Alien Solar Energy: The Dyson Sphere.

An Artist's conceptualization of a Dyson Sphere

Just imagine if humankind could get the full solar power of our sun and transfer it to the Earth in an incalculable quantity beyond that that cannot be envisaged at humankind's technological level, it would be truly remarkable. Visualize a gigantic solar panel array enveloping our sun constantly capturing pure solar energy and transferring it back to the Earth. If this were possible, it would go a long way in energy provision. However, a technologically advanced extraterrestrial civilization may have developed and deployed it. An American scientist envisaged such a titanic structure. It is named after him- The Dyson Sphere. 

This is at this time is impossible to engineer such a colossal array that could envelop the sun. The engineering challenges, the logistical hurdles, and the cost impediments will be beyond the capacities that we have today. The materials needed to construct such an array might not be met with what we have in our reach. The solar array will need fleets of spacecraft whose capabilities to carry huge loads of materials, construction crews be they human, android, robot or cyborg, and which can travel near our star's intense heat, are unimaginably beyond visualization or conceptualization. 

However, this could be within the scope of human ability in many years to come. But in 1960 an American scientist proposed that a technologically advanced alien civilization could develop such an engineering feat. If such an extraterrestrial civilization exists or a group of them exist, then perhaps this may be possible, if they have so desired to engineer such a machine. 

In 1960, the American scientist, Freeman Dyson , proposed the idea in a scientific paper titled; "Search for Artificial Stellar Sources of Infrared Radiation" that in order to detect a technologically and perhaps space-faring species, that detecting this civilization should be augmented with devices that can capture infra-red radiation from the solar array sphere to the home planet of that civilization. This is because Freeman Dyson must have visualized that the only way to transfer the solar energy captured by that sphere will by transferring it in infra-red form. Dyson is quoted in the paper as saying:

"If extraterrestrial intelligent beings exist and have reached a high level of technical development, one-by-product of their energy metabolism is likely to be the large-scale conversion of starlight into far-infrared radiation. It is proposed that a search for sources of infrared radiation should accompany the recently initiated search for interstellar radio communications.

Freeman Dyson.

We can understand this by paraphrase. What Dyson said was if an advanced technologically capable extraterrestrial species could meet their energy needs by tapping into the solar energy released by their star. This is sphere would consist of a gargantuan swarm of interlocked solar panels forming a colossal array, all arranged spherically. The solar energy would then be relayed back to their homeworld via infra-red energy. This is because at that time it was proposed that radio telescopes were to be used to search for intelligent advanced extraterrestrial life, the technology should be accompanied by devices that can detect the infra-red energy from such a sphere.

Dyson summed up lucidly the civilization that can construct such a gigantic engineering masterpiece and the technical specifications for its energy output in the following:

1) If a civilization grows at 1% per year, it only takes about 3,000 years to grow by a factor of 10¹²

2) The material resources presently available for us to do stuff with the amount to about 10²⁰ grams and Earth receives about 10²⁰ ergs per second of energy - so a 3000 year growing civilization will run out of energy or the matter to construct better means of acquiring (stellar) energy

3) Using our solar system as a template: Jupiter contains about 2x10³⁰ grams of ‘available’ mass, and the TOTAL rate of energy output of the Sun is 4x10³³ ergs per second

4) It ‘only’ takes about 10⁴⁴ ergs to disassemble and re-arrange the matter in Jupiter - or about 800 years worth of total stellar output

5) Therefore, there would be strong motivation to re-purpose Jupiter’s mass into a 2-3 metre thick spherical shell at Earth’s present (habitable zone) orbit, surrounding the Sun, capturing all energy and habitable on the interior surface…

Dyson pointed out that this sphere must maintain thermodynamic equilibrium with the enclosed star and the rest of the cosmos, so from the outside it must glow with the luminosity of the star, but with a spectrum shifted to the infrared - consistent with the high temperatures of its surface. And he suggests that one avenue to pursue in the hunt for such structures might be to study binary star systems where one star is easily visible, but the other is an intense infrared source.

Currently, the search for extraterrestrial life uses radio telescopes, radio transmissions, and laser beams, but that is for other kinds of responses or messages from extraterrestrials. Astronomers have used space-borne telescopes such as the Hubble and Keppler space telescopes to search for any evidence for Dyson Spheres in outer space. So far there has been no indication of the existence of such a hemispheroidal construction. It could be that they do exist but maybe too far to detect, or never constructed for the reasons of unavailability of technology, exorbitantly high costs, alternative sources of energy are being used or seen as technologically impractical. According to astronomer Seth Shostak, the lack of evidence of Dyson Spheres does not translate to their non-existence, but that we have not found them yet. It would be presumptuous to preclude the existence of such a structure as a Dyson Sphere. It could be thought of by an intelligent species. If you could get energy in such abundance, but of course after heavy financial outlay and engineering and scientific output, who would not want to create such a colossal and complex but a technologically marvelous machine. 

Seth Shostak. 

Seth Shostak, who is a senior astronomer at SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), an institute that searches for intelligent life on other worlds, calls the search for structures such as the Dyson Sphere as artifact hunting. He believes that while radio transmissions to other planets, which is what SETI does, is useful, but radio emissions will take a considerably long time to be received by an intelligent alien, even if that or those aliens live on planets in nearby solar systems. This is due to what he terms synchronicity. Synchronicity means that when a radio transmission is sent from Earth it must be detected by extraterrestrial life. This can take a long time even if at light speed it will take many light years for radio transmission to reach another planet. A transmission could possibly reach a planet without advanced life to capture and interpret the signal. It is possible that it might reach an uninhabitable planet. It must also be considered that technologically advanced intelligence may exist but did not construct a Dyson Sphere. This could be because they may not have envisaged it, or the technological hurdles were too great, highly exorbitant financial costs, they may have other renewable energy sources, or they may use another star nearby and are transmitting the energy back to them. Seth Shostak said that while we have not found a Dyson Sphere, its existence cannot be ruled out. He says that the search for them is worthwhile because an alien civilization could have thought of the technology and had the necessary expertise and resources to construct one. He called searching for them 'artifact hunting' (https://www.seti.org/why-alien-megastructures-may-hold-key-making-contact-extraterrestrials). Spheroids are permanent structures that can be detected from the heat on the back of their solar panels. The star they envelop will not be radiating light without encumbrance as it will be blocked at spaces where solar panels are installed. This is not normal for a stellar object like a sun. It will be like light from a lit candle being blocked by hands cupping the flame. Some light still passes through the fingers of a cupped hand.

We can ask if any alien megastructures have been detected. Indeed, in 2015, astronomer Tabetha Boyajuan and her colleagues (https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/tabby-s-star-mystery-still-hasn-t-been-solved-ncna797741) reported locating a nearby star some 1400 light-years away. The star manifested odd behavior that is not consistent with stellar behavior. It dimmed constantly.

In conclusion, if a Dyson Sphere is detected, then it is confirmation of the existence of advanced extraterrestrial life. But we cannot discount the existence of technologically advanced alien life on the premise of not finding a Dyson Spheroid. It might be a matter that our telescopes or other detection and search technologies have not been able to locate them. it could be that an advanced society did not want to construct them for the reasons mentioned. Therefore, we must be patient but critical and sober. We cannot rule out things but must think critically, have perseverance, think creatively, and be optimistic.

Another artist's conceptualisation of a Dyson Sphere.

Links:

https://www.seti.org/why-alien-megastructures-may-hold-key-making-contact-extraterrestrials

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/tabby-s-star-mystery-still-hasn-t-been-solved-ncna797741

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/131/3414/1667/tab-pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayBjP74eE8Q&t=733s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7peBNSWFA40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qmeT5MreH8

Island of Death: Crime and Punishment.

On the fateful day of 17 November 2018 American evangelist John Allan Chau met his untimely death at the hands of North Sentinelese islanders. John Allan Chau was a Christian preacher who belonged to the so-called First Nation church and a graduate of the evangelical Oral Roberts University. It is a Baptist church which like other Baptists show disdain for other religions including other Christian denominations. The natives of North Sentinel Island, or as I like to call the island, "Red Skull Island", are the inhabitants of an island that constitutes a part of the Andaman Nicobar Island group which is in turn a part of India, (see map below). They are an ancient people who, supposedly, came out of Africa 50000 to 60000 years ago. Nonetheless, they remain self-isolated and do not welcome anyone to their island home. North Sentinel Island is not a large place. It is about the size of Manhattan, New York. The number of natives living on it may number between 50 - 100 people. according to Dr Sasikumar, an Indian anthropologist, in a publication of the Anthropological Survey of India.

Location of the Andaman Islands

There is now a recent turn of events as published in The Hindu newspaper dated 9 September 2019 (https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/study-sheds-more-light-on-killing-of-american-by-sentinels/article29369181.ece/amp/). 

According to the newspaper report Dr Sasikumar who leads the Maulana Abdul Kalam Institute of Asian Studies, publish a report titled "The Sentinelese of the North Sentinel Island: A Reprisal of Tribal Scenario in an Andaman Island in context of Killing of an American Preacher " stated the following issues; the mission of the American preacher, the possibility of the retrieval of his corpse, and interestingly, the charge with his alleged murder the police in the Andaman Islands have pressed against , what the police describe, against unknown tribal members of the Sentinelese community. The publication also stated that the ill fated and tragic demise of John Allan Chau is a matter of grief and that the Andaman police have registered a criminal case against the islanders as stated here earlier.

The late John Allan Chau

North Sentinel Islanders.

The over ten page report authored by Dr Sasikumar stated the important fact that John Allan Chau's death at the hands of the natives is not an isolated incident. There have been previous incidents of people having been slain by the natives of North Sentinel island. he explained that the first known killing of an outsider to the island occurred in 1896 when three escaped convicts tried to reach for the island tried to land there. Two of them drowned in the attempt but a third man managed to beach on the island. The third man was subsequently speared to death by the locals. The second known incident occurred in January 2006 when two Indian fishermen who tried to fish illegally near the island drifted ashore while they slept in their boat. They two were killed by the inhabitants of the island. Dr Sasikumar added that there were attempt to reach the natives of that island in the 1970s which all were but futile and refused by the Sentenilese. In 1991 a visit to the island by the Indian anthropologist, TN Pandit , turned out friendly at first , but unfortunately went wrong.(https://indianexpress.com/article/india/andaman-north-sentinel-island-tribesmen-t-n-pandit-it-took-some-coconuts-and-25-years-5463013/), ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfQpXh8YICQ).

 In that visit even gifts of hogs, pans and other items were refused (please click on the hyperlink above). Actually the visit by TN Pandit was warmly received by the locals until one member pointed a dagger at the visitors and signaled them to leave.

There must been a history of contact which the inhabitants found hostile or bad for them. In 1897 a local British administrator called Maurice Vidal Portmann went to the island and took an elderly couple and four children with him for study. The elderly couple fell an died. The children were returned to the island. The episode must have registered badly in the local people's memory. We do not know of any previous contact that went wrong for the locals or outsiders, but perhaps in the distant past there were. Remarkably , TN Pandit's visit turned out friendly at first but turned badly later. The natives on that day must have decided to meet outsiders and this act shows that they are not murderous savages but kind human beings, but like with all human contact, things can go wrong.

The issues I raise here are as follows;

1. Is it possible to arrest that islanders who are not citizens of India and do not know about its laws? Albeit that the islands are a part of India.

2. Should contact be attempted with a people who have no immunity to outside infections?

3. The Sentinelese are part of an ethnic group found in the Andaman Islands. Two tribes on the main island have died out. The remaining tribes are dropping in number. Is this acceptable?

4. Is it acceptable to proselytize to people in an era where we are expected to respect the religious or spiritual beliefs of other people?

The first issue is that these people speak a language which has affinities with tribes on the main island but are unintelligible to their ethnic kinsmen. How are outsiders going to enforce law and order on them? They do not know anything of the outside world and neither want to know about it. They simply want to be left alone. Their collective memory and historical experience must have left a negative attitude to outsiders. How are we to talk to them and ask them who the killers were? Will they accept an investigation by the police when John Allan Chau entered an island which under law is off-limits to outsiders? Those natives are not Indian citizens in the sense that they hold an Indian passport, identity card, or leave alone an Indian driver's license. Will they acknowledge Indian laws or their own tribal laws?

The next issue is the vulnerability of these people to infections as simple as the common cold. Contact will be deadly. We do not know what illnesses they have or have no immunity to. How we can wreak devastation on them as what happened to their racial kin on the main Andaman Islands (https://www.survivalinternational.org/news/5509), (https://www.survivalinternational.org/tribes/jarawa)

Already two tribes on the main island are now extinct due depredations by outsiders. This could certainly happen to the North Sentinelese islanders should any contact be  made with them.

Thirdly, since two tribes on the main island have died out and the remaining tribes are dropping in number, we will lose a part of humanity that has lived for so long. Should we allow this to happen? These people and their racial kinsmen have never hurt outsiders except to enforce their demand for isolation. 

The fourth issue is that of proselytizing. Should religious conversion be allowed to these vulnerable people? There is already much strife die to religion in the world. Proselytizing and conversion results in cultural destruction and ethnic identity. Religion is often used for nefarious and pernicious purposes. It is used as a form of social control and economic and political exploitation. These people do not know of economic and social class differences. Rather, the concepts of unemployment, destitution and social class makes them a happier people like that of the natives of Vanuatu in the Pacific Ocean. 

In conclusion, a police investigation is absurd and at best utterly and completely ludicrous. They are a protected people under Indian law but do not hold citizenship documents. They are not likely to know the names of the nations of the world leave alone the expanse of water where their island is located. They should be left alone so they can continue without epidemics breaking out from outside contact. We do not know if they have communicated any diseases from their limited contacts with outsiders and what they know from their historic experience of diseases from contact with outsiders. if they die out, land grabbing by hotel and resort building will occur as is already happening on the main island much to the detriment of the natives there. Such an event will destroy any endemic flora and fauna found on that island. The loss of the North Sentinelese will be loss to humanity. We will lose a culture that has existed for thousands of years, regardless that we do not know much about them. As such these people should be left alone. 

Links:

https://theenglish-teacher.blogspot.com/2019/07/red-skull-island-indoctrination-naivety.html

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/study-sheds-more-light-on-killing-of-american-by-sentinels/article29369181.ece/amp/

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/andaman-north-sentinel-island-tribesmen-t-n-pandit-it-took-some-coconuts-and-25-years-5463013/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1dp7R-IrYE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dknqg9T2dXI&t=682s

Please leave comments

Critical Thinking : Other Considerations.

A. Thinking & Feeling: We often have experiences, thoughts, values, knowledge, cultural habits and preconceptions and feelings that we accumulate over time. We could be pro-life, anti-nuclear energy, pro-environment, or supporters or opponents of the policies of the government. We will have emotional commitments to these.  These are concepts and ideas we care about. Whenever we come across a conclusion, we come across it with all kinds of thoughts, preconceptions, feelings, etc.These views, opinions, feelings etc, can affect us whenever we hear the arguments and conclusions of other people that are in opposition to what we support and hold dear. These experiences, thoughts, values, knowledge, cultural habits and preconceptions and feelings can cloud our thoughts when we hear opposing views about something we support. We become defensive and close-minded to opposing views, opinions and ideas. 

Critical thinking exists in an environment of divergent arguments and conclusions and we start to think critically in the midst of these existing opinions. We must not dismiss outright anything in opposition to what we already think. If we are to become good critical thinkers we must have an open mind to opposing views, ideas, arguments, reasons and conclusions. We must put aside our views and listen to the thoughts of others. We should not allow ourselves to feel threatened when we hear an opposing view nor be arrogant and dismiss another divergent view. We should be detached and not allow ourselves to be emotionally involved in an issue because we may fail to see the virtues or potential of another's views or arguments. (This happened to me when I opposed the promotion of a certain lifestyle. I was castigated outright and demeaned. My arguments, reasons and conclusions were dismissed outright.)

Emotional involvement should not be the primary basis of accepting or rejecting a position or argument. Ideally, it should be only be most intense after reasoning has been completed. 

We must bear in mind that an active learner is one who is willing to allow his or her mind to be changed. An active learner listens or read actively,engages in discussion, asks critical questions and has an open mind. In order to be a successful active learner, one must be willing to allow one's mind to be changed. If we are to change our minds, we must have an open mind that accepts ideas that strike us as outlandish, or dangerous or even strange.

Critical thinkers are people who care about many issues. They are humans and not machines.Their concern is shown in their willingness to engage in hard mental work. Passion for their beliefs or views are moderated by the recognition that their ideas are open to revision.

B. The Efficiency of Asking the Question, "Who Cares?": We sometimes are faced with issues that have little bearing or effect on us. It can be a problem in another country that does affect your country. It could be an issue that affects a certain section of your country's population that has little bearing on you. Hence, you will not want to spend time, energy and your intellectual faculties on them.

It will be better to spend time discussing an important issue such as the advantages of nuclear power rather then spend time on whether school children should wear ties of a particular colour.

Before we spend valuable time on an issue, we should ask the question, "Who cares?" 

C. Weak-Sense and Strong-Sense Critical Thinking: Critical thinking can be used to either defend or evaluate and revise our initial beliefs. Dr Richard Paul elucidated and made the distinction between the concepts of weak sense and string sense critical thinking as follows:

Weak-sense critical thinking is the use of critical thinking to defend your current beliefs. Strong-sense critical thinking is the use of the same skills to evaluate all claims and beliefs, especially your own.

What this means that if we think critically in a weak way, we are defensive, close-minded and will defend our beliefs without considering that they can be corrected or revised. If we are strong-sense critical thinkers, we will be open minded and be ready to accept revisions of our beliefs.

Weak-sense critical thinking is a thinking methodology which is where we defend our initial beliefs or those that we are paid to have. By using this weak-sense critical thinking is to be unconcerned with moving towards the truth or virtue.The purpose of this way of thinking is to resist or annihilate opinions and reasoning that is different from ours. The idea of seeing domination and victory over those we disagree with as the objective of critical thinking is to ruin the potentially humane and progressive aspects of critical thinking.

In contrast, strong-sense critical thinking requires the application of critical questions to all claims, including our own. Strong-sense critical thinking compels us to look critically at our initial beliefs, it helps us to protect ourselves against self-deception and conformity. it is easy to just stick with current beliefs, particularly when many people share them. But the hazard of taking this easy path, is that we run the strong risk of making mistakes we could otherwise avoid. 

Strong-sense critical thinking does not necessarily force us to give up our initial beliefs. it an provide a basis for strengthening them because critical examination of those beliefs will sometimes reinforce our original commitment to them. 

Links:

Weak and Strong Sense: https://schoolofdoubt.com/2017/02/12/teaching-critical-thinking-strong-vs-weak/

 Dr Richard Paul : https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/dr-richard-paul/818   and

https://www.criticalthinking.org/data/pages/37/ff640b6d016307b54cad91e5a9d4edfd4f18adb74215a.pdf

 http://logicstudent.com/logic/shorttermhtml/Notes_11_StrongSenseCT.pdf

https://www.academia.edu/7093075/The_State_of_Critical_Thinking_Today_by_Richard_Paul

D. The Satisfaction of Using the Panning-for-Gold Approach: The use of the panning-for-gold is a satisfying thinking style as one knows that any idea that has been given or discovered has been thoroughly examined first. When an idea does pass the criteria for acceptability , it will make sense to agree with it until new evidence appears that dispels it. 
The Sponge style of thinking is often satisfying because it permits the accumulation of information. While this style of thinking is very often productive, a great deal more satisfaction can be obtained in participating in dialogues with the writer and speaker as with the panning-for-gold style. The use of the panning-for-gold style provides a richer experience in reading and listening when we begin to see things that others have missed. As we select information and opinions systematically , we will start to have the desire to read more in a lifelong effort to decide which advice makes more sense.

E. Trying Out New Ideas: Critical thinkers should have an innate curiosity to explore new ideas and arguments. They should also be courageous in exploring new ideas and being confronted with their beliefs. Critical thinkers should always keep looking for new ideas and try out new answers.

F. Effective Communication and Critical Thinking: The objective of critical thinking is communication. As one makes progress in critical thinking, new skills are learnt. and these will lead to being able to write and speak better. It makes the critical thinker aware of the expectations careful thinkers will have. Since communication is the objective of critical thinking, the many questions thoughtful thinkers will ask in evaluating one's writing or speech, will serve as guides in one's own attempts at communicating well. 

G. The Importance of Practice: Critical thinking is a skill that needs practise. Learning the theory behind critical thinking without applying it, it s an exercise in futility. Theory gives the intellectual framework behind the skill but application creates the perfection needed to be a skilled critical thinker. One technique in practising critical thinking was given by Dr Jordon Peterson of the University of Toronto, Canada. Dr Jordan Peterson prescribed writing as a method to become skilled in critical thinking.

 Links:

Jordan Peterson - The Best Way To Learn Critical Thinking : 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0vUsxhMczI

Jordan Peterson: "You NEED to LEARN to THINK!" - Jordan B. Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDMfqKtwYr8

Note: Below is an eclectic selection of critical thinking questions that can be used to think critically;

1. What are the issues and conclusions?

2. What are the reasons?

3.Which words and phrases are ambiguous?

4. What are the value conflicts and assumptions?
5. What are the descriptive assumptions?
6. Are there any fallacies in the reasoning?
7. How good is the evidence?
8. Are there any rival causes?
9. Are the statistics deceptive?
10. What significant information is omitted?
11. What reasonable conclusions are possible?

Download this critical thinking skills cheatsheet : https://www.wabisabilearning.com/blog/critical-thinking-skills-cheatsheet-infographic

Critical Thinking: Asking Critical Questions.

The acts of reading, thinking and listening critically whereby we can react with systematic evaluation to what we have heard, read or listened to impinges upon us to possess a skill set and collection of attitudes. In order to think critically, we need a set of critical questions. It is a matter of asking the right questions that can lead us on the path to answers, regardless of the concept that there is no right answer.

Critical questions are what give us the stimulus, drive and direction for critical thinking. Critical questions propel us in the right trajectory to explore better ideas, fuller opinions , make better judgments and quality decisions.

Hence critical thinking refers to the following dimensions of Critical Thinking:

1. Awareness of a set of interrelated critical questions;

2.Ability to ask and answer critical questions at appropriate times;

3.The desire to actively use the critical questions.       
  

   
These questions will enable us to have a deeper understanding of an issue. Questions have the function of requiring the person asked questions to respond to them. The respondent then must reply to the questioner.

These critical questions assists us when;

A.We react critically to an essay or to evidence presented in a textbook, journal, magazine, other periodical , or on a website;

B. Judge the quality of a speech or lecture;

C. Form an argument;

D. Write an essay or thesis or dissertation based on a reading assignment;

E. Participate in a class or tutorial.

In order to answer critical questions our thinking styles must be able to to answer them. There are two thinking styles that we can use. 

1. Sponge Approach;

2. Panning for Gold Approach.

1. The Sponge Approach takes it name from the similar manner in which a sponge absorbs water. This approach sees the absorption of information. This approach emphasizes knowledge acquisition . The approach is a productive start in becoming a thoughtful and knowledgeable person.

The first advantage of the sponge approach is that with more information about the world being absorbed, the more knowledgeable one becomes and is capable of understanding the complexities of the world. The knowledge acquired becomes a foundation for more complicated thinking later.

The second advantage of the approach is that it is relatively passive. It does not require much mental effort. It tends to be quick and easy, especially when the material is presented in a lucid and engaging style. The primary effort in using the approach are concentration and memory.

However, the approach has a serious disadvantage: it does not provide a method for deciding which information and opinion to believe and which to reject. A reader who relies on this approach all the time, he or she would believe whatever was read last by them. Decisions become accidents of association, instead of reflective judgments.

2. The Panning for Gold Approach gets the reader to decide for himself or herself what to absorb and what to reject. In order to do this, a special attitude is required- a questioning attitude. A questioning attitude is where everything that is read is questioned. This thinking style calls for an active participation in the thinking process. The writer is talking to the reader and in turn the reader is talking back to the writer. This approach is a model for active readers and active listeners. It is where the active readers and listeners are trying to determine the worth of what they read or hear. This can be a challenging and tedious task, but it comes with great rewards. In order to sift through the facts , the reader or listener must ask frequent questions and reflect on the answers and to reflect on the answers.

The difference between the sponge and panning for gold approaches lies in how knowledge is acquired. The sponge approach emphasizes knowledge acquisition without questioning the knowledge or facts. On the other hand, the panning for gold approach emphasizes active interaction with the knowledge as it is being acquired. The two approaches complement each other. This is because in order to pan for intellectual gold, so to speak, or in other words to obtain the pertinent facts, one must have something to look for. In order to evaluate arguments, there must be a body of knowledge to draw on in order to form dependable opinions. 

An examination of how the two approaches work will shine more light into how they lead to different behaviour. The reader using the sponge approach will read as much as he or she can carefully, and trying to remember as much as possible. The reader may underline or highlight sentences and keywords. The reader may take notes summarizing the main points and major topics. There will be checking of of the sentences or points that were underlined to ensure that nothing was left out. The reader's rationale is to find and understand what the author has to say. The reader memorizes the reasoning, but does not evaluate it.

On the other hand, the reader who is following the panning for gold will, like the reader who is following the sponge approach, approach his or her reading with the hope that he or she will acquire new knowledge. It is at that this junction that the similarity ends. The panning for gold reader will ask himself or herself a number of questions designed in order to reveal the best decision or beliefs. This reader will constantly or frequently question why the author makes various claims. The reader will ask what does the author mean by something written down?, what are the possible beliefs or evidence for something?, how adequate is the writers research?, how many of something was mentioned? why was someone or something involved in a matter?

The salient feature in panning for gold is interactive involvement- a dialogue between the reader and the author, or the speaker and the listener.

Panning for gold is an important critical thinking style. People's reasoning is never obvious. People leave out important elements. Often many elements when present are not clear and straight-forward. Hence, critical reading and listening skills are needed to determine what makes sense and distinguish clear thinking from irrational and incoherent thinking. We must be active readers and listeners. We can do this by constantly questioning the writer or speaker. The ideal strategy for this is the critical-questioning strategy. This powerful strategy affords the questioner or reader or listener to search for questions when he or she does not know the content being listened to or being read. For instance, one does not need to know about the advantages of wind power or the adequacy of pollution control measures to ask questions about those matters.

Download this critical thinking skills cheatsheet : https://www.wabisabilearning.com/blog/critical-thinking-skills-cheatsheet-infographic

Critical Thinking : The Myth of the "Right Answer".

The Myth of the "Right Answer".

Is there such thing as a right answer? An answer is dependent on the question. The type of question asked will obtain the appropriate answer. Definite answers often depend on the type of question. There are two kinds of questions that we deal with daily; scientific and social. 

Scientific questions ask about the physical world where things can be measured, sensed, calculated or predicted in some way. These questions give us answers which we can accept readily due to their  predictability and dependability in obtaining answers. Hence, questions about the dimensions of the physical world can be answered dependably and predictably. Scientific questions such as the temperature of a boiling liquid, the mineral content of an ore, the relative distance of a planet in another solar system from the earth and the pattern of brain waves, can all be obtained dependably and predictably. As stated earlier, scientific questions are based on things that can be sensed, measured, studied, observed or calculated.

This is not true of the social world. The social world is the world of human interactions. It is where the tangled Web of human behaviour manifests itself. Questions about human behaviour are not predictable and dependable. This is because human behaviour is not predictable. Thoughts are non physical unlike physical things like wood, gas, minerals and stars. Human behaviour has myriad causes and all we can do is make intelligent predictions, conjectures and guesses as tho why and when certain kinds of behaviour occurs or manifests itself. Additionally, we often want to explanations or descriptions of human behaviour, that we have a preference to know about such as the rate of inflation, the exchange rate, the rate of divorce, the frequency of forest fires, the frequency of juvenile delinquency, or the causes of divorce. As a result, we bring our preferences to discussions of those issues and resist arguments that are inconsistent with them.

Human behaviour is characterised by its controversial and complex nature. As a consequence, the best answers that we can find for human behaviour are usually probabilistic in nature. If we undertake a study on the abilities of meditation to control temper in people, or research into consumer behaviour, we can never be absolutely sure if the results are totally correct or precise or indeed reliable, and the results is true about everyone. We can never be realistically sure of the facts. We will still need a course of action to prevent ourselves from becoming a "hollow man" or a "nowhere woman". 

It is only when we open our minds to the views of others , after being aware that we could be wrong and that there are other views, and that the views we are committed to  are grounded on probability, that we will be open to the reasoning of others. We will at that time be open to persuasion by others. We must be fully cognisant and accept that we could be wrong.

It does not matter intrinsically what types of questions that will be asked, we must be aware of the kind of issues that will demand the closest scrutiny. These are issues where there is always disagreement about. Issues such as the environment, political decisions, animal rights, education polices, etc. are usually what people love to discuss. Issues such as those relating to business, engineering, law, politics etc, are parochial issues often popular to parties interested in them such as business executives, lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc. Th.ere is constant strong disagreement in such issues. There are always several positions supported by good reasons relating to the issues.

Therefore, it is only through discussion using critical thinking and critical questioning that can there be open discussion about various important issues. There are always many points of view and ideas. No answer is ever going to be the right one. Social issues cannot easily obtain dependable and predictable answers. Decisions must always be made in the face of uncertainty. There will be times when we will not have the time or the ability to discover many of the important facts about a decision we make.

Where are the aliens? : The Fermi Paradox.

Ever since people gazed at and surveyed the stars and studied the cosmos, one question always kept beckoning; Is there life on other worlds? We ask if there are aliens or extraterrestrials somewhere in the galaxy or on other galaxies. When the former Swiss hotelier and later turned self-styled alien astronaut theorist, Erich Von Daniken, wrote his ground breaking cult book 'Chariot of the Gods', it was the progenitor of an entire industry revolving around aliens with unfounded claims of extraterrestrial visitations to our planet in the past and continued visitation at the present and the impact aliens had on human civilisation.

While the intelligent wise skeptical critical mind should rightly be skeptical about aliens having had visited Earth in the past and their continued visitations till this day, their existence cannot be entirely ruled out of hand. It is possible for life to exist on other worlds but we have not had any contact yet. In addition, space travel is not easy and it will take a long time, beyond human life spans and perhaps for aliens, to travel the incredibly vast distances between planets. Perhaps a way to settle this conundrum is instead of waiting passively for contact, we should search for intelligent alien life. 

  

Since, contact with extraterrestrials has not been scientifically established, the question that is asked here is; why are there not any aliens? This was a question that an Italian-American  physicist called Enrico Fermi, who were nuclear scientists, Fermi asked in 1950. While Fermi was having lunch with colleagues, the lunchtime discussion turned to aliens. Apparently, Fermi asked "So, Where is everybody?" What Fermi asked was if there are billions of planets in the universe that are habitable and can sustain life, and there are millions of intelligent extraterrestrial beings in other world, then how is that no one has visited the planet Earth. This is in essence the Fermi Paradox.

Enrico Fermi (1901-1954)

Fermi deduced that any civilisation that possessed a modest knowledge of rocket technology and an immodest quantity of imperial incentive could rapidly colonise the entire galaxy. Fermi suggested that an alien civilisation would quickly realise the incredible distances involved in interstellar travel and came to the conclusion that it would not be feasible for them to embark on interstellar travel. Instead, Fermi proposed, they would use self-replicating , autonomously controlled robots to colonise the galaxy. The idea of self-replicating robots had been earlier been conceived by the Austro-Hungarian mathematician , John Von Neuman in the 1950s. The idea proposed by him was a self-replicating robot that could, firstly, perform tasks like that in the real world, secondly, it could self-replicate. This idea was conceived years before this kind of robotics has now appeared. John Von Neuman propounded that this advanced space faring robot was the most cost-effective and fastest way to explore and learn about the galaxy and beyond. The  vehicle proposed was the Bracewell-von Neuman probes. The probe itself is a sophisticated robotic machine with a modest payload. It was envisioned to have an advanced artificial intelligence (AI) software with the built-in idea of self replication and in that way build multiple copies of itself. What would need to be done is to launch hundreds if not thousands of them into space. Then let them off in swarms in different directions. They could be programmed to coordinate efforts and guide themselves as a swarm. Whenever they come across asteroids, moons or planets that have the necessary raw materials to replicate themselves. They could be programmed to explore and communicate their findings back to Earth, perhaps by a relay of satellites they can make and program.as they travel through space. 

Possible Bracewell-von Neumann probe.

Possible Bracewell - von Neumann probe. 

Possible Bracewell-von Neumann probe.

This might be a plausible way forward in our endeavour to contact alien life. An advanced self-replicating robot could be sent out to explore neighbouring solar systems and the galaxy to find alien life. Alien life in this context must be established by us as intelligent enough to communicate intelligibly in some fashion, such as radio or other signals or at least similar to humans even if like how we did centuries ago. It is a long-shot. The endeavour could take even centuries and the autonomous robots must be able to keep contact with Earth. Of course, as technology advances new software and methodologies of all kinds could be remotely uploaded to the robotic explorers so that they are always modernising and in pace with terrestrial technological advances.

Should contact be made with an exterrestrial intelligence that can understand that the probe(s) are from a reasonably advanced alien civilisation, they will take the initiative to respond to us. If they are less advanced than us, let say at a technological level we were in 300 years ago, then at least they will know about us. If they are at or near our technological level or even more advanced than us, then they would respond. It is hard to visualise something like this as the responses could vary if aliens exist, there could be no response, the aliens could only be animal like creatures devoid of advanced cognitive capabilities etc. It will be left to be seen at a future date should all this happen when we launch these robotic space explorers. We could of course be optimistic, but we should be patient and realistic as well.

Links:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXi3K8LusZQ&t=29s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx9i-KRMCCc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVV4zRuE1mw

https://www.seti.org/seti-institute/project/fermi-paradox

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec28.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yaa5ExQTk6Y

Please leave comments.

Study Skills 1: Paraphrasing.

What is a Paraphrase?

A paraphrase is the conversion of an idea or concept that you have read or heard into your own words. A paraphrase is the restatement of an idea into your own words. You turn an idea that you have heard or read into approximately the same number of your own words. It is based on what you have understood form what you have read or heard. It is essentially a restatement of an idea into your own words. The sentence you have read or heard is turned into about the same number of words. Another way of putting it is, you state an idea in your own words with your own understanding of what you have learnt. Different words are used, but with the same meaning. For example:

Original sentence: "Taking a few minutes away from our too-busy lives each day can provide the mental refreshment we need to recharge and move forward." --Anony Mous

Paraphrase: According to Anony Mous, we should interrupt our overly busy daily schedule each day by spending a few minutes off, to supply the mental restoration we require to refill our energy and continue our productivity. --Anony Mous

Here we have 24 words paraphrased into 31 words, which is a similar number. The central idea of a paraphrase is that it preserves all the meaning and details (whereas a summary omits details and preserves only the main ideas). 

Original sentence: Smoking in public also causes cancer from passive smoking and cigarette butts cause litter from the detritus of smoking.

Paraphrase: Cancer is also caused from passive smoking in public places. Also, cigarette butts from smoking in public places causes detritus from cigarette butts.

Here we have 18 words paraphrased into 23 words, which is a similar number. The central idea of a paraphrase is that it preserves all the meaning and details (whereas a summary omits details and preserves only the main ideas). 

Note: You will usually get a few more words in your paraphrase then from the original text. Do not be alarmed. The extra words are needed usually because of the use of the passive voice in paraphrasing.

What is  Paraphrase used for?

1. A Paraphrase Is an Aid to Learning. 

Paraphrasing is a valuable and effective learning strategy for the following reasons: 

A. Active Engagement with the material: When we paraphrase a statement into our own words and either writing them down or typing them up, our minds and bodies are engaged with the content. Writing down or typing up content involves kinesthetic interaction with the learning content as well as mental or cognitive involvement. Paraphrasing involves thinking about what we have read or heard, understanding it and then assigning it in writing or type. When we paraphrase we do not merely passively absorb learning content, rather we are actively engaging with content.

B. Improved Memory: Memory retention of learning content is increased because we are actively engaged with the content. Even when we write down or type up ideas, this increases our memory of the content. However, paraphrasing is an even more powerful tool in aiding memory retention because we are thinking about the content and understanding it we  before consigning it in writing or typing it. Paraphrasing makes for connection between what is read or heard and what is learnt. Without understanding , we will soon forget what we have learnt because our brains did not see a connection to anything else.

C. It makes the idea your own.

When we are paraphrasing we are using our own vocabulary, our own writing style and our own thinking, we are then adding the idea into our mental inventory or library of ideas and thoughts. When a question is raised, we will answer in our own words or in our own style instead of reciting the phrasing directly from a book or other material where we drew the content from. 

2. Paraphrasing allows for the arrangement of ideas.

A. Put the ideas in a different order: Ideas can be rearranged in the order that you want it to be in, or in a different order. If the author wrote in a way that is not the way you understood it, then you ca rearrange what was written in the way you understand it. If what is written is in an order different from the way you find useful for your study, then the words can be rearranged in a way in the paraphrase to emphasize you point.

B. Simplify the language: This is perhaps the greatest benefit of paraphrasing. Sometimes, some writers use excessive elaboration on sentence structure, complex vocabulary, abstract vocabulary and too much jargon. You can paraphrase with simpler language and sentence structure and use plain English to emphasize the same point without compromising on the facts.

C. Clarify Ideas: Some writers do not make themselves clear or lucid. Even great thinkers and experts in many academic fields sometimes do not know how to make themselves understood. Paraphrasing makes such writing easier to understand and accessible to you or another reader.

How to Paraphrase:

The formula for paraphrasing is:

• Read the sentence or passage over and over until it has been really understood.
• Write out the meaning, either in outline form or conversational style
• Locate the main ideas and arrange the order you want to present them
• Write the paraphrase from your rearranged outline
• Check to see that you have preserved the meaning and included all the ideas
• Edit as needed
• Add a citation to give the source credit. (You can't make an idea your own simply by changing it into your own words. You still need to cite the source of the idea.)

Examples of Paraphrases

Original Sentence: "It turns out to be very difficult, for instance, to unlearn or ignore bad information--even when we know it is wrong or should be ignored."  --Joseph T. Hallinan, Why We Make Mistakes .

Paraphrase: Even when we are told that some information is wrong and should be disregarded, we still find it hard to forget it or avoid it. --adapted from Joseph T. Hallinan, Why We Make Mistakes.

Original Sentence: "Leaders empower employees through consistent information sharing and increased decision-making responsibility and autonomy." --Paul Marciano, Carrots and Sticks Don't Work.

Paraphrase:  When leaders regularly share information, give decision-making authority, and allow autonomy, they empower their employees. --adapted from Paul Marciano, Carrots and Sticks Don't Work.
  

Original Sentence: "Learning occurs best when new information is incorporated gradually into to the memory store rather that when it is jammed in all at once. --John Medina, Brain Rules

Paraphrase: The best way to learn something it is to study it a little at a time instead of trying to memorize it all at the same time. --adapted from John Medina, Brain Rules.