Traditions and dogmas rub one another down to a minimum in such centers of varied intercourse; where there are a thousand faiths we are apt to become sceptical of them all. Probably the traders were the first sceptics; they had seen too much to believe too much; and the general disposition of merchants to classify all men as either fools or knaves inclined them to question every creed. Gradually, too, they were developing science; mathematics grew with the increasing complexity of exchange, astronomy with the increasing audacity of navigation. The growth of wealth brought the leisure and security which are the prerequisite of research and speculation; men now asked the stars not only for guidance on the seas but as well for an answer to the riddles of the universe; the first Greek philosophers were astronomers. “Proud of their achievements,” says Aristotle, “men pushed farther afield after the Persian wars; they took all knowledge for their province, and sought ever wider studies.” Men grew bold enough to attempt natural explanations of processes and events before attributed to supernatural agencies and powers; magic and ritual slowly gave way to science and control; and philosophy began. [Will Durant. The Story of Philosophy. 1926]
Category: Science & technology
Categories
[2741] There is a dice
In general, quantum mechanics does not predict a single definite result for an observation. Instead, it predicts a number of different outcomes and tells us how likely each of these is. That is to say, if one made the same measurement on a large number of similar systems, each of which started off in the same way, one would find that the result of the measurement would be A in a certain number of cases, B in a different number, and so on. One could predict the approximate number of times that the result would be A or B, but one could not predict the specific result of an individual measurement. Quantum mechanics therefore introduces an unavoidable element of unpredictability or randomness into science. Einstein objected to this very strongly, despite the important role he had played in the development of these ideas. Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for his contribution to quantum theory. Nevertheless, Einstein never accepted that the universe was governed by chance; his feelings were summed up in his famous statement “God does not play dice.” Most other scientists, however, were willing to accept quantum mechanics because it agreed perfectly with experiment. Indeed, it has been an outstandingly successful theory and underlies nearly all of modern science and technology. It governs the behavior of transistors and integrated circuits, which are the essential component of electronic devices such as televisions and computers, and is also the basis of modern chemistry and biology. The only area of physical science into which quantum mechanics has not yet been properly incorporated are gravity and the large-scale structure of the universe. [Stephen Hawking. A Brief History of Time. 1988]
I am partial to an education system which has the English language as its medium of instruction. That is because I am most comfortable where English is the primary and the common language. While the Malay language is my mother tongue, I mostly use English to run both my private and professional life.
For a person with my background, it is reasonable for a stranger to expect me to be supportive of the policy (PPSMI) to teach science and mathematics in English. While I do sympathize with the policy, I oppose it.
I do not think anyone can doubt the importance of learning science and math. From the liberal education perspective, there are not too many other subjects that can liberate the mind the way science and math do. In terms of practicality, it offers a wide range of rewarding career choices.
To be good at both, one has to comprehend various scientific and mathematical concepts. The foundational lessons especially are crucial in allowing students to understand other more complex ideas. In both subjects, each concept is built upon an earlier concept. Failure to comprehend basic lessons will cause the student to struggle later. In a system where a student largely progresses based on his or her age, this can bring about a devastating snowball effect.
Learning those lessons can be harder than it is when both subjects are taught in a language that students struggle to master in the first place. That presents a two-layer barrier to mastering those basic scientific and mathematical concepts.
The language barrier adds to the frustration which can kill schoolchildren’s interest in science and math before the interest has a chance to bloom.
For many children from middle and upper-class families, English comprehension skills are not likely to be a problem. That is not true for the rest.
Consider a proxy to the mastery of the English language. Typically, families with higher incomes can be expected to have children who are better at English than those belonging to lower-income families. Here are the numbers. Based on the 10th Malaysia Plan, nearly 53% of households earned a monthly income of less than RM3,000 in 2009; about 66% earned less than RM4,000 a month; close to 76% earned less than RM5,000 a month.
The figures have probably improved since 2009. After all, 2009 was a recession year and we have recovered from that recession. Nevertheless, it is likely that a significant number of households still do not earn too much. This is a structural economic issue and such issues do not just change significantly in three years.
Notwithstanding the technical concerns about the evolution of household income over the past three years, that possibly means that more than half the children in Malaysia may have trouble with English. If PPSMI is to be continued in its blanket fashion as it was enforced earlier, that may lead to the making of a lost generation in terms of science and math education. As for the level of English, I am unsure if science and math classes are the place to learn English grammar, vocabulary and comprehension skills.
While I oppose PPSMI, that does not mean I think English is unimportant. I live in corporate Malaysia and in corporate Malaysia, English is the national language and not Malay. I know English is important. The inability to speak and write in English will come at a very great cost for fresh graduates and labor market veterans alike. I do believe that the teaching of English should be emphasized in all schools and at the early stages. The barrier to learning English should be reduced.
What PPSMI does to many students instead is that one, it does not reduce barriers in learning English — one does not learn grammar, vocabulary and comprehension skills in science and math classes — and two, it erects barriers to learning science and math for underprivileged children.
The point is that the teaching of English should not come at the expense of learning science and math.
At the very least, do not force students with a weak grasp of English to study science and math in English. Instead, let them improve their English in and outside of classes and let them learn science and math in the medium they understand best.
For students who already have a good command of English, let them study science, math and perhaps other subjects as well in English.
I was running some regressions at work just now and I realized my overdependence on computers had made me forgotten how to calculate certain statistics manually. Modern regression softwares automatically calculate various statistics less than a second and I hardly think of what happens in that virtual blackbox.
But just now, I was following up on a technical economic debate which revolved around some statistics where the report reported its t-stats but not its probability. I was curious about its probability and so, I had to translate the t-stats into probability manually by reading the t-stats distribution table. I struggled at first. I found myself embarrassed at my inability to read the table after 6 years worth of education in economics, and another 3 or 4 years in econometrics. But I managed. I guess, it is like riding a bicycle. Once you learned it, you know it. It may take some stimulus to remember if you have not been riding, but you can really do it.
One thought came to my mind after I was done with that.
I know there is a criticism about whether the critical values—the 10%, the 5%, etc—means anything. Indeed, the critical values are rules arbitarily made up out of convenience. It is highly possible that if the calculated value breaks a particular critical value, a hypothesis can still be true despite rejection. It is all a matter of probability and probability does not work so discretely as the typical critical value rejection rule suggests. If there is a 99% possibility of a hypothesis is untrue, that 1% can still pan out to be true however unlikely. (Let us not get into the Error I and II debate)
Too many people like yes and no answer. The rejection-rule gives them that, rightly or wrongly.
But I am thinking, why, throughout the economics and econometrics world, are the critical values always the same numbers? It either 1%, 5% or 10% (I have seen 25% but… ehem). Why not 4.7%, or 7.1%?
I think I found an answer to that after looking at the t-stats table for the first time in at least 2 years.
Powerful and cheap computers were only available in the last decade of the 20th century. Because of this, many students in the olden days relied on tables for their rejection rules. Tables being tables on pieces of papers, space was at a premium. So, publishers of tables could only print sexy numbers and obviously not too many numbers over the natural number space, never mind real numbers. Either you use the tables, or calculate the critical values yourself, which is a pain.
So, that convention sticks after awhile. From early econometricians to students of econometrics, the same tables get used over and over again. It becomes a tradition.
Maybe?
Fun-quotation-that-has-something-to-do-with-Australia:
…he had confessed to repeated intercourse with sheep on a recent visit to the family farm; perhaps that was how he had contracted the mysterious microbe.
This incident sounds bizarrely one-of-a-kind and of no possible broader significance. In fact, it illustrates an enormous subject of great importance: human diseases of animal origin. Very few of us love sheep in the carnal sense that this patient did. But most of us platonically love our pet animals such as our dogs and cats. As a society, we certainly appear to have an inordinate fondness for sheep and other livestock, to judge from the vast numbers of them that we keep. For example, at the time of a recent census, Australia’s 17,085,400 people thought so highly of sheep that they kept 161,600,000 of them.
Some of us adults, and even more of our children, pick up infectious diseases from our pets. Usually they remain no more than a nuisance, but a few have evolved into something far more serious… [Guns, Gems, and Steel. Chapter 11: Lethal Gift of Livestock. Page 196. Jared Diamond. 1999]
Happy Australia Day!