respectful reviews

The World in Balance by Robert P. Crease

2012-02-10T14:37:00.000-08:00

The World in Balance: The Historic Quest for an Absolute System of Measurement by Robert P. Crease, New York, W.W. Norton & Company 2011 317pp. ISBN: 978-0-393-07298-3

“It will be no easier for a hundred millions of people ten years hence to make the change than for seventy millions today. It is simply a question whether this generation shall accept the annoyance and inconvenience of the change largely for the benefit of the next, or shall the people of today selfishly consult only their own ease and impose on their children the double burden of learning and then discarding the present ‘brain wasting system’.” Nature editorial 1896.

Science historians have determined time frames for the development of one form of measurement or another at least 7000 years ago. It was around 5000 BCE that the Egyptians made the balance for weights, around 3500 BCE that they were using a gnomen for time keeping and a few centuries later they standardized lengths. The Chinese used the decimal system as far back as 1300 BCE we’ll skip additional factoids because you get the point.

Despite the centuries that have passed since people began to understand the need for a universal system of measurement no such thing exists. It could be said that measurement standards have been whittled down to a few but we still are left with decimal systems, metrics and Grand Imperial standards. And this has caused disasters and tragedies as science is not always speaking the same language.

Crease travels through the history of measurement from a variety of perspectives. He is a philosopher after all and is not constrained to look at how we gain trade parity only from an economic or mathematical perspective. He looks at mensuration from various cultural eyes as well and of course he examines it historically.

To those ends he describes the African gold weights as art for their beauty and mythology by their representations but also their value as touchstones. He looks at ancient China as well for a source of understanding of cadence and agreeable values that essentially keep people honest. Measurement standards must be trustworthy yet they have lives of their own and must adapt to newer standards. Quantum measurements have only existed for a brief time for example.

Enter the need for precision and the profession of mechanics. Beginning in the 17th century in the western world, technology began to boom. From Galileo’s use and perfection of the telescope as an example, new tools were created. Essentially they were made to assist with improving the accuracy of measurement. Humans measured crop output, distances, social conditions, economics…the list could go on. Measurement became the bedfellow of the burgeoning new sciences. Standardization became critical for medicine, taxation, navigation and essentially every aspect of life. It served the needs of fairness so that a pound of bread was really a pound or an ounce of gold really an ounce. It served the need of geographic exploration as Harrison developed more expert chronometers to help solve the problem of longitude. Physical sciences as well as social sciences excelled for the new measuring tools that were developed to serve the needs of society.

Coming to an agreement on one form of measurement over another met with politics and that is never good. The French developed metrics which were and are a reasonable form of appraisal. The meter was a standard for humans. A baby was about half a meter and an adult about two meters. One meter was considered the average size of a human. That trivia aside, the meter was a useful objective method for coming to parity.

The English did not care for that so much as they wanted exclusive rights to international measurement via the Grand Imperial Scale in honor of their worldly power and to credit their royalty. Once again this scale is adequate and fair in terms of barter. Elsewhere the decimal system has been developed as a successful arbiter of equality. All are reasonable, non-natural methods for humans to simplify and unify weighted cadence. They all work in their own right but are not universal even today. The metric system may be the most useful as well as widely used but when America tried to incorporate it a few decades ago it was met with much resistance as if learning something new was anathema to our morals. The English use the hybrid metric/Grand Imperial Scale since that old trudge is culturally embedded.

The point here is that internationally we have no common scale and we do encounter trade problems and scientific issues when we are not comparing an apple to an apple. There is no reason to imagine that this stalemate will end soon though it should.
Crease also takes us into some new high tech measurement devices intended we must suppose to make our lives better. One that he described in a chapter had to do with computer generated tailoring. In this event one gets a body scan (the same technology that TSA uses at the airport?) and clothing can then be created to fit you like a glove so to speak. In this readers life (and I suspect the very largest number of fellow human beings) this is a futuristic curiosity but not a device to improve my life.

Crease also describes the fringes of measurement as they pertain to oddities such a pyramid mystification, numerology cults, right wing conspiracies and Christian pathologies. There is mysticism to numbers that when misunderstood or deliberately misconstrued render mathematical measurement useless. Those folks are out there and they always have their “evidence” to support their nonsense.

He added an interesting chapter about Marcel Duchamp’s playful toying with measures and our understanding of them through his abstract art. This is reminiscent of Berger’s Ways of Seeing which reminds us of the cultural impact of how we look at things and make value judgments. This is curious and important aspect of evaluation but it is difficult not to sort it into a different category. From the perspective of quantification as a scientific language that is required for international communication it seems that a specific standard is needed. From a stance of artistic impression it seems to me that sort of subjective appreciation is a different magisteria (thank you Dr. Gould).

Crease ultimately wrote a very interesting book on a very interesting subject. It was worth every minute of reading for its thought provoking notions. On this matter however, this reviewer stands with the Logical Positivists and the desire for a truly universal scientific slang.

Knocking on Heaven’s Door by Lisa Randall

2012-02-04T15:53:00.000-08:00

Knocking on Heaven’s Door: How Physics and Scientific Thinking Illuminate the Universe and the Modern World by Lisa Randall, New York, Ecco 2011 442pp. ISBN: 978-0-06-172372-8

Randall hit the ball pretty far with this explanation of how many things work and how we understand them-or ought to anyway. She explains the difference of faith and empiricism, the importance of scales of measurement, the cosmology and the Large Hadron Collider (HLC). One important point she makes has to do with “effective theory” which essentially is to focus on what matters in scientific thinking. Concentrate on the things that have effects. It is also important to heed her emphasis on the value of models. It is very readable to us non-scientists but some details of physics may be glided over and the reader can still reap a lot of rewards from their effort.

So where should we start a review that covers so much ground? Randall sets the pace slowly and rationally by juxtaposing the interests of science, creativity and religion. The groups seek their understanding of the world from different perspectives and are largely discrete from each other. In a Venn diagram however there is room for overlap. They are not mutually exclusive despite the politically motivated screeches of many.

Randall of course takes the scientific path and she paces the story by describing some important ways to examine the world-ones that the nonscientist can take to heart. The most important is to make the question more important than the answer. We can always find “facts” to confirm our notions if we discard questions. The quest is not to have answers but to have more questions. Surely the pursuit is for answers but those comfortable with creative knowledge understand that certain answers are evasive. They may be suggestive of forthcoming information. Connecting theoretical ideas to strong empirical evidence provides a lot of information and direction for research but rarely an answer.

Another important point is scalability. There are those who would like to inspire us with anecdotal information that does not take scale into account. That is a propagandist tool to obscure information and assist in decision making based on emotion. Politicians love obscure scales but not Randall. Understanding things in terms of perspective and proportion are important. To investigate anything one needs to examine it in the perspective of its size and relation to large numbers. She used a great example by looking at the Eiffel Tower. A Globe won’t inform us much about nor will a microscope. The edifice requires images of it from perspectives that include it in an understandable scale.

Fundamentalist thinkers tell us that we require absolute evidence of anything that is to be believed. We have to have personal observation and experience or we must discard a suggestion. This is despite the notion of miracles etc. There is no reason to accept ideas such as climate warming because we are not sensing it on a personal level. As a culture we are more willing to accept its opposite because we have anecdotal information. In my town of Baltimore a 10 degree day in February is often the grist of comments such as “Do you still believe in climate change?” Randall deftly slays that dragon for those who are able to understand. We need models for the items that cannot be verified in absolute terms.

Were we to wait for absolute veracity for every scientific hypothesis we would live in a useless stasis. We would be sitting alone wringing our hands. We do not do that. In fact we create models all the time that assist us in decision making. We use probabilities too. We weigh chances of any given event occurring. At the same time our culture has a general disdain for model building. Randall tells us that models are incredibly useful as they take empirical evidence and sound theory to make strong suggestions about possibilities that can be experimented with. Randall affirms that good results offer future possibilities for study and failures are as informative. Failed experiments tell us as much about our ideas as successful ones.
We cannot understand with hands on experience all of the things that require our inquiry. We cannot take a beaker to the sun in order to collect data but that is no reason to not study the composition of the sun. Models provide a tremendous opportunity to understand things and to ask more question.

How do we progress in science? When discoveries are made how can we further investigate them? At every moment we are limited by the tools at hand. There are technical engineers in the wings of all experimentation. For the love of science or the desire for profit they are there to develop new tools to help guide the creation of equipment to make understanding and development of theory available. That would bring us to the incredible Large Hadron Collider which we toured with Randall at several stages.

Setting a firm basis for how to examine the world and universe around us Randall delves into specifics regarding physics and the prop used is the LHC. Those of us who lack any solid structure in either topic may gloss over some of the specifics. In this reader’s case a continual reading of modern physics written for the avid amateur, information is internalized only incrementally. Due to age there is no interest in becoming a physicist so understanding every detail is unimportant. Randall may enthuse a young reader who is curious about the direction of their own academic life. Perhaps they will take the same direction that she did. Certainly that is my hope.

The complexity of physics notwithstanding, there were many pieces about physics and the functioning and purpose of the LHC that could be understood and imagined by this reviewer.

There were stylistic aspects of the book that were peripheral to the main point but aided in making it interesting. Those included many snippets of the history of science, a very subtle humor that popped up often enough to bring a chuckle and wait for the next one. She tells us of the importance of looking for issues within one standard deviation rather than the fringes of the Bell Curve. Extreme issues (the bulk of anecdotal propaganda) do not tell us much nor provide us with reasoned direction. Answers we seek that are of value are generally found by looking at the normal rather than extremes.

This reviewer who has always been skeptical of M- Theory (String Theory). String Theory currently is not ready for experimentation. It is still only a theoretical suggestion. Randall ameliorates to some extent, that idea. She suggests that while it is a long way from being accepted as factual it provides excellent theoretical premises and thought experiments. Upon reading her understanding of the theory, this reader came away with a better understanding of this nebulous science with a new understanding.

Randall presents a cautioned enthusiasm for new discoveries. That may seem an oxymoron so let me elaborate. As a proponent and practitioner of science she is cautious in the respect of provable evidence as tests would confirm. Likewise as a theorist she has ideas that are suggestive of future testing when the data suggests it.

A review of this book could go on for several more pages but not here. There are a few more points to make and then it will rest.

As a Full disclosure I need to say that long before reading this book, the reviewer has been a proponent of modeling and probabilities based on convergence of evidence and rational theoretical suggestions. We cannot “see” everything yet strong suggestions can be made using theories that are working and the accumulation of evidence that suggests causal results. Seeing is not always believing.

So who is the target audience? The book was written for a popular audience and how vast is that? I mean the audience who would read a book that suggests it will tell us how helpful it will be in understanding the world. That audience requires an interest in physics and the ability to understand any parts of the details. It serves those audiences very well but it seems that to some extent it is preaching to the choir. Randall did not change my own mind on much (though she informed it of much) as I already am in the crowd that understands the value of scientific thinking. It is difficult to imagine that a student at Bob Jones University will read it though I would hope that some of them do. There are game changers and I would like to believe that this is a book that could do that.

A Strange Wilderness: The Lives of the Great Mathematicians by Amir D. Aczel

2011-12-28T15:45:00.000-08:00

A Strange Wilderness: The Lives of the Great Mathematicians by Amir D. Aczel. New York, Sterling, 2011 284 pp. ISBN: 978-1-4027-8584-9

In the course of reading about the history of science it is easy to overlook the important layer of mathematics in proving a laboratory experiment. Essentially math is reduced to the articulation of physics into a definable entity. Realistically we know that there is more to it than that such as the use of a Chi Square analysis of a genetic experiment but we are less apt to see such in reading the history of science written for the layman.

Mathematics does have its purists who study, formulate and theorize purely for the sake of the proof and their theorems may be incorporated into proofs on the more practical level. These people become more philosophers than scientists. That has a valuable cultural role but the larger intent of Aczel’s book is to look at the lives of mathematicians and how their discoveries and solutions applied to immediate cultural needs. To adequately define the personalities, Aczel provided biographical information and queried as to how much culture could impact the mind. In turn this would suggest the types and the timing of many theorems might well be due to cultural history.

His style was to present short stories of the greatest mathematical minds. So we read through the ancients, the Chinese, the Arabic scholarship and then to western mathematical geniuses. In his six part book he outlines perhaps a hundred mathematical giants from his perspective. He could not address them all and how he selected the characters and what he said about them is known only to him. This is referring to the second tier giants rather than the Schrödinger’s or Descartes types that simply could not be ignored in this sort of history.

His short stories were intriguing and enjoyable to read. The book is hard to put down once begun and this is because Aczel has mastered the craft of bringing such a topic as math to popular readership. Aczel also presented some details of mathematics in layman’s terms so that it was not jargon and informed the reader as to the value of various concepts such as non-Euclidean geometry in its several variations. This further enhanced the book.

The delightful and enlightening information make for a very readable book but perhaps this strength is also a weakness. While packing the biographies of so many into one book he gives short shrift to many interesting stories that he could not always render the scholar their due. He also ignored several women and their role in the history of math. Women in general played a very small role in these annals and this could have been Aczel’s moment to tell us about Sophie Germain, the first woman to win a prize from the French Academy of Sciences. She did her work on a theory of elasticity, as well as aiding and abetting the work on Fermat’s Last Theorem. This was done about 200 years ago. Lord Byron’s daughter Ada Lovelace could have been given a citing since she aided Charles Babbage with his first automated mathematical calculating machine. Lovelace played a role in the machine I use to type and edit this review.

He only gave about a sentence to Grigori Perelman who while contemporary, provides a mound of fodder for evidence of the quirkiness (if not mental illness) of one of the finest mathematical minds of the last one hundred years. Since it was Aczel’s intention to provide the reader with curious details of his subjects it is a wonder why he neglected to mention Perelman’s declining the Fields Medal for his work on the Poincaré conjecture or the European Mathematical Society award or to accept the Millennium prize in July 2010. These are highly esteemed and we can only conjecture that Perelman wanted little to do with the fame of greatness and why that may be. He could calculate voids like Heidegger calculated nothingness but wanted nothing to do with the results.

Those points only meant that this reader would have included them if he were to have chosen to written about the lives of great mathematicians which he did not decide to do. Aczel did and he chose his subjects and wrote about them with aplomb.

Histories of Scientific Observation Lorraine Daston and Elizabeth Lunbeck Eds

2011-12-28T15:35:00.000-08:00

Histories of Scientific Observation Lorraine Daston and Elizabeth Lunbeck Eds., Chicago, University of Chicago Press 2011 460 pp. ISBN: 978-0-226-13678-3

The editors gathered fifteen other science historians to write a total of seventeen separate articles focusing on scientific observation. They did a marvelous job of creating a descriptive history of the development of the understanding of observation. Personal observation is currently under considerable attack especially from a legal stand point these days. It seems to be an accurate concern as countless psychologists, criminologists and philosophers are writing some pretty creditable books and articles that give evidence of our very subjective ways of seeing things. We have a difficulty in accurately describing what we have observed due to our preconceptions. We see things from a bias and that seems to essentially been proven given the swarms of evidence. “Seeing is believing” is an accepted folk adage but believing is not what science is looking for.

Scientific observation means something different yet it still is fraught with subjectivity. The difference is that science builds safeguards such as testing and retesting hypotheses. It is not perfect while perhaps it strives to be. Science in the long run is self regulating. In science empiricism is a constant but sometimes cannot fulfill its task. There are constructs and models used to observe the unobservable but they can no longer be considered purely empirical. They must rely on probabilities and make no statements of assuredness. Rather they make strong suggestions and go through tests. In the end the results are strong suggestions.
Observation is basic to hypotheses. It is a low level tool in the schema needed to make predictions and explanations of phenomena. It is a starting point yet it is critical. No explanation is satisfactory without observable data. All that being said, let’s look at some of the books details.

The editors have synthesized a history based how observation was interpreted and what it was used for. Prior to the likes of Bacon or Descartes, the philosophical thinkers of the day viewed observation in a different way than we would today. It was used nearly in a religious way. Observation was a verb to describe how something is practiced. Essentially it was no different than how it is used in the phrase “Observe the Sabbath” It was intended to “prove” the existence of a Creator. Essentially the early scientists (they did not go by that name of course) were gathering data that guaranteed the existence of a God.

Gathering empirical data was only for a few purposes. Observing weather and the stars provided much information that aided in understanding things like tides and certain weather phenomenon that could make a planter change course based on data found and described. Enough data could make the planter change the types of crops to be planted or when to plant for instance.

Uses of observation increased over time. In the 16th century observation was understood as critical to the legal profession. Eye witness accounts in testimony held a much stronger sway since there were very few other tools to lend veracity to the courtroom and the lawyers relied heavily on purported self seen events and their descriptions.

There is a folk adage saying that any road will get you there if you don’t know where you are going. In the earliest stages of scientific observation the accumulation of data was essential first. This was accomplished primarily through medical records and questionnaires. In the beginning the data sought was answers to pre-ordained questions directed from the standards of authority. Leading thinkers generally from the church were directing questions (thus responses) in order to confirm what they already “knew”.

The more data collected along with an increasingly scientific methodology led to a new use for observation and that was to plan for the future-to find causes and cures. In medicine, collected observations became a genre and led to the earliest formations of scientific societies and journal publication.

Technological invention improved observation dramatically. Technology aided and abetted enlightened thinking to observation. There grew a philosophy of observation, “The perfect observer would ‘have his eyes as it were opened, that they may be struck at once with any occurrence which, according to received theories, ought not to happen; for these are the facts which serve as clews to science’ to which his observations relate’ or might inform him of ‘extraneous disturbing causes.” said musician cum astronomer, William Herschel. The tools as they improved rendered observation to a somewhat more objective science. They helped to assure the viewer that they were experiencing their data from a less subjective perspective.

The book did not enter into a realm of observation that is critical today and it was perhaps its only shortcoming. Within the quantum world for instance, there are many things that cannot be directly observed yet can provide us with grand understandings. The realm of science can make very reasoned probabilistic estimations based on known data and assumptions from previously tests. It is not the ultra empirical data that the positivists demanded. The data is not quite Popperian in that it cannot be truly falsifiable yet discarding theories such as red shift or assumptions about the geological make up of Mars would seriously hamper genuine scientific pursuit.

All told this was a difficult book to put down. The editors and the writers assembled an excellent book for the history of science. It serves as a resource guide as much as a very interesting read.

2011-10-29T11:03:00.000-07:00

The Neighborhood Project: Using Evolution to Improve My City, One Block at a Time by David Sloan Wilson. New York, Little, Brown and Company, 2011 432 pp. ISBN: 978-0-316-03767-9

It is rare that I read in its entirety a book as empty and banal as this book about the Binghamton Neighborhood Project. I did though and it was like watching a very bad movie. I felt compelled to continue because I had difficulty believing that it would continue to be as vapid a waste of words as it really was.

I do not disagree that there is such a thing as cultural evolution nor do I argue that evolution is at least an interesting method for studying changes in culture. Certainly there are catalysts that can be evoked to spur cultural change. I have no argument that people from all walks of life can be vital instruments of positive cultural change. Most of what Wilson proposes about what would make a better society sound pretty good to me. My problem is that he never makes a genuine case for his project.

Wilson clearly wants the reader to understand that he is a really nice guy with a dream of making the rust belt and forgotten town of Binghamton a better place and he suggests that the use of evolution will make his point. We never see any results; we only see utopian suggestions about improved reading, making gardens out of vacant lots and more. We see that he uses GIS mapping to show that committed volunteers come from all walks of life. These are all noble but they tell us nothing. It would have helped to tell us how many lots have provided food and for how many people for instance. Instead we were provided with a brief assessment of volunteerism and the “possibility” of funding for gardening plots.

Wilson also failed to tell us much about the actual project-the title of his book. He found it more important to tell us other things. He gave us details of how natural evolution works with what he called parables of striders and wasps. Each would have been far more interesting if he had not re-hashed much of what has appeared in popular science books over the last ten years. That he is an advocate of evolutionary theory is fine but he felt required to inform us that he is one of the “good” evolutionists.

His asides about “angry” atheists, the famed Four Horseman were polarizing as if on the side of non-belief there are good guys and bad guys. He reinforces this thoroughly by referring to himself as a non-believer who understands the cultural evolution of religious beliefs and the need for cooperation between believers and non-believers. There is nothing wrong with those sentiments but it seems to be something of a straw dog argument. He failed to cite examples where a lack of cooperation occurred. It is as if we all somehow agree that there is an enemy to battle here. It is not one that I have ever experienced.

In fact several of his takes about events and people are far different than my own experience. When such a thing occurs with the regularity that it does in The Neighborhood Project, it makes me skeptical. I cannot help but wonder how Wilson and I could be so different. Honestly, how many of us have experienced parents bursting into tears when a child tells them to go to hell as Wilson described?

I failed to understand the necessity of citing the ethnic background of the many people he profiled in the book, especially when he traces their ancestry back a hundred years to when their progenitors arrived on these shores. It is true that people enjoy citing their heritage that is often from their surname but are 4th generation Germans all German? Are fourth generation Poles noticeably different than fourth generation Irish? Not from my own experience. I also could not understand why one individual was portrayed as homosexual but all the others were not portrayed as heterosexuals. Lastly I do not understand why such a major portion of the book had to be devoted to personal profiles. While that filled pages it did not present The Neighborhood Project as something viable.

Wilson coined several terms in the book and then he beat them into clichés that made me groan every time I saw them. We know that evolution is not orthogenetic but do we have to see “the hammer blows of evolution” describing the theory about fifty times in the book? Do we need reminding about the “Ivory Archipelago” or the “Pinball” fate of career change every few pages?

Those are only a few of the disappointing aspects of this book that could have had good intentions. I like that Wilson feels that we are inherently a species with good intentions and that volunteerism is not bounded by class, belief or race. I agree that evolutionary practice in the sciences can be translated to social studies though I think he overstated his case. As well intentioned as Wilson’s desires may be they failed to make a case for The Neighborhood Project. His story is like aromatherapy, it makes us feel good while we smell it but then it is gone.

Measure of the Earth by Larrie D. Ferreiro

2011-10-29T07:30:00.000-07:00

Measure of the Earth: The Enlightenment Expedition that Reshaped Our World by Larrie D. Ferreiro. New York, Basic Books, 2011 353 pp. ISBN: 978-0-465-01723-2

Nations and societies began making boats of one sort or another, thousands of years ago. Initially it was a mode of transportation but rapidly became a method to enhance trade. Boats went from dugout canoes to larger vessels that could be laden with cargo…and weaponry. The sea became a pathway for conquering others and political and cultural domination. Boats became ships and ships became weapons of war and imperialism.

Initially the reason for conquering neighbors was to usurp their treasures including their women. Slavery played a major role in these endeavors. Spain and Portugal became world powers along with the Dutch and Britain. The Norse had a major impact in vanquishing of others but they were content with brutal domination for brief periods and then leaving the beaten country for new treasure. Ultimately it became obvious to the western world that simply accumulating the lucre of societies did not really serve them very well. The Spanish Armada and the cruelties that ensued from their conquests proved to weaken the country dramatically. They sought riches and little else and it did not pay off in the long run. While raping nations they only gained gold. At some point having massive riches does not really enhance a civilization. While defeated cultures may have peeled their grapes for them, the conquerors were left devoid of new information and it is information that really runs the world.

In the latter part of the 17th century England in particular recognized that in order to have the sun never set on their national franchise, they needed to learn how the world worked. They had to cure diseases, grow better crops and gain some cultural insight. The preeminent Joseph Banks accompanied James Cook around the world for instance. That is the same James Cook whose voyages were instrumental in finding the cure to Scurvy.

The point here is that for nations to remain prominent, they were forced to do more than grab loot. It was this notion that inspired a collaboration of French and Spanish governments and their explorers to start doing some nature and science work. Ferreiro’s story is about determining the size and shape of the earth. This was not being done for argument’s sake but in order to better circumnavigate the earth. This was of course a benefit for gaining riches but to better understand the world-to gain more information. In addition to being a geodesic mission (which it was named) the crews were manned with naturalists who gathered samples of flora and fauna for future research. This is a tale of South American exploration.

It took nearly ten years to accomplish the task and given the tools of the day (1736) it was marvelously successful. Ferreio describes this well throughout his book but additionally he uses the sort of prose and social history requisite for a great adventure story. This reviewer admits to being a sucker for this type of book. The natural history involved with discovery of new species; the exploration of South America; an adventure story all are lures. Ferreio provides details largely from firsthand accounts, of the lives led during this overlong trip from Europe half way around the world to map the equator and determine the shape of the earth-flat at the poles as Newton suggested.

The entire trip was inspired by the Enlightenment. A new understanding that with more science there was more imaginative thinking-the boundaries of ideas were no longer restricted by dicta. Once ideas were free to be explored with empiricism, rationality would arise. Rationality leads to freedom from authority and allows the inquisitive to explore many new ideas, discover new things and to test them. The inspiration of the Geodesic Mission allowed them to discover test and ultimately prove the measurements that would define the size and shape of the world.

These discoveries paved the way for new and safer exploration. With that came the good and bad. Certainly it blazed a trail for additional exploitation of native populations but it also set a course for a more scientific method for understanding the world. It provided for understanding the benefits of nature that would lead to cures and it lead to the discovery of things like latex and allowed for the enslavement of populations in order to extract products from the earth that would benefit humankind.

The intention of this review is not really political. As humans we evolve culturally and socially. We are a species who takes advantage of their ecology-for good and bad. The story Ferreio recounts is one fraught with errant humans who made life easier for all of us including the descendants of those who were exploited.

Salt Marsh Diary by Mark Seth Lender

2011-08-07T12:37:00.000-07:00

Salt Marsh Diary: A Year on the Connecticut Coast by Mark Seth Lender, NY, St. Martin’s Press, 2011

I heard Lender discussing his book and the conditions of his own Salt Marsh while listening to Pacifica Radio’s, Life On Earth radio program. It came on the radio as I was collecting as much material as I could about Salt Marshes. The program snippet inspired me to donate to Life On Earth in part because I listen to it every week and in part because my donation would provide me with a book on Salt Marshes.

Lender’s book is a very personal account and while prosaic, is not packed with information about the ecology of Salt Marshes. So I discovered something different while reading it. Many of the books about Salt Marshes are written to inform us of the importance living in these conditions are to many different authors. Lender being only my latest read that attests to this assumption. I jumped into this interest from more of an intellectual or scientific interest. I wanted to know the ecology, the flora and fauna and the conditions of this phenomenon. Now I can value the Salt March from another perspective as well and that is the personal value attached to this niche, by those who experience it on a daily basis.

Lender does not tell us about the breeding habits of birds or the way spartina works to filter pollutants or salts (except an occasional comment). He tells us about his observations about birds mostly and other residents of the land where ocean meets terra firma. It is personal in that he is prone to waxing nostalgic and poetic to provide us with his observations. He is often anthropomorphic. That does not work for a science book but I have always felt that it works when talking to and about pets. It seems that all of the wildlife in this Connecticut Marsh, are Lender’s pets. That certainly is how I feel about the menagerie of birds to come to my yard to feed on the various seeds of which I am a provender.

I read the book almost entirely in one reading as it is short and breezy. I did not learn much about ecology but I did become inured to the incredible value and importance many writers place on their Salt Marshes. I have only begun my own research and my first field study on Salt Marshes drew me to the camp of writers such as Lender. I was absolutely enamored by everything I found. I watched Brown Pelican’s for a long time as they fed in their seemingly irrational way into the Chesapeake Bay. I realized that I had to get to know them as well as Lender knows his free ranging pets up in Connecticut.

Salt Marshes by Judith Weis and Carol Butler

2011-06-30T03:51:00.000-07:00

Salt Marshes: A Natural and Unnatural History by Judith S. Weis and Carol A. Butler. New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers University Press, 2009 254 pp. ISBN: 978-0-8165-4570-7

Ecology is a concept fraught with misconceptions mainly regarding single issue prejudice. Ask a person at random what ecology means and the responses typically have to do with global warming or pollution or other single issue responses. People generally do not think about the concept of ecology and the more relevant notions such as life cycles, symbioses or food chains. Why should the everyman consider anything about ecology that is not a single issue? They think about the concept after it has been politicized from one extreme to another. On one end we would basically take up a primitivism not unlike the nobility of the savages of Rousseau and on the polar opposite we would build another mall. The authors suggest neither of course because they actually outline the concept of ecology very thoroughly in their presentation about salt marshes.

In one sense the book is very text book like; it is organized to describe the ingredients of salt marshes, their destruction and solutions to salt marsh ruination. At the same time there are a lot of personal asides found mainly in side bars throughout the book. Two things about the book stood out most for this reviewer. First of all were the methodological descriptions of the flora and fauna of salt marshes and their interaction with each other as prey to the food chain. Second was the care in using scientific methods rather than personal emotions (read politics) to make their case.

Here are some of the things that a reader will learn from the book. Salt marshes in their pristine state are a lode of natural riches. They include flora such as the many grasses that make up not only a food source but also a filtering affect as the plants store various pollutants in ways that preserve that pristine state. The symbiotic state that conserves the ecologically relevant marshes is aided and abetted by the fauna of the marsh as birds eat crustaceans and bigger fish eat smaller fish etc. You get the picture. This is how ecology works, all sorts of species make their living and breeding based on the environment that they live in.

We humans can shove our heads in the sand and pretend that symbiosis is unimportant to us but when we kill off any species we are eroding our own lives because somewhere in this chain, we will lose an aspect of the natural world that is important to us.

As we read the book the chain reaction of symbiosis becomes very clear. The microbes in the mud and the water have an effect on the Spartina grasses which affect the amphibians and crustaceans that rely on them which have an effect on the mammals and the birds that make their living in the marshes.

Over the years we humans (and that includes the forebears of European settlement, have altered the conditions of salt marshes for immediate needs for centuries. With no consideration for the future we have tried to redirect Mother Nature as to the benefits of the land most close to the sea. This land is rich with biodiversity and abilities to assuage the ill effects of the hurricanes that bash our shores every year.

The solutions are not easy as the authors contend. Preservation of the marshes that still exist is the best. Restoration of marshes may be a second best but there is no science out there to suggest that restored salt marshes will return to the native state that will provide the ecological riches that they did in the past. The various laws enacted to preserve or restore marshes are loaded with politics and scientific terminology has been bastardized in favor of development projects.

Lest one wonders if the authors themselves rely on politics to make their case they assure us that it is science and empiricism that will lead us towards solutions. When spurious claims by ecologists were suggested by Weis and Butler, they reminded us that personalities and emotions were as incorrect as those made by ecological gainsayers.

To save salt marshes we need level headed decision making that is based on empirical data and an understanding of how important the life cycle of all organic matter is to all of us. We (all organic matter) are in this together. We humans may imagine that we have some sort of sacred standing in this universe but we do not. We are only a slippery slope away from our own extinction in a some centuries if we do not consider our relationship to other living things in the world of ours.

The authors did an excellent job of outlining the conditions of the marsh, the problems of intrusion upon them and the potential effects of our involvement. It was made clear without finger wagging or pretending that our society is going to suddenly change its lifestyle. It was pretty matter of fact and pointed to no-nonsense scientific solutions-the ones sans of political ideology.

Quantum Man by Lawrence M. Krauss

2011-05-26T15:34:00.000-07:00

Quantum Man: Richard Feynman’s Life in Science by Lawrence M. Krauss. New York, W.W. Norton & Co., 2011 350 pp. ISBN: 978-0-393-06471-1

Another in the Great Discovery series about the lives and works of some of science history’s great. It is an excellent group of science histories; the authors well chosen. These are books written as popular biographies but the potential reader should not imagine that these are beach reads. They require the keenest intellect and interest in order to get the most out of them. Krauss’s tales of Feynman is no exception.

Book is about Feynman, his work, personality as well as Krauss’s work. Anyone with even a cursory understanding of Feynman knows of his flair for the unconventional and seeming natural iconoclasm. Krauss however suggests that some of Feynman’s zaniness and anti-establishment posing came after the death of his first wife after only a short marriage. He also suggests some depression at times debilitating, that Feynman encountered. Through all of the angst that Feynman may have had, he was always a producer. He was a consummate problem solver and teacher. Krauss informs us that his subject had a quality not found in many of our iconic figures in physics, he could listen.

When venturing into any of the numerous books that Feynman either wrote or were collections of lectures, you will find that he verbally disdained philosophy and softer subjects like social science or the humanities. Simultaneously he philosophized and was active in several pursuits that would be found in the humanities such as music.

Feynman came to be well upon his matriculation as he became a significant factor in the Manhattan Project that led to VJ Day. A veritable youngster at the time he not only was a diligent problem solver but also a merry prankster sneaking into secure areas and solving combination locks. At the same time he was attempting to care for and comfort his dying young wife. The A-Bomb was Feynman’s introduction to the world of notoriety but his character would not stand for pomp and so he found himself bound for Brazil and its sexual/sensual lure as much as he was bound for seminars and conventions.

Rubbing shoulders and minds with the universal greats of the world of physics gave Feynman many ideas to exploit, more than he already had. Problem solving was his way of life and while he was involved in many aspects of the world of physics it was his interest in quantum computing that struck this reader most profoundly. The notion of computational problem solving at the microscopic level during the 1950s and 60s was difficult to imagine yet at the same time Intel’s Gordon Moore was suggesting that computer power would double every 18 months in 1965. What has become understood as Moore’s Law came to fruition and Feynman’s imagination of the future of computation has so as well. Were Feynman alive today he would not be surprised at the almost exhaustive capabilities of the I-Phone. Moore was on the money with his prediction and Feynman knew it. There is a technology benefit to humans (and a cost as well) and Feynman could see that in the earliest years of personal computing.

Towards the end of his life as he struggled with and conceded to cancer, Feynman joined the panel investigating the horrible disaster of the Challenger in 1986. His testimony showed the lack of oversight provided to contractors in this important and fatal mission. With a glass of ice water, Feynman dispatched the frailty of the o-ring; the one that failed the mission causing many deaths. Krauss’s treatment of this was too cursory and details of that event would have improved his biography.

Krauss provided a lot of technical details of the work of Feynman and his contemporaries. This is where the book was not for the faint hearted. This reader has no background in physics or enough of one in mathematics to fully grasp some of his details. Those like me who are very interested in physics but only have the background of avid readers of popular books on the field and its heroes, slog through these portions of the book picking up information as we can. There is nothing wrong with the author doing that but it takes a well versed reader to follow his details of how that science works. As stated before, the book is not for the weak kneed but if the reader is willing to slowly plow through explanations of scientific detail and grasp what they can, it is an interesting story of an admirable (and flawed) man of science.

Academically Adrift by Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa

2011-04-19T15:53:00.000-07:00

Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses by Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2011 259 pp. ISBN: 978-0-226-02856

The authors present a conundrum and do not adequately resolve it. They want to fix something that on the surface is not broken. At issue is the weakness of college graduates ability to think critically or write coherently. Anecdotally this appears to be accurate to me and the authors give substantial documentation to back up their thesis.

The blame is laid on both students and faculty. Students according to the authors are not seeking academic rigor. They are looking for a credential (degree) and a status (the grade point average earned from easy grades). College is meant to be a place for socialization and intellectual ease. The authors claim that this was not always been the case but personal experience in college programs spanning four different decades matches their current findings. College students in the late 60’s could have given identical quotes to the ones used in the book. They are not convincing in their citations claiming that this is a trend that began in the 60s.

Students spend very few hours devoted to actual academics in the classroom, doing assignments or in advisement with faculty. They are socializing or working off campus to earn spending money. They do not need to eagerly pursue knowledge they merely have to appear as if they have done so by maintaining a good average and graduating.

Faculties have an increasingly scholarly demand on their time. It has become more profitable for them to be in the laboratory, giving speeches or writing. The demands of the profession (publish or perish) render them less avid tutors. Their non-academic efforts have more economic possibilities and often fame. Faculty the authors report, are now less devoted to the classroom than they were in previous times. Their statistics on this are not as convincing as some of their other arguments. Publish or Perish has been the mantra since I first embarked on my academic career over 40 years ago.

One of those arguments that seems to be clear is the increase in numbers of adjunct faculty. These non-tenured, usually benefit-less employees, owe no real loyalty to the classroom. The university itself has no loyalty for them. This is not to suggest that they are inherently poor teachers. It is to say that these instructors have to be seeking employment options that are in their own best interests. At time that means rushing off to another college where they are adjuncts in order to earn a living.
There are also more class loads placed in the hands of Graduate Assistants. Like adjuncts, they may personally have a zeal for teaching but they also are less skilled at the trade and they have their own studies and research to attend to. Teaching is the easiest aspect of their lives to give short shrift and I speak from my own experience in that realm.

In the end instruction at the college level simply lacks rigor according to the authors. Students want easy course work and grades and instructors increasingly satisfy that. Parents feel that they have gotten their money’s worth. Where then, is the problem? We would be naïve to imagine that the University’s goal is something other than sound business practices. Academic excellence is peripheral and there will always be student stars that are able make good use of this fiscal pact.

The authors feel that there needs to be reform and regulation so that we can guarantee more value in higher education. Not only does that seem to be a fruitless goal because they are not apt to find lawmakers who view the situation as a critical need but they are suggesting this in 2011 where political demand does not include either regulation or education as a high priority.

The point of the book does not address what may be the largest and most real problem. Those with less ability at critical and analytical thinking are going to take direction by looking at societal trends-fads essentially. They are far more apt to be following the lead of an authority figure rather than thinking for themselves. The loudest voices of authority are readily available on the radio and television. The books they write do not provide analysis even when they are read.

Lastly, this is a sociology book written by sociologists and cited support is from sociologists. This means that the arguments have to be presented many times throughout the book. That makes for some pretty tedious reading.

2011-03-07T15:12:00.000-08:00

Not a Chimp: The hunt to find the genes that make us human by Jeremy Taylor, New York, Oxford University Press 2010 338 pp. ISBN: 978-0-19-922779-2

Taylor is a renowned science documentarian in England, creating natural history films for the consumption of interested viewers. He is a reporter more than a scientist but this book comes to the fore because Taylor asked the right questions and accumulated the right scientific work to come up with a remarkable book. He is deign to take a strong stance about the relative comparison of the potential sentience of animals (especially chimpanzees) compared to humans. He does lead us to his own conclusions despite the scientific reticence that suggests that nothing is “proven”.

There are those scientific popularizers that are wont to compare humans and chimps favorably and to suggest that those beasts have something akin to a theory of mind. Essentially that they are able to interpret the intentions of others, they understand false beliefs and know that they are being spied on for nefarious reasons. Taylor (like me) is very skeptical of these claims and has collected a vast amount of research material to suggest that maybe we are starkly distinct from animals including the chimp.

He begins by exploring this oft held notion that since we share 98.4% of the genetic structure of the chimp, we ought to be nearly brethren. He kindly destroys this concept by discussing one of my favorite genetic qualities, the regulator genes. He uses the FOXP2 gene for examples but regulators are referred to by several different means by other authors. Matt Ridley calls them HOX genes and that is what I conveniently use. The HOX genes in a chimp, a Native American and a Swede may have identical DNA sequences but they do their job differently in each example. They may regulate height, hirsuteness or melanin production. They may not react similarly to environmental conditions. They are the same gene but their role distinguishes each of the populations described.

Genes can also be identical in the DNA structure but perform entirely different tasks per species. This is described by Taylor as “Segmental Duplication”. What Taylor is talking about is often referred to as epigenetics though he does not cling to that understanding as if it was factual. Rather he suggests it as a strong possibility.

To further lay questionable this thesis that chimps are nearly the equal to humans, he offers a fascinating chapter on birds and their tool making and interpretation of the calculations of their own species and of humans. It is an intriguing chapter on Corvids, especially the New Caledonian Crows. These birds do a lot of figuring out. They make serrated saw like tools to extract pupae prey from under leaves and they can understand a space relationship so that they can create a tool of the right length. They can make a tool that will allow them to access another more appropriate tool in order to get their prey suggesting that they actually think ahead and plan. They make hooks in branches if their object of desire requires such a tool. They also cache food for the future and re-cache it if they are being watched so as to keep their stash. All of these activities suggest a theory of mind making them very human like but Taylor shies from making that claim. He simply intended to give us food for thought.

The notion that the brain of a chimp, which looks so much like a smaller version of the human brain is therefore simply a smaller version of our is dispelled by Taylor as he cites research that indicates that similar situations are dealt with very differently from chimp to humans based on material changes in the brains during such events. They do not have similar reactions, chemical releases or objective activation in the brain. Smaller brains that look so similar to human brains do not respond the same way and we ought to stop imagining that the visual similarities of these two brains suggests a real similarity.

Humans domesticated themselves during the last 100,000 or so years and Taylor wrote a chapter to describe the details. Chimps have not been able to do that. Humans have had a fairly rapid evolution largely inspired by culture and this is not duplicated in chimps. It is as if we strived for improvement though that is quite a leap. As a method of surviving and spreading our genes we have adapted to changed environments quicker than other species including chimps.

The examples of dissimilarity between chimps and humans are rife in the book. There are several examples that will require reading the book rather than my representing them here. It simply is a fascinating book full of information and with the scientific humility of not attesting to a guaranteed proof. Taylor suggests that we are very dissimilar to chimps and shows from whence he draws that conclusion. I concur and admit to have a bias against acclimations that we are kindred with them. I tire of hearing the rather trite comparison of our 98.4% genetic similarities as proof of our kinship. We humans do not act like chimps. We are good, bad horrible and kind and we are those things for entirely different reasons than chimps. We have evolved rather dramatically in our short time on this planet and chimps have evolved little in their six million or so years here.

Unruly Americans by Woody Holton

2011-02-21T04:12:00.000-08:00

Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution by Woody Holton, New York, Hill and Wang, 2007 370 pp. ISBN: 978-0-8090-1643-3

Holton’s book relies heavily on accounts of what the people of America were thinking and doing in the years between the Treaty of Paris of May 12, 1784 and the ratification of the Constitution. He does this by presenting the popular culture of the time as well as social and economic events that impacted the people.

He tells us what the Framers had in mine but the focus was on the events of the day. Unfortunately it is not an easy read as Holton does a lot of jumping between places and events. The book is fraught with repetition as well.

However, there is a lot of interesting information and perspective for the reader to understand and to form opinions on. The question that looms large especially during these “Tea Party” days in our current popular culture is what the framers of the Constitution meant.

The Federalists (pro Constitution) led by James Madison saw significant problems with the conditions of this neonate nation. There were major things to fear, Holton addresses the inability to pay down the war debts to European allies, the speculation for bonds (and territory when available) and the inefficiency of the state currencies. The states were doing a poor job of taking care of their own constituents and a worse job of paying up the debt required to appease those that America owed.

Madison had great disgust for what the States had done with the Articles since winning the war. They were not collecting delinquent taxes thereby hurting war bond and payment to European allies of Revolution. Rather than the Republic that was to be this nation, the states wanted democracy. Democracy at that level led to political and social anarchy. It essentially made every man’s concern equal to every other man’s. This was at the state level and there were 13 states each with their own agendas. It was havoc and it led to questions about whether Americans could govern themselves. Perhaps this nation building effort was in vain as Americans favored emotions to reason as Washington commented. Perhaps there was too much democracy as Madison opined. Republicanism relies on cooperation and Noah Webster wondered whether Americans could not cooperate to the extent of successfully functioning as a nation.

The Federalists, the ones proposing and promoting the constitution wanted a strong centralized national government. They wanted taxation to come from the Federal government and be equitably drawn across the country. They correctly imagined that their largest revenue would come from tariffs rather than direct taxes of individuals. Holton discussed the often draconian state practices to collect taxes including the wretched conditions of debtor prisons before ratification. One would think that this new nation would find the English tradition of those wards despicable, yet states used them in the typically a-logical way of imprisoning a potential worker so that he could not pay the taxes that they owed.

The Framers correctly saw violent intervention as a means of disrupting the conditions of America. It came from three vantage points. The English held Canada and several other border areas; Spain held what is now Florida and the French held much territory around the Mississippi. This could lead to territorial disputes and the potential for violent confrontation. There were the native Indians coalescing into nations and providing a united front against America. State militias were in all cases inept at securing their own people and property. Then there was internal rebellion. While western Massachusetts’ Shay Rebellion was the straw that broke the camel’s back, tax protestation was rampant throughout the states. Insurrection was a clear possibility.

America was in the midst of a post war depression. The states were only acerbating the situation with their weak paper money and methods to collect tax debts. Hamilton’s idea about a national bank was not met well by the states. The Framers found this intolerable and desperately wanted a strong national government to right this nation. Of course the eventually were right but notions like “States Rights” were at this point in history, just silly. The states were not able to take care of themselves let alone be members of a national union.

While states were attempting to get every common man the right to an opinion, vote and recognition may have been vainglorious, the Federalists were not immune to some scrutiny. They would prosper from a national Constitution as it would free up debt and offer opportunities for speculation. As Holton points out, Madison himself was orating about the benefits of the Constitutional ratification as a boon to all, he had several sticks in the fire that would benefit him financially were the nation to discard the Articles of Confederation in favor of this new Constitution. One way the rich get richer is from favorable government policies. State governments were making decisions that favored merchants over tradesmen and farmers and this led to social unrest.

The anti-Federalists had several gripes and while they were often presented in emotional outbursts and even violence, they were based on some truths. States were using ham fisted methods to secure taxes from the everyman alleviating this onus on the financially more secure. Various state’s bonds and land opportunities were grabbed up by the speculators who had the cash flow to do that. The common man could not take advantage of these spoils and it did not sit well. Fears about the burden of taxes created anti-Federalists. They did not see the fruits of a new taxing system that the Constitution would bring. It did bring it too but Americans could not see that as they were so heavily burdened by their own states.

Their own congressional representatives did little to solve this problem. Too often they tried to appease the concerns of all of their constituents leading to incongruent (read anarchic) legislation. Representatives wanted to speak for the people and Federalists wanted congress to govern instead. To the Federalist, we would elect our officials because they could guide our concerns into intelligent decision. They would be “elitists” because they had more education and experience. They would know the ropes and continue on a path toward a better future. It would be a republican government but what was seen was “too much democracy”.

In the folklore of America, every man has an opinion and belief and all are equal. That is plainly not a method for running a country. It is a method for never accomplishing anything. The Federalists wanted political leadership that was knowledgeable about what would work and what was best for the largest number of people.

Essentially Americans were glad to be shed of British rule and saw every burden and slight coming from leadership as a return to the “despotism” of the former rulers. They saw the potential of Constitutional ratification as the first step backward and another government deaf to their concerns. Ironically the Constitution while creating a stronger centralized government actually would (and did) ease the burdens of the working people. But as Washington lamented, people were responding based on emotion rather than reason.

As a result a very explosive press rose up. Basically all of the newspapers were heavily biased (more often than not, pro ratification) and objectivity not a concern. The press was instrumental in stirring emotions.

In addition to the tax and debt crisis was the looming and real threat of the totally disenfranchised native population. They saw their land and resources being usurped and were not fearful of genuine violence. State governments were ill equipped to deal with this. A national army could. In essence, States Rights though a popular notion, was not serving its citizenry well.

Constitutional ratification would provide the Federal government with money to arm against rebellion but not at the tax burden on the common man-the farmer essentially. It would aid in the repayment of international debt and ease the economic depression. Why did it lack in popularity amongst the people? Those folks were largely patriotic and wanted to see this new nation as separate from any in Europe. What was the problem (or problems)?

The Federalists demanded a strong centralized government. They had no use for individual states to have unnatural political sway. It did not consider a democracy as proper. All ideas and concerns were not considered to be of equal value. The Federalists anticipated the lawmakers would also be experienced patricians. After all it was from that class that the framers came from and they were the ones who had education, knowledge and leadership skills.

The Federalists felt that there was a virtue in their status. They would not be leaders were they not elite. To add to this it was clear to the everyman that it was that this class who would benefit financially from ratification immensely. The everyman too often feared that this image of elitism would put the nation on a path of return to European regency.

The average American felt that they would not be heard by powerful lawmakers. Despite the fact that those commoners would benefit greatly by ratification, there was a concern about the benefits derived by those in power. The farmers, millers and stone masons of 1787 were willing to cede their own benefits from ratification because their wealthier countrymen could benefit even more. They felt that their own private concerns were more important than a national unification. They were not able to imagine the greater good because of emotional concerns and very personal issues. There was little interest in a concept of the greater good. The Federalists created this national Constitution to be the best that it could be at this time. They left room for improvement on the document for future use but they also recognized the need to get this Constitution ratified now. Were we to wait for a perfect document, the nation could crumble as a political experiment.

Constitutional ratification brought European investment dollars, it freed up Americans from direct taxes, created a powerful army to fight Indian insurrection and freed land for purchase by regulars and speculators. The Constitution protected Americans from possible foreign intrusion. Ratification took the nation out of the depression that ensued post war. Money was freed up for paying off debts, interest on bonds and making immigration easier. The rich got richer but things improved for the average citizens very well.

Those were the facts. The Constitution was not perfect and it did not settle all problems. It was the best that it could be at the times. It made room for improvement to suit the needs of future Americans who lived under different circumstances than those existing at the time of the ratification. It was to be a flexible, plastic document and in fact would prove to be useful today, 225 years later.

It seems clear to me that notions of strong centralized government led by people who have been schooled and have experience in nation leading, would lead to electing the leaders we need. We do not do that currently, but it would seem that we want leaders that are different from the guys we watch the Super Bowl with. Most all of us are not knowledgeable of nation building and maintaining. We need leadership that is skilled at understanding the nuance of politics.

It is tiresome to read and hear cries about the static nature of the Constitution by people who have neither read it nor have read about its creation. Too many people misuse the notions of Constitutionality and are not familiar with either the document or the history of its creation. Too many of those people are demagogues who have amongst their minions, people who are standing at attention awaiting their leader’s orders rather than attempting to understand the history. They simultaneously disdain the “elite” and blindly follow an authority figure. They are willing to give up their own best interests because someone else’s best interests might be served as well.

Facts are a result of material reality. Truth is an embellishment of facts embellished with emotions.

Ratification of the Constitution

2011-02-06T04:46:00.000-08:00

Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 by Pauline Maier, New York, Simon & Schuster, 2010 589 pp. 978-0-684-86854-7

Popular memory does not acquit itself well with real history. Real history is not meant to describe a history free of an author’s bias but rather one that relies on original source material to paint the picture. In our country we have a desire to find our information quickly and we want it to agree with what we already believe. That brings us to popular memory.

Our media is rife with demagogues shrieking their beliefs at us and if they are simple to understand and tell us what we already feel, they are successful. It is the oasis of symbolism that too often we seek rather than hard realities of actually interpreting data and making our own determination of what is real to us.

That leaves us with Michelle Bachmans and Glenn Becks to enlighten us. It leaves us with Alternet and KOS to make the road easier to travel. It makes us all Constitutionalists and we never have to read it. We never have to read the Federalist Papers either or Madison’s letters. We can become experts by repeating those braying their filtered information into a distillation that we are happy with.

Maier, who is by no means a demagogue, has done the grunt work necessary to present a very scholarly impression of the travails that led to the ratification of the American Constitution. The seeds of thought were planted with the Shays Rebellion when Americans first tried to revolt against the government of this brand new country. The country had just completed its victorious revolution and now faced internal conflict.

Shay’s Rebellion made it clear that the Articles of Confederation were wholly inadequate for developing a set of rules for this new country to abide by. They were too ineffectual to be tweaked and altered and had to be tossed aside, totally replaced. The framers of the Constitution saw that rebellion and the potential for more as dire. If the states could not effectively unite as one nation the experiment would be doomed. America’s debts to nations that aided our liberty were huge. This was a vast land of fertile soil and natural resources. It was a located where there was a lack of local allies. There was a native population that was less than glad to befriend European interlopers. The framers saw this new independent national test as leaving the nation very vulnerable.

The Constitution itself was written in purposeful secrecy within a few days in 1787. The reason for the secrecy was that the framers intended to come up with an all purpose, useful document unfettered by public sentiment and more importantly the press. The intention was to create the groundwork for nation building. This was important stuff as what America accomplished would be a first in the world. It would be an international standard and hopefully would stand the test of time. It was like the Declaration of Independence in that regard.

The short history from the time of the Articles of Confederation until the drafting of the Constitution had proven that the former was woefully inadequate. The Framers also knew that this Constitution had imperfections but based on how these laws could serve the most and be the fairest, this document was accepted by its authors as “good enough”. They understood that amendments would be needed in the future but it was critical to get this document out to the public and to get it ratified so that as a new nation, America could proceed.

They were more interested in getting the document in place than they were in granting things like individual’s rights to bear arms and according to Maier, the 2nd Amendment was an appeasement far more than a priority. The real priorities were towards the future. They could not see the impact of the technology yet to come but wanted a broad set of laws to cover that, as well as the option for amendments that could be more specific to as yet unseen future needs.

On September 18, 1787 the Federalist Convention put the Constitution to print for all to review. They did not provide a ratification option for changing the document. It was presented as a “take it or leave it” paper as far as the ratification process. They felt that this was a very fragile time for a new nation one weakened by the hardships of war and one that was so geographically expansive and diverse.
There were several realistic fears that they hoped a Constitution could help assuage by bonding the citizens of so many states together under one federal nation. Amongst the fears were the vulnerabilities of the western states to re-unify with England, to come under attack by nations like Spain and the growing resentment of native peoples. A very serious problem was the chance of defaulting on foreign debts to those countries that aided the nation’s independence. A default on loans would certainly make those nations lose faith in the efficacy of this new nation at best and see it as prey at the worst.

Individual states were not pulling their weight in paying down this huge debt creating an animus from other states who felt they were doing more than their share in helping pay back those other countries. Without ratification, states could become victim to internecine attack from other states as well.

Native American’s were concerned by the growing movement across the west and retaliated with attacks. States were very vulnerable to great loss of lives and goods from the assaults and without the aid of a nationalized army, risked the chance of being further weakened and vulnerable. The framers essentially presented the states with the Constitution as it stood and asked them to create their congresses and conventions and ratify the Constitution.

Well, not everyone liked that idea. Many pockets of the nation saw the surreptitiousness of its creation and “take it or leave it” presentation as an insult. Then of course there were the articles and amendments that inspired much controversy and debate.

The Federalist (pro-ratification) were pitted against those simply referred to as the anti-Federalists though accept for rare cases, it was not that simple. In the largest number of debates the pros and cons of issues as presented by delegates were not always as divisive as the arguments sounded. We could imagine a bell curve of opinion and look only at one standard deviation thus disregard extremists (such as Patrick Henry and his anti Constitution at every turn) We could look at the issues in a Venn diagram and see that concurrence on the Constitutional elements was large. Agreement on the Constitution was widespread but every state and delegate had well thought out concerns that need to be addressed (details on those are forthcoming). Basically the pros saw a deep vulnerability of the nation and raised a simple question-what would be the cost of not ratifying the document? The antis did not feel the threats as strongly as their counterparts and they asked what the costs would be of ratification.

There was a trait amongst delegates on both sides that created a philosophical divide as well. There were those like Lee, Henry and Adams who grew up under the old regime (British repression) and had a knowledgeable, personal history of how things were prior to the seeds and the actual revolt leading to American liberty. There was a younger crowd who became of age as the war brewed and surged. Madison and Randolph for example were the younger, more zealous of the revolutionaries and emotion (albeit inspired by well read Enlightenment thinking) was brought to the fore.

The Federalist Papers were as the name indicates, written to inspire a desire to ratify. Initially they came in the form of daily newspaper essays but culminated first into a two part book and finally made available as one volume. John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison wrote under the pseudonym of Publius and made a strong case for the ratification. They also wanted to ensure that the nation grew as a Republic rather than a democracy. This is important but an entirely different discussion than this review. Briefly a republic elects delegates to act on legislative decisions rather than have every issue decided by a public vote as democracies would have. It was evident that Madison and the others saw the human ability to be trivial, equivocal and self centered to the point of being against their neighbor. Too many stipulations and “rights” make execution of laws impossible. Often arguments against ratification could become spurious and self serving. These issues were addressed in the Federalist Papers. They also came to fruition during the debates in each state’s ratification process.

There were many issues that strongly suggested the need for ratification. The Framers could not predict the future but they knew things would change. They also knew how delicate this new nation was. It was open for attack from foreign sovereignties, there was an economic depression in place, much internal dissent amongst states plagued relations and there were growing native attacks. This new nation required a national vanguard made up of the states rather than a bunch of independent sovereignties.

The whole idea was to propose a new government. It would include such provisions as the end of the importation of slaves twenty years hence. It included federal protection for all states should they come under attack. It would prevent any religious test of elected officials and Congress could not veto any state law.

The taxes to be imposed were for debt paying, common defense and general welfare of citizens. There were worries and debates about congressional power to tax. This was at a time when the nation was heavily in debt. Once the crisis was over taxes would lower it was assumed.

As the states ratified, arguments would shift from polemics to expediency. The practicality of siding with the union became more evident. A Loss/Sum argument became a reality for the remaining states.

Alexander Hamilton’s posed the argument “Would the greats (Washington, Adams, and Franklin) all of whom were Federalists, betray the nation? Would they let the new government take away the people’s rights and liberties? Anti-Federalists began to concede that Constitution was better than not having one and what would result without it. Late in 1789 North Carolina joins the union with ratification as it needed Federal help with Indian wars in the western part of the state.

George Washington was a great proponent of ratification and he had an intuitive sense about objections to ratification “…addressed more to the passions than to reason; and Clear I am, if another federal convention is attempted…the sentimentalists of the members will be more discordant or less accommodating that the last.” Massachusetts delegate Tristram Dalton, had a more pragmatic perspective. “The danger of accepting this constitution is not equal to the danger of refusing it.” Madison had an ameliorative thought “people” formed nation not as a single body but as people comprising thirteen sovereignties. Madison’s logic was that we should assume elected officials “will as readily do their duty, as deviate from it.” They were chosen by the people. To distrust the officials meant to distrust the people. John Jay saw the Constitution as a rational while imperfect; it was a framework-a template.

In short the Constitution as it stood was the best that could occur now.

Where was the argument against the Constitution? Once again relying on the first standard deviation of a bell curve we can examine the rational issues.The original document had no provision for Bill of Rights. Many of the states had one in their constitutions and the feeling amongst gainsayers was that such a statement should be a requirement of a Constitution. Most Federalists disagreed and felt that such a device was more decoration than value. This point was ultimately conceded when the first 10 Amendments became known as the Bill of Rights.

Another common issue was that there would be no jury trials for civil cases. It was felt that without that, the everyman would be giving up rights to the rich and powerful. Several examples of this problem in Europe were cited in the arguments.
There was an unrealistic problem with the maintenance of a standing army. The fear was that those in power could use this army to cut dissent asunder. While that possibility existed, a standing army was necessary for protection from Native American warfare as well as interloping by Spanish and French (not to mention English) armies into American soil.

Many an Anti-Federalist feared that the Federal government would become too complex, too powerful, too far removed from popular control. The Federal Judiciary and Legislative bodies would become far enough removed from the people that they would no longer serve those who elected them. States Rights became the crux of the debates. This sounds a lot like the bellwether of current dissatisfaction with government with the ironic twist that in 1788 it came from people who did NOT want to see the Constitution ratified.

Worries were, simply put, that too much power for Congress would result in the revelation of the ultimate calumny of men in power. Too much Federal power (mostly the power to tax) would lead Congress to be of “lordly and high minded men” with contempt for the common man and use a standing army to squelch popular dissent.

Many wanted the mention of God in the constitution as well as a religious test for those seeking elected office. Despite the hue and cry for that, the framers were steadfast in refusing that citing the history of governmental intrusion on the religious activities of their minions.

The Constitution was nearly silent about slavery expediting the ratification from much of the south though cited as a major issue against ratification by the anti-slavery delegates from Rhode Island.

As we all are aware, the Constitution was ratified first by Delaware and then 12 other states. Washington was elected President in April of 1789 and inaugurated on the last day of the month. His only Constitutional reference during his speech was to Article 5 regarding the Amendments. The nation has survived well under the Constitution. It has been strongly tested on many occasions and has withstood well. Upon completing Maier’s book I could not help wondering how many of those media people and politicians who so often cite the Constitution (rarely with specifics) as the source of their political concerns have read the document or the history behind it.

The framers and proponents of the Constitution were future oriented and recognized the need for a flexible and plastic document that would be a template for future growth and change. It was amenable and to that end we have no slavery and women can vote. We also could not drink and then we could again.

Roger Peterson Hagiography

2011-01-08T16:11:00.000-08:00

Birdwatcher: The Life of Roger Tory Peterson by Elizabeth J. Rosenthal, Guilford, CT, The Lyons Press, 2008 437 pp. ISBN: 978-1-59921-294-4

Within these pages there is a lot of merit. It is pretty well written and maintains the reader’s interest throughout. Rosenthal used an interesting style to accomplish this. She wove biographical information through facts and impressions both of Peterson and his cohorts and the results of many events in their lives. Peterson did have a tremendous impact on the hobby of bird watching as well as the intellectual and scientific understanding of birds. He influenced a large number of people for many years. He essentially brought bird watching out of its wealthy dowager stereotyped image and to the everyman.

Rosenthal did her research and provides a thorough list of reference material that can be used for additional information about my own favorite subject.

Peterson himself had remarkable accomplishments. His series of field guides which were occasionally updated throughout his long life sold in the multimillions. I myself have a healthy number of field guides of which about 20% have the Peterson imprimatur. Mine however all have copywrites after his demise and are edited by predecessors. I use them to assist in both identification and brief information about the species I have a curiosity for. I have to admit that my favorite field study is birds and I am much more prone towards the Sibley Guides for my information.

Notwithstanding, the fact that Peterson endeavored to provide a plethora of field guides makes him an influential historic figure and one that enlightened generations as to the nuance and beauty of the natural world. His own learned skill as an illustrator made his physical representations of that world more clearly visible. The figures also included annotations to highlight features of whatever species he described. This aspect which is the style of Sibley today makes these types of illustration more valuable to readers like me. Unfortunately my copies of Peterson Guides overwhelmingly depict with photographs sans annotation. Photographs can fool us tyros because they are single images. The older guides and those with skilled drawings often provide nuances that allow us to better identify a bird. If you do not already know this a newly fledged Laughing Gull can be mistaken for a different species when juxtaposed to a fully adult Laughing Gull.

Conservation is very important notion to me and it was a lifelong quest of Peterson's. Preserving species is not merely so that we humans can enjoy the possibility or reality of sighting many different flora and fauna. It is a symbiotic necessity. It is ultimately for survival and less so for the intrigue and mystery that the natural world provides. The Bee population collapse ought to worry us. This relationship of the natural world to the thriving of humanity was an important part of Peterson’s life and he used his notoriety to influence large numbers of people to agree with him. Some of them had money or political influence and to that end, many important pieces of legislation occurred as he raised awareness in people. Popularizing natural history can only be a good thing.

Having said all that let me now be blunt. Rosenthal played the toadie to the hilt in this most hagiographic of books. She wrote it much like the 1959 biographer of some baseball hero would write to ten year olds. Her selection of people to make her point and discuss their relationship with Peterson was of hero worshippers; they were knowledgeable and merit respect but they also were autograph hounds.

Even the esteemed Kenn Kaufman would retract his published criticism of a Peterson guide because he did not think it would be read by the man who Rosenthal continually refers to the as the Great Master or King Penguin. The adulation was so rife that it became nauseating. There were very brief submissions from his son Lee that were not so lauding but they were overwhelmed by adoration of others. There were no reports from his ex-wives about his personality. His second, Barbara appeared to be a fascinating woman though compelled (it would appear by her own personality) to essentially function to glorify Peterson.

Based on Rosenthal’s description of the “Great Man” I personally would not have liked him in the least. He was far too interested in his own aggrandizement than he was in his own children and spouse(s). He used his own most close family as tools to do his bidding. Really, he could not boil water or figure out household tasks because he was above that and required servants to handle daily routine while he played with his paintbrushes in his atelier or travelled to adventure with others. Rosenthal’s occasional tale of him being able to fall asleep at will…even amongst friends was not endearing. I would have shaken him and kicked his sorry butt out of my home.

So Peterson was great for a lot of good reasons and if Rosenthal represented him accurately I am glad that I was never in his presence to witness his greatness.