Bridge Building

I had an opportunity over the weekend to meet with Mark Hobson (The Landscapist).  Mark, who has lived in Rochester and has relatives here, had decided to drive to Taughannock Falls on Saturday and then head north to the Flower City.  Before doing so, he’d let me know he was heading in this direction and wanted to know if I’d like to meet him somewhere.  Well sure, I said.  Why not?

Now, anyone who has read either blog might wonder if this was a good idea.  It ain’t no secret that Mark and I have crossed swords from time to time.  Our views have clashed over a number of things, including what constitutes a good photograph.  Not to mention the nature of “truth” and “reality”.

Not to worry.  Mark and I had a long lunch and an even longer discussion.  It was so long that I think he was more than a little late getting back on the road to his home in the Adirondacks (Au Sable Forks).  We talked about all kinds of things (except truth and reality) and discovered we had much in common.  We also discovered that some of the differences we’d had were more the result of misunderstood language than actual substance.

Our views on photography, however, are still somewhat different.  Mark still favors complexity in his images and I still strive mightily for simplicity.  Our subject matter preferences are different.  Mark prefers color over black and white while for me it’s kind of a toss-up. 

Well, so what.  Unlike at least one of our political parties here in the U. S., the photographic tent is very large.  Lots of room for everybody.  I might not “get” one of Mark’s images, but in the final analysis he’s doing the same thing I am.  He’s trying to communicate something.  And that’s good enough for me.

Peeling Back the Onion

Watkins Glen SP, NY

Watkins Glen State Park.  Perhaps the most stunning example of the effects of cyclic glacial activity in the general Finger Lakes region.  Following the last glacial retreat some 10,000 years ago, Glen Creek has been cutting through the relatively soft shale in this area on its way to the southern end of Seneca Lake.  Over the course of roughly 2 miles, the creek drops some 400 feet across 19 waterfalls (the highest about 60 feet), leaving a gorge with 200 foot cliffs.  The gorge is so narrow in some areas that even during the summer months precious little sunlight actually makes it to the bottom of the chasm.  It’s a cool, damp, dark world.

And such a wonderful metaphor for so many things.  Like the search for “objective reality”.

In two recent posts (Hearing the Light and A Light Influence),  Cedric – the author of Plop – started a philosophical discussion about the nature of things, their inherent essence or “isness”.  In it, he suggested that when captured in a photograph, this “isness” could be shared by both photographer and viewer.  That is, both would “see” or feel essentially the same thing, even if they could not verbally express exactly what that “thing” was .  But at some level, both would experience the same truth or objective reality.

In two comments, I respectfully questioned this assertion (while admitting that I certainly didn’t know the answer).  Philosophical questions are like that, I think.  Nobody ever really knows the answer, at least not with absolute certainty.  Kind of like religious questions.  Lots of people think they know what religious ”truth” is, but none of them can provide any hard evidence.  Without actual evidence, “objective reality” is forever stuck in the realm of philosophic conjecture.  What I “see” or believe depends largely on all of the things I’ve seen or experienced up to that point.

In his second post, Cedric used photographic examples to demonstrate that viewers can, in fact, respond the same way to the same stimulus.  Images of the horrors of war, human tragedy, and, to an extent, human triumph do trigger the same visceral reactions in most of us.  The image of the doomed passenger jet an instant before striking the second tower on 9/11 is clear evidence that, as humans, we react the same way in many situations.  We all feel the same horror, knowing that this was the last second of life for all those on board.  We see this and know that it could have been us.  The image touches our most basic instinct – survival.   It also serves to remind us that we’re not always in control, that the “reality” of our very existence is something of a crap shoot.

So where does that leave “objective reality”?  In a response to Cedric’s second post, Andreas Manessinger (http://manessinger.com/) states that he believes in objective reality (Andreas is actually the one who triggered Cedric’s second post).  I agree with that.  As an old TV show used to proclaim, “The Truth is Out There”.  But knowing that it exists is not much help in determining its nature.  It’s like the old problem solving metaphor of “peeling back the onion”.  Problems are generally multi-layered.  What you see on the outside isn’t the problem itself.  Rather, it’s a consequence of the problem, a symptom.  To solve the problem, you have to peel away the layers until you’re left with the core which, hopefully, is the “essence” of the problem. 

At least that’s the idea.  You could use the waterfall in the same way.  The water will eventually cut through the softer layers until it reaches some kind of bedrock (maybe limestone or sandstone or even granite).  In that metaphor, the harder bedrock is, of course, objective reality.  Once reached, the “true” nature of the gorge will be revealed.

Or will it?  How do we know that the water won’t cut even deeper?  Maybe there’s something that’s harder underneath, something that’s even closer to the true nature of this land.  Heck, the rock at the bottom of the Grand Canyon is about 2 billion years old in places, and still the Colorado River cuts through it.

Well, maybe that’s a bad analogy.  As I said, I don’t know the answer.  But while I believe that what Cedric calls objective reality, or “truth”, actually exists, I also believe that for us, it’s both unknown and unknowable.  We may catch brief glimpses of it from time to time, but we can never capture it.

So whether we’re looking at an Ansell Adams photograph or discussing the nature of God, we will never completely agree.  Most of the time, we will disagree.  That’s who we are.  And that is both our greatest strength and our most profound weakness.

Full Moon Rising

In the 1983 movie WarGames, a young man unknowingly hacks into a military super-computer and, thinking that he’s just playing a computer game, nearly starts World War III.  When he finally realizes what he’s actually doing, he manages to contact the guy who created the simulations and tries to convince him to help stop the “game”.  The computer, of course, is merrily counting down to actual missile launches.  Well, the scientist / programmer initially decides he doesn’t want to help, even though he knows that the consequences will be catastrophic.  His reasoning is simple:  humanity is hell bent on self destruction anyway so nature might just as well start over.  Once the world is rid of humans, something else will evolve to take their place at the apex of the food chain (probably insects, he says).  As luck would have it, he changes his mind and he and the kid “save” the world from nuclear disaster.

Too bad.  I think the scientist guy had the right idea.  Here we are in 2009 and not only are we just as hell bent on doing ourselves in, we seem to be significantly “dumber”.  Or maybe I just watch too much news.  Or what passes for it these days.

I recently alluded to people in this country, for example, who believe that President Obama was actually born in Kenya and is therefore an “illegal alien”.  I thought that there were only a few such idiots out there, but it would seem that I was wrong about that.  A poll last week indicated that a large percentage of registered Republicans believe that it’s true (something like 42%).  Worse, Republican “leaders” seem disinclined to correct this perception. 

As one pundit put it, these are the same folks “who wonder where the sun goes every night”.  Funny, but scary.  He also joked that he would gladly provide the “birthers” with Obama’s birth certificate when they showed him Sarah Palin’s high school diploma.  Also funny (but maybe just a little counter-productive as an argument?). 

Then there’s the alarming increase in the number of people who believe that climate change is a hoax.  It’s a left-wing conspiracy designed to give government a bigger say in our personal lives and destroy the free market system (as if it ever really existed).  Just yesterday I heard Pat Buchanan, a respected Republican centrist and political commentator, say flatly that it was a hoax.  It’s all made up, he said.  He also took a shot at evolution as science. 

Now this guy isn’t your average extremist wingnut.  He’s a well respected individual.  People listen to him.

And of course there are the actual wingnuts that people listen to, like Glen Beck.  Here’s a TV commentator (with a best selling book) who said that Obama “hates white people” and is a racist.  In front of millions of people. 

It would be nice if we could dismiss all this nonsense as the ravings of a few on the lunatic fringe, but that’s not the case.  The problem is that – especially in the U. S. – there’s no such thing as an idea that is so ludicrous or so completely without basis in fact that it can’t gain traction with an awful lot of people.  If you say something often enough, Americans will believe it.  If you can get somebody they know and trust to say it, they’ll take it as “truth”.  Hell, if they see it on Twitter they’ll believe it.  Facts?  Actual data?  Who needs that kind of stuff.   

Tomorrow, there’ll be a full moon.  People used to say that weird things happen when the moon is full.  People act a little crazy, do strange things.  Well, that’s true.  The only thing missing from that statement is that people do (and say) strange things even when the moon isn’t full. 

Gee, I wonder where the moon goes when it’s “new”?

Intellectual Fog

Foggy Beach, Ogunquit, ME

Anyone who’s been to Maine knows that fog is not unusual, especially near the coast.  It can roll in in the morning,  burn away quickly as the sun heats the atmosphere, or it can hang on for hours.  Sometimes it only remains right along the water; as you drive inland, it rapidly dissipates.  We had such a day last week.

On this particular day, the fog would seem to be lifting, only to thicken again before the sun could fully burn it off.  This went on well into the afternoon.  It never really cleared until about 5:00 PM.  Amazingly, people came to the beach in large numbers (early in the day) and never left until late afternoon.  For most of the day, the beach looked much like it does in the image above.  If you look closely, you can see ghost-like images moving around in the background.  The edge of the water is out there as well, although you can’t really see it.  Essentially, all of these people ignored the fog.  This was a beach day, damn it, and a little fog wasn’t going to spoil things.  I talked to one of the lifeguards and he said it was actually a little dangerous because anyone who wandered more than 50 feet into the water couldn’t see the shore anymore.  Just my opinion, but I don’t see the point of laying or sitting on the beach in a heavy fog.  I suppose the good news is that you’re less likely to get sunburned.

Two things in the news earlier this week (one national and one local) reminded me of this image.  The first was on MSNBC Monday night and had to do with a “town hall” meeting given by a Republican congressman in Delaware.  The poor guy was just getting started when a woman stood up and, while waving her own birth certificate and a flag, demanded to know why congress had “allowed” Barack Obama to become president when he couldn’t prove that he was a U. S. citizen.  He couldn’t produce, she said, his own birth certificate.  When she’d finished, she was given a loud and long round of applause.  I honestly couldn’t believe it.  I know wingnuts like this are out there, but come on.  Virtually anyone can see a copy of Obama’s birth certificate online.  Yeah, I know.  The conspiracy theorists will just say that it’s a fake.  Just like the moon landing 40 years ago.

Now maybe this woman only has an 8th grade eductation or maybe she’s been to one too many Sarah Palin rallies.  Perhaps she has an excuse for spewing this nonsense.  This next guy, however, doesn’t. 

In yesterday morning’s local fishwrapper (the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle), a very highly respected local TV meteorologist (Kevin Williams) decided to respond to a previous editorial comment about climate change.  The person writing the earlier comment had simply said that “it was logical to conclude that we are responsible for the present rapid rate of disappearance of arctic ice”.  Mr. Williams, whose anti – global warming views are fairly well known, was compelled to respond.

“Arctic ice coverage”, he said, “is increasing and is now near the 30 year average and more important climatically, global sea ice is above average”.  While he said a number of other things, that was the crux of his argument.
As a statistician, I’ve run into this kind of misrepresentation of the data for over 30 years.  It sounds good, and he doesn’t actually lie, but it is wrong nontheless.  He’s twisted the facts to mirror his own point of view.

First, you have to understand something about the idea of “average”.  That’s pretty simple, right?  If I want to know the average high temperature for the last 5 days, all I need to do is add up those 5 values and then divide by 5.  The resulting value is the “average”.  So far, so good.  Statistically, however, there’s a catch.  Some averages are meaningful and some aren’t.  I could, for example, ask you to take a single page out of the phone book and then ask you to calculate the “average” phone number for that page (using the last 4 digits).  Arithmetically, that’s not a problem.  It might take a few minutes, but you could do it.  But what would it mean?  The answer, of course, is absolutely nothing.

Sometimes “real data” falls into the same category.  The “average” that Mr. Williams is talking about is one such case.  Consider the following graphic:

This chart, provided by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (at the University of Colorado), simply shows the extent of sea ice in the Arctic during the month of June for the last 30 years.  They use the June data because it’s an indication of the amount of melting that’s occurring during the summer months.  Note the heavy blue line.  This line represents the statistically significant downward trend in this data over the 30 year period.  It indicates an average decline of 3.3% per decade, or roughly 15,500 square miles of ice per year.

Taking the “average” of this data is one of those times when it makes no sense.  It makes no sense because the data is “trending” in a single direction.  If you were overweight and went on a diet for 6 months and lost 50 pounds in the process, would you give friends your “average” weight for that period?  I don’t think so.  You might calculate an average loss per month, but that’s a different number.  It has some meaning.  Would you calculate an overall average for any reason?  No.  Intuitively, it is a number that has no meaning.

The more reasonable interpretation of this data is that the extent of Arctic sea ice is declining and has been declining for at least 30 years.  I don’t know how anyone – especially a meteorologist – can argue with that.  The only possible argument might involve the integrity of the data itself or whether or not the trend is “man-made”.  But if you accept the data, there is only one possible conclusion.  The amount of Arctic sea ice is in decline.

With respect to “global sea ice”, Mr. Williams is throwing out a bit of a red herring.  Scientists have known for years that Antarctic sea ice does not behave the same way that Arctic sea ice does.  The same variables that are causing some areas of the globe to warm are actually causing other areas to cool.  No one has ever said that the earth is ”warming” uniformly.  The model used by most scientists indicates that sea ice in the Antarctic is not declining, or at least not at the rate seen in the northern hemisphere.