Friends are Electric

I can think of three main reasons why someone would care passionatly about spelling, and none are flattering.

The first relates to bitterness.  I can imagine someone caring passionatly about spelling if they were forced to learn to spell perfectly from a very young age.  These people would be bitter about all this wasted time, and take out the angstiness they feel on the world at large by always taking the time to point out every spelling mistake they see.

The second is a serious lack in pattern matching ability.  If you are so handy capped, you may be unable to understand the meaning of a word if it is not exactly spelled out.  In some cases, this is a legitimate worry, for instance form and from.  The difference in stratigraphy and stratgiraphy, however, is slight.  Anyone being a stickler in the later case is probably just an asshole.

The third and final reason I can think of why anyone would care passionately about spelling is a superiority complex.  You correct spelling because it gives you something by which you feel you can legitimately place yourself above other people.  In this case you are an asshole.

Now, before anyone tells me that correcting spelling comes from a legitimate desire to protect the english language, or even from love of it, I’ll point out that if you truly cared you would cease preventing its natural progression.  I would also inquire about your slang usage, and whether you use the original spellings as layed out by the original dictionaries.   The dictionary spellings reflect common usage today, which has often changed over the years.  The original was written out before the majority were literate, and thus reflects closer how whoever wrote it down felt it should be spelled.  I understand that those who care will continue to care and force their ridiculous nitpick on the word as a whole, and feel as though any transgression is the greatest crime imaginable (except of course suggesting that they are misguided), but for all of us who don’t care or who feel hostile towards their tyrannical behaviour, I’m with you.  I’ve got your back.

If their purpose was only to provide a snapshot reference of a language at a given time, one could successfully argue that dictionaries have a purpose which sufficiently justifies their existence.  This is not the current state of affairs, and the usefulness of dictionaries should be questioned.  Perhaps we should even go as far as to question the very existence of them.

Language is an organic thing.  It grows and develops naturally through continued use.  Words and phrases obviously fall into disuse with time, but the structure of language itself is also subject to change. The way we spell and pronounce words today is very different than the way they were done in the past.  Its the natural evolution of language.

Dictionaries function as repositories of `truth’.  They are used as the truth on the subject of language.  If common usage differs from what is contained between their covers, then common usage has deviated from the greater truth and must be corrected. This acts to prevent the natural growth and development of language as a whole.

Language is one of the most important aspects of culture. Dictionaries and their truths act to restrain the natural development of language, and thus of our culture as a whole.

The next time someone quotes a dictionary to prove a point, you would do well to question their motives and arguments. Agents of regressive forces should be resisted.

Or: Why scientific analogies are often fitting

So, just to recap: plate tectonics is the net result of many interactions within the Earth which results in a dynamic surface which features mountain building and, due to different topography, erosion, transport and deposition.  Suffice to say, in this analogy, plate tectonics is a force which changes the topography of a region.  Any further detail is confusing things.

Now, let us pretend we have a little robot which constantly seeks the highest point it can find.  This is not an absolute highest point, but a local maximum point.  It cannot simply find the highest point now and expect that to remain the highest point forever (we will say that this robot experiences geological time, rather than human scale time).  The robot must constantly search out the new maximum point, make small adjustments on a perpetual basis.

In this analogy, the robot is our actor and the altitude is our fitness function.  For whatever reason we have decided that peaks are ideal (this is simply for visualisation purposes, the topography can be n-dimensional).   The robot acts to seek out what is the ideal attainable solution at a given point in time.  Attainable because it is a local maximum, the robot doesn’t actually know if the peak it has found is a global maximum or not.

This is an example of an evolutionary algorithm, (I suggest reading people who actually study this subject, it is very fascinating and I know very little).  Applied to populations, it produces a very nice aggregate function which is excellent for product design and creation (assuming you are knowledgeable enough to navigate it properly).  Applied to an individual, it determines what is best for a given person at a given time, again assuming that such a person is capable of applying such a method.

The most important thing to note is that such functions are highly dynamic and that it is entirely impossible to know if one solution is the best possible solution or just the best so far.

Which brings us to a nice effect of averaging: everyone acting on their own tries out a huge number of possibilities.  Any solution anyone comes up with is entirely appropriate if they determine that it is best for them.  Best for them does not mean best for everyone, or even approaching a good composite function maximum.  Another effect of averaging: the more people creating to find a maximum, the closer everyone gets to finding the average global maximum.

This explains why things go out of style, the driving force of the topography of the system has changed what is considered best.  This also explains why some people defy our understanding: they have different variables which they seek to maximize.  They might also have found some local maximum they are comfortable with and are unwilling to explore around to find another, potentially higher, maximum.

I recommend  Wikipedia on evolutionary algorithms and on complexity economics as starting points.

A thought has been worrying me a lot recently.

I am a man of reason.  To me, there is nothing more fundamental.  I follow my reasoning wherever it takes me.   Since I am an engineering student, this is a rational way to be.  Science follows reason. It is natural.

What is strange to me is how we, as a society, become convinced of unreasonable things.  I speak now of creationism.  Not that some subscribe to this belief, I can understand that.  I do not wish to prevent others from believing what they wish.  What is in one’s own mind is no business of mine.  What I mean is about the conflict between creationism and evolution.

I say conflict, but this is somewhat misleading.  Reason dictates that evolution is truth.  Let us not get bogged down in any details.  Anyone needing convincing of this fact is invited to educate themselves. Biological evolution is a fact.  This, then, is at the root of what is confusing me.

Evolution is truth in terms of the origins of life.  Darwin was wrong in the same sense that Newton was wrong. Science progresses. Evolution is correct, just as gravity is correct, albeit both have been and will be modified in the future as that is the way of science.

My question is this: If evolution is so clearly true, which it is, how has society been convinced that there is even a `debate’ between creation and evolution.  This is the true triumph of creationists, since creationism is provably false.  But convincing the masses that there is descent is an impressive feat, one which deserves recognition and retaliation.

I do not call for violence.

I do call for reason.

Whenever you hear someone speak of a debate between creationism and evolution, set them straight.  Science knows the truth.