Ripple Spark

A Happy New 2011, And A Happy Birthday... :-)

2010-12-31T02:28:00.001+02:00

A Happy New Year 2011 to everyone! :-)

For me this is a double celebration, since the 1.1.11 also marks the first birthday of my website, Kessem.

To celebrate both occasions, I made a little gift for the parents among you:

A collection of original ideas for kids' birthday celebrations!

Post-birthday parties, a "mustn't forget" list and more... You're welcome to read and download here, keep it and share with your friends for use in coming birthdays; and may we have a wonderful new year and happy birthdays! :-)

Post, Doctorate

2010-06-12T19:36:00.000+03:00

* In a nutshell:
Congratulations to me: for quite a while now I can be referred to as "Dr. Shaviv". As a researcher by nature, I went looking for interesting information about this degree, which requires so much dedication and perseverance, and ends with a short, laconic message on a frameable piece of paper. 

Thanks to PhD Comics, who helped cheer me up while working on my dissertation

"So, what are you going to do with your PhD?" - I refer anyone who considered asking this directly to the great comic strip above (click for a larger view). And if the hint is not yet taken, perhaps a direct lesson in PhD etiquette (from the same webpage) might help:

The original sense of the Latin word "doctor" is "teacher". When was the first PhD awarded? Good question. Somewhere around the 11th or 12th century, in Europe. There are different claims as to the exact date and place, but the discipline was probably Law. The title "MD" (Medical Doctor) was only adopted several centuries later. The difference between the two is illustrated in this anecdote ascribed to the wife of Nobel prize laureate, Robert Milikan, who overheard the maid answer the telephone in their house: "Yes," said the maid, "this is where Dr. Millikan lives, but he's not the kind of doctor that does anybody any good."

At some point during these years the title JD (Juris Doctor) joined the celebrations, and in various countries one can find various titles used to denote the same thing, as it is known since the 19th century in Germany: a comprehensive, extensive and original research of some well-defined subject.

Who are the people who spend long, frustrating years writing doctoral dissertations? Obviously, it took a long time until women, black people and minority groups began to have representatives among the PhD's. The oldest graduate, at least until 2004, is a 93 years old ex-vicar. And the youngest? Hard to tell. There are stories about graduates aged 12 (probably a tale), 17 (possibly true) and up to 20-something - probably true, though much less sensational.

How many PhD's are there in the world? It is hard to find accurate data, but the global yearly average is about 100 PhD's per million capita, and in the most developed countries - about thrice that number.

A more accurate answer as to the global number of PhD's is available in Answers.com. In response to the question: "How many PhD's are there in the world?" - one member wrote: "Far too many." 

This Week in History for Kids - Socrates, Truth, Knowledge and Courage (Feb 15-21)

2010-02-17T13:09:00.005+02:00

In a nutshell:
"This Week in History for Kids" is a weekly post I publish in my website. Since this week's theme is especially suitable for this blog, I decided to publish it here, too. Enjoy!

This highly expressive painting of Jacques-Louis David, entitled "The Death of Socrates", actually depicts his life much more than it does his death.

In February 15th in the year 399 - 1,611 years ago - a Greek court decided Socrates should die. For what reason? "defying the gods and corrupting the young", said his prosecutors. How true was this accusation?

In this case, as in many other cases ever since, the charge arose from the accused's attempt, and subsequent success, in educating the young to critically examine everything they might otherwise have taken for granted.

The remains of the Athenian Agora's "Stoa" (porch), where Socrates used to conduct his teachings (photo from Kidipede)

Socrates used to roam the agora - the marketplace - wearing rags, and challenge his friends, his enemies and anyone else to an intellectual duel: a dialog. These dialogs, or others resembling them in nature, were later written down by Socrates' most prominent student - Plato. Anyone wishing to look into them - highly, highly recommended - might enjoy starting with The Symposium or Meno.

How were Socrates' dialogs conducted? Usually, he would start with a seemingly simple concept. Try "justice", for instance. What is justice? Can you define it? Socrates, or his interlocutor, would offer a definition, but ususally, Socrates would point to a counter-example, or a flaw in the definition. In David's painting shown above, Socrates' friends surround him, apparently thinking that his execution - using a hemlock - is unjust. Socrates, however, seems strangely at ease, and explains to his disciples that since he lived in Athens, he - by definition - accepted the Athenian law, even if it meant losing his life. This, he explained, is a just act. Do you agree? Can there be one definition of justness, valid in all cases? Should there be?

The Oracle of Delphi (The Pythia)

A famous story of Socrates tells how he met with the Oracle of Delphi. The Oracle had proclaimed Socrates the wisest of men. How can this be, wondered Socrates, when he clearly knew there was so much he couldn't understand? Then it dawned on him: he was the wisest for knowing that he didn't know. This, perhaps, was what drove him always to learn and explore more and more. A worthy drive, wouldn't you say? However, it led him to a love of truth - philo-sophia - so intense, that even when he was given, during his sentence, an upportunity to "confess his crimes" and thus replace the death sentence by exile, he preferred to stick to the truth.

If you are philosophically inclined, it would be wonderful to engage your kids in a Socratic Dialog - and actually, in any kind of dialog - on the nature of justness, truth, knowledge, love, beauty and other seemingly banal ideas. To ease it up a bit, I strongly recommend Jeremy Weate's A Young Person's Guide to Philosophy.

For some fun ways to get acquainted with ancient Greece, try these links:

Philosopher's Island;

BBC's "Primary History - Ancient Greeks";

Adventures in Ancient Greece;

Design a Greek Pot - click "Ancient Greece", then choose "design a Greek pot" (or, of course, any of the other interesting choices offered...)

... Once you're done with all the other definitions, can you come up with a definition of "philosophy"?

This was originally published here

#ripplespark: What is Fashion?

2009-04-17T14:52:00.005+03:00

LLearn about #ripplespark here! ,

@AdvaShaviv

Seems innocent enough:

[Credit for the question to my 5-year-old:] What is fashion?

And here are two nice Twitter answers:

- Fashion is mostly the marketing of cultural concepts of what we should like & therefore buy. Economics masquerading as culture (Thanks, Eddie @nhbnews!)

- Fashion for a society is the same as make-up for a woman - it reflects her current ideas about beauty ;) (Thanks, Anna @ashalynd!)

Follow the Twitter discussion; join the group; follow me. ,

#ripplespark: Rationality, Irrationality and Decisions

2009-04-17T14:45:00.002+03:00

LLearn about #ripplespark here! ,

@AdvaShaviv

Short, but tricky:

What is rationality? Also, could there be a rational decision to act irrationally?

Follow the Twitter discussion; join the group; follow me. ,

#ripplespark: On Definitions

2009-04-17T13:21:00.004+03:00

LLearn about #ripplespark here! ,

@AdvaShaviv

Three related micro-questions:

1. What is a definition? Can you define it?

2. Can you define a chair, including all and only chairs (no armchairs, stools and other sitting devices)?

3. Can you define a game? Chess, football, cards etc.… Yet no other past-times?

Follow the Twitter discussion; join the group; follow me. ,

#ripplespark: Is it TRUE that Alice met the Queen in Wonderland?

2009-04-15T22:54:00.006+03:00

LLearn about #ripplespark here! ,

@AdvaShaviv

Can truth apply to fiction? Is it a matter of context? In what sense is it true to say that Alice followed the white rabbit (and not on Twitter...)? Do truth and falsity apply to fiction? Thanks for your contribution, Queensowntalia!

Follow the Twitter discussion; join the group; follow me. ,

#ripplespark: What is the Value of Fake Art?

2009-04-15T21:56:00.008+03:00

LLearn about #ripplespark here! ,

@AdvaShaviv

Sometimes it takes experts to tell the difference between an original work of art and a fake one. Sometimes even the experts get it wrong. Sometimes we enjoy the fake no less - or even more! – than the original. What determines the value of a fake work of art? If we can't tell the difference, why should the value change? What is the value of originality?

Follow the Twitter discussion; join the group; follow me. ,

#ripplespark: A 140-Character Intellectual Challenge

2009-04-12T17:02:00.023+03:00

In a nutshell:

I just opened a new Twitter group by the name of #ripplespark. Here are all the explanations you need! ,

Twitter.com

Lewis Carroll suggested that the right way to tell a story is to start at the beginning, and when we come to the end – stop. I here follow Carroll's advice, and start at the beginning, and you may skip the paragraphs of your choice.

1. What is Twitter?

Twitter is a microblogging service, meaning – a platform on which to publish micro-messages of 140 characters at most. That's pretty short, and yet, allows some interesting thoughts to be concisely formulated. Each "micro-post" is called a "tweet".

2. What are Twitter groups?

Twitter groups, distinguished by the hash sign (#) in front of the group's name, allow Twitter members to easily locate tweets with a certain tag. These tags (called "hashtags") may indicate a certain subject, a certain event, etc. I chose to open a group named #ripplespark, and whoever wishes to locate all the tweets to this group (i.e. tweets including this hashtag) can look for them here. Anyone wishing to participate in the group will include the hashtag - #ripplespark (including the hash sign, of course) within the tweet, doesn't matter where. You can join the #ripplespark group here.

3. What is the group #ripplespark about?

Glad you asked! I think that the shortness of the tweets actually forces us to better formulate what we have in mind. Also, I like to make people think about things they haven't considered before, in ways they haven't considered before. I think the two conjoin thus: each #ripplespark tweet will present a thought-provoking question. I would very, very much enjoy reading your reactions and thoughts, either on Twitter (don't forget to use the #ripplespark hashtag!), here, or in both places, of course. If you like the idea, RT those tweets, and let me know you liked it (that's just for my good feeling…) :-)

4. What is an RT?

It Stands for ReTweet. Here's how to RT:
– Original tweet by @AdvaShaviv (hey, that's me!):

Hi all, thanks for dropping by!

– Your RT:

RT @AdvaShaviv Hi all, thanks for dropping by!

5. Who can post questions/triggers to #ripplespark?

Why, everyone, of course. It's not my group, I'm just starting it, and I can't wait to read your #ripplespark challenges, and of course, you're all invited to follow me!

6. So, how does it work?

You can see all the #ripplespark tweets (= Twitter messages) in this link, in a "tree" form, so that it's easy to see who replied to whom regarding what message. It's also easy to reply to a certain message this way. Sending a new message, however, requires moving into the Twitter homepage (this link is found at the bottom right of the previous page). Anyway, I am posting all questions as blogposts right here. As opposed to my regular posts, the #ripplespark ones are "Twiitter-like" in being short and concise, and the responses may well be similar in this sense. Look them up in this blog by clicking the #ripplespark tag search. ,

It's not my Unbirthday Today! Festive Birthday Links

2009-03-25T14:07:00.011+02:00

In a nutshell:
Yes, in Alice-in-Wonderland logic, that means it's my birthday, and this is an opportunity to highlight some especially nice birthday websites. e

an unbirthday celebration for Alice and her friends in Wonderland

Birthdays are good for you: the more of them you have, the longer you live. How old would we have been today had we lived on another planet? On this planet we can learn fun facts about our birthday, and discover which events have occurred, and what famous people born on your birthday. On a more global scale, we can find out how to write Happy Birthday in different languages; what Traditions, songs and recipes are popular in birthdays around the world, and how birthday celebrations started.

Happy birthday to everyone born on this day, and a very merry unbirthday to those born on all other days! e

What Drives Atheists to Militantism?

2009-03-02T14:30:00.006+02:00

In a nutshell:
Atheism is basically a philosophical stance. Why would holders of a philosophical stance become militant toward their opponents? ,

Photo source: Telegraph

As an atheist, I looked forward to reading Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion. I have read most of the philosophical books written about atheism, which are relatively scarce; but an atheist book for the broad public is even a rarer occasion.

While reading, I couldn't understand why Dawkins was dedicating most of his book to the attempt to prove atheism is true. Why would he be so keen on convincing his opponents that he's right? Why should he care about other people having delusions, if these delusions do not hurt either him or them?

The answer, of course, has to do with the fact that some of these delusions ARE harmful, to theists and to atheists alike. We all know that religious fanaticism is capable of leading people to do terrible things. However, we also know that atheists may just as well be capable of doing terrible things. I don't accept the accusation that religion is to be blamed for most of the human-inflicted evil in the world.

When I say that religion causes "harm", therefore, I have something else in mind. I am thinking about the prejudice against atheists, which causes many non-atheists to have wrong ideas about what atheism is and what it implies. I am also thinking, on the other hand, on many religious – but not fanatic – people, who have to follow a very strict code of behaviour determined by their fanatic leaders. I also have in mind a specific incident I just witnessed in LinkedIn, when a discussion I brought up about atheism quickly deteriorated, to my horror, to reciprocal personal insults between an atheist and a Muslim.

Why this hatred? Why are there so many prejudiced ideas held by each party about members of the other(s)? I do believe the root of this evil has to do with the fact that theism – all strands included – is a prescription, while atheism is a description. Atheism tries to explain the world; it is about facts. It doesn't necessarily affect the way the atheist chooses to lead his or her life. Theism, on the other hand, usually requires following a whole set of commands. The worst part is that these commands usually affect also people who don't wish to have any part in it; specifically, atheists.

Many theists sincerely don't understand this last claim. How do atheists suffer from the existence of theism? Does it really hurt them that others see the world differently?! The answer, of course, is quite different, and even changes from country to country. In some, like Iran, the question is irrelevant: it is quite obvious that over atheists simply cannot survive there. In others, like the United States and Israel, the question definitely arises, and the answer is that atheists DO have inferior rights in these places. In the United States, for instance, abortion is considered a religious issue; in Israel, marriage is, and the same is true for many other central issues in these and other countries.

How can this entanglement be unraveled? Surely, not easily; but I believe the first step would be for each side to realize that:

a. People who think differently from oneself are still unique. Theists do not form a homogenous group, nor do atheists, agnostics, or holders of any other theory.

b. Whatever is right for me, may not be right for others.

c. This is mainly relevant to religious parties: the less religion intervenes in the lives of people who don't wish it to, the less antagonism they would feel towards it. Reducing militantism on the part of atheists (those who exhibit it in the first place, and those who may do so in the future) is dependent on minimizing religion's foothold in their lives. In other words: the freedom FROM religion is just as crucial as the freedom OF religion. ,

Where is the Feminists' Sense of Humor?

2009-03-01T11:44:00.014+02:00

In a nutshell:
Why is it that feminists seem to lack a sense of humor? Should any chauvinistic remark by a man, even if pronounced as a private joke between friends, lead to a lawsuit?,

Photo source: Wikipedia

"Moi, je t'ai donné la tua donna" (I gave you your wife) – those were the alleged words that Silvio Berlusconi, Italian Prime Minister, whispered to Nicolas Sarkozy, President of France and husband of originally Italian Carla Bruni. These words were only deciphered through the help of a lip-reader hired by the French TV channel Canal+. The result was an announcement by two Italian lawmakers of the opposition (Anna Paola Concia of the left-wing Democratic Party and MEP Donata Gottardi), that they consider filing a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights.

So, where is the feminists' sense of humor?

This question reminds me of my childhood best friend. She had an older sister with which she constantly quarreled, and she used to talk badly of her to my ears. One day I myself said something, which wasn't very nice, about said sister. My friend was offended and upset with me. "But you say it all the time!" I exclaimed, surprised. "Yes", she responded, "but I'm her sister!"

How is this relevant to showing a sense of humor in accepting chauvinistic remarks? – My friend allowed herself to speak the way she did about her sister because she herself, me, her sister, and everyone else knew that she actually loved her sister very much. When I said what seemed to be the same thing it automatically WASN'T the same thing anymore. It is a known fact that much of Jewish traditional humor targets the Jews themselves. Should someone else try to tell the same joke, however, it would no longer be the same, and no longer be funny.

I'm not sure that this specific remark of Berlusconi is particularly worthy of the attention. It is, however, chauvinistic, and as for the feminists' sense of humor – it definitely exists (in general. Several feminist people have more of it and others have less, just like in any other population). But it is reserved to the feminists themselves. Otherwise, the joke, that feminists may share and laugh about, becomes a joke on them. And this is much less funny.

But wait: wouldn't feminism be more appealing to the masses were it presented as less hard headed? I think it would, much like Barbie or Playboy, for instance. Oh, right: but we're fed up with being either Barbie or a cover girl, a nun, a slut or a mother. So yes: when one wants to be taken seriously, one ought to suspend one's sense of humor. Especially when the joke is not even funny. ,

I Think, Therefore I'm not sure – 2

2009-02-22T22:19:00.005+02:00

In a nutshell:
Last time on "I think, therefore I am": Descartes planned to destroy his whole "building of knowledge" in order to rebuild it, but this time – standing on a solid, confirmed basis. ,

Photo courtesy of G Travels

Descartes, as explained in the previous post, strived to put his whole body of knowledge to the test, so that he may be sure he doesn't hold any false or non-based beliefs. It is worth remembering that by "belief" I (as did Descartes) refer to a proposition accepted as true; this has nothing to do with "faith", which implies a non-critical acceptance of assumptions.

Descartes compared his whole belief system to a building, which must stand on a very solid basis in order not to collapse. And here is a first exercise, or a first illustration of the difficulty to break apart from all of our accepted beliefs, so as to critically review them: many of us would tend to naturally assume that Descartes is looking for an objective basis. In other words: out of an old thinking-habit, we might expect a system of objective beliefs, which any thinking person would agree is true. This (automatic?) assumption is not necessarily true, of course, and this helps us realize that we are often unaware of assumptions we take to be obvious.

I mentioned the methodical aspect of Descartes' doubt as a central reason which led to the great appreciation for the "cogito" argument ("I think, therefore I am" – originally in Latin: "Cogito, ergo sum"). Descartes starts by announcing that he is unable of critically examining each and every one of his beliefs: it is simply unfeasible. Instead, he divides his beliefs into groups, according to the way in which he acquired them. What does this mean?

"All that up to the present time I have accepted as most true and certain I have learned either from the senses or through the senses; but it is sometimes proved to me that these senses are deceptive, and it is wiser not to trust entirely anything by which we have once been deceived". [Meditations on First Philosophy] Descartes starts by evaluating the knowledge he gained through his senses: an immensely vast and varied body of knowledge, including our (automatic?) belief that we live in a physical world, which resembles our perceptions of it; that we are corporeal creatures; that other living things exist, etc.

Is it legitimate to doubt all that? Descartes stops to wonder: how is this different from delusions of the mentally sick? However, we do know that our senses deceive us sometimes; for instance, we imagine some things to be small, when they are in actuality huge – but distant. How can we trust our sensory perception, which we know is sometimes misleading us? Moreover, states Descartes, when we dream, we often mistake our dreams for reality. When we are awake, we seem to know that with (what seems to be?) certainty; but we sometimes feel such false certainty while dreaming, too. In these cases we don't only misperceive sensual stimuli; we make up the stimuli altogether, since there is usually no real origin for our dream-time sensations and perceptions. We don't mistake a monster, for instance, to be big, rather than small; the mistake is in our wrong impression that there even is a monster there.

These considerations push Descartes to doubt all of our senses-originated beliefs altogether, until further investigation. There is no need to worry, though: the Cartesian doubt, as explained, aims at destroying the foundations of the building of knowledge – but only to the purpose of rebuilding it, this time on solid foundations. What should be Descartes' next move? Is he already close to finding a basis for a certain knowledge? Are there any more beliefs that should be doubted? What do you think? ,

Science, Politics and Money: The Case of Global Warming

2009-01-26T22:11:00.018+02:00

In a nutshell:
Science is about finding the truth, no matter what the truth is.
Is that really so?
Seems like the broad public is not always aware of the extent to which political and monetary issues affect the chances of scientific research to take place and to reach public cognizance. ,

Photo source: The Cloud Mystery Gallery

In a fashionable delay of about a year, "The Cloud Mystery", starring the physicists Nir Shaviv (no family relation) and Henrik Svensmark, was broadcasted in Israel. Not that the timing matters much: I'm pretty sure most of the readers, no matter where, have not heard about the film, its makers, and most of all – its thesis.

Nothing surprising about that, is there? How many scientific theses is the broad public aware of? Not many; mainly those that may have some specific bearing on the average person's immediate life. But lo: Shaviv & Svensmark's thesis does have a bearing on our immediate lives!

a. Are Humans to be Blamed for the Global Warming?

Think of the most immediate problem the human race, and our planet in general, is facing. Global warming seems like a very plausible candidate for this issue. Doesn't it? No, it doesn't, says a fairly recent theory, developed by Shaviv, Svensmark, geologist Jan Veizer and just a small bunch of other scientists. "Cosmoclimatology is the name given by Svensmark to the new kind of climate science featured in 'The Cloud Mystery'", as stated in The Cloud Mystery webpage. I shall call this theory of cosmoclimatology CC for short. CC challenges the widely accepted assumptions about the considerable human part in causing global warming. It presents interesting evidence supporting the claim that solar activity and galactic motions affect our climate and bring about a global warming – which will subside without real damage to Earth.

What does it all mean?

It means that humans, according to CC, are not to be blamed for the global warming; their activity has but a minuscule, insignificant effect on Earth's temperature. The increase in Earth's temperature is a natural outcome of cosmic rays, and what's more important: this process is cyclic. The Earth, according to CC, will cool again, long before the warming may become a problem. It has all happened before, explaining the ice ages of our planet.

b. Who governs science?

Seems like we may all take a sigh of relief: icebergs are not about to melt, oceans are not about to flood – we're saved! So why haven't we heard about any of it?

One possible answer is: CC scientists are wrong. The scientific world refuses to accept their findings because they are not well based.

Here is where politics and money enter the picture. I, for one, have not even a clue as for how to scientifically judge CC as right or wrong. Yet, something tells me it deserves my attention.

Martin Durkin, creator of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (2007), pointed out that scientists depend on research funds. Shaviv states, in a recent interview (in Hebrew, sorry), that the U.S. government alone has spent in the past few years almost two billion dollars on climate research. There are clearly people and organizations that are making a lot of money out of this potential threat. Political gain is obvious here, too: what can be easier for a politician than to ride the environmental wave? The same goes even for commercial companies: almost any respectable company nowadays is advertizing its being "friendly" to the environment. Usually this is not even true, but great for increasing sales.

Many people are making money or gaining political power by joining and encouraging the general tendency of worrying about the global warming. Of course, this alone does not mean that global warming is not a genuine issue that should worry us. However, it does mean that global warming is an issue in need of a very careful scrutinization, that would make sure it is not just being cynically used by interest-driven parties.

For the sake of fairness, we should also consider whether CC scientists are not driven by their own interests. I think the answer to this question is fairly easy: we may suppose that these scientists are gaining some attention simply by being bold and innovative (even if they're wrong). However, the academic world is so built that this kind of attention is more harmful than it is useful. Stated simply: a scientist with no monetary support and academic recognition is no scientist. My conclusion, therefore, is that whether CC is correct or not, it is definitely worth attention, recognition, and further research. ,

Rachida Dati: Good or Bad for Women?

2009-01-18T19:51:00.019+02:00

In a nutshell:
Rachida Dati, the French Minister of Justice, came back to work five days after the birth of her daughter. Is this an admirable dedication to work, or a grievous neglection of her daughter? Is this any of our business? ,

Photo source: Wikipedia

Rachida Dati was bound to attract attention from the start: an immigrants' daughter, a woman (and a good-looking one) in politics, a single parent-to-be, who wouldn't give away the father's identity (as if this is any business of the public). She could have done or said nothing for the rest of her career; she would still be controversial.

But then again, she probably couldn't have sat still, because this is not her style. Instead, she chose to get back to work only five days after the birth of her daughter. Finally: a real issue to deal with concerning Dati!

This time, it's not so easy to undervalue the criticism of Dati: it is not merely a private concern, such as the identity of her daughter's father. It is not even the sensational question of whether she did or did not have an affair with President Nicolas Sarkozy. It is, so say some of her criticizers, a major question: How will her choice affect other women, who wish to have a full maternity leave – and then resume their career?

Those against her move argue that having a "maternity leave" of five days undermines the whole concept of a maternity leave, since if a five days leave can be enough for her, why wouldn't it be for any other working mother? Decades of struggling for the right to take a significant time-off to raise the newborn are now threatened by this one miserable move, say Dati's opponents.

On the other hand, those in favour of her decision stress the fact that she is not to be compared with other working mothers, since most of them are not, after all, the Minister of Justice of France. Her choice demonstrates her dedication to her work and to her electorate, so goes this argument, and it serves to show that women have no less responsibility than men do.

Whom does Dati's decision serve? Career women, struggling to accept recognition as devoted workers? Anti-feminist or anti-socialist activists, fighting to eliminate rights women have fought to accept for decades? Politically, there is no doubt that Dati's actions will serve activists of several kinds, but speaking to the point – isn't the mere meddling with Dati's choices a male chauvinist business? Do all women share the same need for a maternal leave, of the same length and of the same nature? Unequivocally: No. It depends on the specific needs, possibilities and prospects of the specific mother, her specific baby and her specific life view. What example does Dati present to working mothers? That of a mother who holds a very high-ranking job, and who chose to get back to it as soon as possible. What example should Dati present to working mothers? – None at all: every mother should have the right and the opportunity to have a full maternity leave, and decide for herself whether she chooses to take advantage of it fully, partly or not at all. Dati deserves the same right. ,

I Think, Therefore I'm not sure – 1

2009-01-14T21:53:00.054+02:00

In a nutshell:
"I think, therefore I am" is, probably, the most famous philosophical argument outside the realm of professional philosophy. What does it actually argue, and why is it considered so central to the history of philosophy (and, in my opinion, so beautiful and inspiring?) Since the explanation is a little long, I chose to break it into a few pieces; here is the first part. Oh, and yes, there is homework to be done before the next part. ,

Photo courtesy of mimax

How lovely is it that we can all quote "I think, therefore I am" (or even the original Latin: "Cogito, ergo sum"), and feel so very philosophical! I am completely in favour of this beautifully put and thought-provoking argument being widely quoted. Understanding the ideas behind it makes it even more enchanting.

Just to be on the safe side, I mention that "Cartesian", of course, is derived out of the last six letters in René Descartes' name. So what is so special about the famous Cartesian argument, referred to as "the cogito", after its original Latin phrasing?

The most special feature of the argument is its method. Descartes lively and eloquently describes how he slowly began to suspect that beliefs and ideas, which he used to hold as necessarily true, might not be so after all. The newly aroused doubts drive him to aim for a solid "building" of knowledge, built using verified truths only. Such a building, of course, must have a solid basis: should the basis be unsound, the whole building is bound to fall apart.

Descartes is not referring to impressions or opinions alone, but to all of our beliefs ("belief" in the sense of a proposition which we accept as true). How can we be sure that each one of our beliefs is true? On the other hand, how can we live in perpetual doubt? The creeping doubt would prevent us from acting at all, since we would always suspect we may be acting on the basis of wrong assumptions. Another problem regards the need to reconsider each and every one of our beliefs, so that we may re-accept only those, which have been cleared of any possible doubt. How is it possible to arrange all of our beliefs for reconsideration? How can we make sure we have not forgotten any beliefs? What beliefs can we count on in the meantime, until our "checkup" is complete?

Descartes replaces the "creeping doubt" with a methodical doubt: we should start at the foundations of the "building of knowledge", he suggests. For this purpose we need to erase our whole body of knowledge, and assume that we know nothing for sure: everything is stained with doubt. How are we to identify the foundations of our knowledge? Where should we start reasserting our knowledge, this time – reassuring ourselves, following a critical scrutiny, that it can be trusted as true?

Readers are more than welcome to prepare homework on this question: where should the methodical doubt begin? What are the foundations of our "building of knowledge"? ,

Fighting Math Anxiety: New-Year's Gift for the Kids!

2008-12-29T13:56:00.017+02:00

In a nutshell:
Below is a link in which to download a little booklet I made for my kids, that might be of interest to yours as well. ,

… The situation:
An exceptionally mathematically-gifted child asks his mother: "What's one thousand plus one thousand?" Mom answers: "What's one frog plus one frog?" – "Two frogs", says the boy immediately. "So what's one thousand plus one thousand?" asks again Mom. "I don't know", the boy shrugs.

Mom is alarmed: she is certain that this is a first expression of a mathematical anxiety, which must be destroyed before it gets a chance to settle for good. How else can one explain seeing (large) numbers as unique objects, different from any other addable objects?...

Since the oral explanation was forgotten after a while (and the original question sprung once again), Mom decided to write it down (and add pictures). The important principle shown is that addition is always addition, no matter what objects we add: tangible objects, numbers (or other abstract objects), and even concepts which we don't understand their meaning , or which don't exist in reality.

Here is an adobe acrobat (pdf) file in a regular printing mode (every sheet contains one page), and a "challenging" file, in the shape of a booklet (with two pages in every sheet, which requires paying attention when folding and putting the pages together, but allows for forming a booklet).

Happy new year! ,

Why Do We Believe in God's Existence or Non-Existence?

2008-12-10T22:23:00.018+02:00

In a nutshell:
It is a fact that no real, conclusive proofs for the existence or the non-existence of God exist. Another fact is that many rational and brilliant people are theists (believe in a certain God); and many others – rational and brilliant as well – are atheists (don't believe in any God). This combination of facts leads me to think that considering evidence for the existence or non-existence of God is not necessarily the reason for adopting atheism or theism (or any other stance). I suggest that the very wish to find a purpose to life may strengthen a theistic view, while the sense that life has no "cosmic" meaning may draw a person to an atheistic belief. ,

"Forty-two!" yelled Loonquawl. "Is that all you've got to show for seven and a half million years' work?"
"I checked it very thoroughly," said the computer, "and that quite definitely is the answer. I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never actually known what the question is."
"But it was the Great Question! The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything!" howled Loonquawl.
"Yes," said Deep Thought with the air of one, who suffers fools gladly, "but what actually is it?"
- Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" (photo depicts the computer "Deep Thought" thinking)

So many arguments have been raised for and against the claim for God's existence in the last thousands of years, and yet, none of them was found to be conclusive. Moreover, it seems impossible to find but one person whose opinion in the matter changed due to any of these arguments.

Why is that?

My guess, which is at this stage more of a hunch than a solidified approach, goes thus:

Some people tend to carefully consider assumptions, which they accept as true ("beliefs"); others do not. But even the most critical people – those who try to consider all of their beliefs critically and repeatedly, to avoid false beliefs – cannot examine all of their beliefs all of the time. Also, there is a limit to any chain of reasons for beliefs. If, for instance, we believe that murder is forbidden, and base this belief on the right to life of every person (or every living creature), and maybe some more basic beliefs which justify this last one – eventually we're bound to reach the building blocks of our worldview, which cannot be justified: we cannot explain why we see them as true. We just do. These are the "axioms" of our worldview (although, of course, they are not necessarily true).

I do not think that the belief in God's existence or non-existence is one of these most basic beliefs, these "axioms". They seem to be too complex to be so basic. I suggest, instead, that our attitude towards the possibility of God's existence is dictated by a deeper intuition, that relating to our place in the world and relation to it, or in other words: the supposed origin of the meaning of life. Of course, we need not necessarily be aware of this derivation.

What does this mean? I, for instance, see the world within a naturalistic perception, as lacking any supernatural existence. Why do I see the world thus? I cannot explain. It simply makes more sense to me than believing in the existence of some supernatural entity or another. I see this as an axiom, and it's affecting the rest of my beliefs. One of the implications of this axiom is that I take myself (and any other living creature) to be no more than a grain of dust, in cosmic terms, which is fine by me. I have no further pretensions, and therefore I can find meaning in life, although it has to be an autonomic meaning, chosen by me. Meaning, according to this view, is not in the things themselves, but in what we make of them, or in how we see them.

Many people – some atheists included – see this innate meaninglessness as appalling, and the atheists among them try to find a "solution" to it, or see the autonomic meaning as a compromise. According to this second view, only a purpose to our life, if not to the whole universe, can fill our lives with meaning. I here refer to "purpose" as a predetermined end, and as such, God alone can set a purpose to a person's life (for it needs to be determined before the person is born, or even conceived). Anyone can choose ends in life, but not a life-purpose as defined here.

Just as the naturalistic view I described above leads to atheism, so this second view, involving a sense of purpose, dictates theism (in one version or another), since only an Intentional Designer could have given purpose to our life.

If I am correct, then many analyses of theistic or atheistic meanings of life miss a main point, which is that our strongest intuitions regard our life's meaning, and our attitude towards God's existence is its outcome. ,

Gifted Boys and Girls: Positive Discrimination or Abolishing Discrimination?

2008-12-05T23:25:00.032+02:00

In a nutshell:
The number of boys identified as gifted is significantly larger than that of girls. This phenomenon is worldwide. The Israel Ministry of Education is a pioneer in deciding to change the screening test, in order to eliminate the gap between boys and girls. ,

Photo courtesy of Menlo School

An accepted way of identifying gifted children, who deserve to participate in special gifted education programs, is using a screening test. Typically, the number of girls passing the test is considerably smaller than that of boys. The Israel Ministry of Education has announced today, as reported in the "Yedioth Acharonot" newspaper, of a plan to adjust the test, in order to enlarge the number of girls passing it. The new test will include sections of creativity and motivation, which typically, according to the report, characterize more girls than boys.

Is this a justified move?

The first question to pose is – is the gap in test results due to a gap between the number of gifted girls and gifted boys? I have no doubt the answer is negative.

Shlomit Rachmel, head of the Dept. of Gifted Education in the Ministry of Education, rightly states that girls generally score higher than boys do in the advanced levels of Mathematics and Physics in matriculation exams, as well as in academic studies.

However, I believe it is impossible to answer the question – is there a difference between the level of intelligence of men and that of women? – until a specific definition of intelligence is given. The very definition of giftedness is necessarily arbitrary, to a certain extent, since the authors of the test determine which criterions will serve to assess the examinees. If, for instance, creative thinking is declared an integral part of intelligence, then we see intelligence as requiring (also) creative thinking; if it is not so decided, then creative thinking is not necessary to score well in the exam. Intelligence tests, as the saying goes, are a perfect tool to predict the ability to score well in intelligence tests.

The question is, therefore – how should we define intelligence? What criterions should be included in the definition? Given the data about different thinking habits (or skills) between girls and boys, should the tests be adjusted in order to include skills and habits of both sexes? The answer is undoubtedly – Yes. There is no reason to decide that high intelligence should be limited to the characteristic abilities of just one sex.

Is the rewriting of the test a case of positive discrimination? Here the answer is negative: positive discrimination took place up until now, at least in several countries (Israel included), where girls were accepted to the programs based on a slightly lower grade than that required of boys. As opposed to that, the newly adjusted tests are meant to eliminate the need for positive discrimination, and to the contrary – it will prevent a continuing discrimination against the gifted girls. ,

Women, Men and Evolution

2008-12-03T23:23:00.017+02:00

In a nutshell:
We are all descendants of the ancient (male) hunters and (female) gatherers. Does that mean that we resemble them? Is it even possible to tell? What is the role of culture in the development of the human – feminine and masculine – nature? (Hint: a significant role, which can and should be reversed.) ,

Our ancient ancestors were, supposedly, female gatherers and male hunters (supposedly, since we cannot be completely sure. After all, it was some while ago). Let us suppose, for the sake of the argument, that each sex held the appropriate role with no exceptions, and that the difference in roles was due to physical differences between men and women. What does this imply about modern men and women?

It is sometimes claimed that present differences between men and women are "natural", owing to our history, and therefore it is legitimate (so the argument goes) to assume that men and women differ biologically in their preferences, skills and abilities. What follows is a legitimacy to attribute specific traits and abilities exclusively to women, and others – exclusively to men.

How much of this is true?

My counter-argument goes thus:
We don't know, and have no way of knowing, whether gender differences are biological or cultural.
Either way, culture has a considerable part in preserving, and even cultivating certain differences between men and women.
We should attempt to contradict this process by trying to eliminate cultural differences between the sexes, and minimize the effect of biological differences, for the benefit of women, men and the society as a whole.

a. Are gender differences biological or cultural?

After hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, we have no way of knowing precisely (or even remotely) which so-called "natural" attributes – feminine, masculine, or human in general – remained intact (if at all); which have slightly changed, and which have changed radically. The very term "nature" in this context is vague: what nature? That of the cavemen? That of Modern Man? How can we tell which is which?

The attempt made sometimes to explain differences between the sexes with reference to the natural world is necessarily biased: the natural world is so amazingly varied and diverse, that a specimen of just about any sort of behaviour is available. For instance: some species monogamously pair, and tend their offspring together. In other species, the female alone raises her young, and still in others – the male is the sole caretaker of the next generation. This diversity applies to other facets of our lives as well, of course.

To illustrate: let's take a look at altruism, egoism and the traits in between. Both extremities (pure altruism and pure egoism) exist within our culture, as do the middle shades. Which of these has proved more helpful to the survival of the human race, or to its productivity, in ancient times? Impossible to tell. And where do they stand within culture? A matter of changing trends: sometimes altruism is valued more, at other times – egoism is, and of course, different cultures value different traits. So, which is more "natural" to humanity? Is there an answer to this question? I don't think so, but even if there were, it is quite irrelevant to the question – which trait should be valued and encouraged.

A more "objective" example, that doesn't depend on subjective valuing: a certain genetic structure causing what we term (in western cultures) "attention deficit hyperactivity disorder" (ADHD), has been found, in a recent study, to be advantageous for nomadic tribesmen in Kenya. “Our findings suggest that some of the variety of personalities we see in people is evolutionarily helpful or detrimental, depending on the context,” said Dan Eisenberg, lead author of the study.

It is reasonable to suppose that men and women were biologically different in ancient times, and that due to this difference, men and women had different roles in ancient society. Does this mean that men and women today resemble our ancestors? Not at all, and even if it's true, we have no way of telling that it is. But what is much more important: the examples I brought serve to show that what may be beneficial to survival in one context (say, in ancient times) – may well be irrelevant in another context (nowadays). Human life within Culture does not resemble human life within Nature, and the needs in both cases are very different.

So what should we say about the biological differences that scientists find between modern men and women?

b. Culture plays a part in creating differences between men and women

I raise two arguments here:

First, it may be that biological differences are not necessarily innate. How so? For instance,
the brains of musicians were found to be different compared to the rest of the population. However, it seems that this difference, rather than being the reason for these people's musical talent, may be the outcome of their choosing to follow their talent and spend many hours a day practicing.

Why is this important? Obviously, I'm referring to differences between men's and women's brains. What the studies show is that there is some difference between most men (or the average man) and most women (or the average woman), but can we really be sure that these are innate, rather than culture-induced?

This is where my second argument fits: culture – including every one of us: teachers, parents, Pop Culture and every other aspect of our culture – is continuously emphasizing, sometimes actually creating, differences between men and women, and between boys and girls.

I believe that the root of the problem is circularity: for thousands of years, men have been "hunters", and women – "gatherers" and caretakers. It is only in the last few decades that women can lead different kinds of lives. In general, the idea of "male" and "female" roles lives on. As scientific studies show that genetic differences exist between (most) men and (most) women, the common view seems to be: it is illogical to try to work "against nature". But both assumptions behind this expression seem to be wrong: first, these differences are not necessarily "natural", but may only be a reflection of the different roles men and women actually play in society due to prejudice (as opposed to – should play due to different innate skills).

Secondly, even if these different skills are innate, it may not be for the benefit of society as a whole – men & women alike – to keep cultivating these differences.

c. We should actively encourage diversity, and avoid "gender-labeling"

Seeing all men as one homogenous group and all women as another blinds us, and prevents us from seeing that the diversity within each sex is wider than that existing between the two sexes. Does it even sound plausible that half (!) the world's population is comprised of very similar individuals, and so is the other half, but members of each half radically differ from those of the other one? I don't think so. However, it is very easy to fall into the pit of believing that this is true; that I, for instance, resemble all women of all times and cultures more than I do men of my own close surroundings. All it takes is looking at the obvious and huge deviations from the stereotypes as exceptions that prove the rule. For instance, a girl who likes climbing trees would be labeled a "tomboy"; a boy who likes to play with dolls – a "sissy".

Here the argument usually goes thus – boys "naturally" tend towards "boys' toys", girls – towards "girls' toys". However, It appears that parents (and specifically fathers), probably unknowingly, encourage their children (of both sexes) to play with toys stereotypically fitting their gender. Most researchers today believe that gender-socialization plays a larger part in shaping boys' and girls' (and later, men's and women's) preferences and tendencies than the formerly accused "nature".

It turns out that differences between "men", as a group, and "women", as a group, are probably negligible in relation to the differences within each sex, i.e. – among individual people. It also turns out that the existing differences between the sexes are, most probably, to the most part culture-induced.

We might still ask: be the reasons for these differences what they be, some differences between the sexes were found to be a fact. Shouldn't we better acknowledge them, and have men specialize in "masculine" activities, and women – in "feminine" ones?

My answer is flatly negative. True, some feminist theorists argue that letting women be stereotypically feminine, and men – stereotypically masculine, allows us to have the best of both worlds: the members of each sex thrive, according to this view, doing what they are naturally good at. The faults I find in this argument are, first, that it is impossible to determine what men or women are "naturally" fit to do. Secondly, and more importantly, any person – man or woman – is unique, and the diversity within each sex is greater than that between the sexes; it is ridiculous to look at "men" or "women" as if these were homogenous groups.

I would go so far as saying that labeling men as "masculine" and women as "feminine", when each of these is associated with a fixed set of traits, is no different than racism, in assuming, in relation to a huge group (half of humanity!), that by knowing one of its members, we more-or-less know the rest of them. I see this as practically dangerous. What about women who are closer to masculine stereotypes, men who are closer to feminine stereotypes, and men and women who are simply non-stereotypic? Encouraging a girl to be empathic, for instance, when she is by nature cynical and practical; or encouraging a boy to become "tough", when he actually wants to express his emotions (and become a poet, maybe), is a sort of "moral crime" towards the allegedly "exceptional" – who are (if we open our eyes to see that) the majority of humankind. ,