evaluated in a more profound way than has occurred so far.

As with many of the new developments on this issue, I found out about it through BoingBoing.

Misunderstanding Antarctic science

The other day, a friend of mine directed me towards a blog post by Chris Mounsey that does an excellent job of misunderstanding the recent scientific study that found a discernable influence from anthropogenic warming in Antarctica. The study used 100 years of Arctic data, 50 years of Antarctic data, and four computer models to demonstrate that the observations that have been made in those regions are consistent with models in which human emissions are causing mean global warming, and inconsistent with models that include only natural forcings.

As in a great many other cases, the blog author confuses different types of certainty about climatic science. For example, while we definitely know that greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere cause more of the sun’s energy to be absorbed by the Earth, it isn’t clear what effect the inter-relationships between temperature, soil moisture, evaporation, clouds, and reflected sunlight are. The climate system includes a massive number of elements that have complex inter-relations. When it is reported that a scientific study “help[ed] reveal what drives climate change,” the claim being made is that our understanding of that whole complex system has been deepened.

The blog post questions whether warming is happening (it is), whether it might not be a good thing (above a certain level, extremely unlikely), and whether this is just a repeat of the Medieval Warm Period (it isn’t).

In general, it follows the same “toss everything into the pot” strategy found in many pieces of writing that question the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. I have previously written about the inconsistency of simultaneously denying warming, denying that warming is caused by humans, and denying that warming is bad. This blog also connects to another argument made previously on this site. The blog is written by a self-identified libertarian. The need to disprove the fact that all sorts of human economic activities have important consequences on third parties is essential if climate change is not to render that entire political philosophy nonsensical.

Hard Choices

Edited by Harold Coward and Andrew Weaver, Hard Choices: Climate Change in Canada is a mixed bag. The chapters vary considerably in their usefulness, as well as their contemporary relevance. Clearly, a lot has changed since the book was published in 2004. Topics covered include climatic science, projected impacts in Canada, carbon sinks, technology, economics, adaptation, legal issues, the Kyoto Protocol, and the ethics of climate change. Of those, the science section has probably held up best.

The most problematic chapters are those on technology and economics. The technology chapter criticizes renewables, boosts nuclear, and promotes the ‘hydrogen economy’ without a great deal of strong analysis or argumentation. For instance, it argues that the costs of nuclear power are almost fully internalized: a very strange position to take given the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of subsidies, loan guarantees, and liability restrictions granted to nuclear operators around the world. The chapter also singularly fails to address the many problems with hydrogen as a fuel. Finally, the assertion that crippling the world economy would be “as deadly as any climate change scenario” underscores the degree to which this volume fails in general to consider the real but unknown probability of a catastrophic outcome that threatens civilization itself.

The economics chapter basically asserts that since the Kyoto Protocol would cost money and not stop climate change in and of itself, we should simply focus on adaptation. It ignores both the fact that international action on problems like climate change (ozone, acid raid, etc) needs to be built up progressively, starting with instruments not capable of single-handedly addressing the problem. Having the international community jump instantly from no legal constraints on greenhouse gas emissions to a regime that controls all emissions in an effective way is asking far too much. The chapter also fails to take seriously the possibility of catastrophic outcomes from unchecked warming. Not all levels of change can be adapted to.

The chapter on ethics is very strange. After a brief secular portion focused on which entities are owed moral duties, it becomes a survey of world religions, arguing that each one sees selfishness as wrong. From this, it is concluded that Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, etc all yield an ethical obligation to fight climate change. A more practical and serious consideration of who owes what to who on account of climate change would have been a lot more useful. Even in terms of comparative religion, the chapter feels rather sloppy. Just because you can point to a few statements about selflessness in the doctrine of many different faiths does not mean they would all come to the same moral position on climate change. All kinds of real moral questions persist: from how much risk it is allowable to impose on future generations, to who should pay the costs of adapting to the additional warming already locked into the climatic system. The chapter fails to shed light on issues of this type.

In the end, I don’t think there is anything in Hard Choices that isn’t said in a better or more up-to-date way somewhere else. For those seeking to educate themselves on climate change, this book is not a good investment of time.

Learning to write and edit

Writing and editing are both useful and important skills. Better students at every level from high school up quickly learn the value of having someone else turn an attentive and critical eye to their work, before a final version is produced.

Schools should consider assigning essays, then requiring students to submit their original drafts, editorial remarks from an assigned classmate, and the final version. Each student would then get graded on both their final essays and the quality of their editorial comments. A sensible balance might be 2/3 for their essay and 1/3 for their comments.

It would definitely be more work to grade, but I think it would be a worthwhile thing to do from time to time. In a great many professions, the ability to give and receive constructive criticism is an essential skill. People should start learning it while they are still in an academic environment.

Feynman on bad science

A serious section concludes Richard Feynman’s Surely You’re Joking, in which he denounces various forms of bad science. He talks about the pseudoscience of UFOs and reflexology, but also about problems with the work done by credible scientists, such as the bias towards publishing positive results and ignoring negative or inconclusive ones. He raises issues about the quality of school textbooks and the ethics of those who publish and select them. He stresses the importance of retesting your assumptions, properly calibrating new equipment, and providing detailed information on the sources of error you think exist within your experiments. He also provides an important example of scientists fudging their numbers so as not to contradict a famous result.

At the very end, he gives some advice to those who are called upon to provide scientific advice to governments:

I say that’s also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would be better in some other state. If you don’t publish such a result, it seems to me you’re not giving scientific advice. You’re being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don’t publish it at all. That’s not giving scientific advice.

…

So I have just one wish for you — the good luck to be somewhere where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom.

It is a warning that is especially pertinent today – particularly where science and politics collide in relation to environmental issues. The temptation to manipulate the science can be extreme. At the same time, the importance of transmitting scientific conclusions in a way that is both accurate and comprehensible is considerable. Maintaining scientific integrity while also providing accurate and applicable advice is a key ethical and professional requirement for today’s scientists, as well as those on the political and bureaucratic side who work with them.

Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!

This collection of Richard Feynman‘s autobiographical anecdotes is both charming and amusing. More than anything else, it conveys what a remarkable character he is, and what an astonishing variety of things he managed to do. Few Nobel Prize winning physicists can claim to have had a one man art show, learned to pick locks and crack military safes, played the drums for a percussion-only ballet, wrangled cryptographically with the mail censors at Los Alamos during the Manhattan Project, spent the summer after finishing his undergraduate degree as ‘chief research chemist of the Metaplast Corporation,’ juggled, deciphered Mayan hieroglyphs, defended a topless bar in court, and fixed radios while he was still a small child. One can never tell if Feynman is being entirely honest and accurate – largely because the character he draws for himself is so uncomplicated and appealing – but one is certainly grateful for the stories.

Indeed, the book provides a nice counterargument to the division of labour. While economics and societal organization have revealed specialization in knowledge and production to be highly efficient overall, Feynman demonstrates the degree to which variety is remarkable and wonderful for the individual. The question the reader is left with is whether they can experience anything comparable without Feynman’s own extensive genius and peculiar character.

The Code-Breakers

For those with a serious interest in the history and practice of cryptography, David Khan’s The Code-Breakers: The Comprehensive History of Secret Communication from Ancient Times to the Internet provides an enormous mass of knowledge. The scope of the 1200 page book is vast: covering everything from the earliest ciphers to the origins of public key cryptography in detail. It is probably fair to say that the period best covered is that between the Middle Ages and the Second World War, though the sections covering the decoding of Egyptian hieroglyphics and Linear B are also detailed and skilfully written. Those interested primarily in the contemporary practice of cryptography – or those seeking a more concise text – would be well advised to consider the books by Simon Singh and Bruce Schneier on the topic.

Khan’s book excels in actually describing how various cryptographic systems work, as well as how they were broken. For the most part, his analysis is factual and dispassionate. The sole exception is in the period covering the Cold War, in which his ire against the Soviet Union and those Americans who turned into traitors for it are acute. At times, the book gets into an excessive amount of detail about the bureaucratic organization of different cipher bureaus: including lengthy sections about how various wartime bodies were reorganized. In most cases, the book does not provide much biography on the men and women involved, though exceptions exist in the case of some of the most eminent or interesting cryptographers. The book does provide an interesting discussion of the history of writing on cryptography, including the impact that major publications had on the development of the field and its comprehension within society at large. Kahn also does a good job of debunking some of the many spurious claims that have been made about ‘revolutionary’ and ‘unbreakable’ cryptosystems that people have invented: stressing how the making of cryptographic systems is a realm of abstract mathematics, while the breaking of such systems is a gritty and practical exercise.

In addition to covering the techniques of cryptography and cryptanalysis themselves, the book covers many related security issues: including physical security, invisible inks, elements of spycraft, decisions about how to use information gleaned through cryptanalysis, and the use of broken cryptographic systems to transmit fake or confusing information. The book also covers the relationships between cryptographic work and the activities it is supporting. An especially intriguing section details the efforts of the American navy to combat rum smuggling during the prohibition era. Ships with floating cryptoanalytical laboratories provided vital intelligence to interception vessels, just as other cryptanalysis had helped re-direct U-boats away from German submarines during the Second World War. The book covers an enormous variety of code systems, ranging in use and sophistication. These include diplomatic and commercial systems, high level military systems used between major installations, systems for vehicles, trench codes for those on the front lines, and more. The most abstract section of the book contemplates communication between human beings and extraterrestrials, covering questions about how we could recognize alien communication, as well as mathematical steps through which a comprehensible discourse could potentially be established.

For those interested in actually breaking codes and ciphers themselves, the book provides detailed information on techniques including frequency analysis, factorization attacks of the kind used against polyalphabetic substitution ciphers, and the index of coincidence. It also provides a lot of information on the weak ways in which cryptography is often used and the kinds of errors that have allowed for key breaks into previously unreadable cryptosystems. While it would not be especially useful for attacking modern computerized cryptographic systems, it would provide some guidance for those seeking to break into amateur or puzzle-type cryptographic challenges.

The Code-Breakers may well be the most comprehensive cryptographic history available, though it is far less detailed in its description of post-Cold War cryptosystems than some of its more concise recent contemporaries. For those wishing to gain an appreciation for how cryptography emerged, the role it played for most of human history, and the techniques that have been employed to guard and attack messages, this is an ideal place to turn.

Gladwell on genius

Malcolm Gladwell has a new piece in The New Yorker, arguing that there are two kinds of artistic geniuses: those who do their best work as young prodigies and those that take decades to make their talent manifest.

He uses Picasso as an example of the former kind and Cézanne as an example of the latter. The piece may provide a bit of comfort to those young people who have not yet seen their achievements match their aspirations, though it also makes very clear that a lot of hard work and luck is required to foster a slow-developing genius.