Even In Australia: Multiple Choice, Hitting the Wall, and Henry Huggins

Yes, the things listed after the colon in the title really are connected, but only in a way that makes sense among the sleep deprived.
And I am soooo there!

Last week and weekend I spent my time feverishly finishing papers and studying for a multiple choice test in Child Psychopathology.
Generally, I do not like multiple choice tests.
I overthink the questions almost every time.
For example, consider this question:

"Down's Syndrome occurs more often with older mothers than younger mothers because:
a. chromosomal nondisjunction increases with maternal age
b. women's ova generally become less healthy with age
c. older women are generally less healthy than younger women
d. none of these"

Here's how I tend to think:
Me to myself: "Hmmm. Well, the book is an undergraduate text, so it probably says "a". However, that's not exactly right. It's not that nondisjunction--and isn't that spelled wrong?--occurs more often in older women, it's that older women are more likely to carry a fetus with a trisomy for small chromosomes--21 and 22--to term. So the real correct answer would have to be "d". But of course, she wouldn't expect the undergrads to know that, sooo...."

In my vast experience as someone who is addicted to taking courses, er, I mean a lifelong learner, I have learned to ignore the overanalytical part of my brain, (If I am not sleep deprived) and just go with the simplest answer. And I did that on Thursday and did well on the test.

But I hate multiple choice tests.

And I am now officially sleep deprived. This week, in order to keep up with the 8-9 hours of (paid) training for my summer job, as well as completing the semester's work, and educating N., I have been getting up before the sun and going to bed well after it sets.
I used to be able to do this kind of thing twice a semester--when I was in my 20's and 30's.
Now...well, ah, let's just say it's worse than 'Mommy Brain.' It is more like 'Mommy Brain' and 'PMS Brain' put together.

So today, I was cruising along in my training, and unwisely decided to take a MULTIPLE CHOICE QUIZ while sleep-deprived and before eating lunch.
"It's only a few more minutes," I rationalized (to myself--I'm not quite talking to the walls--yet). "Then we'll take a nice break."

Famous. Last. Words.
The information was somewhat complicated. The assessment system I was using had gotten a step more complex, and so I dithered over the answers for half-an-hour. That, as Bronowski says of Galileo, was my first mistake.
Then, just as I was about to submit the Quiz, I changed my answers.

Those of you who know the conventional wisdom about changing uncertain answers on a multiple-choice quiz are now groaning and throwing popcorn at the screen.

"How could you!" I hear you yelling. "WIth all of your experience being a student! "
Never. Never. Ever. Ever. Change. Your. Answers. When. You. Are. Uncertain.
The first response is most likely to be right.

Of course I did very, very poorly
.
I have an excuse. The training video, with its emphasis on "opening doors" for kids, and moving kids at this level along if there is the slightest reason to do so, misled me.
But, if I am completely honest, there was not the slightest reason to do so. And there were some other clues in the video.
The real problem? I made the right decisions the first time.
And then I changed my answers out of sheer, sleep-deprived paranoia. How could I be so certain? Was I not willing to give these (thankfully fictitious) children a chance? Etc. Etc.

Judith Viorst said there'd be days like this. Even in Australia.

The only sensible thing to do is take a break. Read Henry Huggins, and go get my hair done.

And speaking of Henry Huggins, have any of you read it recently?
As I do, I get the sense that times have really changed.
In this day and age Henry would probably have been detained by the TSA for attempting to bring a large, wriggling box onto a mode of public transportation.
His parents would have been charged with child abuse for letting him gather night-crawlers after dark in a public park.

Oh, and as for actually selling them? That would probably be doing business without a license.

See what I mean? Definitely sleep deprived.

So, it's off to town soon. I've got to get my hair done.
And turn in another paper for Child Psychopathology.

Did I mention that the printer is out of black ink?
Does that ever happen on days like this? Even in Australia?

Tomorrow is another day.

Road Construction Update: Almost...but Not Quite!

NEARLY WORDLESS WEDNESDAY

They're coming to the tail-end of the construction of the new road.
But there are still quite a few little details that must be done before they can
lay the asphalt.


The short extension of our road, the part that comes to the T with Los Pecos Loop,
is smooth and flat. It appears to be ready.

But the back part of Los Pecos Loop,

up in the high meadow, still needs work.

Yesterday, they actually started laying stone

in the borrow-ditch next to the road here.

Last week, they took the forms off the concrete
sides of the utility boxes.
The cable conduits have been labeled with
mysterious numbers indicating what is being delivered
by them, and to which lot.

This week, the boxes are on the concrete,

and have been labeled with the voltages

and a power company serial number

to identify them for the linemen.

To the left is the round water access.

It's begining to look like they could finish any day.

Now we just need good weather, and I will be able to post pictures of the road being laid.

Almost. Done.

Carnival of Homeschooling 123: The Mother's Day Edition

The Mother's Day Edition of the Carnival of Homeschooling is up over at Melissa's Idea Garden.

There you will get some interesting facts and history of Mother's Day,
and some great reading for your--all too rare--spare time!

I intend to indulge in the evenings this week, when my Institute of Reading Development training has been completed for the day.

Happy Mother's Day!

So go! Read, already! Enjoy!

It's a Political Neologism: The Problem with "Consensus" Science

I have been thinking about writing this entry for at least a month.
And I have shied away from it because of the flaming I will probably receive
from the BSer ideologues of the blogosphere, but I remembered this little quote:

"He said: 'G-d hates a coward.'
'So you came because you didn't want to lose a bet?'
"No. I would never bet on a lady. I just figured that he was right.'"
(This may be slightly paraphrased. I read the book in fourth grade. Many HSers will know which book).

My other excuses are gone: I have finished three papers, an exam, and an NIH draft proposal.
And even though I am in training for my summer job, and that is quite extensive, it does not take the same intellectual energy that writing closely argued papers about big ideas does.

I want to start with a story.

At the beginning of the last century, a geologist in Germany called Alfred Wegener went for a walk on a spring day and got caught up watching the ice break up on the river. As he did so, he was thinking about the interesting fact that similar fossils from similar strata were found on different continents. The ice breaking up in the river was one of those "aha" moments, and he said something akin to "Eureka! I have found Pangea!" (My apologies to Archemedes). He wrote extensively about his idea of Continental Drift and he even developed a mechanism for it--that centrifugal force caused the continents to drift about the planet. But that mechanism was not very plausible, and he was ridiculed severely by his fellow geologists. Wegener did not live to see the modern scientific revolution in the Earth Sciences resulting in the paradigm of Plate Tectonics.

Were Wegener's colleagues defenders of "consensus" science? This idea has been recently bandied about by those who have a bone to pick with Global Climate Change (often inaccurately called "global warming").

The answer is no. Although the ridiculing of Wegener was over the top,
inpolite, and generally shows that many scientists lack the social graces, a characteristic they share with the rest of humanity,
this has nothing to do with why his idea was rejected back at the beginning of the 20th century. His idea was rejected because, although he had a good deal of circumstantial evidence (fossils of ferns in Antarctica, the shape of South America and Africa), he could demonstrate no plausible mechanism for his theory. It was not exactly a crack-pot idea--it had possibilities--but it was also not scientifically defendable at the time. It was not until the International Geophysical Year of 1956 brought about a decade of accumulating evidence that the old paradigm (geosynclinal) could not explain, that a good mechanism for continental drift was found, and the theory of Plate Tectonics was born.

Scientists do not generally speak in terms of "consensus" in their fields.
This is not because there is none--most working scientists do work under the dominant paradigm in their fields (such as evolutionary theory in biology)--but because scientific questions are not decided by consensus. They are decided by evidence that supports a theory or not.

Scientific paradigms do not change just because a bunch of scientists get together in smoke filled rooms and decide that they are tired of the old paradigm and they'd like to trade it in for a new one, like an old-model car. A paradigm shift is not brought about by a vote or political pressure by concerned citizens. It is not created because someone goes on a fishing expedition to disprove an unpopular idea. Neither is one caused by a few crusaders for scientific truth battling it out with the forces of complacency and the need to get NSF grants and media coverage.

Scientific paradigms shift because of the accumulation of evidence by many people working in the field, (most of whom are not out to create a scientific revolution), evidence that does not support the current theory. Consensus, for good or ill, has nothing to do with it. Science does not work that way. And contrary to popular belief, the inception of a new paradigm does not automatically cast the old one into the outer darkness of scientific untruth. Bohr and Einstein (Quantum Mechanics) did not, for example, overturn Newton (Classical Mechanics). Newton's laws are still with us and they still work. Don't go to Mars without them!

Consensus is a social phenomenon and a political term.
It is about getting together and hammering out a deal that everyone in an argument can agree to, even if they don't like all of the parts of it.
One cannot hammer out a deal about gravity, or the duel nature of light (particle and wave), or the role of the electron in chemical reactions. One cannot vote the theory of evolution up or down.
Consensus is simply not a scientific term.

So when I see the term 'consensus science' bandied about in the press, among pols, and in common parlance, I know that the discussion is not a scientific one.
I know the discussion has become political.

Take Global Climate Change (GCC)--please! (Sorry. I just had to do that. It's in my genes ;).
There is little question that the earth's climate has changed over the 4.6 billion years of its existence. It is not surprising that climate has continued changing even though humanity has built civilization over the past 10,000 years. (Oh the temerity of nature! Oh, the duplicity of nature's God! How dare this happen just now, when the Boomers are in charge)!

Scientific questions about GCC center on how it is changing, what modeling procedures give the best predictions for future change, what forces intensify or mitigate the change, how the change will affect weather in different localities and so forth. All of these questions involve factors of great complexity and are hotly debated, and rightly so. The scientific controversy is over the evidence and what it tells us.
There should be no premature closure on questions like these because "four out of five scientists say so." Science is not done by taking polls.

The politics of GCC is, as we used to say in the midwest, "a whole 'nother animal."
Questions of a political nature about GCC are, for example, what (if anything) should we do about GCC, can and should we try to alter its course (to which I say sardonically, "Good luck!"), who should be blamed, and how can GCC be "spun" in order to fit a favorite political ideology.

Science does not work by consensus.
When you see the term "consensus science" used,
your gut should be telling you that the discussion has gone political.
Whether it is used to promote Carbon Credits, or demand equal time for Intelligent Design,
matters not. The right, the left, the rigid and the looney, are all equally guilty of hijacking the term "science" to promote their own political ends.

Science is a method of discovering how the physical world works through the use of physical evidence. It cannot tell us what to believe about supernatural beings, nor can it tell us the best way to deal with the current price of oil.

Consensus science?
Science is science.
The arguments about consensus a la Al Gore and Ben Stein are political.

May Cross Quarter Day

The wheel of the year seems to turn faster and faster as the years go by.



Here is the sunrise from a fixed spot in the meadow looking east taken this morning, at 6: 40 AM MDT.

Tomorrow afternoon (MDT) the position of the earth will be half-way between the northern hemisphere vernal equinox and the summer solstice. On the global analemma, as the seasons progress, the sun appears to be crossing between the equator and the Tropic of Cancer, and at the May Cross-Quarter, it appears closer to the Tropic of Cancer. This is due to the tilt of the earth--which causes the seasonal variations in the time and angle of sunlight.



This is a picture taken on the vernal equinox from the same fixed spot in the meadow looking east at 8 AM MDT. If you compare the two pictures, you can see that this morning (top picture) the sun was rising quite a bit further north of east than it was on the Vernal equinox. It is also rising quite a bit earlier, and setting quite a bit later. Until the summer solstice, the days in the northern hemisphere are lengthening. Around the cross-quarter, the length of the daylight seems to be rapidly changing day by day.



Here is the sunset last night from a fixed spot on the back patio. Just six weeks ago, it was setting well to the left of this spot, near the top of the rise you see on on the horizon at the left edge of the picture. The picture was taken at 7:32 PM MDT. In the last week or two, we have noticed that the light is staying in the sky longer after sunset, too, until nearly 9 PM.

Summer is on the way!





Although, by the Old Calendar, Thursday was Beltaine, which was the celebration of the beginning of summer in ancient Europe.

But at 7500 feet, the mountain summer comes slowly,
and the leaves have just erupted on the Aspen on the back patio. This is more than three weeks later than in Albuquerque. The Mountain Mahogany are just showing tiny leaves unfolding, and the scrub oak will not leaf out until June.


These last few days we have experienced another cold snap, although without precipitation. This morning when we commenced our walk at dawn, the air temp was 24 degrees. Now, at mid-morning it is 49.

But I still like the idea that summer is upon us!

Mom Takes a Summer Job

The guys are off for a camping trip/astronomy fest at Chaco Canyon in the Farmington basin.

The CGP and I, along with the dogs and cats are here to hold the fort. She will be studying for finals.

I love Chaco, but I could not go this weekend. You see, I have to finish my last paper for my university semester. Two weeks early.

On Monday morning at 7:30 AM (Oy!) I start training for a summer job. Why am I taking a job? You may ask. And I'll tell you. We want to send N. to the Children of the Earth camps in New Jersey. He is signed up for two programs that follow up on what he did last year.

Below is a video highlighting the COYOTE TRACKS program in New Jersy.

And we are also buying land. And we want to do all this without borrowing money. So I am taking a job this summer, and the Engineering Geek is taking on some consulting for members of the Green Builders Association.

But this is not just any job.

This is a job that I am nervous and excited about.

I am going to be teaching reading to people who have difficulties with it through

the Institute for Reading Development.

When I read their call for teachers on the UNM Grad Student site, I thought to myself:

"Now this is the job I have been waiting for!"

I love the way they approach reading. What they want to do is develop people's reading skills so that they can become absorbed in the books they read, become part of the book, and make the book part of themselves. Instead of professional educators, they look for people who love books, who eat,drink, and breathe books, who cannot imagine life without them.

And like many of us who homeschool, I am one of those people.

And in my alternative path to teaching, I got very little training in how to teach reading for pleasure and absorption. My two courses in reading (Reading in the Content Field for Secondary Teachers, and Teaching Reading to Children with Disabilities) were good, but did not have the depth I had hoped.

So it's back to work for me. While N. is working on the last few of his math lessons for the year next week, and doing some Kamana, I am going to be getting paid for ten intense days of distance training that involves conference calls, internet work, and study of the teaching manuals for the program. They also sent me 5 books to be read next week, although I have already begun.

They are:

Henry Huggins

A Cricket in Times Square

Banner in the Sky

The Fellowship of the Ring

Dibs in Search of Self.

I am excited.

And nervous.

And I have to complete my last paper before it all begins. The days of pulling all-nighters to write papers are far behind me.

At least if I want to be coherent.

I know this summer's work will be intense.

Teaching is always intense.

But I will meet new people, spend time with kids and adults, and make some money.

And N. will go to BSA camp in Colorado in June, and to New Jersey for two weeks via Illinios for two weeks in August. He will earn 5 badges, then visit his cousins, then visit our former cantor and her children and then go to camp.

Busy summer ahead!

New Mexico Weather Patterns and Fire

A comment from my friend Denise over at Mom in Madison led us to do a little information gathering about New Mexico's seasonal weather patterns and how they relate to our weird fire seasons. Thanks, Denise!


On the California Coast, fire danger is greatest in the late summer-fall, due to extreme dryness, heat, and winds coming off the ocean--like Southern California's Santa Ana Winds.


But the New Mexico pattern is different.


Much of the state is Chihuahuan Desert country with associated high desert grasslands, shortgrass prairie, and montaine forests. The life zones are pushed higher because much of the state lies below the 36th latitude. That means that in central New Mexico--where we live--we don't see Pinyon-Juniper Woodland below about 6,000 feet (depending on which side of the mountain) and Ponderosa Pine Forest does not become well-established below about 7800 feet. Also, average annual precipitation in the Rio Grande Valley is less than 10 inches a year, and in the Central Mountains, it is about 16 inches a year--less further south and more further north. Twenty inches is about the upper limit on annual precipitation for anywhere in the state.


New Mexico has the bi-modal precipitation pattern common to the Chihuahuan Desert.
We typically have a dry and windy spring and fall due to to movement of the jetstream high altitude pattern during those seasons. Starting in late June of early July, we get the summer monsoon storms, which are influenced by the ENSO pattern (El Nino-Southern Oscillation). In a good El Nino year, we get more precipitation--as in the summer of 2006, and in a strong La Nina year, we get less precipitation. In an ordinary year (neither El Nino or La Nina) we get an precipitation somewhere between the two. If we have a long string of weak El Nino's, or strong La Ninas, we have summer drought conditions. The monsoonal winds last until late August or early September, and then we return to a fall dry, warm and sunny situation. Our winter snowfall is also influenced by ENSO, and we watch the mountain snowpack carefully, because our overall drought conditions depend a lot of whether we get good snowpack or not. Also, if spring conditions come too soon, we can end up with a summer drought situation and an earlier fire season. (This picture is from the NOAA website and you can learn all about the North American Monsoon by clicking the link).


What all of this adds up to is that our most extreme fire seasons tend to be spring and fall.
During La Nina years, if the monsoon fails, we can end up with a fire season that extends from March-October or even November. Last year, the worst fire in Central New Mexico happened at the end of November--the Ojo fire--which was not far from the current Trigo fire.



Last year, we had a good but normal monsoon which helped mitigate the fire danger in summer. This year it looks like the La Nina pattern could persist, causing us more fire problems. The last two summers have also increased grasses and forbs, so a dry summer means a heightened grassland fire danger.

This year, too, the March winds have lasted into the beginning of May. Since mid-March, we have had more days of Red-Flag Fire Warnings than not. A Red-Flag Fire Warning requires the combination of warm, sunny days--which lifts the thermals over the mountains in the afternoon--lack of precipitation and low relative humidity, and high regional winds from fast moving storm systems that mix downward as the day progresses.

Yesterday, the Trigo fire jumped containment due to high winds. Slightly lower pressures due to a fast moving storm system from which we do not expect precipitation means that these high-wind conditions will continue through Friday. Exacerbating the problem is that fixed-wing planes cannot drop retardant in the high winds, so they usually only get a few hours near sunset to to their drops. The fire is already relatively inaccessible, being on peaks and in canyons, but the high winds mean that the hot-shot crews are pulled off the mountain frequently.


What has made all of this much worse is that the fuel loads of the central mountains are high due to what we call "dirty woods"--lots of snags and deadfall--created by the USDA's misguided fire-suppression policies of the past 50 years. You know what they say about "good intentions."


Fire is a natural part of this ecosystem--and small, frequent fires keep the fuel loads down, preventing the kind of crown forest fires that have extremely high heat, create their own weather, and burn the entire forest.


Live and learn.