Wikipedia and Me and a few other people


Co.Derry, Auglish

This is a follow-up to Wikipedia and Me. I’ve uploaded my archae­oastro­nomy entry to Wikipedia and cor­rec­ted a couple of bits. It all went fairly smoothly though I ended up upload­ing the image of Auglish (above) to illus­trate a sec­tion, else most of the pho­tos would have been of American sites. The first edit on it fol­lowed a few hours later with someone tidy­ing up the format­ting. Then Steve McCluskey came along and cla­ri­fied a sec­tion on the Oxford con­fer­ences. After a week it’s fairly static and a bet­ter art­icle than the ori­ginal version.

I’m not a com­plete con­vert. I don’t under­stand the NPOV concept yet. I can see how a Neutral Point of View sounds like a good thing, but if one side of is sup­por­ted by the evid­ence and another isn’t NPOV is mis­lead­ing. I think this is a flaw in Wikipedia, but if you have open access edit­ing I’m not sure how you could con­sist­ently take another approach. The easi­est way round that prob­lem is to not get into argu­ments about points of view.

I’m not sure how to judge if the entry is suc­cess­ful. Stasis isn’t a very good yard­stick as that could just mean it’s being ignored. I could go for peer-review and so on, but that’s a lot of effort.

The Temple of the Fox


The Andes reveal a few more secrets. Photo by Luis Perez.

Meanwhile half a world away there’s news of what might be the earli­est known astro­nom­ical align­ment and sculp­tures in the New World. The story has been covered by the Columbia Missourian and nobody else. It con­nects a temple in south­ern Peru and a fig­ure in the Milky Way. And there’s a twist – this story is plausible.

The Columbia Missourian story has a few oddit­ies in it and I haven’t read Inca archae­ology recently so I’m rusty between my ignor­ance and pos­sible mis­re­port­ing the story seemed pecu­liar. Fortunately you can visit the Buena Vista pro­ject homepage and also down­load some of the present­a­tions for the site (in Spanish in a large power­point file, but with nice pic­tures). They’ve found some­thing quite special.

What they’ve found is a temple that barely escaped the atten­tion of loot­ers pro­curers of authen­tic antiquit­ies. It has an axial align­ment which looks out to north of west. In the south­ern hemi­sphere this is the mid­winter sun­set align­ment. By itself that would be inter­est­ing but not some­thing I could get too excited about. If the temple has an axis then it has to point some­where. The reason why this is more inter­est­ing is that they say that this pat­tern is found in sim­ilar temples in the region, which sug­gests it’s more likely to be delib­er­ate. The truly unusual thing is what you see look­ing in the other dir­ec­tion. If the hori­zon was flat you’d see the mid­sum­mer sun­rise. What you also see is the dark cloud con­stel­la­tion of the Fox.
Continue read­ing

Social Evolution


Darwin Statue
Darwin Statue. Photo by Kevinzim.

This is just me think­ing out loud rather than pro­du­cing fin­ished or even coher­ent work, so much of it will be wrong or at least naïve. The reason I’m open­ing it up is to pin down some thoughts. I could do it in a Word file, but this is access­ible at work, and also has a slight “My good­ness! Did I say some­thing that fool­ish?” kick to it, which might make my think­ing a bit sharper.

There is a prob­lem of where to start. I could start in the middle with Richerson and Boyd’s book “Not by Genes Alone” which I’m about half-way through*. It’s thought-provoking and is say­ing a lot of what I’m think­ing, only more artic­u­lately. When I’m fin­ished I’ll be a bit frus­trated by that, but for now it’s a fun read. The reason I like it so far is that it provides an argu­ment for Darwinian Social Evolution that doesn’t use memes. That’s help­ful because I’m not con­vinced by memes and am work­ing on a non-memetic model, but for many in the social sci­ences memes and Darwinian Evolution have a bad name.
Continue read­ing



Hard 'n' Phirm

If you’ve ever wanted to mem­or­ise the first nine digits of pi then you’re in luck. Inkycircus points to a video by Hard ‘n’ Phirm extolling the joys of pi. There’s even a rap bit which tells you how to mem­or­ise them back­wards if you live in Quebec.

When ink and pen in hands of men inscribe your form biped­ally,
They draw an altar on which God has slaughtered all sta­bil­ity.
No eyes could ever soak in all the places you anoint,
And yet to see you all at once we only need the point.
Flirting with infin­ity, your geo­met­ric pro­geny,
That fit inside you oh so tight,
With tri­angles that feel so right.


Your ever-constant homily says flaw is dis­cip­line.
The pat­ron saint of imper­fec­tion frees us from our sin,
And if our tran­scend­ental lift shall find a final floor,
Then Man will know the death of God where won­der was before.

…and then because there’s a rap that’s where the pi-related swear­ing starts.

It’s poetry. You can tell it’s poetry because it rhymes which is nine-tenths of poetry as far as I’m con­cerned. When I finally get round to read­ing Stephen Fry’s Ode Less Travelled I might have a more intel­li­gent opin­ion on poetry, but for now I’ll stick with my stu­pid one. The song closes with over 170 digits of pi, so if you mem­or­ise the lyr­ics you’ll have all the pi you need.

The Wikipedia entry on Piphilology has this nice poem:

Sir, I send a rhyme excel­ling,
in sac­red truth and rigid spelling,
numer­ical sprites elu­cid­ate,
for me the lexicon’s dull weight.

which encodes the first twenty-one digits. But that’s no help if you want to mem­or­ise pi backwards.

Because pi is an irra­tional num­ber you can find any finite sequence of num­bers in it if you look hard enough. You can (prob­ably) find your birth­day in the first 200 mil­lion digits of pi.

The thing that bothered me in school is that pi is the ratio of a circle’s cir­cum­fer­ence to its dia­meter. So how do you cal­cu­late pi accur­ately? You simply can­not meas­ure a circle accur­ately enough (if you could find a per­fect circle). If the Earth’s orbit were per­fectly cir­cu­lar and you could meas­ure it to mil­li­metre accur­acy you still wouldn’t reach twenty decimal places. So where do you get 200 mil­lion from? Mathworld gives you vari­ous ways to cal­cu­late it.



Eight. Photo by Lukasd2009.

I found an inter­est­ing art­icle on the BBC Magazine yes­ter­day: Believe it or not: The battle over cer­tainty. It’s the first in a series A Point of View broad­cast­ing on Radio 4. The whole thing is worth read­ing but there were a couple of standout points.

Sometimes, if you’re lucky as a his­tor­ian, you find a bit of evid­ence which illu­min­ates a big idea. That happened to me this week in the Pepys Library at Magdalene College, Cambridge.

The thought upper­most in my mind was how odd it is that non-scientists think of sci­ence as being about cer­tain­ties and abso­lute truth. Whereas sci­ent­ists are actu­ally quite tent­at­ive — they simply try to arrive at the best fit between the exper­i­mental find­ings so far and a gen­eral principle.

…there’s a lot of fas­cin­at­ing stuff about Huygens and his clocks then…

The most today’s Royal Society is pre­pared to say is that a belief that all spe­cies on earth have always exis­ted in their present form, and that the earth is “not con­sist­ent with the evid­ence from geo­logy, astro­nomy and phys­ics”. And that is prob­ably not enough to sat­isfy ordin­ary thought­ful cit­izens without a sci­entific training.

I won­der about this. I think people do think about life in terms of prob­ab­il­it­ies. In court cases decisions are made based on prob­ab­il­ity. The state doesn’t have to defin­it­ively prove its case — merely that it should be proved bey­ond reas­on­able doubt. That might seem a woolly cri­terion, but that’s the gaps where the law­yers make their money.

A court case is rarely decided by re-running the crime to see what happened. Often there isn’t a con­tin­ous nar­rat­ive and the jury has to decide how to put together the dis­par­ate pieces of evid­ence. There’s uncer­tainty and you build from what you know and try and work out how the pieces fit together.

Science is a pro­cess where you try and answer that prob­lem by re-running events until you think you’ve elim­in­ated all vari­ants apart from the ones you want to study. When this hap­pens a sci­ent­ist has an advant­age a juror lacks. Unfortunately some prob­lems are simply untest­able as they stand. Global Warming, which Lisa Jardine refers to would be a cinch to solve if you had a few thou­sand identical Earths. Having only the one we have to test indi­vidual man­age­able prob­lems and then argue how we put them together.

Events like Global Warming affect us all and so we should all have some input into how we tackle the prob­lem. Warming is hap­pen­ing, the data are expli­cit. Is it all part of a nat­ural cycle as fewer and fewer sci­ent­ists think or are there actions we could take to pro­tect our soci­ety? Which factors would make a genu­ine dif­fer­ence and which would simply be window-dressing? This is why the last sen­tence is so inter­est­ing.

A pub­lic under­stand­ing of sci­ence has never been more important.

If your neigh­bours have the vote, then they have a say on issues that will impact on your family’s future. So will your neighbour’s chil­dren. Are they get­ting the sci­ence edu­ca­tion they need to decide on a import­ant issues like Carbon Emissions, GM Crops or Cloning that will dir­ectly affect you and your family?

It seems in the USA people are by and large very happy as Coturnix reports. Pharyngula also has a post high­light­ing some­thing I liked in the recent Royal Society state­ment which gets lost some­times in the Creationism debate. Children are entitled to an edu­ca­tion.

Introducing the Pyramid of Doom


I've discovered a new Bosnian Pyramid!

While research­ing to write some­thing pos­it­ive for the Wikipedia entry on the Bosnian Pyramids (I did the Currently Osmanagić states… to …for future gen­er­a­tions bit) I noticed some­thing a bit odd about the map. I wondered if I’d cal­cu­lated the lengths of the wrong tri­angle. It seems I have made a simple mistake.

The cal­cu­la­tion was based on the three pyr­am­ids marked in orange. These three pyr­am­ids come close to mak­ing an equi­lat­eral tri­angle, though with nowhere near the pre­ci­sion claimed by the Bosnian Geodetic Institute. I got these mark­ers from www​.bos​ni​an​pyr​amid​.com and you can down­load them from there to check this for your­self with your own copy of Google Earth. I thought these were the loc­a­tions of the pyr­am­ids and, if you look the map shown at BosnianPyramids​.org shows these are the three loc­a­tions meas­ured. This blog post would also sug­gest that the Pyramid of Dragon is iden­ti­fied cor­rectly as it places the pyr­amid on Bucki gaj.

If you look closely then you can see there’s a ridge between the Pyramids of the Moon and the Dragon. I’ve marked the end of that ridge with the label Bosnian Pyramid of Doom, and >you can down­load the Google Earth book­mark to see it for your­self in 3D (alas lost in the move). Is it high enough to block a line of site between the pyr­am­ids of the Moon and the Dragon? No.

But is is a prob­lem. The Pyramid of Doom is on the end of this long ridge. The pyr­amid of the Dragon is dis­tinct­ively on its own hill. So how do you make sense of this dia­gram at Wikipedia, which is used by the offi­cial site? I made the mis­take of assum­ing that the Pyramid of the Dragon, being under a large hill, was sta­tion­ary. It looks like Osmanagić has dis­covered the world’s first mobile monu­mental pre­his­toric pyramid*.

What hap­pens to the tri­angle if you use the Pyramid of Doom pos­i­tion as the third ver­tex? Then the Moon — Doom baseline is far, far too short to make an equi­lat­eral tri­angle. It’s not even remotely close, which again sug­gests that Bucki gaj is the Pyramid of Dragon. It does leave the prob­lem of an imposter pyr­amid on the offi­cial guides though.

Next week it’s the Bosnian Pyramid of the Molehill — and I’m not sure if I’m jok­ing yet.

*This would explain how the Bosnian pyr­am­ids got to Egypt and Mexico. In one stroke the lack of Bosnian arte­facts is explained as they were built in Visoko and then moved to their new loc­a­tions. We also now know why the Egyptian pyr­am­ids were smal­ler. You wouldn’t want to move a lar­ger pyr­amid would you? The Mexican pyr­am­ids were even smal­ler, but then they had fur­ther to go.

How do you set up a blog?


Not a sar­castic title, but a genu­ine query. This snip­pet from BlogThings from explains it.

Well, You Know What a Blog Is…

You got 4/8 correct!

But, truth­fully, most blogs prob­ably bore you.

After about a year of run­ning this you’d think I’d know the answer. The reason I don’t is that my under­stand­ing of blog­ging is a bit like the way I think about Wikipedia. I think there’s a dif­fer­ence between the mech­an­ics of set­ting up a blog and the pro­cess of run­ning one. Besides, I know one way of set­ting up a blog but there are almost cer­tainly more. If I were start­ing from scratch today there are things I’d do differently.

I ask as an iScience (inter­dis­cip­lin­ary sci­ence) group blog looks more likely. The cur­rent idea is to set up a group blog that all staff have access to, and pos­sibly the under­gradu­ates too. I fore­see two major prob­lems. One is tech­nical, who keeps an eye on the mech­an­ics of run­ning the blog? There’s a con­stant drive for updates to fight spam­mers and the depart­ment is com­mit­ted to hav­ing com­ments enabled. There are other needs to update soft­ware as older ver­sions become unsup­por­ted. The second aspect is the social, how do you con­vert good­will into actual writ­ing which is a prob­lem we’ll have to work out for ourselves.

The first prob­lem is the one that’s tax­ing me now. In the depart­ment it’s Alan Cann (pod­cast­ing VirologyBytes) and myself who have exper­i­ence. It’s not a prac­tical solu­tion to have either of us being code­mon­keys for the pro­ject. External host­ing seems more more sens­ible because tech­nical prob­lems become other people’s prob­lems — and there’s no pen­alty for suc­cess. I’ve had to upgrade band­width again this month. What I don’t know is the best way to extern­ally host. The three major options seem Blogger, WordPress​.com and TypePad.

The cost rules out TypePad. It’s not that iScience is strapped for cash. It’s that if you need a budget at all then admin-wise there’s a huge amount of hassle. Forms need to be filled, value jus­ti­fied, cheques coun­ter­signed etc, which for the sum of money we’re talk­ing about seems so much hassle. The cost effect­ively doubles and we have bet­ter ways of spend­ing £100 a year. This leaves Blogger, which is Alan Cann’s tool of choice and WordPress, which I use.

The advant­ages I find for WordPress are that it is flex­ible in what you can put in. There is a good WYSIWYG inter­face, the cat­egor­ies are easy to set up which helps in Technorati pinging. The tem­plates are cent­rally man­aged, so that they’re hard to break and it’s flex­ible enough for multiusers.

The thing is that Blogger also cov­ers mul­ti­users well. It too has a WYSIWYG inter­face and while I find it a bit clunkier it’s not dra­mat­ic­ally so. Adding tech­nor­ati tags is more dif­fi­cult and I’m not sure that I’d want to how explain why tag­ging is a good idea to people that will be blog­ging for the first time. An advant­age Blogger has over WordPress​.com is that the tem­plat­ing is more flex­ible if you want to have some­thing that looks unique. There’s also the option to pub­lish to your own web­space which would mean there’s a touch more integ­rate­able­ness in the sys­tem. Both fea­ture the option to invent new words like integrateableness.

At the moment I favour WordPress​.com. The cat­egor­isa­tion tool could be really help­ful for sort­ing posts in what will be an inter­dis­cip­lin­ary sci­ence web­log. But I could be biased simply because I use WordPress here. I don’t think there’s an obvi­ous win­ner and I know most of the good web­logs are on Blogger. Are they there from iner­tia, there’s a cost in mov­ing your blog, or is Blogger the bet­ter option?