The Guardian newspaper yesterday published an article claiming that two mathematicians have adapted a financial formula to predict that England will "maul" Spain in the World Cup final this year. This is frankly ridiculous; the idea that a formula can 'predict' the outcome of a sporting tournament that has not even begun yet is fantastical at best and harrowing at worst. While it is entirely possible, and indeed it is hoped, that the mathematicians in question were just having some fun, there is a possibility that their venture was entirely serious and based on a desire to rationalise everything, including future sporting events. This is where the prediction becomes harrowing, as it reinforces society's dependence upon rationality.
This fascination with rationalism is not a new phenomenon. Hans J. Morgenthau's book Scientific Man vs Power Politics (1947) charts the development of rationalism in society through the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In the case of the World Cup, the mere attempt to mathematically predict the outcome is ludicrous; it is highly doubftul that the formula used was able to take into account ability, tactics, the weather, the morale of the players, injuries, form and numerous other factors. However, the predicition is sympotmatic of attempts to rationalise society and societal interactions, to place science in a social environment and accept the results without question.
If there is an accident in the workplace, for example, health and safety officers are called out to investigate. The rationale behind this is the idea that accidents only happen when something does not work as it is 'supposed' to, thus accidents are preventable providing everything works perfectly all the time. This approach is commendable, however people are not rational, they are not perfect; conflict and irrational thinking are unfortunately integral to human nature. Nevertheless, society is determined to instill a scientific rationale of perfection, which has led to an obsession with health and safety. If an accident occurs, there not only has to be a reason but there has to be something which can be improved or changed to prevent such an event from occuring in the future. Now, health and safety is important and of course, everything must be done to prevent accidents from happening but the fact of the matter is they do happen. The ambition to eradicate accidents from life is, unfortunately, doomed to failure because as mentioned above, people are irrational. However many times people might be told to climb a ladder or a cliff in a certain manner, someone will inevitably decide to do it different. There might be a reason, there might not be. The notion of the whim is not to be derided, it has arguably led to a variety of inventions and developments which have characterised contemporary society. Trying to eradicate irrational thinking threatens to remove what separates humans from machines: independent thought.
Of course, if England do go on to win the World Cup and thrash Spain in the process, there will be no complaints from this author. However, it would not change the fact that a mathematical prediction made 21 days before the tournament began was yet another reminder of the ludicrous reliance on rationalism that has infected society.
Friday 21 May 2010
Saturday 6 February 2010
Goodbye Constellation, Hello...Nothing
This week, US President Barack Obama announced that he was cancelling NASA's Constellation project. Publicised under the George Bush Jr. administration, the Constellation project included the Orion programme, which was intended to replace the Space Shuttle. The reasons given for the cancellation were the significant investment yet lack of innovation. On the one hand, one can appreciate the frustration of the Obama administration; billions of dollars have been spent only for plans which echo 1960s technology and concepts. However, on the other hand, there is the argument that the technology and concepts employed in the 1960s were successful; they landed man on the moon after all.
After the lunar landings and the cancellation of the Apollo programme by the Reagan administration in the 1970s, further lunar exploration or settlement appeared to have been removed from the political agenda. Instead, the idea of recyclable spacecraft became popular, albeit spacecraft that could only travel within a certain distance of the earth. The Space Shuttle was never designed to travel to the Moon, let alone Mars. The Obama administration may complain that the Constellation programme was based on 1960s technology but nevertheless that technology was designed to travel to celestial bodies (specifically the Moon) and return safely, which is surely a more appropriate foundation for future programmes than recyclable spacecraft which are restricted to the Lower Earth Orbit (LEO). The concept of the Space Shuttle was ideal for the political ambitions of the time; the Moon had been 'conquered', insofar as it had been visited by man, ending the 'Space Race' and thus leaving no particular goals to be accomplished. Suggestions for Moon settlements proved too expensive to be worthwhile, hence there was little need for a spacecraft designed to facilitate travel to celestial bodies. From this, the Space Shuttle was born, allowing recyclable travel to LEO and back for the flexible deployment of orbital satellites.
With the cancellation of the Constellation programme, the Obama administration has confused matters slightly. On the one hand, it has increased NASA's budget by $6 billion per year, an increase which has been sorely needed ever since George Bush Jr. announced his desire for a manned mission to Mars, while on the other, one questions the message transmitted by the cancellation of a programme in which billions of dollars and thousands of man-hours have been invested. Orion may well have not been the most original programme ever but it was based on a functioning formula.
It is understandable that ventures to the Moon and Mars may not appear cost-effective to the Obama administration, though there is an argument that national pride and the spirit of scientific exploration are sufficient to justify such missions. Certainly these arguments appear to have been put forward by critics in the US Senate. The absence of a mission to the Moon aside, there is a significant issue with the cancellation of the Constellation programme in that nothing has been proposed to replace the Space Shuttle. Those behind proposed budget appear to hope that commercial interests in space exploration will be enough to help the development of future manned spacecraft. That is all very well but currently, the most advanced commercial spacecraft are those belonging to Virgin Galactic and are based on a similar concept to the Space Shuttle; short hops into orbit and back. Unless there is a significant incentive offered for commercial investors to work on developing future spacecraft, it seems doubtful that manned US spacecraft designed to travel past Higher Earth Orbit (HEO) will be seen any time soon. Celestial bodies are exempt from national appropriation under the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, meaning that the commercial exploitation of those bodies is also debatable, therefore restricting the prospect of significant financial return for investors.
While the reasons for the cancellation of the Constellation programme may be understandable, NASA has been left in limbo. It has an increased budget but the Space Shuttle remains due to be replaced by the end of 2010, leaving NASA and the US without a spacecraft on the horizon, forcing them to rely on other countries for missions to the International Space Station for years to come, a dependence which some critics will undoubtedly perceive to be a national humiliation.
After the lunar landings and the cancellation of the Apollo programme by the Reagan administration in the 1970s, further lunar exploration or settlement appeared to have been removed from the political agenda. Instead, the idea of recyclable spacecraft became popular, albeit spacecraft that could only travel within a certain distance of the earth. The Space Shuttle was never designed to travel to the Moon, let alone Mars. The Obama administration may complain that the Constellation programme was based on 1960s technology but nevertheless that technology was designed to travel to celestial bodies (specifically the Moon) and return safely, which is surely a more appropriate foundation for future programmes than recyclable spacecraft which are restricted to the Lower Earth Orbit (LEO). The concept of the Space Shuttle was ideal for the political ambitions of the time; the Moon had been 'conquered', insofar as it had been visited by man, ending the 'Space Race' and thus leaving no particular goals to be accomplished. Suggestions for Moon settlements proved too expensive to be worthwhile, hence there was little need for a spacecraft designed to facilitate travel to celestial bodies. From this, the Space Shuttle was born, allowing recyclable travel to LEO and back for the flexible deployment of orbital satellites.
With the cancellation of the Constellation programme, the Obama administration has confused matters slightly. On the one hand, it has increased NASA's budget by $6 billion per year, an increase which has been sorely needed ever since George Bush Jr. announced his desire for a manned mission to Mars, while on the other, one questions the message transmitted by the cancellation of a programme in which billions of dollars and thousands of man-hours have been invested. Orion may well have not been the most original programme ever but it was based on a functioning formula.
It is understandable that ventures to the Moon and Mars may not appear cost-effective to the Obama administration, though there is an argument that national pride and the spirit of scientific exploration are sufficient to justify such missions. Certainly these arguments appear to have been put forward by critics in the US Senate. The absence of a mission to the Moon aside, there is a significant issue with the cancellation of the Constellation programme in that nothing has been proposed to replace the Space Shuttle. Those behind proposed budget appear to hope that commercial interests in space exploration will be enough to help the development of future manned spacecraft. That is all very well but currently, the most advanced commercial spacecraft are those belonging to Virgin Galactic and are based on a similar concept to the Space Shuttle; short hops into orbit and back. Unless there is a significant incentive offered for commercial investors to work on developing future spacecraft, it seems doubtful that manned US spacecraft designed to travel past Higher Earth Orbit (HEO) will be seen any time soon. Celestial bodies are exempt from national appropriation under the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, meaning that the commercial exploitation of those bodies is also debatable, therefore restricting the prospect of significant financial return for investors.
While the reasons for the cancellation of the Constellation programme may be understandable, NASA has been left in limbo. It has an increased budget but the Space Shuttle remains due to be replaced by the end of 2010, leaving NASA and the US without a spacecraft on the horizon, forcing them to rely on other countries for missions to the International Space Station for years to come, a dependence which some critics will undoubtedly perceive to be a national humiliation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)