Better Living With Computer Science

A bubbling frothy mass got me wondering

Why do so many people still think that "Computer Science" means fixing a broken computer? 

Why do so many people think that teaching "Computer Science" is the same thing as teaching keyboarding (e.g. typing on a keyboard) or word processing? 

Why do so many people not understand the significance of the questions? 

Sigh...

After all this time, I still get looked at with disbelief and dismay when I say I am not the best person to upgrade someone's neighbor's friend's relative's new operating system or that I'm not the most qualified person to take apart your printer. I mean sure, I'll be happy to take apart your printer.  But you may not be happy with me doing so. Assuming you want the problem, whatever it is, guaranteed fixed and all parts back in their correct places and functioning properly.

I willingly throw myself upon the mercy of the repair guy or gal when my motherboard pukes or my external drive locks up or my video controller goes psychedelic. I do have an advantage in that I can generally figure out what is going on ("oh crap, the xyz controller has gone belly up"), but that doesn't mean I am going to put my sticky fingers in there to mess with it. With or without a magnetic screwdriver. I want everything back in one place and better than functional at the end of the day. Instead, I call in the pros.

But I'd never ask that same repair whiz to develop a pedagogically sound online tutorial, or lay out the requirements for an enterprise software system, or develop an effective computational biology DNA algorithm. The repair whiz would likely think me slightly deranged for asking.  

We go through high school classes in chemistry, physics and biology and we come out understanding a few distinctions between chemists, physicists and biologists. For the most part we have at least a basic understanding of what chemistry, physics and biology are because we have taken classes in those topics.

I was watching a strange concoction burbling on the stove the other day. I pondered that I was watching chemistry and physics in action: burble burble the molecules interact in order to boil in a certain way, the electrons bounce around, the foam develops and slithers around.The Pyrex nicely distributing heat from the element is the result of some darned smart chemists. I recognize the relationship between chemistry and physics in front of my eyes. And the biology involved with my quivering nostrils and soon to be activated taste buds.

I am a Computer Scientist. Also at times a Mad Scientist (and proud of it). I'm not a Chemist or Physicist even though I can cook. Doesn't it sound crazy to even suggest that?

Perhaps we need to teach Computer Science in high school along with Chemistry, Physics and Biology?

Science is for People; Not for Itself

I am still puzzling over something someone said recently in a conversation forum I am part of:

"Technology is for People, Science is for Science".

This statement makes no sense on many levels.  According to the American Heritage Dictionary:

"Science: 1a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena...4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience"

and from the same source:

"Technology: 1a. The application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives. 1b. The scientific method and material used to achieve a commercial or industrial objective..."

Technology and science have several features in common, and indeed they overlap in significant ways. Not so distinct as some might think.

Another practical objection: why would anyone take part in science if not for some reason that has something to do with themself? I'm not talking only about straightforward material objectives (although those apply) but also about objectives that have to do with creating, preventing, addressing, exploring change. Change in something. Something we care about. With that in mind, can you imagine science existing in a vacuum?

Let's say the writer holds to the related belief that knowledge should be pursued for the sake of gaining knowledge. It is hard for me, endlessly curious me, to argue against learning for the sake of learning. Because you never know when it might come in useful. Oops...useful. Useful, using, used. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge (and nothing else, not ever!) would mean no application of that knowledge, wouldn't it? Nothing Useful.

Or...still on the idea of engaging in knowledge acquisition through science for the sake of science itself...is that even possible? If I enjoy undertaking scientific inquiry, then am I not doing so in part for myself? Yes, I am. I wouldn't believe anyone who claimed otherwise. If I hate undertaking scientific inquiry yet take part in it anyway, then there is an even stronger personal motivation (unhealthy as it may be) at work here.

I am no Physicist, but I have read enough about quantum mechanics to understand that if one adheres to a quantum view of the universe, then it is virtually impossible (in fact, provably false) to claim that any scientific endeavor (however you choose to define or restrict the term) could possibly take place without interactions between those conducting the science and the objects of the investigation. Scientific investigation, science, cannot exist in and of itself and for itself.

Finally, let's talk ethics for just a moment. There is something creepy about claiming, in this globally connected (and often violent) 21st Century, that we humans should pretend (yes, I said pretend) that when we take part in scientific investigation or exploration or experimentation, that we can do so without societal repercussions. If we instead embrace the interaction of science with society, and the fact that we do engage in science for very human reasons, we have the opportunity to point that science towards positive goals and outcomes.

Rainbow Simulation - Water Droplets

Researchers at UC San Diego have been working on creating simulations that accurately model the formation of rainbows. In their news releases and presentations they talk about the physics behind rainbow creation and in particular the new discoveries that have been made about rainbows as a result of their work. Here is a quote from a press release:

"Computer scientists at UC San Diego, who set out to simulate all rainbows found in nature, wound up answering  questions about the physics of rainbows as well. The scientists recreated a wide variety of rainbows – primary rainbows, secondary rainbows, redbows that form at sunset and cloudbows that form on foggy days – by using an improved method for simulating how light interacts with water drops of various shapes and sizes. Their new approach even yielded realistic simulations of difficult-to-replicate “twinned” rainbows that split their primary bow in two."

...

"Until now, most simulations of rainbows had assumed that water drops are spherical, which isn’t true for large rain drops, ... researchers have  adopted a completely different approach and developed a more realistic model to recreate rainbows...offer the prospect of a better understanding of real rainbows,”


Stemming from a study of rainbow formation, there is an almost infinite set of topics we can learn more about from looking closely at the  behavior of variously shaped water droplets. Here are a few ideas:

• Weather modeling and forecasting

• Animations in feature films

• Atmospheric behavior on other planets that are found to contain water

• Inspiration for new forms of studio art

• Educational STEM software development

• Frozen food storage behaviors over time

I could go further with my imagination but I'd like to know: What other ideas do you have?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts - you can comment here.


(UCSD Press release)

An Unusual Computational Science Educator

Sometimes crisis propels an existing passion to the forefront of someone's life. This is the one line explanation of how Shodor was founded 15 years ago to advance science education via computational modeling and simulation.

When I first posted about the Interdisciplinary Computing meeting I attended last week, I made a point of mentioning Bob Panoff. Bob is not only a truly interdisciplinary individual but a great person to talk to. So as soon as I could I pried him away from others so that he could speak to me for this report.

If you haven't already looked at his company web site, before you do so, think about what his company name might mean and why he chose it. Don't peek. We'll come back to that. It says a lot about Bob's attitude towards life and work.

You never know where a conversation with Bob will go. It starts at point X and the next thing you know you are somewhere else entirely. But it all makes sense.

It often starts with some interesting comment or question.  He asked me: Do you know what "Quantitative Emotion" is? Given my background, I started thinking about AI. But that was not what he had in mind. He teaches the answer this way: by sending 8th grade students (approx age 13) out into shopping malls to ask people one of two questions.

"is 40% large or small?" Most people respond "it is large".

"is 2/5 large or small?" Most people respond "it is small".

Hmm.... Changing the representation of data makes people feel differently about what something means. Quantitative Emotion. Interesting....

A post-mall conversation with the students (and me!) leads to discussion of multiple representations, and how to present data in different ways - generally through computation and simulation of that data. Bob is all about computational simulation.

One of Bob's very favorite questions, which he also sprung on me, is: "How do I know that it is true?" 

What? Know what is true? Answer: most anything. How do you know that it is true?

This question underpins much of Shodor's work in developing science education materials. "How do you know?" Computation and simulation provide the means to analyse and answer the question. How did Bob arrive at this central question? While in graduate school he taught himself how to use computational simulations to analyse the interactions between pieces of physics problems and to measure the validity of calculations.

Although not a computer science student, he read as many numerical methods books as he could find, most of which had been written in the pre-computer era. (Part of me wondered just where he found these ancient dusty texts, but we were racing the clock against lunch break so I didn't ask). He taught himself to use computing to apply those numerical methods and solve the physics problems.

Pattern recognition and pattern characterization then fueled his interest in simulations. The more he created simulations the more convinced he became that science education in general could be improved through creating effective simulations. How to choose between different approaches in the lab for example, how to compute the properties of materials such as liquid helium, deuterium and solids with impurities. He refers to himself at that period of his life, when he worked in academia, as a computational physicist. Along the way he worked in a supercomputing center. He spent time looking for commonalities between disciplines and how they did use or could use computing, and he worked to share those ideas with other disciplines. In his spare time he started a group  to improve science education. He started by delivering workshops.

Crisis struck in 1994 when he was told he had a kidney tumor and 6 months to live. At this point he decided to follow his true passion with what time he had left. Abandoning formal academia, he incorporated Shodor and went full steam ahead with computational science simulation with the mission of improving science education at all levels.

Short and Dorky. Bob was once called "SHOrt and DORky" by a student, hence the company name. Of course. Creative and humorous and ready to use whatever comes his way.

15 years later Bob Panoff and Shodor are still at it and highly successful. Bob works full time following his passion for computation in the service of science education. As important, his desire to share his work and ideas land him in places like our meeting. Go Bob.

Software and Art Authentication

I spent a few days up in the mountains unplugged. However, technology has an interesting way of creeping in even with the cellphone turned off (reception is unreliable anyway) and the laptop stowed. And I'm not going to talk about the visiting electrician who suggested that I test a 9V battery by licking it (he found this quite amusing, but I declined).

First, I was reading one of my alumni magazines and there was a story about a physicist who used software to examine highly controversial paintings that might or might not have been newly discovered Jackson Pollack works (full story here). The physicist, Richard Taylor, uses software to discover the presence of fractal patterns. Apparently, according to his research, true Pollack paintings are fractal filled. Benoit Mandelbrot agreed. Taylor also determined that fractal patterns reduce our stress levels. Interesting. (Has anyone investigated the effects of meditation while looking at fractals?)

There was a lot of money on the line in this particular situation, and apparently the politicking and public flame throwing were severe. As Taylor said in his article: "For the first time, computers were playing a significant role in determining the fate of artworks". The project was kept secret in order to protect its objectivity as well as Taylor himself. The full story reads a bit like a spy thriller. At one point he was advised not to go outdoors in case a bird dive bomb his head; at another point he was advised to he leave the country for a short while! Eventually his analysis, later supported by other evidence, determined the paintings were fakes. (This was about the time he was told to flee to New Zealand). The process of using software to analyse fractals in artwork is now legitimized and used by many researchers.

Reading this article caused me to think of a similar activity on a smaller scale and closer to home. My father (who passed away in 2009) was an archaeological chemist and spent hours on end sitting at his computer developing FORTRAN code to analyse art. Over the years, he was called upon to authenticate ancient ceramics, paintings from the Middle Ages, and was always glued to stamps (he'd appreciate the little joke). Although the culture of ceramics and artwork is interesting, it was his analysis of stamp forgeries that was most unique as far as I (in my admittedly biased position) could tell. He was always programming programming programming and peering at these little bits of lines and ink. I never got to see his code, and I suspect it is now lost, but I'd give a lot to know more about what he was doing. Over the years I would periodically be ordered off on a mission to obtain some obscure piece of software that he wanted to use, or to locate a specific piece of share-ware that he had somehow learned about. Fortunately he published more articles than I could ever read and a few books, so I can read his results even if I cannot see the code that produced it. If those subjects interest you too, here are a few books: on ceramics (here and here), stamps (here and here)