The treatment of Intelligent Design

Is the theory of Intelligent Design held to abnormal standards by the scientific community?

ID exists in the environment of today, and that environment that can be characterized by multiple, distinct dimensions. These dimensions include time (the year 2006) and field (biology). The comparison of ID to the early years of evolution theory holds all dimensions constant save time. The inherent uncertainty in reliance on historical records presents a challenge in our development of a full understanding of the environment of evolution theory in its early years. Any comparisons we may yet draw will suffice only to describe how the environment may change along this one dimension -- a partial derivative, so to speak, with respect to time.

It is certainly valid to consider a comparison that holds all dimensions, including time, constant save the field of study. To what standard are other scientific theories in their early stages held in the present day? How does the treatment of ID compare with the treatment of new theories in anthropology, seismology, or quantum physics? In other words, what is the partial derivative with respect to field?

Additionally it can be asked whether the treatment of a proposed theory represents a continuous function at the point in question, which is (2006, biology). Is ID held to the same standard as other new theories in biology, or does ID have a different value than other theories at that same point do?

Does the theory of Intelligent Design receive abnormal promotion from its supporters?

In the present day there are undoubtedly individuals and groups whose passion for their own theory, in their own field, is as great as or greater than ID proponents’ passion for ID. How does ID compare to other theories with respect to the following:

• production of for-profit books and other items in support of the theory;
• appearances in mainstream media reports; and
• funds allocated for research and awareness?

If ID does receive abnormal promotion, there are two possible reasons why. First, ID’s proponents may have ulterior motives. The terms “for-profit” and “awareness” hint at this possibility. Second, ID’s proponents may feel that ID is more important, socially and culturally, than other new theories. Quite simply, why? Why is ID so important that it should be thrust into the public consciousness prior to the development of a scientific core of evidence?

I lack the knowledge and means to provide a thorough answer to the questions above. Even so, I believe that ID is not science; that ID’s proponents want it to be given the weight of science; and that they promote it as if ID were better than science. ID's supporters treat ID as a sociocultural phenomenon that cannot be bothered with the deliberate pathways of science. Is it any wonder that ID has received a backlash from the scientific community, even without that community holding ID to a higher standard?

Worth the stretch

Big Ten Wonk Word Of The Day for Thursday, January 19:

lacuna (luh-CUE-nuh) n. An empty space or a missing part. (more)

At first glance, I thought this word would describe a sexual position to be used during a full moon. Or maybe a combination of the two. Guess I was wrong. Bonus points for the add-an-"e" pluralization, though.

A defining characteristic of a Wonk Word Of The Day is its debatable usage. Is it too much of a stretch to use an anatomical term to describe a player's failure to contribute? The fact is that any difficult word that appears in a discussion about sports is probably a stretch simply because it appears in a discussion about sports. At least when Wonk does it, he uses a word that's so far beyond the sports landscape that it's obvious he knows what it really means. Even if it's not always a perfect fit, sometimes it's more descriptive to grasp at a distant comparison than to use a more common, accepted, boring turn of phrase.

Plus I'm always in favor of learning a new word.

Superstition ain't the way

sports fan : superstitious :: dog : licks self

It only takes one. One event so "traumatic" that it forever alters the way you think.

The sports fan in me wasn't superstitious until Game 6 of the 2003 NLCS. I was at home, lying down on my couch, for the first seven innings of the game. Then before the top of the eighth, I sat up. I don't blame myself (wait, that's not 100% true), and I don't think that I caused events a half-mile west along Addison to happen as they did. While Big Ten Wonk has mentioned the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, I think sports fans fall somewhere between Vulcan logic and fantasy. Between causality and coincidence lies superstition.

Superstition happens after just as much as it happens before. When Illinois coughed up a 17-6 lead in the blink of an eye, I thought to myself, "Should I have waited until the TV timeout to start eating my buffalo wings?" When Charles Tillman fell down on the second play from scrimmage, I tried to figure out what I should have done differently. Superstition means second-guessing as much as it means preparing.

I don't really think that I caused any of those things to happen. I understand the concept of the butterfly effect, but I believe that chaos outweighs anything I could do. [The random -- yes, apparently it is random, on a quantum level -- nature of interactions of atomic and subatomic particles means that nothing I would be likely to do could be "heard" above the "noise" of randomness by the time it reached the subject of my attention.] That's the scientific rationalization. But I do second-guess myself all the time. Yes, James probably should have made that jump-hook. But if I had been standing up at the time, would it have gone in?

I'm used to being in control of much of what goes on in my life. My brain constantly evaluates how I do in these matters. I try not to care about the things that I don't control, but with sports, I have decided to care. Caring leads to evaluation, which leads to second-guessing. I don't second-guess whether I should have been sitting in a different seat when Vanderjagt pushed that field goal attempt into immortality. But I do wonder whether Shaun Pruitt would have hit those free throws if I had only used my straw rather than drinking straight out of my water glass.

It's More Fun Being Green

It's like professional wrestling, in a slightly more noble setting.

Medieval Times: Dinner and Tournament is a journey to a time and place that may not have existed. Brave knights, Andalusian horses, Dragon's Tail soup, an arena full of weapons, and a dungeon full of implements of torture. Courage. Treachery. Skill. Intrigue. Romance. Oracles. Spotlights. Reverb.

You get the idea.

Above all else, it's a performance, from start to finish. All employees -- whether king, herald, bartender, or wench -- remain in character throughout. They all need to play their roles to create this world for the audience. The audience, in turn, has a part to play...but not necessarily a role. Cheering when you're supposed to doesn't, in itself, convert you from an observer to a participant in this world. Many adults that return to Medieval Times, though, have found one true way to play a role -- supporting the Green Knight.

First, a little background. There are six knights, each identified by his colors -- Red, Black-and-White, Yellow, Blue, Red-and Yellow, or Green -- and each representing a fictional kingdom. Each knight and kingdom has its own backstory, for anyone paying close enough attention. Unique among these is the wicked Green Knight, who hails from the kingdom of Leon, a land known for its liars, cheats, and charlatans. The inhabitants of Leon are unsavory and belligerent characters, despised by the other citizens of the realm, and openly mocked by the king's servants and guards.

A great number of audience members are children, awestruck by the spectacle and indifferent to their knight and kingdom affiliation. Many adults are indifferent as well. But a few adult guests, returning visitors no doubt, request to sit in a particular knight's section. And no one requests the Yellow Knight.

Supporters of the Green Knight are free to play a role that casts them directly into the world created at Medieval Times, time and time again. Adults cheer the Green Knight with passion and devotion that border on the surreal. Whether this is due to an us-against-the-world mentality, or perhaps a desire to play the bad guy, I don't know. Through this role, though, we as adults transport our emotions into this fantasy world, even as our eyes and body remain rooted in reality.

The Green Knight benefits from this expression of emotion as well. All knights salute their supporters, but the eyes of the Green Knight betray the rush he feels when showered with affection. The other knights' supporters came to cheer the spectacle; the Green Knight's supporters came to cheer him. He's Hulk Hogan on horseback.

It's more fun being green. No matter who you are.

A half-assed running diary of the Fiesta Bowl

My pledge to you: This post will contain no analysis of the game itself.

During a pre-game interview, Ohio State head coach Jim Tressel hands sideline reporter Jack Arute a collar stay. My immediate reaction: "One collar stay?" Later in the broadcast, Arute is shown head-on, sporting one sharp-looking point and one awful-looking point on his collar. Did he really need two collar stays and used just the one that Tressel gave him? Did he just need one, but the one Tressel gave him didn't fit his shirt? And is ABC so business-casual that not one off-camera employee is wearing a shirt with collar stays? Is there no VIP wearing a suit today? Couldn't an intern run out to the nearest shopping mall? Shouldn't the hotel concierge have been able to track down a collar stay this morning? And what did Arute do to his shirt in the first place to screw up the collar?

Quite the flashy graphic on the roles played by Notre Dame quarterback Brady Quinn. My favorite part? They misspelled the last name of head coach Charlie Weis (added an extra "s"). There are 8,643 unemployed college grads in Cook County, Ill., alone that would love to earn $12 per hour as a spell- and fact-checker for ABC Sports. Doesn't a major telelvision network understand the benefits of interns?

Late in the first half, Arute mentions that Ohio State's top three linebackers have been growing their hair long in tribute to Pat Tillman. All well and good...except that Bobby Carpenter, A.J. Hawk, and Anthony Schlegel originally made an agreement not to cut their hair until they won a national championship...as reported by ABC on their September 10, 2005, broadcast of the Texas-Ohio State game. Selective reporting doesn't get any better than this.

Well, it took Brent Musburger until the third quarter to mention that A.J. Hawk is dating Brady Quinn's sister, Laura. And it took another ten minutes for the announcers to stop talking about it. We've seen a pre-recorded clip with Hawk; a replay of Laura's anguished reaction in the crowd when Hawk sacked Quinn a few moments ago; a pre-recorded clip with Ohio State quarterback Troy Smith; and a sideline interview with Laura, in which she admitted her protective instinct as an older sister, as well as the 21-7 deficit faced by Notre Dame, has her pulling for the Irish.

Ever play the "Which celebrity does he/she look most like" game? Well, it's not really a game, but I find it easier to use a well-known person as a starting point and then modify as appropriate. For example, one of my friends looks like Dina Meyer except about 5'4" with darker, straighter hair. I used to think that another of my friends looks like she could be Brady Quinn's sister. Now that I've seen Brady Quinn's real sister, though, I can no longer use that comparison. I broke even this weekend, though, because after seeing a friend's blond highlights, I decided he looked like he could be the bad guy in a Die Hard movie. My brother was the only one to get that.

Abrupt ending in three, two, one...

The Validation Of Data Analysts - A Change Is Coming

Basketball TV broadcasts frustrate me when they present statistics like this:

"Offensive rebounds: Michigan State 9, Wisconsin-Green Bay 9."

The broadcast team presents statistics to give the viewer an understanding of how teams or players have performed. If the above statistic were presented, though, the viewer would likely take away the message that the two teams rebounded equally well on the offensive end (and, therefore, on the defensive end, too). While each team did secure the same number of offensive boards, Michigan State did so in only 25 opportunities (22 missed FG, 3 missed FT) while UWGB did so in 41 opportunities (35 missed FG, 6 missed FT). This statistic would convey a much stronger message:

"Offensive rebounding percentage: Michigan State 36%, Wisconsin-Green Bay 22%"

In the past couple years, Ken Pomeroy, Kyle Whelliston, John Gasaway, and others have evaluated players and teams using statistics that measure efficiency (usually named "possession-based stats" or "tempo-free stats") rather than "totals" that depend in part on the number of opportunities a player or team has to obtain them (points, rebounds, assists, etc.). Mainstream media, meanwhile, have continued to focus on totals. Or is there some other explanation for Bracey Wright's selection to the 2004-2005 All-Big Ten first team?

The old guard of sports-talkers is vulnerable to the new breed of data analysts. Dick Vitale's skill as an analyst lies in watching players and teams perform and passing judgment on their ability to compete against other players and teams. I won't dispute his skill in this regard. What data analysts have taught us, though, is that there are tools that predict success with greater accuracy than Dick Vitale. Or just about any other analyst who insists on using his own judgment of specific situations and performances without considering the value of overall statistics.

I refer to Dick Vitale, Bill Walton, Charles Barkley, and others like them as "sports-talkers" because (1) the word would have an entirely different meaning without the hyphen, and (2) their most important skill lies in their ability to perform on live television when they have nothing to say. Data analysts can show so many things through statistics, though, that they would almost always have something to say, even without relying on mentioning J.J. Redick.

Data analysts threaten sportswriters more directly. Sportswriters can make their mark as a reporter (Chris Mortensen), an analyst, or a writer (Bill Simmons). I don't have a good example for the sportswriter-analyst because I really can't think of one. Sportswriters break stories or produce feature articles, or they entertain readers through their writing. Data analysts have a niche waiting for them, because they can make their mark through analysis alone.

The key to writing as an analyst is clarity. An analyst's purpose in writing is to convey to the reader the meaning of the analysis. If the reader can't understand the message, the analyst has failed. Beyond that, it's all good, as long as the analysis is sound and the matter holds significance for the reader. Just because Gasaway, as Big Ten Wonk, is entertaining doesn't mean he has to be to get his point across.

ESPN.com has recognized the analyst niche and begun to fill it -- Pomeroy and Whelliston have, quite recently, joined the payroll. Sportswriters that masquerade as analysts are now officially endangered. Thankfully, most sportswriters are true reporters as well and don't feel threatened. Grant Wahl and Luke Winn from SI.com each endorsed the aforementioned data analysts in an online column earlier this month. And sportswriters like Bill Simmons (not such a large group, is it?) are writers first, so they're not going anywhere, either.

I find the articles from Wahl and Winn encouraging because they signal a shift in the attitude of mainstream media. It's only a matter of time before television broadcasters start citing effective field goal percentage, rebounding percentage, and points-per-possession in their pre-game analysis instead of things like "Shoot The 3; Avoid Foul Trouble; Run, Run, Run." From there it's a hop, skip, and a jump to seeing these figures show up in box scores and in mid-game analysis.

Statistics have analytical and predictive value that rivals and often exceeds the judgment of even the most talented individuals. The next time you read or hear someone disregarding statistics in favor of personal judgment, without any sort of qualification, consider the source and his motivation. Self-preservation is a powerful instinct.

Microwave squares

When my mom reheats a mug of coffee in the microwave, she'll mike it for 12 seconds, or 16 seconds, but not something "normal" like 15 seconds. This works for longer times, too -- I've seen her mike frozen vegetables for something like 2:43. I'm not normal, either, because when I wanted to mike something for 2 minutes and 30 seconds, I used to enter 1:90. The microwave that today I own seems to only accept whole increments of 30 seconds, which disappoints me. In any case, here is a math problem I came up with while waking up on Saturday morning.

The display on a microwave contains four digits, two for minutes and two for seconds (mm:ss). Because there are only 60 seconds in 1 minute, the number that can be read from left to right does not represent the true number of seconds that will be counted down by the timer -- 210 (2:10) represents 130 seconds, while 210 seconds can be represented by either 330 (3:30) or 290 (2:90). If the displayed number is one or two digits only, then the displayed number and true number of seconds will be the same (i.e., this is the trivial or uninteresting case). When the two numbers are different, they still may share interesting properties in some cases...

For what three- or four-digit displayed numbers are the displayed number and true number of seconds both perfect squares?

Curious about the can

I have three questions about the bathroom and related activities:

1. Why do some men wash their hands before doing their business in the restroom? Or am I the weird one for even asking this question? I've done it a couple of times, but only if I've just eaten and I know there's something on my hands that would get smudges on my clothes. So is this also the case each time I see someone wash his hands first? I'd really like to ask a total stranger why he does this -- not someone I know, because I'd have to talk to him again afterwards -- but I've never felt comfortable sticking around until the guy comes out of the stall. And having a conversation with a total stranger who's in a bathroom stall is something I don't do while sober. Actually, there's a better reason to stick around until he's done -- to see whether he washes his hands after as well.
   
   
2. Do you leave the toilet seat up or down? When you replace the toilet paper roll, do you have it roll forward (pull over the top and down the front) or backward? I know what I do (down; forward) but I'm not qualified to tell you that you're wrong if you do it differently. I wonder, though, whether there's a correlation between the two. Are people that leave the toilet seat up more likely to have the toilet paper roll face forward than those that leave the toilet seat down? And so on. This is the kind of research I'd do if there were 87 hours in the day.
   
   
3. What goes through a dog's mind when his owner cleans up after him with a plastic bag while taking a walk? I can imagine just about anything:

• "My owner is one sick ____."
• "Hey, leave that! I was marking my territory! Kind of like what you do with your dirty clothes."
• "As long as you're going to pick up after me, would you mind cleaning my _______ with your tongue, too?"
  
• "If I had known this stuff was so desirable, I wouldn't have eaten it all these years."
  

Boxing Day -- not quite brownies, but close...

Just now I discovered the true meaning of Canada's Boxing Day. And I don't mean in the sense of how the Grinch discovered the true meaning of Christmas. I mean in the sense of why the day is named Boxing Day. It took me so long only because I never drove myself to resolve the uncertainty I felt when considering the name. "Why is it called Boxing Day?" is a question easily displaced by "How many strips of bacon can I have?" and "What do you mean, we're out of batteries?" It wasn't until today that the true meaning was shoved in my face.

The day has nothing to do with prizefighting, as I may have supposed in my early years. The day has nothing to do with Chinese anti-imperialism, as I may have speculated in high school. Boxing Day has to do with the practice of attending church on Christmas Day and leaving the distribution/receipt/opening of gifts (depending on whose story you believe) until the following day. The name arises from the boxes that contain the gifts.

Now that, my friend, is a lightbulb moment.

To do list...

Things to do in the near future:

1. Put up links to this blog's archives. You know, for all my readers. Which leads me to wonder, in today's increasingly virtual world, do people invent imaginary online friends?
2. See that someone gets jail time for the thousand messages my spam mailbox has received in the past 24 hours for "The Bouncer."
   
3. Find the web's best-formatted single-page listing of all World Cup matches (this will have to do until the Sun-Times devotes a full page to it next summer), print it out, and thumb-tack it to my cubicle at work. Right next to my inspired diagram for Feature Group traffic. Ah, Microsoft Visio...it is so choice. If you have the means, I highly recommend picking one up...I mean, finding out if your company has a corporate license. But after spending an hour in 2002 fruitlessly trying to put my own spreadsheet together -- unfortunately, even conditional formatting has its limits -- I'm willing to let sports websites do the work for me this time around.
4. Decide whether I should stop listening to the latest Jamiroquai album before I feel the need to officially declare "Starchild" my current favorite song, which would pretty much guarantee that I'd stop liking it within the next month. From another perspective, though, it could be my fourth favorite song on the album -- like an ACC team that finishes way back in conference, but everyone knows they still have a shot to win the national title -- so I should be in the clear.
5. Go see Aeon Flux before I get talked out of it by the reviews I haven't read. [And yet somehow I know what they say. Damn news website leads.]