(A continuation of our earlier posting, 600 Years Ago)
“It stretches my belief, Curmudge. You can foresee 600 years into the future?”
“No way, Jaded Julie. I can’t even see tomorrow on the calendar without my trifocals. We’re actually going to consider what’s going on today with an eye toward 600 years in the future. We’ll use the same assumptions as last time, with an average global temperature rise of 0.7 degrees C. per 100 years. Once again the wizard…”
“…the wizard? I thought he was put into a dungeon in 1410.”
“Same guy. His sentence was 600 years. Wizards have a long life expectancy, and they are very persistent. As I was saying, once again the wizard successfully peddled his global warming story to the world leaders; and their response was similar to what it had been in 1410. They held international meetings, (almost) reached agreements, and pledged (sort of) great sums of money to help developing nations.”
“The advent of the airplane certainly made it easier to attend those international meetings.”
“But it all went bust. The pseudo-agreements depended on countries acting contrary to their own economic interests. Money for developing nations, as with previous ‘foreign aid,’ would have gone into their leaders’ Swiss bank accounts. International scientific efforts were confounded by politics and vested interests, and the wizard was exposed as a pretender.”
“Curmudge, there must be a better way.”
“There is, Jaded Julie, and it is called capitalism. First let’s consider its opposite, socialism, which has been proven to be a total failure (the Soviet Union), or an opiate of the people (Western Europe). Characteristics of socialism include confiscatory taxation and centralized planning made by political appointees or bureaucrats with de facto tenure. The results of socialism are high unemployment, little opportunity for initiative and personal growth, and a passive citizenry totally dependent on the government for their welfare.”
“That doesn’t sound like a good way to solve a problem like global warming, assuming it is a problem. So how might this be approached in a capitalistic society?”
“Julie, I thought you’d never ask. To begin with, decisions made by millions of informed citizens, thinking critically for and about themselves, should be better than those made by a few powerful bureaucrats. If given respect and the opportunity to make things better, able citizens will gain an understanding of climate change and will devise ways to adapt to it or possibly avert it.”
“Hey, Curmudge, you just spoke of respect for people and making things better. That’s Lean; we finally got there!”
“Government should allow those with ability to succeed or fail depending on their own creativity and initiative. Equal opportunity doesn’t guarantee equal outcomes. If governments had always discouraged inventors and entrepreneurs, we’d still be living in 1410. In their normal mode of operation, governments only redistribute the pie; entrepreneurs make the pie bigger.”
“With that as an introduction, Curmudge, how are capitalism and Lean going to give us a better outcome from global warming?”
“Because they are betting their own money and are not depending on political favoritism, individuals should not be taken in by boondoggles. A smart entrepreneur will not develop a solution until he is certain there is a problem. As time passes and new information becomes available, he will be continuously refocusing his efforts. That is Lean-type continuous improvement on a long time scale.”
“If there really is global warming, and our best knowledge says we can’t control it, how will capitalism respond?”
“It’s pretty simple. Ariens will make more lawnmowers and fewer snow blowers. There may be more skin cancer, so more dermatologists will learn how to do Mohs surgery. We’ll adapt, and we might live longer.”
“Finally, Curmudge, why did we title this posting 600 Years into the Future? We talked mostly about the present.”
“Well, Jaded Julie, it seemed like a logical successor to our earlier posting, 600 Years Ago. Besides, a title is the author’s prerogative. I don’t recall there being a tornado in Gone with the Wind.”
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
600 Years Ago
“Today, Jaded Julie, we’re going to do some thinking outside of the box.”
“That shouldn’t be hard, Curmudge. You are outside of the box.”
“We’ll begin by making some assumptions for which there has been some evidence in recent years (1). Let’s assume that the earth’s average temperature has been rising linearly at 0.7 degrees Celsius per 100 years and that a total increase of four degrees C. converts the earth into a jungle. At 0.7 degrees per century, that would require 570 years. For simplicity, let’s round it off to 600 years and begin our story in the year 1410, i.e., 600 years ago.”
“I’m with you, Curmudge. Beam me down, Scottie.”
“Life was not easy in 1410. While the kings lived like kings, the common people in the country eked out a living in agriculture and those in the cities built cathedrals. Along came an all-knowing (so he thought) wizard who convinced the Pope and all the world’s kings, czars, and caliphs that we were faced with the future tragedy of global warming. (He was wrong. In 1410 we were actually at the end of the Medieval Warm Period.) Further, the wizard proposed that global warming could be averted by stopping the growth of the burning of fossil fuels, at that time coal and peat. The world’s leaders agreed with the wizard and decreed that his proposal be implemented.”
“I think I see what’s coming, Curmudge. The growth of a civilization parallels its energy use. If additional coal could not be mined, the development of civilization would have been arrested at 1410. I shudder at the thought; it would have been ‘Groundhog Day’ forever.”
”Worse than that, Julie. Without coal for steam engines, the Industrial Revolution could not have occurred, and our life expectancy would still be around 40 years. Even the printing press might not have been invented. In fact, most of the inventions created after 1410 would not have happened.”
“Things like cars, airplanes, computers, modern sanitation and health care, nuclear power, space flight, and Krispy Kreme donuts.”
“One bright spot, Julie. When the would-be wizard’s forecast did not materialize, he was probably thrown into a dungeon.”
“Is there a lesson in this, Curmudge?”
“Sure. World leaders should be wary of purported wizards; and if they do believe the wizard, they should not be taken in by recommendations of global, draconian measures. And finally, if the wizard is proven wrong, burn him at the stake.”
“Wow! The hot seat would seem fitting for someone who built his reputation on ‘warming.’ By the way, we didn’t mention Lean once in this story, and that’s supposed to be the subject of this blog.”
“Of course we didn’t, Julie. In 1410 Lean hadn’t been invented yet. But hang in there; Lean will be in our next conversation.”
(1) Plass, G.N. Carbon dioxide and the climate. Reprint of author’s 1956 article in American Scientist 98 (1) 58-67 (January-February 2010)
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2010/1/carbon-dioxide-and-the-climate/1
“That shouldn’t be hard, Curmudge. You are outside of the box.”
“We’ll begin by making some assumptions for which there has been some evidence in recent years (1). Let’s assume that the earth’s average temperature has been rising linearly at 0.7 degrees Celsius per 100 years and that a total increase of four degrees C. converts the earth into a jungle. At 0.7 degrees per century, that would require 570 years. For simplicity, let’s round it off to 600 years and begin our story in the year 1410, i.e., 600 years ago.”
“I’m with you, Curmudge. Beam me down, Scottie.”
“Life was not easy in 1410. While the kings lived like kings, the common people in the country eked out a living in agriculture and those in the cities built cathedrals. Along came an all-knowing (so he thought) wizard who convinced the Pope and all the world’s kings, czars, and caliphs that we were faced with the future tragedy of global warming. (He was wrong. In 1410 we were actually at the end of the Medieval Warm Period.) Further, the wizard proposed that global warming could be averted by stopping the growth of the burning of fossil fuels, at that time coal and peat. The world’s leaders agreed with the wizard and decreed that his proposal be implemented.”
“I think I see what’s coming, Curmudge. The growth of a civilization parallels its energy use. If additional coal could not be mined, the development of civilization would have been arrested at 1410. I shudder at the thought; it would have been ‘Groundhog Day’ forever.”
”Worse than that, Julie. Without coal for steam engines, the Industrial Revolution could not have occurred, and our life expectancy would still be around 40 years. Even the printing press might not have been invented. In fact, most of the inventions created after 1410 would not have happened.”
“Things like cars, airplanes, computers, modern sanitation and health care, nuclear power, space flight, and Krispy Kreme donuts.”
“One bright spot, Julie. When the would-be wizard’s forecast did not materialize, he was probably thrown into a dungeon.”
“Is there a lesson in this, Curmudge?”
“Sure. World leaders should be wary of purported wizards; and if they do believe the wizard, they should not be taken in by recommendations of global, draconian measures. And finally, if the wizard is proven wrong, burn him at the stake.”
“Wow! The hot seat would seem fitting for someone who built his reputation on ‘warming.’ By the way, we didn’t mention Lean once in this story, and that’s supposed to be the subject of this blog.”
“Of course we didn’t, Julie. In 1410 Lean hadn’t been invented yet. But hang in there; Lean will be in our next conversation.”
(1) Plass, G.N. Carbon dioxide and the climate. Reprint of author’s 1956 article in American Scientist 98 (1) 58-67 (January-February 2010)
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2010/1/carbon-dioxide-and-the-climate/1
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Peer-Reviewed Publications
(This is the continuation of a series of postings introduced on January 22, 2010.)
“Curmudge, the term ‘peer-reviewed’ has been in the news a lot during the past few months. This might be one of those extremely rare blog topics about which you know something. Would you be so kind as to enlighten me, or is this a subject—like differential equations—that you have totally forgotten?”
“I would be delighted to share my recollections, Jaded Julie. Because I had manuscripts peer reviewed between 1961 and 2002 and did a bit of reviewing myself, much of it has become hardwired.”
“Please give it a try, Old Guy. Let’s start by looking at the process from the author’s standpoint and how he or she decides what is publishable.”
“The critical guideline in this whole process, Julie, is integrity. If data from an experiment or series of experiments provides the basis for a finding or story heretofore unknown to the world or to others in your discipline, it is a candidate for publication. But one can’t cherry-pick his data. If some of the data don’t fit your story, they can’t simply be ignored; they can only be rejected if they are statistical outliers.”
“I can appreciate the importance of integrity. Doesn’t everyone have some element of vested interest in his research?”
“Vested interest comes in many flavors, Julie. Late in one’s career, the author’s delight in contributing to knowledge would represent the low end of the vested interest scale. At the far end of the scale is current work in atmospheric science. It seems that in that discipline one’s findings impact multimillion-dollar technological ventures, politics, and the fate of the industrialized world. The higher one goes on the vested interest scale, the greater the temptation to compromise one’s integrity.”
“So back to the guy in the lab. The author writes his paper, including data to support his hypothesis (remember, no fudging or cherry-picking) and enough experimental detail to permit someone to duplicate the work, and sends it off to a journal for publication, right?”
“Exactly. Often he must wait many months—up to a year—for the peer review process to transpire.”
“Am I correct, Curmudge, that publication in a peer-reviewed journal has traditionally been the ‘gold standard’ for scientific knowledge?”
“You are essentially correct, Jaded Julie. Remember, however, that the ultimate tests are (1) one’s work must be independently reproducible by someone else, and (2) any forecasts must turn out to be true. Nevertheless, despite all of its warts and blemishes and potential for hanky-panky, the peer review process has worked pretty well. Because my area was not highly controversial and was populated by a limited number of scientists, peer review was not very onerous for either authors or reviewers.”
“Curmudge, what’s that ‘potential for hanky-panky’ that you mentioned earlier?”
“Here’s an example. Consider a topic about which there are two schools of thought and in which editors and reviewers have a vested interest. Remember that peer review is a single-blind process in which the reviewers know the author but not vice-versa.”
“I think I can see what’s coming, Curmudge. If the editor’s position on the topic is ’A’ and the author is advocating position ‘B’, the editor can reject the paper out of hand or send it to reviewers that share position ‘A’ who will recommend rejection. I feel sorry for the poor author. He’s been shot down, but he doesn’t know by whom. And potential reviewers who are interested in position ‘B’ may wonder why they never receive any manuscripts to review. ”
“That’s it, Julie. If the author can’t find another journal whose reviewers will at least consider evidence of position ‘B’, he and position ‘B’ are effectively suppressed. This would appear to be ‘political’ science, i.e., science for the purpose of politics or vested interests. My speculation is that this might represent the untimely and unjustified demise of traditional peer review.”
“So how do we summarize the lessons of these last four postings?”
“It’s pretty simple, Julie. Be wary of politicians talking about science, of people confusing effect with cause, of scientists with a vested interest using complex mathematical models that can’t be experimentally verified, and of researchers who suppress publication of findings that don’t agree with their own.”
“Curmudge, the term ‘peer-reviewed’ has been in the news a lot during the past few months. This might be one of those extremely rare blog topics about which you know something. Would you be so kind as to enlighten me, or is this a subject—like differential equations—that you have totally forgotten?”
“I would be delighted to share my recollections, Jaded Julie. Because I had manuscripts peer reviewed between 1961 and 2002 and did a bit of reviewing myself, much of it has become hardwired.”
“Please give it a try, Old Guy. Let’s start by looking at the process from the author’s standpoint and how he or she decides what is publishable.”
“The critical guideline in this whole process, Julie, is integrity. If data from an experiment or series of experiments provides the basis for a finding or story heretofore unknown to the world or to others in your discipline, it is a candidate for publication. But one can’t cherry-pick his data. If some of the data don’t fit your story, they can’t simply be ignored; they can only be rejected if they are statistical outliers.”
“I can appreciate the importance of integrity. Doesn’t everyone have some element of vested interest in his research?”
“Vested interest comes in many flavors, Julie. Late in one’s career, the author’s delight in contributing to knowledge would represent the low end of the vested interest scale. At the far end of the scale is current work in atmospheric science. It seems that in that discipline one’s findings impact multimillion-dollar technological ventures, politics, and the fate of the industrialized world. The higher one goes on the vested interest scale, the greater the temptation to compromise one’s integrity.”
“So back to the guy in the lab. The author writes his paper, including data to support his hypothesis (remember, no fudging or cherry-picking) and enough experimental detail to permit someone to duplicate the work, and sends it off to a journal for publication, right?”
“Exactly. Often he must wait many months—up to a year—for the peer review process to transpire.”
“Am I correct, Curmudge, that publication in a peer-reviewed journal has traditionally been the ‘gold standard’ for scientific knowledge?”
“You are essentially correct, Jaded Julie. Remember, however, that the ultimate tests are (1) one’s work must be independently reproducible by someone else, and (2) any forecasts must turn out to be true. Nevertheless, despite all of its warts and blemishes and potential for hanky-panky, the peer review process has worked pretty well. Because my area was not highly controversial and was populated by a limited number of scientists, peer review was not very onerous for either authors or reviewers.”
“Curmudge, what’s that ‘potential for hanky-panky’ that you mentioned earlier?”
“Here’s an example. Consider a topic about which there are two schools of thought and in which editors and reviewers have a vested interest. Remember that peer review is a single-blind process in which the reviewers know the author but not vice-versa.”
“I think I can see what’s coming, Curmudge. If the editor’s position on the topic is ’A’ and the author is advocating position ‘B’, the editor can reject the paper out of hand or send it to reviewers that share position ‘A’ who will recommend rejection. I feel sorry for the poor author. He’s been shot down, but he doesn’t know by whom. And potential reviewers who are interested in position ‘B’ may wonder why they never receive any manuscripts to review. ”
“That’s it, Julie. If the author can’t find another journal whose reviewers will at least consider evidence of position ‘B’, he and position ‘B’ are effectively suppressed. This would appear to be ‘political’ science, i.e., science for the purpose of politics or vested interests. My speculation is that this might represent the untimely and unjustified demise of traditional peer review.”
“So how do we summarize the lessons of these last four postings?”
“It’s pretty simple, Julie. Be wary of politicians talking about science, of people confusing effect with cause, of scientists with a vested interest using complex mathematical models that can’t be experimentally verified, and of researchers who suppress publication of findings that don’t agree with their own.”
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Curmudge and Jaded Julie Talk about Models
(This is the continuation of a series of postings introduced on January 22, 2010.)
“Models, Curmudge? You mean those super-slender gals who look as if they have an eating disorder?”
“No, Jaded Julie. We’re going to talk about mathematical models; these are mathematical depictions of processes. Models were described in our discussions of queuing theory last July. Authors that we cited in Kaizen Curmudgeon a few weeks ago used models to forecast physician income in a medical home. We use value stream maps all the time as visual models to depict processes in the hospital. The equations that I learned in physics classes long ago were models of physical processes; they included statics (e.g., forces on a stationary beam), and dynamics (a ball rolling down an inclined plane).”
“Wow! There must be a model for everything. I’ll bet that the advent of the computer has made it possible to model processes that are more and more complex.”
“That’s for sure. We’ll talk more about that later, but let’s start by considering a very simple example. Our daughter moved to a new house in Madison, so I consulted MapSeek* to learn how to get there. In addition to directions, MapSeek said that our daughter’s house is 104.61 miles from ours and that it would take us 1 hour and 54 minutes to get there. In computing our travel time, MapSeek must have used the model, time equals distance divided by an estimated average speed. Their average speed was 55 mph (104.61 miles ÷ 1.9 hours).”
“I’m with you, Curmudge. Because the MapSeek routing uses Highway 26, their average speed must have been adjusted for slowing down in Rosendale to avoid getting a speeding ticket and perhaps also for the possibility of getting stuck behind a farmer pulling a load of manure on 26, a two-lane highway. But is the best route now using Highway 26 through Rosendale? U.S.-151 is now four lanes all the way from Fond du Lac to Madison. Perhaps we should give this new information to MapSeek so they can adjust their model.”
“That would certainly seem to be the proper thing to do, Julie. But let’s consider this hypothetical case. Suppose the MapSeek people own a coffee shop in Rosendale. They wouldn’t want to change their recommended route and their model because it would hurt their coffee shop’s business. That’s called having a vested interest in their model and the data that go into it. MapSeek would prefer that we shut up about there being a better route; perhaps they might even try to suppress all discussions of alternate ways to go from Appleton to Madison.”
“Hey, that’s not fair! We all depend on MapSeek for the correct information.”
“It’s a sad story, Julie. We can see through what Mapseek might do because it’s hard to color the results from a simple, transparent model based on a classical equation. In addition, Mapseek’s work can be easily tested empirically. But when a bunch of suspect data are poured into a complex computer model that is arcane, abstruse, and tentative, anything can happen. That is especially true when someone has a vested interest in the outcome.”
“(Although Curmudge uses words that are known to only a few people and are hard for the rest of us to understand, I get the picture.) Hey, Curmudge, your story is a parable, isn’t it? May I explain its lesson?”
“Go ahead, but don’t get too specific.”
“Think critically. Be slow to accept the conclusions of investigators attempting to model a complex process when their work is supported—even indirectly—by people with a vested interest in their results.”
*Our apologies to MapQuest for using a name similar to theirs in this totally hypothetical example.
“Models, Curmudge? You mean those super-slender gals who look as if they have an eating disorder?”
“No, Jaded Julie. We’re going to talk about mathematical models; these are mathematical depictions of processes. Models were described in our discussions of queuing theory last July. Authors that we cited in Kaizen Curmudgeon a few weeks ago used models to forecast physician income in a medical home. We use value stream maps all the time as visual models to depict processes in the hospital. The equations that I learned in physics classes long ago were models of physical processes; they included statics (e.g., forces on a stationary beam), and dynamics (a ball rolling down an inclined plane).”
“Wow! There must be a model for everything. I’ll bet that the advent of the computer has made it possible to model processes that are more and more complex.”
“That’s for sure. We’ll talk more about that later, but let’s start by considering a very simple example. Our daughter moved to a new house in Madison, so I consulted MapSeek* to learn how to get there. In addition to directions, MapSeek said that our daughter’s house is 104.61 miles from ours and that it would take us 1 hour and 54 minutes to get there. In computing our travel time, MapSeek must have used the model, time equals distance divided by an estimated average speed. Their average speed was 55 mph (104.61 miles ÷ 1.9 hours).”
“I’m with you, Curmudge. Because the MapSeek routing uses Highway 26, their average speed must have been adjusted for slowing down in Rosendale to avoid getting a speeding ticket and perhaps also for the possibility of getting stuck behind a farmer pulling a load of manure on 26, a two-lane highway. But is the best route now using Highway 26 through Rosendale? U.S.-151 is now four lanes all the way from Fond du Lac to Madison. Perhaps we should give this new information to MapSeek so they can adjust their model.”
“That would certainly seem to be the proper thing to do, Julie. But let’s consider this hypothetical case. Suppose the MapSeek people own a coffee shop in Rosendale. They wouldn’t want to change their recommended route and their model because it would hurt their coffee shop’s business. That’s called having a vested interest in their model and the data that go into it. MapSeek would prefer that we shut up about there being a better route; perhaps they might even try to suppress all discussions of alternate ways to go from Appleton to Madison.”
“Hey, that’s not fair! We all depend on MapSeek for the correct information.”
“It’s a sad story, Julie. We can see through what Mapseek might do because it’s hard to color the results from a simple, transparent model based on a classical equation. In addition, Mapseek’s work can be easily tested empirically. But when a bunch of suspect data are poured into a complex computer model that is arcane, abstruse, and tentative, anything can happen. That is especially true when someone has a vested interest in the outcome.”
“(Although Curmudge uses words that are known to only a few people and are hard for the rest of us to understand, I get the picture.) Hey, Curmudge, your story is a parable, isn’t it? May I explain its lesson?”
“Go ahead, but don’t get too specific.”
“Think critically. Be slow to accept the conclusions of investigators attempting to model a complex process when their work is supported—even indirectly—by people with a vested interest in their results.”
*Our apologies to MapQuest for using a name similar to theirs in this totally hypothetical example.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
