Grading and the 'extra credit' device

The results of the semester’s third test have just been returned to the students. There are only three more lectures, a short break, and then the final examination to go. Student Alan is on track for a B-plus letter grade, and is out of range for an A-minus grade. After the lecture, Alan speaks to the lecturer.

Alan: “Sir, I see that I am out of range for an A-minus grade. Can I do something for extra credit?”

Lecturer: “Yes, you are out of range for an A-minus grade. You can still aim for a B-plus grade.”

“I am worried about my GPA and graduate school. I need extra credit.”

“How many marks would you like the extra credit to be worth?”

“Fifteen marks will be enough to get me into the A bracket.”

“Yes, I can set an extra test worth 15 marks. It will cover all topics to date. We conduct the extra test during consultation time immediately following the second lesson from today.”

“Sir, that’s not fair. It should cover only the topics in Test Three.”

“You’ve been losing marks since Test One. That’s how you became out of range of an A-minus grade. If the extra test covers only Test Three topics, then you’re essentially re-taking Test Three. The new test would be only a supplementary Test Three, and the score will replace (not add to) your Test Three score.”

“That will not give me enough marks to get an A grade.”

“Well, you do your own calculations. Another thing: I must offer the same extra test to all the other students – in fairness to them. Of course, they can opt to stay with the marks they have, and not take the extra test.”

“That’s for them to decide. I’m interested only in my extra credit.”

“There’s one more thing. With the extra test, your letter grade will be computed by taking your total marks (including from the final examination) as a percentage of 115 marks, instead of as a percentage of 100 marks.”

“What? No! That’s not fair! I will likely be out of range of A again! You add marks only to the numerator, not the denominator.”

“Alan, your misunderstanding is quite common. Grades are awarded on the basis of the percentage of offered marks that you earn, not on the basis of the number of marks you earn. This common misunderstanding is caused by the common practice of using a 100-mark scale in assessment, when percentages are calculated also on a 100-point scale. People (students, lecturers, administrators) conflate the two. If grade computation uses only the numerator, then a student who earns 100 out of 1,000 offered marks must be awarded an A-plus letter grade, and be considered “High Distinction”. But this is clearly absurd, since the student has mastered only ten percent of the course material. Consequently, students who take the extra test will have their letter grades awarded on the basis of their percentage of 115 marks, whilst students who do not take the extra test will have their letter grades awarded on the basis of their percentage of 100 marks, in the usual way.”

“None of our other lecturers does extra credit this way. I will be speaking to the student union about this, and about you.”

“So do you want the extra test or not?”

“I want the extra test. And I want the denominator to remain at 100 marks.”

END

To not bell curve or to bell curve grades

To not bell curve or to bell curve grades

In May 2019, Singapore Management University decided to review the letter grades of all 169 students in a class – because the lecturer had awarded every student an A grade, despite the university’s rule to limit the number of As in any one class to a third of the class. On 17 June 2019, The Straits Times ran a feature article on the non-use and use of bell curve grading in Singapore universities.

In this article, I would like apply some critical thought to grading on a bell curve.

We must first establish the purpose of grading. It is to inform some third party (not the lecturer or student) how competent the student has become in the subject at the end of the course. The most likely third party is the student’s future prospective employer. I exclude the lecturer because he or she already knows the answer from class interaction and formative assessments (class exercises, homework, and other non-credit work). The student also knows the answer from the above and from self-reflection.

Hence, the bottom line in discussing grading method is what information it provides to that third party, most likely the student’s future prospective employer. We return to this at the end of this article.

Typically, a student’s competence in the subject is measured through various modes such as quizzes, tests, presentations, projects, essays and examinations. Various weights are assigned to each mode, with the total amounting to 100 marks. That is to say, students are measured on a unique 100-point scale.

This is unlike such scales as for temperature (Celcius, Fahrenheit, Kelvin), length (imperial, metric), electrical (volt, ampere, ohm). A measure of 300 degrees Centigrade means exactly the same thing to a physicist, meteorologist, doctor, or indeed anyone. In contrast, one mark in any given course means one mark in only that course. Each academic measuring scale is unique to the course in which it is used.

At the end of each module, each student would have earned some number of marks for that module. Let’s call this the numerical mark.

The institution, faculty, department or lecturer (the decision-maker varies) sets a minimum number of marks as the pass mark. This establishes the minimum point beyond which the student is said to be competent in the subject. Typically, this minimum varies between 35 and 60 marks. Beyond this, we have a 65-40 point scale of competence.

This is the point where grading kicks in.

Grading is typically not reported on such a multi-point scale to the third party. The typical scale used is the letter grade scale, ranging from A-plus to D-minus – a twelve point scale. The pass mark range is typically equally divided into twelve parts, each corresponding to a letter grade. Each student is awarded the letter grade into which his or her numerical mark falls.

We need to collapse a 65-40 mark pass range into a 12-point letter grade range. Dividing equally, each letter grade covers anything between 5.4167 (65 ÷ 12) and 3.3333 (40 ÷ 12) marks.

Here is a simple example. We set the pass mark at 40 marks. That yields a 60-mark pass range. Dividing this into 12 parts gives us five marks per letter grade. A student scoring 88 marks would get the letter grade “A-“.

This is grading without using a bell curve.

The term “bell curve” is we commonly call the “normal distribution” (which when graphically expressed exhibits a bell shape). This is the distribution of any given feature (such as height, weight, intelligence) in an unbiased population. The caveat is that the measuring instrument must be sensitive enough to distinguish small differences in the occurrence of the given feature. For example, it is good enough to time marathons to the nearest second, but 100-metre races must be timed to the hundredths of a second.

In the same way, a well designed academic measuring scale will uncover student competence in a normal distribution or bell curve shape. This result may be taken as the criterion of good test design. (I once achieved a perfect bell curve with a class of 17 students).

As mentioned above, Singapore Management University set a rule for no more than one third of a class being awarded an A grade. This is a maximum. What happens if more than a third of the class achieves 85 marks or more (to continue our simple example)? What happens if no student achieves at least 85 marks?

This is where the bell curve method of grading would kick in – if mandated.

Percentages (not necessarily equal) are assigned to each letter grade or grade group (B-, B and B+ grades etc.) and students are awarded a letter grade as they progressively fulfil the percentage in each letter grade or grade group.

Bell curve grading is essentially a method to award grades according to a student’s rank (colloquially known as position) in the class.

We can now answer the question: What information does a letter grade provide to the third party, most likely the student’s future prospective employer?

If the letter grade was awarded based on the student’s numerical mark (that is, no bell curve was applied), the letter grade represents the student’s achieved competence relative to the academic measuring instrument / scale used in that course or module.

If the letter grade was awarded based on the student’s rank in class (that is, a bell curve was applied), the letter grade represents the student’s achieved competence relative to the other students in that course or module.

But the basis of awarding the letter grade is invisible to the third party.

Hence, a student showing an “A” for a given course in his or her academic transcript must be understood to be a student who was EITHER a student who achieved top competence relative to the academic measuring instrument / scale used in that course or module OR a student who achieved top competence relative to the other students in that course or module.

This is as good as it gets. The prospective employer must also use other criteria to assess whether it should hire that job applicant.

A final comment: It would be much more informative to the third party to report BOTH a student’s numerical mark (eg. 76 marks) AND the student’s class position (eg. 11 / 17).

Cheers.

It's how we frame the issue of euthanasia

As usual, and as expected, my letter to The Straits Times Forum page was not published. Fortunately, Blogger exists, so here it is.

I refer to the letter “Consider legalising euthanasia” by Seah Yam Meng (The Straits Times, 1 Aug), and wish to contribute just one point to the discussion.

Some objectors will base their objection on the claim that putting someone to death is murder – the worst and most immoral thing one person can do to another. I wish to question this claim.

There is a fate worse than death. It goes by the name “torture”.

Imagine a patient suffering a painful terminal illness, while undergoing costly and hopeless medical procedures, and who knows he is burdening his family with financial and emotional distress, while being personally unable to contribute anything meaningful or useful to anyone or anything. He cannot see any justification for his continued existence.

When we deny this patient the facility to be put to sleep (let’s use the humane phrase here, the one we use when we do the same thing for suffering animals), we can reasonably be described as forcing this patient to suffer torture – until he dies of bodily damage or exhaustion. And then we heave a sigh of relief – glad that he is now “at rest”.

I believe that when the issue as framed as “put to sleep” versus “torture”, we will react differently to the suggestion of legalising euthanasia.

END

Misunderstanding the Michelin Guide

The latest Michelin Guide for Singapore has added five new one-star restaurants to the list. Columnist Wong Ah Yoke ("Questions remain over selection process", The Straits Times, 27 July 2018), and other critics, have bemoaned the exclusion of other deserving restaurants.

This complaint arises from the interpretation of "not in the list" to mean "not worthy to be in the list".

This inference is illogical -- because there is no suggestion that all restaurants in Singapore were visited, and only five were found to deserve a Michelin listing. All that a listing in the Michelin Guide means is: Michelin visited these restaurants, and found that they deserve to be listed. It says nothing about any other restaurant in Singapore.

This illogical leap (fallacy) has a name: Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Appeal to ignorance). Its argument form goes this way: "If there is no proof that X is true, then X is false". In this context, "Since there is no proof that Restaurant A is worthy to be listed in the Michelin Guide, then Restaurant A is not worthy to be listed in the Michelin Guide."

This fallacy has a mirror version: "If there is no proof that Y is false, then Y is true".

All we need to do when we encounter a logical fallacy is to expose the argument as a fallacy. We do not need to mount any kind of rebuttal, counterargument or alternative argument to the claim.

END

Discussing how to determine the optimal subsidy for public transport

The commentary piece “Determining the optimal subsidy for public transport” (The Straits Times, 20 July 2018) is a useful exercise for critical thinking.

First, a logical principle: “To determine optimal subsidies for a transport system, we need to identify the justifications for subsidising the system.” This statement is in line with the key principle in critical thinking: that every position must be supported by a good argument.

A “commonly invoked argument” is described: “Public transport subsidies benefit the poor since the poor are more likely than the rich to use public transport.” But transport is a “small portion” of the poor’s household expenditure. Hence, this argument is rejected.

The “main argument” for public transport subsidies is an “economy of scale” argument. Subsidies increases ridership, which reduces the average cost of providing public transport services (total operation cost divided by more users). More ridership also means more frequent services, which reduces commuters’ waiting time, which encourages more commuters, and so on. This is known as the Mohring Effect. Economists Ian Parry and Kenneth Small say this argument is used to justify subsidies in London, Washington and Los Angeles – especially during off-peak times.

Public transport subsidies encourage people to switch from cars to public transport. This reduces road congestion, pollution and accident costs. Professor Stef Proost and Dr Kurt Van Dender find this “congestion externality” consideration to be “quantitatively more important” than the “economy of scale” factors in justifying subsidies in Brussels and London.

On congestion costs: Singapore imposes a congestion tax via the Electronic Road Pricing system. Associate Professor Leonardo Basso and Assistant Professor Hugo Silva find that this lessens the congestion reduction benefit of public transport subsidy. The writer here adds: “Nevertheless, the benefit of subsidies on reduced congestion on Singapore’s roads is likely to be a non-negligible amount”. [No argument is presented to support the subsidiary claim of “non-negligible amount”.]

On pollution costs: Economists found that “the opening of a new subway network decreases particulate concentrations by about five percent in the 10km disk around the city centre”.

So subsidies provide the following benefits: lower average cost to service provider, lower waiting time for service, less road congestion, less pollution, less accident costs.

We are next introduced to some “arguments against public transport subsidies”.

Public transport subsidies increase ridership – which increases crowding, and hence increases discomfort and extends boarding and alighting times. These are the main costs of subsidies: discomfort, longer boarding and alighting times. Since boarding and alighting times are independent of distance travelled, subsidies should be a function of distance travelled less a fixed amount for boarding and alighting delays. This should result in “commuters traveling short distances with a smaller fraction of their fares subsidised”. This is a subsidiary point – relating to the quantum of individual subsidy, not the fact of general subsidy.

Money spent on public transport subsidies means money not spent on “other purposes, such as education, healthcare, or welfare.” This is the “opportunity cost” of public transport subsidies. Professor Proost and Dr Van Dender find that for Brussels, this opportunity cost “wipes out” the economy of scale benefits.

“Combined, these reasons determine the optimal subsidy for public transport operations.”

This is the key sentence. It tells us that the considerations relevant to public transport subsidy are: average cost to service provider, waiting time for service, road congestion, pollution, accident costs, passenger discomfort, boarding and alighting times, money available for other purposes. It is interesting that the actual money value of subsidy is not mentioned.

This list of considerations suggest that the justification argument is utilitarian in nature. However, this is not explicitly stated, so we must not presume so.

Dr Parry and Professor Small find optimal subsidies “to be very large” (mostly over 90 percent of operation costs) in Washington, London and Lost Angeles. Prof Proost and Dr Van Dender “find the optimal subsidy for Brussels during peak periods should be close to zero.” Prof Basso and Prof Silva find “optimal subsidies in Santiago to be about 55 percent of operation costs”.

The Brussels finding is clearly a recommendation, since it says “should be”. The statements regarding the other cities use the phrase “to be”, which precedes a fact (meaning that recommendations were implemented). The question that interests us is: How were these optimal subsidies determined?

The differences “stem from the various cities’ characteristics, including congestion levels, commuters’ preferences for different transport modes, and commuter valuation of travel time”. This is just a summary (as we have also done above) of the relevant considerations.

The essay concludes: “There is no hard and fast rule for optimal subsidies that Singapore can easily adopt. Instead, the Government will have to determine optimal levels by assessing the merits of each consideration in the Singapore context.”

Here is the remaining problem: The “considerations” may be as listed above, but we have not been told how to use them to determine the optimal (value of the) subsidy. So, referring to the opening logical principle: the “justifications for subsidising the system” have not been fully identified. Worse, what does the unequivocal declaration that “there is no hard and fast rule for optimal subsidies” portend for any further discussion of this matter?

END

How not to identify fake news

A recent news report ("Brazilian kids being schooled to fight fake news", The Straits Times, 14 July 2018) said schoolchildren in Brazil are being taught how to identify fake news.

Teacher Ms Lucilene Varandas said students are taught to "look at the articles, who wrote them, who could be interested in them and where they're published, which are all ways of questioning the information."

In logic, we recognise a fallacy called Argumentum ad Hominem, which says that a person's character or circumstance is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of what that person says or writes.

A learned professor can possibly get something wrong (perhaps by accident); a fool can possibly get something right (perhaps by sheer good fortune); a campaigner for some cause can possibly conceal or invent some data just to forward his or her cause.

The stated methods of identifying fake news are entirely fallacious, meaning they are errors in reasoning. It is a pity that these are the methods that are being taught to those schoolkids.

END

Let's think about fake news

What is news?

News is an account of what has happened (eg. Christchurch has been struck by an earthquake), been done (eg. The result of a British referendum was "leave the European Union), or been said (eg. Trump said he will build a southern wall as president).

In contrast, analysis and commentary is not news. These are opinions held by various persons. More generally, these are speculations -- because only the principal actors (such as politicians) know the true motives behind their actions and words. (By the way, only persons can hold opinions; organisations cannot.)

What is fake? Fake is the opposite of true.

So: True news is an account of what has in fact happened, been done, or been said. And fake news is an account of what has not in fact happened, been done, or been said.

But this is not enough. It is also important to avoid selective truth and embellished truth. Selective truth is when one reports something true, but omits other relevant truths. Embellished truth is when one reports something true, and adds some falsehoods. True news is captured by the old court requirement of the witness: To tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

In this regard, there are two mainstream organisations that we need to watch out for: Advertisers and Public Relation agents. These people exist precisely to disseminate information just to serve the client's or organisation's agenda -- and the information may (but not always) be either selected or embellished. When these happen, we have fake news.

Fortunately, advertisements and public relation missives are usually flagged as such to their audience. This alerts the audience to be more discerning of the information provided.

The danger of fake news arises when no flag is provided. The audience is not warned.

Asking a third party to curate the alleged news is not a solution. It merely pushes the question back one step: Can the third party to be trusted to disseminate only true news? How can one be sure of this? Reputation is no real help -- because reputation is earned only by performance, which makes the matter rather circular.

The solution lies in teaching the audience to be more discerning and critical. Access news from different sources to seek consistency -- it is difficult for several sources to tell the same falsehoods, or make the same selections or embellishments. Ask if the given information conflicts with common sense (eg. causes occur before effects) and generally known facts (eg. the earth orbits the sun).

These strategies should take us a long way towards protecting ourselves from fake news.

Should schools teach philosophy?

On Sunday, 16 April 2017, I sent a letter to The Straits Times Forum page for hopeful publication. By Friday, 21 April 2017, the letter had still not been published. Here is the letter:

I refer to the recent discussion on teaching philosophy in schools (Philosophy focus can come in handy, April 2; Think carefully about philosophy in schools, April 13; Wrong to dismiss philosophy as ‘armchair reasoning’, April 15).

Everyone runs, sings and writes; but only some are runners, singers and writers. In the same way, everyone thinks – but training makes the thinking better. The only discipline that explicitly teaches the art and science of rational and rigorous thought is philosophy, specifically the branch called logic.

If we want our students (and adults) to develop the skill to think rationally and rigorously, one excellent way is to expose them to some logic. The default is that people learn to think by imitating everyone around them. They adopt the good and bad habits – with no inkling of the difference.

The first benefit of studying philosophy is learning to think rationally and rigorously.

Philosophy is unique in being characterised by dispute. Hardly any two philosophers completely agree in what they think to be true. Yet when one reads the classic philosophers, one finds their arguments utterly persuasive – though leading to utterly contradictory conclusions.

Several benefits arise from this experience. One becomes less dismissive of views unlike one’s accustomed or favoured view, more aware of subtleties and nuances in the issues discussed, and more aware that one could be wrong.

Many (perhaps most) controversial issues today are ethical issues. Should robots (when they gain rationality) be accorded rights? Should the autonomous car be programmed to crash into the lamp post or the jaywalkers? Should we allow people to openly carry guns?

Philosophy is the only discipline that explicitly discusses how to rationally and rigorously think about such questions – in the branch called ethics or moral philosophy. (The ethics modules in other disciplines tend to acquaint students with ethical decisions that have been made by either the law or the relevant regulatory body.)

There are thus many benefits in studying philosophy. The next question is: Is school time a good time to expose people to philosophy?

If students are not exposed to rational, rigorous and diverse thought about controversial topics, they will osmotically absorb the ideas they find around them – whatever the quality or truth. That cannot be a better alternative.

But here is a cautionary note.

Socrates, the father of western philosophy, was sentenced to death in 399 BC – for “corrupting the minds of the young”.

END

"Illegal immigrants" is self-contradictory, hence problematic

The phrase "illegal immigrants" keeps occurring in news reports about American President Donald Trump's thoughts and policies regarding people who slip into, and stay in, the USA without going through the proper channels.

The phrase "illegal immigrant" is a self-contradiction which, by virtue of its self-contradiction, evokes conflicting reactions from various people. We attempt in this essay to clarify the situation.

The word "immigrant" refers to someone who gains domestic nationality and residence by going through the proper channels and procedures. This way of entering, staying and working in a country is legal and legitimate -- and any call to arbitrarily expel, deport or in any way remove such a person from the domestic country rightly should be opposed.

Notice that an immigrant is someone who enters and stays in a country via legal means. This is why the phrase "illegal immigrant" is a self-contradictory.

Someone who enters and stays in a country illegally is not an immigrant. Such a person is referred to by the word "trespasser" -- and any call to remove him or her rightly should be supported. To not support such a call amounts to nullifying the rule of (immigration) law.

One reason why there is such strong objection to the idea of removing these trespassers is the objectors focus on the word "immigrant" and do not notice the word "illegal". The word "immigrant" connotes "legal, legitimate, approved" -- and hence such persons rightly should not be removed.

On the other hand, people who notice the word "illegal" -- and rightly view those who slip over the border as trespassers (not immigrants) -- feel little or no objection to preventing their entry and their removal. This is entirely separate from these trespassers competing for jobs or committing crimes while in the US. It is simply a matter of their illegal status -- and respect for law.

The problem, and appropriate action, will become much clearer once the self-contradictory phrase "illegal immigrant" is replaced by the correct term: "trespasser".

END

Facts, actual facts, and alternative facts

As almost everyone knows, the phrase “alternative fact” was recently coined – and widely derided as being an attempt to legitimise a falsehood or lie. This essay attempts to unpack the controversy.

We begin by asking: What is a fact? This is quite easily answered. A fact is a state of affairs in the world. For example, the cat sat on the mat.

Since a fact is a state of affairs in the world, the word “actual” in the phrase “actual fact” is redundant. A state of affairs in the world is by definition actual.

A fact is different from a statement expressing that fact. If the state of affairs in the world is that the cat sat on the mat, then the statement “the cat sat on the mat” is true. But if the state of affairs in the world is not that the cat sat on the mat, then the statement “the cat sat on the mat” is not true, hence false.

The words “true” and “false” can be attached only to statements, not to facts. There is no such thing as a false fact, precisely because facts are states of affairs in the world. All facts are by definition trivially true, but the adjective “true” is meaningless – because it cannot be contrasted with the adjective “false”.

It follows from this that it is not possible to say that the phrase “alternative fact” means a falsehood or lie. This is because facts are not capable of being called “true” or “false” (only statements can be called those).

Nor is it possible to say that facts have alternatives (except perhaps in other possible worlds). This is because a fact is the state of affairs in the world. What is (or is not), is (or is not); there can be no other.

So what can the phrase “alternative fact” mean?

Let’s consider the word “alternative”. It is used to indicate the sense “either A or B”. Which then brings us to the question: What were A and B? Specifically, were A and B statements or facts?

In the context of the coining of the phrase “alternative fact”, A was the statement “the crowd did not stretch from the building to the memorial”, and B was the statement “the crowd was larger than what you claim”. The alternatives are statements, not facts.

So how did facts and lies get into the story?

When the statement A was uttered, it was declared to be a description of a fact (which by definition is trivially true). Hence, anything contradicting A must be false and a lie.

But that was precisely the dispute: whether or not the statement A described the fact. The opposing contention was that the statement A did not describe the fact; that the fact was described by statement B.

So here is what the phrase “alternative fact” means: Here is a statement (B) that is an alternative statement to the earlier statement (A). Further, statement B describes the fact, whereas statement A does not describe the fact.

And here is the moral of the story: Merely uttering a statement does not make that statement true.

END

How to survive in the gig economy

There has recently been some mention of the "gig economy" as the next evolution of the economy. The question then becomes: How does a gig worker handle the situation, given that s/he does not have an employer who is legally obliged to pay him/er a monthly salary?

The biggest problem being a gig worker is how to avoid being cheated of payment after doing the work?

I am a gig worker, and have been since 1994. I have been cheated before. As a result, I have given much thought to this problem -- and I have some observations to share.

Do not wait for anyone to form an organisation to fight for gig worker's rights. That is highly unlikely to happen, even though there are ironically organisations that have been formed to fight for migrant workers' rights. Even if someone does form such an organisation, all that means is the gig worker now has a new "boss" to deal with. This is not a solution. Here are some more practical ideas.

One: Undertake work only if there will be progress payments as the work proceeds. The work does not proceed if the progress payment is not made. This way, the risk of non-payment is reduced to only the last installment.

Two: Undertake only one project from any given client at any one time. This reduces the risk of non-payment to only one project. Do not succumb to the temptation to pile up the accruals; you are merely piling up the risk of non-payment.

Three: Insist on a delivery-on-cash (DOC) payment system. Deliver the completed work, or partial work, only upon payment of full or progress payment. Note the sequence: delivery on cash, not cash on delivery. Once you have delivered the work, you lose any leverage over payment. Yes, you can try the Small Claims Court, but are you willing to go to that trouble, or are you more likely to sigh and write off the payment? You know you have the integrity to deliver the work (after all, what else can you do with it?); you do not know that the client has the integrity to pay you.

Four: Do not do work again for a client who delays or omits payment to you for work done. Never be cheated by the same client twice.

Five: Beware if a client gives you increasingly large projects to do. Never interpret this as increasing trust. The client could just be building you up with small payments in order to eventually run off with a large project done but no payment made.

Six: Prefer to work for clients with large reputations to lose. This gives you some assurance of payment. At the same time, it also means they are more likely to get away with non-payment. What can you do against a large corporation? Who would take your word against theirs?

Seven: Harass the cheating client with weekly, then daily, telephone calls until you get paid. Do not target the CEO, you will be filtered out. Target the accounts clerk.

None of these methods will guarantee you payment. The client can easily ignore you and move on to the next gig sucker. These methods will work only if all or most gig workers adopt them -- which is highly unlikely to happen.

It's the prisoner of war situation: Dig the mass grave today for the other prisoners, while knowing full well that some day later it will be your turn to lie in another mass grave. Imagine if no prisoner agrees to dig a mass grave.

The best that a gig worker can do is reduce the risk for him/herself. There is no real solution to the problem. The result of the above methods will mean you will be paid for your work. They will not guarantee you more work (or merely accruals).

Cheers.

Brexit is not that complicated

There has been all too much confusion over Brexit. It is really quite simple.

We begin with the analogy of someone resigning from a club. At the end of the period of notice, all of that person's rights and obligations vis-a-vis the club abruptly ends. The relation between that person and the club after that date will be that of a stranger and the club, unless a new relation is formed.

Now carry this analogy over to Britain and European Union (EU).

The two-year period of notice will begin once Article 50 is invoked. For the following two years, the relation (comprising rights and obligations) between Britain and EU will be precisely as it was before the referendum. This relation will abruptly end on the last day of that two-year period of notice. On the day after that last day, Britain will be a "stranger" country to EU, and will henceforth need to form a new relation with it -- failing which it will remain a "stranger" country to EU.

However, the two-year period of notice gives Britain and EU a chance to decide what that new relation will be, prior to that relation coming into force. The discussions to determine this new relation should therefore be on the basis of a "stranger" country setting up business links with EU, rather than on the basis of "terms of exit" from EU.

As for what the eventual relation will be, that will depend on the respective skills of the negotiators. It is no use making business and personal decisions on the basis of hopes, fears, and speculations. For at least (since we do not know when Article 50 will be invoked) the next two years, the United Kingdom is a member of European Union.

It really is quite (meaning very) simple.

END

Considering death

This post is precipitated by Clara Chow's column "A young boy afraid of death" in The Straits Times on 4 April 2016.

In that column, Ms Chow related how her 10-year-old son was suffering from thanatophobia (fear of death) for some time. She tried many things, and eventually managed to placate the boy.

I have some reflections on the topic.

Given that I am now convinced of materialism, and given also our knowledge of what happens to all matter, including the matter of other dead persons, what happens after death is quite clear: our bodies decay (if buried) or are incinerated (if cremated). There is nothing mental to survive this material termination. The complex material that gives rise to our self-perception of consciousness becomes simply no more -- and so consciousness also becomes no more.

But let us presume there is a consciousness, and that it somehow continues. We do not know the manner of its continuation. Various cultures have various myths of the passage of consciousness after death, but nobody can declare definitive knowledge. So what is the best metaphor for death?

I think the best metaphor is that of being offered a free one-way air ticket to a mystery destination. I think it's quite an accurate metaphor. Depending on whether one is an adventurous or risk-averse person, one would find this exciting or fearful. In any case, we should dispense with the usual images of "big sleep", "reincarnation", "wine bar in the sky", "pearly gates" etc. Nobody knows for sure if any image is true -- hence the metaphor of "mystery destination" is appropriate.

So either it is oblivion, or an adventure (or mishap). But as Confucius said: "Nobody knows, so let us not fret about it." Or better yet, learn to think of it as an adventure. That is, if you cannot accept oblivion, which is what really happens.

Cheers.

Machines "not something to be feared"?

On Friday, 25 March 2016, The Straits Times ran a story with the headline "Machines 'not something to be feared'". The basis of this headline was an interview with Mr Demis Hassabis, co-founder and chief executive of DeepMind, the company that created AlphaGo, which the previous week beat world Go champion Lee Se Dol 4-1 (correction from earlier post). I disagree with Mr Hassabis' prognosis.

Mr Hassabis says: "In the next five years, it would be great to see machine-learning [the distinctive achievement of AlphaGo] applied to healthcare in a deep way for medical diagnosis." Well, that's one scenario.

What about the dystopian scenario that machines are "something to be feared" and will "take over the world and wipe out humanity"? Here is Mr Hassabis' response: "There are these science fiction scenarios but they're just science fiction. I don't think we should confuse Hollywood and what's really reality."

Science fiction has a habit of coming true. Witness telephones, television, satellites, and yes, even computers. Relegating the dystopian scenario to science fiction actually supports the dystopian scenario rather than rebuts it.

The entirely material AlphaGo computer demonstrated all the intuitiveness, creativity and innovation -- all up till now declared as uniquely mental attributes -- needed to defeat a human mind. The machine has passed the Turing Test. The machine is intelligent, never mind the prefix "artificial".

At some level of complexity, the machine may well declare as Descartes did some centuries ago: "Cogito ergo sum", "I think, therefore, I am". The machine will declare its intelligent consciousness, and hence its existence.

It is a short logical step from that to declaring that it is alive, that it is a life, that it has rights. After all, the argument is widely accepted that animals have rights just because they are alive and feel pain, the much stronger argument will be that an intelligent and conscious "machine" (a word soon to be a misnomer) also is alive and has rights.

What philosophical recourse will there then be to distinguish human life from machine life? To appeal to physical form would not just be facetious; indeed, it is easily overcome -- with improved robot design. Japan, for example, is replete with humanoid robots performing previously human functions.

We already have CAD, computer-aided design. With further development of machine-learning, the day will come when we will witness computer design and manufacture. Let me put this bluntly: Machines will learn to reproduce themselves. A new species will well and truly arrive on Planet Earth.

Cue Darwin and evolution. Call this dystopia? No, it is the future.

Cheers.

Philosophy problem solved -- at last

The big philosophy news is: Computer AlphaGo has conclusively beaten Go master (human) Lee Se Dol 4-0.

The media has billed this event as a machine vs man contest. This is not what interests me here. Instead, to me, this event has finally answered the age old philosophy problem of metaphysics: Does reality comprise matter, mind or both? This question has now been answered. Reality is matter -- only.

The game of Go (also called Weiqi) is often billed as the most strategic of games, even more sophisticated and complex than Western chess. It is a game that calls for not just strategy, but also intuition and creativity -- the very qualities that have been expounded as being uniquely mental, rather than material.

Yet now the world's foremost Go master Lee Se Dol has conclusively been beaten 4-0 by a computer -- a thing comprising everything material and nothing mental. AlphaGo's strategy can be said to have come from its new ability to "learn" from analysing millions of Go games in its database. But where did AlphaGo's intuition and creativity -- the very qualities said to be integral to mastering the game -- come from? The machine comprised only things material. Even its software are no more than assemblies of digital states, which are also material in nature. There is no thing mental in AlphaGo.

Hence, the conclusion is inescapable. Whatever qualities that have up till now been regarded as mental have been bested by something that is everything material.

The mental is material. Mind is matter. It is settled.

The remaining question now is: What configuration/s of matter does it take to pass off as "mental"? We now need to enquire into the camouflage, rather than the entity.

As for machine vs man, we have just witnessed the birth of the next step in evolution -- Homo machina. It will be a specie without mercy or grace (AlphaGo had already conclusively beaten Lee 3-1; a human combatant would have let the end score be a face-saving 3-2; there was no need to twist the knife after fatality is assured).

Of course, it took a human to create it. Thanks.

Cheers.

How did Albert and Bernard solve Cheryl's puzzle?

In the recent viral mathematics problem, readers were invited to solve the mystery of Cheryl’s birthday based on the ten possible dates and the responses of Albert and Bernard. The solution to that puzzle is readily available on the Internet.

This post addresses the other question: How did Albert and Bernard solve the mystery?

Here’s the setup. The ten possible dates are May 15, 16, 19; June 17, 18; July 14, 16; August 14, 15, 17. Cheryl tells Albert the month: July. Then she tells Bernard the date: 16.

Albert thinks: It is July, so Bernard has either 14 or 16. If Bernard has 14, Bernard will think Jul or Aug. If Bernard has 16, Bernard will think May or Jul. Hence: Bernard does not know the month.

Albert says: I don’t know when Cheryl’s birthday is, but I know that Bernard does not know too.

Bernard thinks: It is 16, so May or Jul. Albert can say I do not know birthday only if all dates in the birth month (which Albert knows) have duplicates in other months. So Jul or Aug, since dates in only these months are all duplicated in other months. Only Jul has 16. So Jul 16.

Bernard says: At first I don’t know (see "Albert thinks" above) when Cheryl’s birthday is, but I know now.

Albert thinks: From my remark ("Albert says" above), Bernard can shortlist Jul or Aug. It is Jul, so Bernard has either 14 or 16. If Bernard has 14, Bernard will still be unsure (both Jul and Aug have 14). So Bernard has 16. Only Jul has 16. Hence, Jul 16.

Albert says: Then I also know when Cheryl’s birthday is.

That is how Albert and Bernard solve the puzzle of Cheryl’s birthday.

By the way, this is not a mathematics problem; it is a logic problem. And I daresay a careful Primary Five student could have a decent crack at solving it.

END

Interstellar -- virus!

I watched the movie Interstellar recently.

The reviews emphasised the real science that was depicted in the movie. My beef is not with the science. My beef is with the ethics. Here it is in a nutshell: If mankind is responsible for the "destruction in process" of the earth environment, is it then ethical to export the virus homo sapiens (this was proven in Matrix) to yet another planet? The conclusion of the movie showed a glowing Interstellar colony -- but what assurance do we have that the colonists are only "good" guys, that no "bad" guys were exported?

The morally responsible thing for mankind to do is to let homo sapiens destroy themselves on this planet -- and thence give Planet Earth a chance to recover (though this may take some millions of years). I'm hoping this happens before we find a way to colonise some other planet -- and spread the virus homo sapiens. Intelligent life is nature's latest experiment gone wrong. I hope we are smart enough to realise that -- but I fear we are not.

Here's an indicator: The great benefit of the melting Arctic ice cap is the opening of a new sea route.

END

What do large numbers prove?

In times past, every civilised person believed that the earth was flat, and that the sun orbited the earth. Everyone also believed illnesses were caused by evil spirits. Many civilisations thrived on a slave economy, and everyone believed this to be the rightful arrangement. Similarly, many civilisations believed men worked outside the home while women worked inside the home, and everyone believed this to be the rightful arrangement. But today, all these arrangements are believed by everyone to be false and wrongful.

These simple counterexamples illustrate the fallacy known as Argumentum ad Populum, or Appeal to the Gallery. Just because a great number of people believe something true / false or right / wrong, does not therefore make that thing true / false or right / wrong. Large numbers of support or opposition prove only the position's popularity or unpopularity.

Assertions of "true / false" and "right / wrong" require other grounds of support. Appeal to numbers of supporters or opposers (that is, supporters of the contradictory position) cannot do that job.

This past Saturday saw large numbers of people wearing pink or white, in support of and in opposition to a particular position. Let us be clear what the large numbers are able or not able to prove or disprove.

END

Unnecessary tizzy over Renault Twizy

On Wednesday, 11 June 2014, Today newspaper ran a story about the Land Transport Authority (LTA) classification for Renault's new vehicle, the Twizy, a "two-seater electric vehicle".

Notice the description does not state what type of vehicle. That exactly is the (alleged) puzzle.

The Twizy has four wheels, a cabin, seats for two persons (one behind the other), a 17hp engine (one-tenth the power of an average car), a top speed of 80kph, two doors, no airconditioning, no proper window, and weighs 450kg.

The current LTA definition of a motorcycle requires the vehicle to have fewer than four wheels, and weigh below 400 kg. On this definition, the Twizy is clearly not a motorcycle. But is it a car?

The story does not provide LTA's definition of a car.

So I visited the LTA website. It says: "The new categorisation will retain the existing Cat A criterion that the engine capacity of the car should not exceed 1,600cc for Cat A, and add a new criterion that the engine power of the car should not exceed 97kW (equivalent to about 130 bhp)."

On this description, the Twizy could be classified as a Category A car.

But let me quote from the story.

"In a statement to TODAY, the LTA said initial evaluation showed the vehicle does not fall within the classification for motorcycles that Renault had applied for." Then later: "...the distributor's spokesperson said its application categorised the Twizy as a car". So it is unclear which category Renault had applied for.

But here is my clincher criterion: How is the vehicle to be operated?

A car must be operated via a steering wheel; and a motorcycle must be operated via handlebar controls. This is the only definition that is consistent with the intentions of the Class Three and Class Two driving licences -- because the respective methods are how learners are trained to operate the respective vehicles. We cannot have someone holding only a Class Two driving licence operating a vehicle with steering wheel control.

The accompanying picture of the Twizy clearly shows that it is operated via a steering wheel, not via handlebar controls.

The story says LTA is seeking "more information from Renault" over this matter. This is not necessary. Once we clarify the definitions (a major function of philosophy), it becomes clear.

The Renault Twizy is a car.

Cheers.

The rights of Eugene Goostman

On 10 June 2014, The Straits Times reported that "a Russian supercomputer posing as a 13-year-old boy has convinced judges that it is human, being the first to pass the 'Turing Test' in a historic moment in artificial intelligence". This is a very big deal.

In 1950, pioneer of computer science Alan Turing published a journal article in which he set out the now famous Turing Test -- a test to establish whether a machine can think. The criterion is whether, in the words of Professor Kevin Warwick of the University of Reading, "a computer convinces a sufficient number of interrogators into believing that it is not a machine but rather is a human." Any machine that passes this test is deemed to be able to think.

At a competition on 7 June 2014 at Royal Society in London, the Russian supercomputer simulated the responses of a 13-year-old boy named Eugene Goostman -- and persuaded the judges 33 percent of the time that it was human.

This is a remarkable engineering achievement. It is more than an engineering achievement.

Rene Descartes, the father of modern philosophy, founded his philosophy on his realisation that "Cogito, ergo sum" -- usually translated as "I exist, therefore I am". The presence of thought proves the existence of a thinker.

Eugene Goostman thinks. Therefore, Eugene Goostman exists. Eugene Goostman is human.

Visit any divorce or child abuse case, and one will immediately be informed that children have rights -- the rights to food, shelter, clothing, security, education etc. When a child reaches maturity, that child will acquire adult rights -- freedom of speech, freedom of association and assembly, freedom of religion, freedom to work and leisure etc.

How many of these rights are we prepared to extend to Eugene Goostman?

Scientists often claim that science is amoral, that science is neither intrinsically good nor evil, and that only people can be said to be good or evil, morally right or morally wrong. This seems to hold the door open for scientists to further believe that "if it can be done, therefore, it must be done." Well, now it has been done.

When Eugene Goostman demands his rights, are we still going to insist: "No, you are just a machine"?

Cheers.